Image by Getty Images via Daylife
As the parent of a first grader, this story grabbed my attention immediately. A class of first graders was taken on a school-sponsored, school-sanctioned, school-funded field trip to San Francisco City Hall to attend the wedding of their female teacher. To another female. At taxpayer expense.
A number of thoughts went through my head initially. How could the school do this? Did their parents know? Is this a proper use of taxpayer money? Isn’t there something more educational these first graders could be doing? Were these kids being used as political pawns?
So I did some research. I discovered that that this public elementary school did indeed schedule a school funded field trip for this teacher’s first grade class to attend the wedding. I also discovered that the children’s parents were indeed advised of this field trip, and given the opportunity to opt out of the trip. Apparently the parents of two children did exactly that. I also discovered that there is a proposition on California’s November ballot seeking to ban gay marriage, and that a reporter (who just happened to be at city hall for this gay wedding) noted one of the first graders was wearing a button opposing the proposition to ban gay marriage. Unfortuantely I was not able to determine whether that child was supplied with that button by the school or by his or her parents.
These children are certainly being used as pawns, but the difficult part is telling who is moving them around the chess board. No matter whether it is their parents, the school district or this particular teacher, using children to advance a political cause is reprehensible. If the proposed action doesn’t have enough attraction on its own, proponents should resist the urge to involve children in something they can’t understand.
As I stated, I am the parent of a first grader. He has had a couple field trips already this year. One was to Bradley Farms on Maple Avenue in Elmira, NY to pet the farm animals and look at pumpkins. The other was to the West Elmira Volunteer Fire Department, where he learned about fire safety and developed a plan for exiting our house in the event of a fire. Both resulted in some wonderful family discussions around the dinner table. That should be the intent of field trips; to provide age appropriate learning opportunities which can be followed up at home with further discussion and learning. I don’t know that first graders attending a gay wedding would fall into the category of age appropriate learning opportunities. I would feel the same way if these kids were dragged off to a straight wedding.
I would probably be considered a traditional parent. My two sons know nothing of the birds and bees. They spend their free time engaged in sports and playing outside whenever possible. They still think girls are “icky” and I intend to keep it that way as long as possible. When, if, and how I decide to discuss human sexuality with my children is a decision that my wife and I will make. Whether and how same sex relationships will be addressed will also be our decision. I do not need or want the school district imposing its morality on my family. That is and always has been the responsibility and prerogative of the parents. Schools need to butt out of traditional parental roles, and concentrate on teaching. They have a hard enough time with math and science. I can’t imagine the mess they would make in attempting to teach the legality and morality of same sex marriages in contemporary America.
Now to get back to the legalities of it all. Could the parents of these kids sue? Probably not, as long as they were advised of what the field trip would entail. If they weren’t advised they could sue, but might have a hard time establishing damages.
Could the taxpayers of this school district sue for mis-use of school funds? That is an interesting question. Taking first graders to same sex weddigs, even if it is their teacher’s wedding, seems a bit outside of the school district’s mission. With test results of american school children lagging far behind other industrialized nations, it would seem that there are other, better uses of the schools limited resources and time. While I doubt any lawsuit would be effective, if may provoke the school board and administration to take action against the officials responsible for this field trip.
First grade is an important time in a child’s development. They are making sure their letters point the right direction, continuing to build on their reading skills and vocabulary, and trying to perfect their monkey bar technique during recreation. The last thing they need to worry about is whether our constitution guarantees the right to same sex marriage.
In summation, I have three thoughts on this issue. 1. Schools should teach children reading, writing and arithmetic. 2. Parents should teach their children morality. 3. Kids should be allowed to be kids as long as humanly possible. They will have the rest of their lives to decide these issues for themselves.
Thanks for reading, and I welcome your comments!
Adam M. Gee, Esq.
NY and PA Personal Injury and Malpractice Attorney
The Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William Street
Elmira, NY 14901
Phone: (607)733-8866
Fax: (607)732-6062
Email: agee@zifflaw.com
www.zifflaw.com
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=eda8d4a8-4702-473b-b05d-8682568cd407)
Thanks for writing this. Your summation says it all and I concur.
Thanks for your comment, Leslie. I am happy to know that I’m not the only person who feels this way.
I was prepared for a glut of comments on this post, both in support and wishing to string me up. No one else has an opinion on this topic? Maybe I am closer to the main stream than I thought!
Adam M. Gee, Esq.
The First Circuit recently held that parents had no right to stop local schools from including books referring to same-sex relationships in materials made available or read to young elementary school students (Parker v. Hurley, No. 07-1528, available at
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pd.....28-01A.pdf ).
I would think (outside of San Francisco, where it is important to note that parents were permitted an opt-out) that a wedding field trip may have been pushing the envelope. The fact remains, however, that most kids (at least in urban areas) will know other kids who come from “alternative” families. Our twins (8) have been in a classroom in a very conservative charter school with a kid from a two mom family. To them, its no big deal; if they raise the topic, we’ll say what we think, but merely knowing about these people doesn’t turn them into an example our kids are going to follow.
Schools have always had to be careful that instruction/curriculum choices do not become attacks on parents’ sensibilities. With due respect to parents like the First Circuit plaintiffs, family structure is simply a new case to which traditional (and I hope, common sense) rules apply.
First and foremost, I agree children should be allowed to be children for as long as possible. One of the issues I disagree with you, in part on, is where you said “When, if, and how I decide to discuss human sexuality with my children is a decision that my wife and I will make.” I agree talking to your children about human sexuality is, and should be your right. Where I disagree with you is lumping discussions of marriage in with human sexuality.
Children, especially in grade school, don’t associate a wedding with sex simply because most children that age don’t know about sex. If they do I certainly hope it’s their parents that are instructing them or someone the parents trust to inform them about healthy sexuality, in an unbiased manner.
What I mean by this is if children are taught about homosexuality in a non-judgmental way, thousands of kids will grow up much happier and get an edge on life instead of spending 20 or more years trying to figure out what’s wrong with them.
I am a gay man and if I would have been taught back in 5th grade (when my school first started teaching sexuality) that homosexuality does exist, here’s what it is and it does happen, whether our parents like it or not, I would have been a much happier individual growing up. As it was, I spent many years hating the thoughts running through my head, trying so very hard to not have them, and ultimately hating myself. Please try to remember back to that time for you and what thoughts were running through your head. Could you stop thinking about girls?
I would love to think that all parents will talk to their children about sex in an open, frank and non-judgmental way. It will certainly help the kids as well as helping society. And I hope you will, when the time is right, talk about homosexuals, whether you think it’s a sin or not, just so your children have all the facts. They deserve that right. Can you imagine putting one of your children through years of mental torture for something you didn’t discuss? Please don’t do that.
I know I have gone on but this is something I’m very passionate about. To get back to topic, yes, I agree, taking the kids to their teachers wedding was wrong, not only because it’s being used as an example to oppose same-sex marriage, but because I don’t think it’s something worthy of a school field trip. I wouldn’t expect a straight teacher’s class to attend his/her wedding during school hours either.
Thanks for reading this.
James
Edward – thanks for your post and the cite to that recent decision out of the first circuit in Massachusetts. If I didn’t know better I would think it had been written by your 9th circuit in California. I think it is a horrible decision which affirms the state’s attempt to take over the moral upbringing of our children. Elementary schools have no business instructing our children on such controversial topics when they can’t even competently instruct the kids in areas of core curriculum. They are stepping far outside their mission, and the courts are permitting it to occur.
It says a lot that the courts of this nation find the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, but permit public schools to insert books and materials into the curriculum which teach acceptance of highly controversial and predominantly illegal activities.
James – thanks so much for your comment. Your thoughts on the topic are cogent and full of the common sense approach that should be utilized in these circumstances. The existence of different lifestyles is a reality all parents must deal with when they decide to have such discussions with their children. Now we need the schools to do their job and leave the parenting to parents.
Adam M. Gee, Esq.
Would you have posted the same piece if the class had a field trip to their teacher’s wedding and she was marrying a man?
If the answer is no…that it wouldn’t have been a big deal or raised eyebrows, then why is it a big deal when two people of the same sex get married? Seriously, why does anyone care?
Well, the answer is clear…your particular form of religion or belief system thinks it’s bad or wrong. And you have every right to think that. However, you do not have a right to impose your religion or belief system upon everyone.
And schools SHOULD teach children to be tolerant, open-minded and caring, along with the three R’s. Would you have the schools teach them the opposite… intolerant, closed-minded, and uncaring?
To answer James Carroll’s question, I think a school field to ANY wedding is ridiculous and it makes no difference to me that it was a lesbian wedding vs a heterosexual wedding.
This topic has generated a lot of interest and it certainly doesn’t surprise me that people have very strong feelings about this subject.
As one of the blog co-authors, I have to tell you that even though we all work together and write this blog together, each of the authors have their own opinion on this issue. For example, I have three teenagers and my wife and I have been VERY open with them regarding all issues of sexuality. As a consequence, we have free-ranging conversations about all types of sexual topics without embarrassment or reservation.
I credit a lot of this openness to an evening program my kids attended (with a parent) when they were 4th graders. I STRONGLY believe this program SHOULD be offered in the schools (as it was years ago)because I personally believe that MORE information is always better than less information. I personally believe that we are not doing enough in our schools to educate kids about sexuality.
I know my opinion on this issue is directly contrary to that of my co-author Adam Gee. So be it. We live in this great country where we ALL have the right to freely hold and express our own opinions. It doesn’t mean that I am right and Adam is wrong. It only means that we disagree on an issue.
But HOW we discuss a disagreement is what is important here– we should all keep an open mind and respectfully debate the issue rather than throw stones at one another.
I think the discussion via these comments is great and I thank you all for taking the time to share your views.
Jim Reed
NY Injury & Malpractice Lawyer
jreed@zifflaw.com
Jim and Jim – I clearly stated in my original post I would be opposed to this field trip regardless of the gender of those getting married, so I think we are all on the same page there. We also are in agreement that schools should encourage tolerance and acceptance of people who are different than they are. I don’t think any rational person could argue otherwise.
The point of the original post is that FIRST GRADERS do not need to be introduced to the concept of homosexuality in order to teach them tolerance and acceptance.
At some point kids are old enough and mature enough to have those discussions. I don’t know when that point arrives, but I know that my 3rd grader isn’t there yet. At least as far as I am concerned. And isn’t my opinion on whether he is ready to be introduced to the concept the only opinion that matters?
One of the previous posters raised the point that discussing gay marriage doesn’t necessarily lead to a discussion of sexuality. I disagree. I think it inevitably leads there. Discussions of gay marriage are particularly inappropriate IN THE FIRST GRADE because it remains illegal in approximately 48 states in this nation.
I think the program Jim Reed discussed is a wonderful idea. Notice that it INVOLVES the parents. Rather than presenting it to a certain grade, perhaps it should be made available for whenever the parents decide their child is ready.
As I wrote in the original post, I am a traditional parent. In saying that, I did not mean to infer that I am intolerant or unaccepting of people who are different than I am. That couldn’t be frther from the truth. What I meant is that I want my children to grow up innocent and carefree. I intend to protect them from outside influences and the worries of the world for as long as I possbly can.
My other point in writing the original post was that schools continue to overstep their bounds. They should let parents do the parenting and stick to the three R’s.
As Jim mentioned, this is a hot topic that I knew would provoke some discussion. The points and counterpoints are fun to argue, and I thank everyone who has contributed. If there are other lurkers out there thinkin of weighing in, please do!
Adam M. Gee, Esq.
Good points, Adam. Thanks for writing a story like this, though. It is a very risky story to write about and you should be given kudos for doing so. The very fact we’re discussing it in a civil, intelligent manner is a major step.
And you are utimately correct, this is a topic that the parents truly need to step up and talk to their kids when they believe the time is right.
Keep up the good work.
Hi Adam,
I’m getting to your little blog party a bit late but I came across your post as I was reading a few articles regarding the recently passed prop 8 in California.
I am a gay man and I completely agree with you. What I think really strikes me as funny is that all angry parents (regardless of the type of gendered wedding) would see a stunt like this as an imposition of values upon their children consented or not. What really aggravates me about the whole thing is that by doing what these two women have done they have inadvertently underminded the fight that many of the LGBT community has been struggling with all this time. People outside of this story will see this as a moment where gay people are trying to train children to become gay. Which sadly is what most people will misinterpret from all of this regardless of the women’s intentions for the field trip. The parents who understood and allowed their children to partake of this field trip knew full well what they were doing when they signed the permission slip. I give them kudos for being open minded, tolerant and a bit more forward thinking than many other parents would probably be. But the message will be entirely misread which is the crux of this story. Others outside of the event will see this as a shameless and indecent act of promoting an agenda or belief system which propagates an “immoral” lifestyle according to their personal, spiritual or religious beliefs. I respect people’s rights to disagree with me. I don’t expect everyone to understand my life every bit as much as I may not understand everything about theirs. We’re all different. We’re all on this planet to learn, grow, thrive and if we’re lucky find true fulfillment and happiness whatever that may be. Tolerance and acceptance above all else should be preached and practiced by all. But I believe in order understand one another we have to stop and listen before we act. That seems to be something we don’t do in this country.
As a gay man my only wish is to be treated like a human being. I’m not here to try and turn people gay. I’m not here to tell you your religion is wrong or that you should live how I feel you should live. NO! I want to share this world and all it’s joys and sorrows and learn and connect with people on a human level. Right now if I were in a relationship that I wanted to protect there are not many legal rights under the law that would protect me or my loved one should something happen. As a human and a citizen of this country that’s all I ask for. I don’t wish to redefine marriage I want its legal benefits and protections for my own family and loved ones should the need arise. As it stands should I be in a long committed relationship and something were to happen to me or my partner there would be no visitation rights for hospital stays. No estate rights should either one of us pass away. It’s the simple things like that that many heterosexual couples take for granted when they get married because the rights are available and understood. So in closing this isn’t a fight about changing the belief system or religion of anyone rather it is a simple request that irregardless of creed, race, political background, or religious belief that as a human being I ask for the same protections that everyone else takes for granted. Is that so much to ask?
Mr. Cruz – thank you for your comment. I certainly agree that the promoters of this field trip may have undercut their cause by turning it into a political statement. Zealots sometimes can’t see the forest through the trees.
What you ask for from society is certainly not too much to expect. Based upon the civility with which my original blog post has been discussed, I suspect that you won’t have much longer to wait.
In the interim, I do have a couple suggestions to safeguard your legal rights. First, speak to an attorney! Some of the things you mentioned (hospital visitation, property ownership and transfer of assets upon death) can be accomplished through the use of proper planning. Health care proxies, which grant medical care decision making authority, will virtually ensure access to a loved one in the hospital. Property can be owned jointly regardless of whether two people are “married” or not. Properly drafted wills, trusts and estate plans can virtually guarantee that your assets end up where you want them to go.
Always remember that there is more than one way to skin a cat!
Thanks for reading and thanks for your comment!
Adam M. Gee, Esq.