Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

California teachers union donates to No on 8 campaign

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Julie Phineas 16 Oct 2008, 5:29pm

    Wow thats a HUGE donation!!! I hope they use it to buy yard signs to put in the community. I see a lot of Yes on 8 yard signs out.

  2. Rob English 16 Oct 2008, 8:54pm

    The CTA NEVER took a poll of its members about supporting this ballot measure and CTA is supposed to be supporting educational legislation not personal agendas. This is a JOKE!!!!!

  3. Speaking as a UK citizen, but a trade unionist:

    most progressive unions have a standing policy of supporting LGBT rights. The union executive would see this as the correct stance for the union under these policies of supporting such lesbian and gay members who may want to marry. To do otherwise would be to support discrimination

  4. In November, Californian citizens will vote on Proposition 8 of the state constitution. The proposition will define marriage as existing between one man and one woman only, and will effectively ban gay marriage in the state.

    The majority of CA voters will vote to continue to define
    marriage as existing between one man and one woman –
    I have no doubt that Californians will stick with the
    traditonal marriage ceremony and homosexual marriages
    will not be allowed — you can try again next time!
    The same outcome will happen Florida, where I live.
    You can have homosexual union, but no homosexual marriage.

  5. To Hank, the seer:
    If you are soooooo sure, by to bother? Why soooo much millions wasted when the CA voters “will do as you foresee”?
    Well, as you say. If not now, it will be next time. But have no doubt that IT WILL BE. Have a sit and wait.

  6. why do so many homophobes visit this site?

    Marriage is whatever the State decides it is: I note that in muslim countries polygamy is recognised by the State – is this TRUE marriage, or is the monogamous model correct?

    CP is not equal to marriage because it’s DIFFERENT. Secular marriage between two people of the same sex should be of no concern to anyone else, except of course people who want to kep marriage “special” (and this in a nation that has the highest divorce rate in the world!!)

  7. John Steer 18 Oct 2008, 2:25pm

    “You can have homosexual union, but no homosexual marriage.”

    I cant wait to see the smile wiped off your face, Hank, when this Prop8 is rejected. This Prop8 is simply more proof that you and your small minded kind are getting desperate.

  8. the fact is that the ‘heterosexuals’ is afraid of what will happen to society if members of the gay community are allowed to marry. Where is the threat? Certainly not from the gay/bi/transgender society… Sadly it’s the white, middle class heterosexual male, who feels threatened by this. We only want what’s in our right, the same treatment as anyone else who’s heterosexual. Many of us do not want to take part in what you regard to a ‘normal’ life. You can keep all that for as far I’m concerned. Who’s is to judge what is family values? As long as there are loving and caring relationships. Be a bit more open minded and you’ll soon find out that it enriches your lives.
    From UK Teacher

  9. pj gildernew 21 Oct 2008, 4:40am

    As a public school teacher in the great state of California and someone who teaches sociology I support Prop 8 not because I hate homosexuals but there are several points of interest that seem to be overlooked and it will effect ALL California’s and eventually ALL Americans as it has in all 9 countries that have legalized same sex marriages around the world. First for those who keep clamoring they need the right to vote ONLY several hundred (not thousands)of same sex couples have been wed since its legalization in June of 2008. That seems to stick with the 2% rate of same sex couples getting married in the other 9 nations. Not only does same sex couples not get married but also there is a huge decline in heterosexual couples. This leads to a 48% increase in the number of children born out of wedlock. If you look at social indicators of those who are incarcerated, poorly educated, and drug/alcohol addictions, the number 1 factor across the board were people who came from broken homes (male and female parents not married). Some would continue to say, so what! Well, let’s connect the dots…high incarceration rates; higher taxes to care of them, lower educational achievement, poorer job choices and eventually forces higher minimum wages due to majority of population to support themselves and increase of entitlement programs (higher taxes again), higher drug/alcohol abuse, more crime to pay for addictions and poor work habits (see russia and their alcoholism problem with their workforce). In the end taxes have increased in the 9 countries to above 65% of the average workers income to support the results of the destruction of the “traditional family”. Those 9 countries now regret what they have done to destroy their countries. I love my country too much to allow a small amount of the population estimated at 4%(gay & lesbian) to determine the fate of The United States of America. There is ssome great information on prop 8 and its arguments on the following website please visit it to become more informed in some of the arguments for yes on 8.
    http://www.yeson8.info
    If you don’t agree with my assertions look them up yourself, you’ll see they are supported with data.

  10. Warren Sebra 22 Oct 2008, 4:42pm

    This is outrageous to me. Its amazing that the CTA would make a policical donation in a time when the economy is so bad. Plus teachers uninions should not be political. This just goes to show you how gay marriage would be taught in our schools to our children. YES ON PROP 8!

  11. pj gildernew, you seem to have a shaky grasp of the notion of cause and effect. Just because a handful of gay couples get married, it doesn’t mean we stop anyone else from getting married, and to then link it with anarchy in the streets stretches that link to breaking point. Straight people are still free to get married and the fact that they choose not to is more of a reflection on them than a reflection on us. We never told them not to bother did we?

  12. pj gildernew, your application of your data it is appallingly tunnel visioned and uses some rather stupid assumptions.

    “Not only does same sex couples not get married but also there is a huge decline in heterosexual couples.”

    This is a stupid statement. Where does it say that the decline of heterosexual marriage is not due to the advent of same sex marriage… in other words, they are not mutually exclusive.

    “In the end taxes have increased in the 9 countries to above 65% of the average workers income to support the results of the destruction of the “traditional family”

    Again, a argument based on premise, assumption, and lack of understanding of the economy. How can a small number of same sex marriages cause tax increases? They can’t. In fact the average earning of gay couples is statistically higher than those of their straight counterparts, so in fact we support the other “traditional family”, as you put it, through more taxes. And you are a teacher??? No wonder the so many Americans are renowned for their reputations of sparkling intelligence.

    And finally, the very use of the term “destruction of the traditional family” underlies your true colours… you are clearly one of those NARTH supporting fools that uses corrupted data, poor science and infantile assumptions to back up your bigotry. Try reading a bit more on science and the economy before making such wild statements, not all of us are as stupid as you.

    God help your students.

    As for you, Warren Sebra, your a complete twit. Unions ARE politicised, you fool. Try reading about your country’s own history and the labour movements.

    Can some answer me, why are all the bigots invariably stupid or lacking an understanding of the rudimentaries of science and history???

  13. “This is a stupid statement. Where does it say that the decline of heterosexual marriage is not due to the advent of same sex marriage… in other words, they are not mutually exclusive.”

    Will- just wondered if you accidentally slipped 2 extra ‘not’s into your third paragraph as I’m having difficulty making head or sense of it-
    “Where does it say that the decline of heterosexual marriage is due to the advent of same sex marriage… in other words, they are mutually inclusive.”
    That makes more sense to me in context, is that what you meant?

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all