2012 Election | Education | Gay Marriage | Maine | Massachusetts | News

'Boston Globe' Knocks Down Anti-Gay Lie

KingkingIn an op-ed published today, the Boston Globe's editorial staff tore into right wing claims that marriage equality will lead to "homosexual indoctrination" in public schools.

As part of that erroneous argument, anti-gay activists point to a Lexington, Massachusetts, lawsuit in which a group of homophobic parents led David and Tonia Parker, sued a school for reading their kids a children's book about kings in love.

They lost that suit, but the Parkers have been appearing in anti-gay marriage ads spouting right wing rhetoric.

"After Massachusetts redefined marriage, local schools taught it to children in second grade," Mr Parker claims in an ad running in Maine. 

But as the Globe notes, there is no such thing as "homosexual indoctrination" and that isolated incident should not be used to discriminate against our fellow Americans.

...Voters should also know that Massachusetts is not, in fact, teaching children to read, write, and have same-sex marriages. In 2006, a teacher in Lexington did read second-graders a book about a prince who marries another prince. But it wasn’t a regular subject... And the books had previously been made available for parents’ review. Not surprisingly, the scary ads omit these details.

The Lexington litigation was highly unusual, and the scores of other school districts in the state simply haven’t been convulsed with controversy about same-sex marriage. That’s not to say the issue never arises; children increasingly have peers whose parents are married to adults of the same sex, and they’re bound to ask questions. But it’s noteworthy that the one case of pro-gay indoctrination that marriage opponents regularly cite is more than half a decade old — and misleading to boot.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. well, lawsuits like that are the REASON that children, in elementary school, need to learn about LGBT people.

    because MANY of those kids are LGBT.

    those awful parents? no guarantee their kids are straight.

    what's their complaint? "we don't want our kids learning that it's ok to be gay! we'd prefer our potentially-gay children to grow up hiding in fear of our hatred of what they are and kill themselves!"

    really?

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Nov 3, 2012 4:09:26 PM


  2. I wish pro-equality forces would fight the lies with such vigor and aggressiveness, rather than responding to every false claim with feel-good ads that push back but never put the anti-equality side on the defensive for the campaigns they wage. I'm tired of pro-equality forces never going beyond playing defense in the final days before a vote and losing the battle in the end, when truth, facts, and justice are on our side. Will we ever shine a spotlight on the other side during a campaign? or must we always wait for a court battle (like post-Prop 8) to mount the arguments we should have been making from the start? It would be oh-so-refreshing to play aggressive offense for a change, and not rely on the media to forcefully push back against the bigots. (Note: I live near Maryland, where the marriage ballot initiative has gone from a comfortable lead to deadlocked in the space of a couple weeks, which always spells defeat for our side).

    Posted by: Mike B | Nov 3, 2012 4:18:36 PM


  3. It would be interesting if they have a ballet featuring a prince marrying a prince. Matthew Bourne has a gay version of Swan lake. But it seems that in the ballet, the prince never proposed to the black swan.

    Posted by: simon | Nov 3, 2012 4:51:04 PM


  4. @Mike B, the last poll published showed that Q 6 was ahead 55-40

    Posted by: Anthony | Nov 3, 2012 4:52:18 PM


  5. This is an editorial, not an op-ed. An editorial is the opinion of the newspaper's editors and its publisher; an op-ed is the opinion of the writer(s) of the piece. Op-eds appear OPposite the EDitorial page. This is an important distinction, as an op-ed isn't as big a deal as an editorial.

    Posted by: syncboy | Nov 3, 2012 5:13:59 PM


  6. "And the books had previously been made available for parents’ review."

    If the parents had truly cared about the school curriculum, they would have taken advantage of the offer.

    Posted by: Diogenes Arktos | Nov 3, 2012 7:17:07 PM


  7. King & King is a wonderful book. Even a bigot would be tempted.

    Posted by: Demian | Nov 3, 2012 7:17:48 PM


  8. King + King? Never heard of it, sounds great, maybe monarchy isn't so bad after all.

    Posted by: UFFDA | Nov 4, 2012 1:55:35 AM


  9. I just remembered that my third grade teacher indoctrinated me into a straight lifestyle in science class. (Obviously it didn't work.) In teaching that magnetic north attracts magnetic south, we were told to remember that "boys marry girls". With marriage equality, how can we teach the children the basics of electricity and magnetism?

    Posted by: Diogenes Arktos | Nov 4, 2012 1:37:53 AM


  10. Diogenes Arktos:
    The teacher can talk about the "Newton's law of universal gravitational attraction". There is no positive or negative, north or south. Every object attracts another object. That may be too gay for the students.

    Posted by: simon | Nov 4, 2012 10:30:38 AM


  11. I think that allowing gay men to marry will cut down on a lot of the aberant and promiscous behavior that some gay men engage in. I think that like monagomous marriage, at least serial monogamy, cuts down on the aberant and promiscous behavior of straight males, it will have a similar effect on gays. I think marriage tends to give men boundaries and tends to keep them in check.

    Posted by: andrew | Nov 4, 2012 7:38:33 PM


  12. Why would any anti-gay group allow facts to get in the way of their martyrdom? They will vengefully spin their web of deceitful lies without hesitation.

    Posted by: ThomT | Nov 5, 2012 1:36:57 PM


  13. @Andrew - I think you're wrong. And, even if you're not, allowing gay marriage for the reasons you state does absolutely nothing to further the cause of marriage equality. Your opinion simply confirms the argument of the far-right and religious zealots that there is something wrong with gay men that needs to be "corrected". I know plenty of gay men who do not lead the lives you imply and many straight married men who are no more monogamous now than they were prior to marriage. And, aside from your argument, who are any of us to decide whether promiscuity is a bad thing? If you choose not to be promiscuous that is your decision and it should be respected. However, if someone else chooses what "YOU" might define as promiscuous behavior that is their decision and you, and no one else, has the right to condemn, criticize or judge that decision. What works for one doesn't necessarily work for all and placing your personal preference (monogamy) above others is no different (or better) than those who want to continue to reserve marriage only for a man and a woman. I am a gay man whose MONOGAMOUS relationship has lasted over 35 years (without, and long before, the availability of marriage equality) and I have respected the choices of others to live their lives in the manner that best suits them (without harm to other people).

    Posted by: ThomT | Nov 5, 2012 1:51:32 PM


  14. @Simon: I stupidly forgot to include a suitable sarcasm tag.

    Posted by: Diogenes Arktos | Nov 5, 2012 8:42:40 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «New York City Subways At 80% Operation, Says MTA« «