Gay Marriage, Lite....

Hmmmm.... my question is whether same-sex teaching was a good complaint to bring before a federal judge. Of course, in Massachusetts and a couple of other states gay marriage and/or other types of co-habitation are legal and probably should and will be legal everywhere eventually, so it is reasonable to assume that the judge had the responsibility to rule as he did. And certainly using the argument of such teaching being a violation of "religious rights" is simply ridiculous! I do wonder who their lawyer was! The only religious "rights" a person has is in the 1st Amendment, ["Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"]. It doesn't say that others must cow-tow to an individual's (or church's) beliefs, but simply that one may have whatever beliefs one wants for himself! It doesn't even say that a parent may bring up her children with certain beliefs! Of course, I guess the Constitution doesn't say a lot of things. So, I think that if the parent(s) really wanted to change the policy rather than make a big political show of it, that it would have been much wiser to protest to the school board! After all, schools are still under local control and school boards can be easily replaced if they don't cater to the will of the local citizenry. I'm certainly not anti-gay, but ‘they' are most certainly a biological anomaly and usually not all that obvious unless one goes out of one's way look for them. Their behavior in society, I think, should be quiet and unobtrusive just as should be the more common heterosexual lifestyle. Personally, I don't like conspicuous sex from anyone, on stage, on a screen or on the street - but I guess I'm not typical, judging by our media which caters to the perverted interests of the masses in order to sell almost anything. For example, I was disappointed when Ellen De Generes announced her homosexuality on the tube several years ago because it had nothing to do with her TV personality - it had to do with her private life, which was her business, not ours. In effect she did it to show off and shock everyone. It was the adult version of sticking your thumbs in your ears, waggling your fingers and sticking out your tongue at someone. She was and is a quick wit and very funny comedienne - just not as, because she showed the world a flaw in her personality which diminished her as a person. I won't comment on Rosie because I had no interest in her stage character to begin with and it wasn't her name or her size because I liked Rosey Greer - the 300 lb linebacker who made needlepoint doilies! Neither she nor 'the Donald' come across as nice people you'd want to know. Anyway, back on topic. I don't think it is necessary to teach small children about sexuality or its social aspects. After all, by the age of seven, I had already learned all about sex from my friends - and they were amazingly accurate. Perhaps sex is better kept in its place through the mysterious silence of grown-ups and teachers. There's plenty of schooltime later on to teach the scary details about diseases associated with sexual malpractice. It doesn't hurt to believe in Santa Claus for a few years. Years ago, I recall when going over my college transcripts that ‘they' determined that I had to take a course called "Family Relations" in order to be mailed an AA degree! I pointed out (to 'they') that I was already married and had two children - to no avail, I had to take the dumb course which taught me that statistically, I'd marry a brown-eyed, raven-haired woman like my mother! My petite blonde blue-eyed wife got a kick out of that! Hmmm... wonder if I'd mentioned that marriage was against my religious beliefs, I could have gotten out of taking the course? U.S. court upholds same-sex teaching to children - Sat Feb 24 BOSTON (Reuters) - A federal judge in Boston has dismissed a suit by two families who wanted to stop a Massachusetts town and its public school system from teaching their children about gay marriage, court documents show. The families last year filed the suit asserting that the reading of a gay-themed book and handing out to elementary school students of other children's books that discussed homosexuality without first notifying parents was a violation of their religious rights. Federal Judge Mark Wolf ruled on Friday that public schools are "entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy." "Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation," he said. He said the courts had decided in other cases that parents' rights to exercise their religious beliefs were not violated when their children were exposed to contrary ideas in school. The complaint filed against the town of Lexington, about 12 miles west of Boston, had said the school had "begun a process of intentionally indoctrinating very young children to affirm the notion that homosexuality is right and normal in direct denigration of the plaintiffs' deeply held faith." The book that sparked the case was "King & King" which tells the story of a crown prince who rejects a bevy of beautiful princesses, rebuffing each suitor until falling in love with a prince. The two marry, sealing the union with a kiss, and live happily ever after. The Lexington school system had said reading the book was not intended as sex education but as a way to educate children about the world in which they live, especially in Massachusetts, the only U.S. state where gays and lesbians can legally wed. A lawyer for the families said they would appeal the ruling, the Boston Globe reported on Saturday.