A Response to the Anti-Gay Scare Tactics in a Maryland Marriage Ad
   Marriage equality opponents, hoping to defeat a Maryland ballot measure that would legalize same-sex marriage in the state, have resorted to misleading scare tactics in a new television ad focusing on youth and schools. If same-sex marriage comes to Maryland, the ad ominously warns, âschools could teach that boys can marry boys.â The ad features parents from Massachusetts who fought unsuccessfully to prevent a public school from teaching their child about the existence of same-sex couples. The mother warns:  âDonât ⊠think that gay marriage wonât affect you.â
Whatâs wrong with this ad? Here are four points to consider:
First, by using the word âboysâ (âschools could teach that boys can marry boysâ), the ad suggests that Question 6, which would legalize same-sex marriage for adults, has something to do with youth sexuality or the romantic or sexual behavior of young children. It does not. Any insinuation to the contrary is an insulting scare tactic completely disconnected from reality.
Second, as Josh Levin of Marylanders for Marriage Equality has explained, â[p]arents, teachers, and local school districts determine the public school curriculum in Maryland,â and Question 6 would not change that. Sure, state and federal laws can also affect the contours of curricula to some extent, but nothing in Question 6 addresses schools. The ballot measure does not require schools to do or teach anything, and it does not limit the authority of local districts to determine what kids learn.
Third, school districts in Maryland and most other states can already teach children about LGBT people and about marriage equality if they so choose, regardless of whether marriage equality exists in the state in question. In other words, the fact that a state does or does not grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples does not determine whether or to what extent a school can teach about LGBT people, about discrimination, and about the diversity of families that is simply a fact of life in the United States and the world. If a school in Maryland wants to teach students the (entirely true) fact that same-sex couples can get married in some parts of the world, like Iowa, Connecticut, Canada and Spain, then the school can do so, regardless of whether Question 6 passes. Indeed, Maryland state law recognizes same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, so if a school in Maryland wants to teach students that same-sex marriages performed in other places are valid in Maryland, it may do soâand again, this is true regardless of whether Question 6 passes. (Experience from other states proves, moreover, that the legalization or prohibition of same-sex marriage does not necessarily determine what gets taught in schools. California has more LGBT-inclusive curricular requirements than New York, for example, even though New York allows same-sex marriage and California does not.)
Fourth, itâs not a bad thing for children to learn about marriage equality! Schools should teach children to respect different kinds of families. At a minimum, schools should not deny that same-sex families exist. If Question 6 somehow makes it easier to teach children about the incontrovertible fact that some families are made up of same-sex couples (sometimes with children), then thatâs a good thing; itâs not something that Maryland parents should fear. As for âopting outâ of lessons, parents donât get to remove their children from the classroom when schools teach about racial or gender equality, and they shouldnât get to remove their children from lessons about marriage equality either.
http://www.dataentryjobs.us/120759.html
<![CDATA[// <![CDATA[ iDevAffiliate_BoxWidth = "220"; iDevAffiliate_BoxHeight = "80"; iDevAffiliate_OutlineColor = "#000099"; iDevAffiliate_TitleTextColor = "#FFFFFF"; iDevAffiliate_LinkColor = "#0033CC"; iDevAffiliate_TextColor = "#000000"; iDevAffiliate_TextBackgroundColor = "#F3F3F3"; // ]]]]><![CDATA[>]]>
titsay
gummygunk
2087
prguitarman