UPDATE: 11-12-08 ELTON JOHN PROVIDES A VIEWPOINT ...

From USA Today ...

"'I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership,' said John. 'The word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.'"

"In December 2005, John and Furnish tied the knot in a civil partnership ceremony in Windsor, England. But, clarified the singer, 'We're not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage.'"

According to the people that I have spoken with since the inception of proposition 8, most do not plan to get married and are quite content with the concept of a civil union. This only reinforces my opinion that this is a wedge issue used by militant activists to force societal recognition of their lifestyle as being legitimate and valid. Which it is -- without requiring the futher re-definition of the word "marriage" or creating another protected class of super-citizens.

Original blog entry ...

I am trying my level best to supply my readers with actionable information and my thoughts on the matters being discussed. Therefore, I feel it is my duty as a blogger to re-visit subjects which require updating.

In a past, similarly-titled blog entry … 

[X] YES - CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 8 (2008) -- GAY MARRIAGE,

I commented …

“That is, certain educators are planning to introduce new curriculum changes that highlight the gay lifestyle at all grade levels and that parents are going to be denied their constitutional rights to ‘opt out’ of the teaching of material which impinges on the parent’s and child’s freedom of religion.”

“It is not that these materials will be restricted to classes dealing with social customs and health issues or that they will be taught to older children; but these materials will become pervasive at all grade levels.”

“Thus the parents who are teaching their children one thing about religion and morality is being openly contradicted by the school’s teaching, which only serves to confuse the child and possible erode parental freedoms and respect.”

So I was amazed to see the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction appearing in a  paid "NO on Proposition 8" commercial claiming that:

“Prop. 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids.”

Isn’t the Superintendent of Public Instruction supposed to be above politics and concentrate on the needs of California’s children?

According to the State of California’s website, Jack O’Connell, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, is a state official elected by the people on a nonpartisan ballot for a four-year term. He is accountable to the people of California for performing all the duties and responsibilities of his office.”

But Superintendent O’Connell appears to have greater political aspirations …

While he is currently serving in this position, his prior political service was as a liberal democrat in the California State Assembly’s 35th District and as a liberal democrat in the California State Senate’s 18th District.

A career politician, it is thought that he is preparing to run for the position of California’s Governor in 2010 and needs the homosexual lobby’s endorsement to run with the likes of Jerry Brown (current Attorney General and Past California Governor), San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom who openly performed gay marriages at city hall and the other far-left democrats who also aspire to the position.

But is he telling the truth about Proposition 8?

Apparently not!

How many schools provide comprehensive sexual health education, even though it is not mandated?

“According to Sex Education in California Public Schools (PDF; Outside Source) (survey conducted PB Consulting, 2003), 96 percent of California school districts provide comprehensive sexual health education.”

At what grade level is comprehensive sexual health education to be taught?

“EC Section 51933 states that a school district may provide comprehensive sexual health education consisting of age-appropriate instruction in any grade from kindergarten through grade twelve. No specific topics are required to be taught in elementary grades; however, commencing in seventh grade, if comprehensive sexual health education is taught, districts shall comply with requirements outlined in EC 51933(b)(8-12).”

What does the EC say about providing sex education and HIV/STD instruction to students who may be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered?

“EC sections 51933(b)(4) and 51934(b) require that instruction be appropriate for use with students of all sexual orientations and clearly states that part of the intent of the law is ‘to encourage a pupil to develop healthy attitudes concerning adolescent growth and development, body image, gender roles, sexual orientation, dating, marriage, and family.’”

“The law prohibits sex education classes from teaching or promoting religious doctrine and from promoting bias against anyone on the basis of any category protected by the state's school nondiscrimination policy, EC Section 220, which includes actual or perceived gender and sexual orientation.”

“All comprehensive sexual health education and HIV instruction, including topics such as sexual development, dating, family, and protection from STDs and pregnancy, must encompass the experiences of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students as well as those of their heterosexual classmates.”

Do parents and/or guardians need to be informed if their child is to receive sex education or HIV/STD instruction?

“Yes. The law recognizes that while parents and guardians support the teaching of medically accurate, comprehensive sex education in schools, they have the ultimate responsibility for teaching their children about human sexuality; they may choose to withdraw their children from this instruction.”
“EC sections 51937 and 51938 explain that parents or guardians must be notified (passive consent) by the school at the beginning of the school year about planned comprehensive sexual health education and HIV/AIDS prevention education, be given an opportunity to review materials, and be given the opportunity to request in writing that their child not participate in the instruction.”

“In addition, to facilitate the collection of data needed by researchers to evaluate the effectiveness of sex education and other teen pregnancy prevention efforts, the law has modified the parental consent procedures governing student assessments. This law permits schools to administer anonymous, voluntary, confidential, age-appropriate surveys or questionnaires in which students are asked about their health risk behavior, including sexual activities and attitudes.”

“Parents must be notified of any planned assessments, be given the opportunity to review the assessments and, in grades seven through twelve, and be given the opportunity to request in writing that their children not participate. Prior to seventh grade, parents must give their active consent in order for their child to participate.”

“These parental notification and consent policies apply only to sexual health education, HIV/AIDS prevention education, and related assessments.”

Does the law permit the use of outside speakers to deliver sex education or HIV/STD instruction?

“Yes. According to EC sections 51933 and 51934, schools may enter into agreements with outside agencies with expertise to provide comprehensive sexual health and/or HIV/STD prevention education, or to provide training to school personnel. Instruction provided by outside instructors shall comply with the same requirements as instruction provided by teachers employed by the school district.”

Who typically provides sex education and HIV/STD instruction?

“Individuals assigned to provide sex education and HIV/STD instruction are selected locally and typically include regular classroom teachers, health education teachers, school nurses, and trainers from community-based organizations, such as the American Red Cross, Planned Parenthood, local health departments, and AIDS service agencies.” <Source>

Additional information …

Comprehensive Sexual Health Education

Provides information concerning authorized comprehensive sexual health education.

“Education Code (EC) 51933 (Outside Source) specifies that school districts are not required to provide comprehensive sexual health education, but if they choose to do so, they shall comply with all of the requirements listed below.”

“Comprehensive sexual health education instruction shall be age-appropriate and bias-free, and all factual information shall be medically accurate and objective. Instruction shall be appropriate for students of all genders, sexual orientations, and ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and it shall be accessible for English language learner students and students with disabilities. Instruction shall encourage communication between students and their families and shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.” <Source>

Bottom line …

If proposition 8 passes, gay marriage will be equated with traditional marriage and thus may be incorporated into all teaching materials – even those having nothing to do with “comprehensive sexual health education” which requires parental consent or opt-out provisions. 

Misleading or lying for a future political advantage?

And while Superintendent O’Connell is technically correct that school districts are not mandated to teach comprehensive sexual health education, his department’s statistics show that 96% of all California School Districts have chosen to teach the sexual subject matter which makes his assertion, at the very least, misleading.

As for the inclusion of gay-themed marriage information into textbooks and other teaching aids, it would only be a matter of time until a court challenge was mounted against the State of California by the gay lobby – demanding “equality and fairness” in instruction materials. Thus further diluting parental rights to instruct their children on matters of religion, morality and behavior.

As for Jack O'Connell, a word to the wise -- if you truly want to be California's governor in 2010, I suggest that you start by not misleading the public. We have had a number of lying, thieving governors in the past years and I am not about to let another one assume office with impunity.

-- steve

Opposing viewpoints are welcome and will be discussed.