RuPaul as….Sarah Palin?

From John Polly at our sister site NewNowNext.com:

‘Tis the season for another hot-topic-worthy ready shot of RuPaul, and this time she’s “Going Vogue!” Watch out, Grandma Palin. Ru’s got on her red anorak and she’s ready to govern! And I’m guessing Ru knows her way around a lumberjack. Plus, I’m …

Eve Pearlman: Curriculum battle lines drawn over values vs. bigotry in Alameda

A HOT TOPIC AROUND TOWN the last several months has been Alameda Unified School District’s proposed anti-bullying curriculum, which has been discussed with increasing fervor, and has turned into a referendum on gay rights. I admit I’d only been paying half attention to the debate (though my husband has been actively advocating for the curriculum’s adoption), until Tuesday night when I watched hours of testimony at the school board meeting, my heart dropping as a long line of speakers voiced their opposition to a few short lessons acknowledging the existence of gay and lesbian families.

“It’s about sex!” the opponents claimed. But teaching about same-gender families is no more about sex than the words “marriage” and “husband” and “wife” and “wedding” are about sex. Yes, marriage is based in part on a sexual commitment, but we speak about husbands and wives all the time in a way in which sexuality is not the focus. To children, the word lesbian is no more about sex than the word marriage is.

“But I want to teach my child about these things,” parents said. “I want to teach my beliefs to my child.” I have strong empathy for parents who want to impart their values to their children. But I do not have empathy when that “value” is that someone else is a lesser person. Imagine if the “value” in question were that women should not own property or that people could be owned by other people or that people with certain skin color should not be allowed to vote. These are not “values,” these are discriminatory prejudices.

At Tuesday’s meeting, the technique of the well-organized and coordinated curriculum opponents was to attack the series of lessons — designed to complement an already-established anti-bullying curriculum — on a number of technical grounds. “It’s not legal,” they said. “It doesn’t go far enough” or “It privileges one group over another.”

But these attacks were contrived and disingenuous. Most curriculum opponents operated from what only few more frankly admitted: They don’t think gay families are the moral equivalent of their own straight families. They don’t think gay families are “OK” and they don’t want their kids being taught that they are.

As many in this debate have done, all you have to do is switch the opponents’ arguments to another social group to see how undemocratic their viewpoints are. Would the district allow a student to opt out of a Black history lesson? A celebration of Chinese New Year? To leave the room any time divorce is discussed?

Of course not.

Religion has been used to support all sorts of atrocities past and present (as well as all sorts of good things). Because an argument is religion-based doesn’t mean that it is more right, more valid or more just. In this country, in this democracy, in this friendly city of 70,000, it is our shared value that all people are created equal — and to those parents who want to teach otherwise, well, this is not a “value.” It is bigotry. And it has no place in our community’s schools.

It has surprised me that in this day and age, in the Bay Area, that some are so hostile to difference and so obsessed with other people’s sex lives. The aim of the Alameda school district curriculum is simple: to teach about reality in order to help children skillfully and respectfully navigate their diverse community. All families (the majority of families, in fact) don’t look like the Cleavers. Families have all sorts of configurations, incorporating grandparents and cousins, step-siblings and stepfathers, same gender couples and opposite gender couples. That is reality. Children should be taught what’s real.

See Eve Pearlman: Curriculum battle lines drawn over values vs. bigotry

Alameda Times-Star

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/eve-pearlman-…

Supreme Court takes up dispute over endorsement of gay adoption by Florida Bar’s family-law section

State Supreme Court justices critically questioned both sides today in a dispute over whether the family-law section of the Florida Bar should be allowed to legally endorse adoption for gay couples. A circuit judge in Miami threw out the statute banning adoption by gays but the case is headed for the Supreme Court. The Bar itself has not taken a position but its family-law section sought to file a “friend of the court” brief supporting the circuit court ruling. Lawyers supporting the statute objected — saying the Bar shouldn’t be using compulsory dues paid by all lawyers to fight on one side of a controversial issue.

Tallahassee attorney Barry Richard said the family section is a voluntary association and that its lawyer members have a right to take positions. But Matt Staver, representing the conservative Liberty Counsel, said Bar rules forbid lobbying on either side of a hot topic.

The attorneys argued over the distinction between lobbying the Legislature and filing a legal brief in court. They also disagreed about whether a voluntary section of the bar is restrained by the same rules applying to the full bar.

Chief Justices Peggy Quince and Justices Barbara Pariente, Fred Lewis, Charles Canady and Ricky Polston pressed Richard and Staver on the legal distinctions.

Pariente said that if the prohibition on pursuing controversial, divisive issues had been interpreted as a ban 50 years ago, the Bar could not have taken sides on racial integration. Lewis said he doesn’t think much of “friend of the court” briefs, because they are usually partisan advocacy rather than independent guidance on the law, and that the public doesn’t make a distinction between a section of the Bar and the whole Bar itself.

The court gave no indication when it might rule on whether the family law section can file its brief in the gay adoption case. See Supreme Court takes up dispute over endorsement of gay adoption by … Tallahassee.com

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/supreme-court…

Adoption is still hot topic in Florida

Proposition 8, Same-Sex Rights Examined at 2009 AALS Annual Meeting, Leading Legal Scholars to discuss Controversial Issues

SAN DIEGO, CA – The Association of American Law Schools (AALS) 2009 Annual Meeting will feature programs devoted to the discussion of Proposition 8, as well as Same-Sex Rights. The Annual Meeting will take place on January 6-10, 2009, in San Diego.

Democracy’s Dilemma: The Case of Proposition 8, an AALS Executive Committee Roundtable program, will examine the November, 2008 vote which overturned a state Supreme Court decision that had upheld the legality of same-sex marriage. The election and its aftermath sparked deep disagreements about the rule of law and the nature of the democratic process. Supporters of same-sex marriage questioned whether a direct initiative was the appropriate way to make policy when fundamental civil rights were at stake. Defenders of the proposition argued that marriage is a cultural institution reflecting venerable traditions, making a vote of the people entirely appropriate. The role of the courts, the meaning of marriage, the scope of civil rights protections, the complications of a federal system, and the intricacies of California politics – all of these matters and more were implicated by the controversy surrounding Proposition 8. This roundtable discussion draws on leading experts who are eminently qualified to address these concerns, which go to the heart of defining the legal system’s role in a pluralistic society. Democracy’s Dilemma: The Case of Proposition 8 will be held from 8:30 – 10:15 a.m. on Friday, January 9, in the Marriott Hotel and Marina.

Proposition 8, Legal Challenges and The Future of Marriage Between Same- Sex Couples, one of four selected “Hot Topic Programs,” will also address the immediate issues raised by the passage of Proposition 8: constitutional challenges to Proposition 8, including the question whether the voter initiative validly “amended” the state constitution or instead illegally revised it, the future of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) and legal and constitutional trends in other states with regard to this and related issues. Proposition 8, Legal Challenges and The Future Of Marriage Between Same-Sex Couples, will be held from 3:30 – 5:15 p.m. on Friday, January 9, 2009 in the Marriott Hotel and Marina.

The AALS Section on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Issues is also sponsoring several programs concerning same-sex rights. A day long program entitled Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Across the Curriculum: The Challenges of Keeping Law Schools Current with Recent Developments in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues will feature sessions on: recent developments in sexual orientation and gender identity issues, transgender issues, employment discrimination and the Solomon Amendment. This Section’s program will be held on January 7 from 8:45 a.m. – 5:15 p.m. in the Marriott Hotel and Marina.

The entire AALS 2009 Annual Meeting program can be found on the Association’s Web site at www.aals.org/am2009/. Members of the press are invited to attend free of charge. Those interested in attending are asked to notify Deborah Quick from January 6-10, 2009 at 619-645-6955. Press also may register on-site at the AALS office located in the Manchester Room on the North Tower/Lobby Level of the San Diego Marriott Hotel & Marina beginning Tuesday after 6 p.m. January 6, 2009, and continuing through Saturday, January 10, 2009.

The Association of American Law Schools is a resource for the improvement of the quality of legal education by networking law school faculty, professional staff and deans to information and resources. AALS is the principal representative of legal education to the federal government, other national higher education organizations and learned societies.