Martha Schaerr Claims Not to Be Anti-Gay
School board candidate Martha Schaerr published something on the Washington Post website this weekend, claiming that she is not anti-gay, even though she is the president of one anti-gay group and is on the board of directors of another. Schaerr is running for Montgomery County District 5 Board of Education, against incumbent Mike Durso. She is on the board of directors of the Family Leader Network, who sued the school district to block the sex-ed curriculum that taught about sexual orientation and gender identity. She is also president of the Citizens for Traditional Families, a group that testifies to prevent gay people from marrying. Let's see how she claims she is not anti-gay...
That last sentence was cut off prematurely. After a semicolon the APA says: "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." Important point.
There is no conflict between the idea that sexual orientation has complex causes and the fact that it is innate. People do not experience a sense of choice about it, because it is innate. Ms. Schaerr though does not feel we should tell student this simple fact, which she edited out of the American Psychological Association's document. Not because she's anti-gay, mind you, she only edited it out because she wants you to believe that being gay is a choice.
And listen, that's not a trivial point. If sexual orientation is a choice then discrimination and prejudice are justified. It's okay to persecute people who make bad choices.
The point is not open for discussion. The irrefutable fact is that sexual orientation is not a choice. The causes are not known and are probably complex, but it is not a choice any more than eye-color or handedness are choices.
Note how she introduces "choice" to the list of possible causes proposed by the APA. No, Martha, it is not a choice, and leaving students free to determine course content for themselves is not the kind of educational philosophy we want in Montgomery County.
In fact, the current curriculum does not say anything about the causes of sexual orientation. At some point in the class they mention it is innate. Okay, well, it is innate. The only people who choose their sexual orientation are those sad individuals who are innately homosexual but are afraid of social pressure and so choose to pretend otherwise.
It would be interesting to see how far this could go. Should students be allowed to decide for themselves how to solve quadratic equations? How about the outcome of the Civil War? Should students decide that for themselves? There just this one little thing where students should be shielded from the current scientific and medical knowledge -- she is not anti-gay, she just wants to make sure students are not exposed to the truth about sexual orientation, that they are allowed to believe the playground lore that sexual orientation is a choice.
It appears that Ms. Schaerr actually believes that she is not "anti-gay." In her mind, she simply thinks that it's wrong to teach students that sexual orientation is innate, and that it would be better to let them "make that decision for themselves."
And why would that be? That would be because then students might make the decision that sexual orientation is not innate, that gay people choose to be that way. And why does that matter? That's an easy one: it matters because if gay people have chosen to be that way then we can beat them up and insult them, persecute them at school and at work, for their sinful and immoral choice.
Ms. Schaerr doesn't have to say she's "anti-gay" to be anti-gay and hateful. She only has to advocate positions that counter medical and scientific knowledge, positions that directly result in prejudice and discrimination against our LGBT friends and neighbors.
She goes on:
It does not appear that Ms. Schaerr knows what is in the sex-ed curriculum. There is a condom video, and it contains this sentence:
That sentence is perfectly true, it is prudent and accurate.
For some reason the Nutty Ones believe that because this sentence is in the condom lesson, the school district should teach more about anal sex.
The reason is obvious. They love to dwell on the topic of anal sex because they imagine that's what gay people do, day in and day out. They stick their pee-pees in somebody's poo-poo, eeewwww that's gross. In reality, the vast majority of instances of anal sex are heterosexual. A government survey found that approximately forty percent of American adults have had anal sex with an opposite-sex partner. Yes, the anal membrane is permeable to pathogens, this is a risky behavior to engage in with someone whose infection status is uncertain, and it would be a good idea to teach this to Montgomery County students. But that's not why Ms. Schaerr is dwelling on it here. She's dwelling on it here because anal sex sounds dirty and she believes that gay people do that all the time. Why else would she bring up the subject of this overwhelmingly heterosexual behavior in an article about whether she is anti-gay or not?
Ms. Scherr is as anti-gay as you get. I'll bet she sees herself as a positive person who just wants to teach kids to live a good, wholesome life. She might feel she stands for decency and morality, and she is probably a nice person. But she is not a very smart one, if she believes that sexual orientation is a choice, and if she actually believes that our students should decide the content of their health classes for themselves.
Martha Schaerr is not just a member of some anti-gay groups, she is the president of one and is on the board of directors of another. One group of hers has sued the school district a couple of times to stop them from teaching that there are gay and transgender people and that they are not sick, that others should respect them for who they are as individuals. Another group goes around testifying in court that couples who love one another should not be allowed to marry and start a family if they are the same sex. Not because she's anti-gay, of course.
In Michael Birnbaum's Oct. 27 news article, "School board hopeful has new focus," David Fishback of the D.C. chapter of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays was quoted as saying that my views on the sex-ed curriculum are "antithetical to the health and welfare of . . . gay students," implying that I or my views are somehow "anti-gay." I disagree. I share his opposition to bullying of any student -- especially the most vulnerable ones -- and desire to work with him and anyone else to eliminate unkindness and marginalization.
I do not agree, however, that schools should be teaching students that sexual orientation is inevitably innate and that this is the only legitimate view of the issue. As the American Psychological Association has recently stated, "Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation . . . is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles." My views on sex ed aren't anti-gay
That last sentence was cut off prematurely. After a semicolon the APA says: "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." Important point.
There is no conflict between the idea that sexual orientation has complex causes and the fact that it is innate. People do not experience a sense of choice about it, because it is innate. Ms. Schaerr though does not feel we should tell student this simple fact, which she edited out of the American Psychological Association's document. Not because she's anti-gay, mind you, she only edited it out because she wants you to believe that being gay is a choice.
And listen, that's not a trivial point. If sexual orientation is a choice then discrimination and prejudice are justified. It's okay to persecute people who make bad choices.
The point is not open for discussion. The irrefutable fact is that sexual orientation is not a choice. The causes are not known and are probably complex, but it is not a choice any more than eye-color or handedness are choices.
The curriculum should leave students free to determine for themselves whether sexual orientation is a matter of heredity, environment, choice or some combination.
Note how she introduces "choice" to the list of possible causes proposed by the APA. No, Martha, it is not a choice, and leaving students free to determine course content for themselves is not the kind of educational philosophy we want in Montgomery County.
In fact, the current curriculum does not say anything about the causes of sexual orientation. At some point in the class they mention it is innate. Okay, well, it is innate. The only people who choose their sexual orientation are those sad individuals who are innately homosexual but are afraid of social pressure and so choose to pretend otherwise.
Allowing students to make that decision for themselves is not "anti-gay."
It would be interesting to see how far this could go. Should students be allowed to decide for themselves how to solve quadratic equations? How about the outcome of the Civil War? Should students decide that for themselves? There just this one little thing where students should be shielded from the current scientific and medical knowledge -- she is not anti-gay, she just wants to make sure students are not exposed to the truth about sexual orientation, that they are allowed to believe the playground lore that sexual orientation is a choice.
It appears that Ms. Schaerr actually believes that she is not "anti-gay." In her mind, she simply thinks that it's wrong to teach students that sexual orientation is innate, and that it would be better to let them "make that decision for themselves."
And why would that be? That would be because then students might make the decision that sexual orientation is not innate, that gay people choose to be that way. And why does that matter? That's an easy one: it matters because if gay people have chosen to be that way then we can beat them up and insult them, persecute them at school and at work, for their sinful and immoral choice.
Ms. Schaerr doesn't have to say she's "anti-gay" to be anti-gay and hateful. She only has to advocate positions that counter medical and scientific knowledge, positions that directly result in prejudice and discrimination against our LGBT friends and neighbors.
She goes on:
Nor is it "anti-gay" to seek to ensure that all students are given clear information about the health risks of any sexual practices discussed in the curriculum. American teens -- both gay and straight -- are acquiring sexually transmitted diseases in epidemic proportions. If we're going to talk about anal sex in a health class or a condom video, it's irresponsible not to warn students -- especially gay students -- about the medical evidence showing the heightened health risks of anal sex compared with vaginal sex, even with a condom.
It does not appear that Ms. Schaerr knows what is in the sex-ed curriculum. There is a condom video, and it contains this sentence:
Condoms reduce, but do not eliminate the risk of STI/STD whenever there is oral, anal, or vaginal contact.
That sentence is perfectly true, it is prudent and accurate.
For some reason the Nutty Ones believe that because this sentence is in the condom lesson, the school district should teach more about anal sex.
The reason is obvious. They love to dwell on the topic of anal sex because they imagine that's what gay people do, day in and day out. They stick their pee-pees in somebody's poo-poo, eeewwww that's gross. In reality, the vast majority of instances of anal sex are heterosexual. A government survey found that approximately forty percent of American adults have had anal sex with an opposite-sex partner. Yes, the anal membrane is permeable to pathogens, this is a risky behavior to engage in with someone whose infection status is uncertain, and it would be a good idea to teach this to Montgomery County students. But that's not why Ms. Schaerr is dwelling on it here. She's dwelling on it here because anal sex sounds dirty and she believes that gay people do that all the time. Why else would she bring up the subject of this overwhelmingly heterosexual behavior in an article about whether she is anti-gay or not?
Ms. Scherr is as anti-gay as you get. I'll bet she sees herself as a positive person who just wants to teach kids to live a good, wholesome life. She might feel she stands for decency and morality, and she is probably a nice person. But she is not a very smart one, if she believes that sexual orientation is a choice, and if she actually believes that our students should decide the content of their health classes for themselves.
Martha Schaerr is not just a member of some anti-gay groups, she is the president of one and is on the board of directors of another. One group of hers has sued the school district a couple of times to stop them from teaching that there are gay and transgender people and that they are not sick, that others should respect them for who they are as individuals. Another group goes around testifying in court that couples who love one another should not be allowed to marry and start a family if they are the same sex. Not because she's anti-gay, of course.
posted by JimK at 10:04 AM
37 Comments:
"If sexual orientation is a choice then discrimination and prejudice are justified. It's okay to persecute people who make bad choices."
I don't understand why you don't see that when you take this position, you are affirming that homosexuality is negative.
"The point is not open for discussion. The irrefutable fact is that sexual orientation is not a choice."
That's false. There is no way to conclusively refute that will is not involved in the process, or to what extent.
"Should students be allowed to decide for themselves how to solve quadratic equations? How about the outcome of the Civil War? Should students decide that for themselves?"
No, because they are facts. But the causes of the Civil War or the best way to use the quadratic formula might be open to discussion.
Whether or not homosexuality is innate is a philosophical question and should be open to debate and discussion.
"And why would that be? That would be because then students might make the decision that sexual orientation is not innate, that gay people choose to be that way. And why does that matter? That's an easy one: it matters because if gay people have chosen to be that way then we can beat them up and insult them, persecute them at school and at work, for their sinful and immoral choice."
This makes no sense.
We don't believe speech is innate and yet we still don't think we can beat people up for what they say.
Your arguments don't hold the liquid of logic.
Your arguments are more like a sieve than a bowl.
Anon, do you think homosexuality is a bad choice?
.. affirming that homosexuality is negative ...
Anon, the fundamentalists I am talking about believe homosexuality is a sin and a bad choice, and they use those beliefs to persecute their LGBT neighbors.
JimK
Let's just remind everyone what the controversy is about, shall we ? Here's what a JUDGE THOUGHT about the MCPS curriculum...(the first one).
Highlights of Judge Alexander Williams Jr.'s Federal Court Decision
"The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion ... The State may not adopt programs or practices ... which aid or oppose any religion.... This prohibition is absolute. The Supreme Court has found that discrimination against religious speech among religions is subject to strict scrutiny. …when we are presented with a state law granting a denominational preference, our precedents demand that we treat the law as suspect and that we apply strict scrutiny in adjudging its constitutionality. The Revised Curriculum also implies that the Baptist Church’s position on homosexuality is theologically flawed. The materials state that theologians and Biblical scholars agree that “Jesus said absolutely nothing at all about homosexuality.” The materials also note that many seemingly innocuous activities were deemed abominations by the Bible, such as “wearing clothing made from more than one kind of fiber, and eating shellfish, like shrimp and lobster,” inviting the reader to draw the conclusion that not all activities that were banned in the Bible are still morally objectionable today. The Court would again note that the strength Montgomery County Public Schools’ substantive theological arguments are irrelevant — it is their exclusive nature that the Court finds troubling."
"Most disturbingly, the Revised Curriculum juxtaposes this portrait of an intolerant and Biblically misguided Baptist Church against other, preferred Churches, which are more friendly towards the homosexual lifestyle. The Revised Curriculum states: Fortunately, many within organized religions are beginning to address the homophobia of the church. The Nation Council of Churches of Christ, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Society of Friends (Quakers), and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches support full civil rights for gay men and lesbians, as they do for everyone else."
"The Court is extremely troubled by the willingness of Montgomery County Public Schools to venture —or perhaps more correctly bound — into the crossroads of controversy where religion, morality, and homosexuality converge. The Court does not understand why it is necessary, in attempting to achieve the goals of advocating tolerance and providing health-related information, Montgomery County Public Schools must offer up their opinion on such controversial topics as whether homosexuality is a sin, whether AIDS is God’s judgment on homosexuals, and whether churches that condemn homosexuality are on theologically solid ground. As such, the Court is highly skeptical that the Revised Curriculum is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest…
Let's just remind everyone about the subject, shall we ?
Here's what a judge thought about the MCPS curriculum :
Highlights of Judge Alexander Williams Jr.'s Federal Court Decision
"The wisdom of approving a curriculum which prohibits students from discussing one viewpoint of a controversial subject goes to the very essence of that First Amendment faith. The merit of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum’s and PFOX’s viewpoint — be it right, wrong, discriminatory, or just — is of no consequence. Rather, the Court is concerned with ensuring that Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum’s and PFOX’s free speech rights are not restricted merely because they voice an unpopular viewpoint. No matter the importance of an idea to its believers, or how objectionable it may be to its detractors, the diversity of our democratic fabric is sewn together by the belief that the path to freedom lies in the opportunity for rival positions to be equally heard and discussed."
"This case pits a potential loss of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum’s and PFOX’s First Amendment freedoms against what amounts to mere inconvenience to Montgomery County Public Schools. It is in the public interest for the Court to guard against any chipping away at Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum’s and PFOX’s First Amendment freedoms, particularly where Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and PFOX have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits."
and further :
"The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion ... The State may not adopt programs or practices ... which aid or oppose any religion.... This prohibition is absolute. The Supreme Court has found that discrimination against religious speech among religions is subject to strict scrutiny. …when we are presented with a state law granting a denominational preference, our precedents demand that we treat the law as suspect and that we apply strict scrutiny in adjudging its constitutionality. The Revised Curriculum also implies that the Baptist Church’s position on homosexuality is theologically flawed. The materials state that theologians and Biblical scholars agree that “Jesus said absolutely nothing at all about homosexuality.” The materials also note that many seemingly innocuous activities were deemed abominations by the Bible, such as “wearing clothing made from more than one kind of fiber, and eating shellfish, like shrimp and lobster,” inviting the reader to draw the conclusion that not all activities that were banned in the Bible are still morally objectionable today. The Court would again note that the strength Montgomery County Public Schools’ substantive theological arguments are irrelevant — it is their exclusive nature that the Court finds troubling."
"Most disturbingly, the Revised Curriculum juxtaposes this portrait of an intolerant and Biblically misguided Baptist Church against other, preferred Churches, which are more friendly towards the homosexual lifestyle. The Revised Curriculum states: Fortunately, many within organized religions are beginning to address the homophobia of the church. The Nation Council of Churches of Christ, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Society of Friends (Quakers), and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches support full civil rights for gay men and lesbians, as they do for everyone else."
and most damningly....
"The Court is extremely troubled by the willingness of Montgomery County Public Schools to venture —or perhaps more correctly bound — into the crossroads of controversy where religion, morality, and homosexuality converge. The Court does not understand why it is necessary, in attempting to achieve the goals of advocating tolerance and providing health-related information, Montgomery County Public Schools must offer up their opinion on such controversial topics as whether homosexuality is a sin, whether AIDS is God’s judgment on homosexuals, and whether churches that condemn homosexuality are on theologically solid ground. As such, the Court is highly skeptical that the Revised Curriculum is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest… Viewpoint discrimination consists of state action in which “there is no ban on a general subject matter, but only on one or more prohibited perspectives.”. When government restrictions “target notsubject matter but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant. Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination.” …“the government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.”. In this case, Montgomery County Public Schools open up the classroom to the subject of homosexuality, and specifically, the moral rightness of the homosexual lifestyle. However, the Revised Curriculum presents only one view on the subject — that homosexuality is a natural and morally correct lifestyle — to the exclusion of other perspectives. Indeed, the Revised Curriculum advises teachers that the information concerning homosexuality is to be presented to students as facts and that “no additional information, interpretation or examples are to be provided by the teacher.” As such, the Court is deeply concerned that the Revised Curriculum violates Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum’s and PFOX’s free speech rights under the First Amendment..."
"the fundamentalists I am talking about believe homosexuality is a sin and a bad choice, and they use those beliefs to persecute their LGBT neighbors"
while there may be stray "fundamentalists", like the Westboro wackos, who persecute gays
most Christians, even those who would fit in the category of fundamentalist, believe sinners should be reached for the gospel, not persecuted
for the most part, those who persecute gays don't have any religious motivation
Th curriculum Judge Williams wrote about was thrown out and a new curriculum and condom video, written with the help of Pediatricians from Children's Hospital, were approved, pilot tested, approved again, and put into use in MCPS.
The lawyers who got Judge Williams to write such things about the first curricular revision then dropped that case like a hot potato and left town rather than move forward to determine whether or not there was an **actual** loss rather than what Judge Williams stated might be "a **potential** loss of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum’s and PFOX’s First Amendment freedoms." No the Liberty Counsel did not pursue this case even with those words in the decision written by Judge Williams. They were apparently satisfied with the $36K they and the CRC extracted from the mouths of needy MCPS students as the best they could do for themselves.
Every Judge and Administrative Body in the State of Maryland and its Education system who has reviewed legal pleas from the new pro-bono out of state lawyers that helped the CRC fight the new curriculum ruled against them and in favor of the new curriculum, which is now in use in MCPS. No MCPS students has died as a result, just like no girls or women have been harmed since Bill 23-07 became law.
None of the paranoid fears expressed by CRC or CRG has been realized. But that doesn't stop their supporters from spreading their unfounded fear.
Back to the subject at hand, Martha Schaerr's underhanded campaign tactics.
Why are her campaign signs springing up illegally in medians and at intersections in the county. Can't she find any actual voters willing to place her campaign signs legally in their yards?
The yard sign placer for her campaign might want to brush up on the laws governing their placement found at
http://permittingservices.montgomerycountymd.gov/permitting/pdf/InformationAboutPoliticalSigns.pdf
For example: "Non-compliance can result in the issuance of a **$500 civil citation for each sign in violation** and removal of illegal signs in the public right-of-way. A political candidate and the sign installer can be held jointly responsible for compliance with the sign regulations. Sign regulations will be strictly enforced."
"The curriculum Judge Williams wrote about was THROWN OUT and a new curriculum and condom video, written with the help of Pediatricians from Children's Hospital, were approved, pilot tested, approved again, and put into use in MCPS."
Good thing the CRC and PFOX were watching the curriculum, or the MCPS curriculum today would have been far worse!
Sounds like they were VERY SUCCESSFUL!
Anon, as you are probably aware, the curriculum that was developed to replace the one that was thrown out is much more friendly to gay and transgender people.
Yes, they were very SUCCESSFUL.
Now the curriculum includes vignettes about all sorts of people the CRC and its supporters and co-conspirators like Martha Schaerr hate including gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders.
And let's not forget the statement about anal sex that Martha said "is talked about in the classroom" is the same statement as in the CRC approved video "Hope is Not a Method."
ho ho -- I said "....could have been far WORSE...."
No you didn't.
You said "Good thing the CRC and PFOX were watching the curriculum, or the MCPS curriculum today would have been much worse."
CRC sought changes to the curriculum and is unhappy with the changes they got. These days CRC supporters are unhappy with sex ed at MCPS. CRC co-conspirator in the lawsuits to stop these curricular revisions, Martha Schaerr, refuses to allow her own kids to take MCPS's sex ed because she doesn't want them to learn to show Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality.
"The lawyers who got Judge Williams to write such things about the first curricular revision then dropped that case like a hot potato and left town rather than move forward to determine whether or not there was a loss of students' First Amendment freedoms." No the Liberty Counsel did not pursue this case even with those words in the decision written by Judge Williams."
typical misrepresebtation of facts from "TTF"
the case was settled in the plaintiff's favor
the curriculum was discarded
that was what they sought
your faulting them for not trying to pursue monetary damages, despite encouraging words from the judge, is a bizarre form of disingenuousness
they settled for the legal costs because MCPS cancelled the curriculum before any violation of rights could occur
"They were apparently satisfied with the $36K they and the CRC extracted from the mouths of needy MCPS students as the best they could do for themselves"
any evidence that any food program for needy students was cut to pay for the case MCPS settled because they'd been called on their disregard of the Constitution or is this another lunatic fringe lie?
"No MCPS students has died as a result"
well, that's a little hard to prove either way
besides, just because a curriculum isn't deadly, doesn't mean it's worthy
it actually must teach factual information and the innateness assertion isn't a proven fact
"None of the paranoid fears expressed by CRC or CRG has been realized. But that doesn't stop their supporters from spreading their unfounded fear."
how about TTF's fear that unless homosexuality is considered innate, there will be widespread violence against gays?
a little paranoid, isn't it?
"Back to the subject at hand, Martha Schaerr's underhanded campaign tactics.
Why are her campaign signs springing up illegally in medians and at intersections in the county."
actually, no one had discussed that topic
seems a little desperate on your part
you guys must really be worried about Schaerr
drive around and you will see this happening with all candidates
it's a law not enforced in the last week of the campaign, if ever
More of your tiresome, monotonous, dreary, sanctimonious, hateful comments "Anonymous"
"most Christians,[but, apprently, not you] even those who would fit in the category of fundamentalist, believe sinners should be reached for the gospel, not persecuted"
"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Jesus Christ
Furthermore:
YOU LOST - GET OVER IT - MOVE ON!!
"your faulting them for not trying to pursue monetary damages, despite encouraging words from the judge, is a bizarre form of disingenuousness"
What a MORON! If someone's FREEDOM OF SPEECH freedom had been violated, Judge Williams decision would have said that. But what Judge Williams said, which you have so thoughtfully provided for us here is:
"This case pits a **potential loss of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum’s and PFOX’s First Amendment freedoms** against what amounts to mere inconvenience to Montgomery County Public Schools." He even went on to say "Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and PFOX have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits."
Did their attorneys agree with Judge Williams' opinion enough to pursue those "potential loss of First Amendment freedoms" with their "strong likelihood of success on their merits?" Hell no, they dropped the case like a hot potato and left town, never to support CRC/PFOX again.
Ask Mat Staver why Liberty Counsel didn't pursue this "strong likelihood of success."
And all Judge Williams lists his concerns with religious views on homosexuality, including that of his own Baptist faith, he ends that section as he did the section above, stating that "the Court is deeply concerned that the Revised Curriculum violates Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum’s and PFOX’s free speech rights under the First Amendment..."
Again, go ask Mat Staver why he pulled his Liberty Counsel carpetbagger lawyers away from this chance set a precedent that might have forced EVERY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM sex ed curriculum to mention every religion's view of homosexuality so as to not practice "viewpoint discrimination."
Furthermore:
YOU LOST - GET OVER IT - MOVE ON!!
"Hell no, they dropped the case like a hot potato and left town, never to support CRC/PFOX again.
Ask Mat Staver why Liberty Counsel didn't pursue this "strong likelihood of success.""
they never asked for monetary relief to begin with
they wanted the curriculum stopped
when MCPS discarded it, that's when the case became pointless
that's why MCPS settled- so the potato wouldn't be hot any longer
the gay agenda will be stopped tomorrow when a sensible Congress is elected
YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE - GET OVER IT - MOVE ON!!
if you think it is judgmental to call homosexuality a sin, why isn't it judgmental to call theft a sin?
when Jesus said judge not, surely you don't think he meant to affirm all behaviors
what kind of sense would that make?
try to think about the meaning if the verses you quoted
Anon,
Much as you would like to ignore it, the curriculum revision process continued after the 2005 legal ambush, and a deeper and more comprehensive revision was implemented in 2007 -- over your friends' attempt to use the courts to derail it. I suspect Liberty Counsel didn't help you in 2007 because they knew they could not get away with their bogus legal arguments when our side was prepared to respond (unlike in 2005).
the next time, you got a favorable judge
so what?
the first curriculum lost in court- and that's what we were discussing
have a nice day!
SHOWTIME!
probably the only time we'll say this today but:
DAMN, Obama wins again:
"SAN FRANCISCO (Nov. 1) -- A federal appeals court on Monday indefinitely extended its freeze on a judge's order halting enforcement of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Barack Obama's request for a stay while it challenges the trial court's ruling that the ban on openly gay service members is unconstitutional."
so now, Barry can keep gays out of the military indefinitely
did you know that the Apple Ballot may constitute a federal crime?
if a school district takes Federal funds, the teachers are defacto Federal employees and prohibited from political activity by the Hatch Act:
"In Prince George’s County in Maryland, a teacher uses the school computer to send an email to fellow teachers, encouraging them and others to work the polls in support Gov. Martin O’Malley.
In California, Sen. Barbara Boxer’s office sends a letter to "Government and Social Studies teachers throughout Los Angeles" asking them to recruit students "to earn extra credit or fulfill class volunteer hours" by becoming volunteers in her campaign.
In Cincinnati, three busloads of voting-age students are taken to the local board of elections so they can vote. Once there, they're given sample ballots that contain only names on the Democratic ticket. And once they're finished voting, they're taken out for ice cream.
For the most part, these and other instances of teachers and other public servants using government time and equipment for political purposes have been met with howls of protest, local indignation and occasionally a civil suit.
But according to Hans Von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and now a Heritage Foundation specialist in voting issues, these acts may actually be federal crimes.
Because virtually all public schools in the nation get federal funding, Von Spakovsky says, teachers and other school employees are covered by the 1939 Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan politics while working.
No one is certain just how widespread these possible violations are in the election cycle. Kelly Ceballos of the League of Women Voters, which does extensive voter registration drives at high schools throughout the nation, said she was unaware of any other cases. “It is not something I am aware of,” she said.
But the ones that have surfaced have been troubling.
In California, Boxer's letter to social studies teachers sparked a sharp rebuke from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which demanded that schools notify teachers that they could face criminal penalties for involving students in partisan political campaigns during school hours.
The Boxer campaign apologized, acknowledged that the letter “was inappropriate” and said it would no longer conduct outreach to public high schools.
In Prince George's County, Darren Presley, the school's communication director, said he was unaware of any disciplinary action against Catherine Kenny, the teacher behind the mass emailing to get “voters to push for O’Malley if we want to keep our retirement plans.” Presley said the school board is still looking into the matter.
In Cincinnati, the student bus ride sparked a lawsuit, and the school district quickly agreed to stop all conduct that smacked of partisanship and to “comply with all policies of the Cincinnati Public Schools and Ohio law.” But the lawsuit went further, asking that the conduct be “declared a violation of Ohio law.”
On Friday, the Hamilton County Board of Education suspended Virginia Rhodes, the principal of the high school that permitted the students to travel to the board of elections, for failure to provide oversight. It is unclear whether the two-week suspension is without pay. The teacher in the case, Dennis McFadden, has yet to face a disciplinary hearing.
Chris Finney, the attorney who filed suit against the school district, said he was certain that the practice of swaying high school kids to vote Democratic was widespread and "standard operating procedure." He said he has requested records from the school and is considering filing a RICO civil action."
looks like a project for after the elections
Anon,
So you think that MCPS got a "favorable" judge in 2007-08. Oh, yes. Must have been some sort of hippie-dippy knee-jerk leftie. Right?
Well, the case was decided by Judge William Rowan III, whose wife taught in Catholic schools and who, himself, served as president of the Gonzaga High School alumni association and of the Metropolitan Catholic Youth Organization. See http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/31cc/former/html/msa13471.html
Yep, as a devout, active Catholic, I am sure he was already in the bag for what you refer to as the "gay lessons."
What he was was a fair minded judge.
"Anonymous"
Here's what you said: "did you know that the Apple Ballot may constitute a federal crime?...if a school district takes Federal funds, the teachers are defacto Federal employees and prohibited from political activity by the Hatch Act:"
Let's use facts instead of hysterical rants to support your invalid contentions:
"Hatch Act: Who is Not Covered?State and Local Employees
Hatch Act provisions do not apply to:
individuals who exercise no functions in connection with federally financed activities; or
individuals employed by educational or research institutions, establishments, or agencies which are supported in whole or in part by state or political subdivisions thereof, or by recognized religious, philanthropic or cultural organizations (e.g., administrators, teachers)."
(http://www.osc.gov/haStateLocalwhoisnotcovered.htm
Your legal advice seems to be somehwhat lacking in professional standards. Perhaps that would account for the numerous failures you've had in Maryland courts.
actually, imbecile, the point is that public education in MC has Federal financing so the Hatch Act applies
this issue will be pursued- count on it
All right, there's a cause the Citizens for Responsible Constipation can get behind, making sure teachers are not allowed to express their political opinions outside the classroom... They just go from one heartwarming political position to another. Hate the gay ones, hate the transgender ones, hate teachers ...
"actually, imbecile, the point is that public education in MC has Federal financing so the Hatch Act applies"
Except there's an exemption in the Hatch Act for "individuals employed by educational or research institutions, establishments, or agencies which are supported in whole or in part by state or political subdivisions thereof [e.g., counties]"
"Anonymous"
Typical response from you when you are nailed to the wall! You only prove your own mental incapacities when you fail to check the link provided.
Quote: "Hatch Act provisions do not apply to: individuals employed by educational or research institutions, establishments, or agencies which are supported in whole or in part by state or political subdivisions thereof, or by recognized religious, philanthropic or cultural organizations (e.g., administrators, teachers)."
Perhaps you have reading deficiencies or you do not speak English?
And MCPS is an educational agency "supported in whole or in part by state or political subdivisions thereof."
"Except there's an exemption in the Hatch Act for "individuals employed by educational or research institutions, establishments, or agencies which are supported in whole or in part by state or political subdivisions thereof [e.g., counties]""
I think you're imbecilically misinterpretting the language
"Anonymous"
You conveniently excluded the "e.g., administrators, teachers" - meaning that administrators and teachers are not covered by the restrictions of the Hatch Act.
See: "Hatch Act Frequently Asked Questions"...
Question:What is the education exemption and which employees fall within it?
Answer: The Hatch Act exempts from coverage individuals who are principally employed by educational or research institutions, establishments, agencies or systems that are supported in whole or in part by a state or political subdivision thereof. All employees of these entities fall within the exemption (e.g., teacher, administrator, custodian, etc.)."
(http://www.osc.gov/haStateLocalfaq.htm)
"I think you're imbecilically misinterpretting (sic) the language".
If the shoe fits, wear it!!
(oh...and since you are such a stickler about correct spelling and word choice, did I catch a misspelling there? And your creation of a new word (imbecilically) is awesomely stunning!
"See: "Hatch Act Frequently Asked Questions"..."
this is not authoritative
and you're misinterpretting even the non-authoritative source
look, you guys think you're alright taking Federal funds and using it to push Democratice candidates
we'll see if the judge agrees
In what sense, "Anonymnous" is the U.S. Office of Special Counsel not "authoritative"?
(The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency. Our basic authorities come from four federal statutes: the Civil Service Reform Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Hatch Act, and the Uniformed Services Employment & Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).)(http://www.osc.gov/Intro.htm)
"and you're misinterpretting (sic) even the non-authoritative source"
Tell us, please, what misinterpretation was given to the exact wording from the link.
Finally, "school board members and teachers are not subject to the Hatch Act. The federal
law specifically exempts individuals employed by “an educational or research institution,
establishment, agency, or system which is supported in whole or in part by a State or
political subdivision thereof… .” 5 U.S.C. § 1503(4)(B). This exemption clearly includes teachers and other school employees. School board members appear to be
covered under this exemption as well. However, because school board members are
really volunteers, they probably do not qualify as employees under the Hatch Act. (http://resources.vlct.org/u/atl_00_10b.pdf)
"Employees of
educational or research institutions, such as colleges or public
schools, are explicitly exempted from the coverage Hatch Act." (43 5 U.S.C. § 1501(4)(B) (2009) (Ibid.)
Do you also question the validity of the President's citizenship?
obviously, we need a trial here
no American wants teachers using the classroom for biased political propaganda
yet, this fool thinks they have a right to do just that
"Anonymous Troll"
To reiterate: Tell us, please, what misinterpretation was given to the exact wording from the link.
Here's what you originally said in attempting to crush teachers' political action:
"did you know that the Apple Ballot may constitute a federal crime?...if a school district takes Federal funds, the teachers are defacto Federal employees and prohibited from political activity by the Hatch Act:"
No where do you mention the red herring argument about "no American wants teachers using the classroom for biased political propaganda"
Simply put: educators are not covered by the Hatch Act. There is no need for a "trial" to substantiate your fallacious argument. And just what "trial" are you referring to and who is this mysterious "Judge" ("we'll see if the judge agrees") you are talking about?
What you really mean is that you do not like the idea that students might be exposed to ideas and concepts that YOU DO NOT LIKE.
Handing out Apple Ballots at voting places is not "using the classroom for biased political propaganda". It's a simple act of participation in the democratic process...the very same that the supporters of Martha Schaerr used at several polling places.
RT
Post a Comment
<< Home