Keeping with the nice spirit of cooperation and tolerance that Ivan has fostered on this page today with his post below, I would like to link a nice defense of our Church against the vicious attacks by Prop. 8 opponents. Please read here for more.
Money quote:
Every decent voice needs to stand with the LDS folks against this kind of vicious attack on their faith community because as American citizens, they have exercised their civil rights to vote, organize, and donate.
Wow… I’d be interested to know who suggested making that TV ad, and then who signed off on it. It reeks of Joseph Goebbels-style PR.
It’s good to see people outside of the campaign recognizing this.
The latest Protect Marriage Yes on 8 television ad in California shows an incredibly cute 8 year old Hispanic girl bringing the book King and King home to her mother saying “Guess what I learned in school today. . . I can marry a princess!”
The anti-Prop 8, pro gay marriage crowd is running ads charging this whole idea that public schools will teach gay marriage is just a “lie.”
The latest press release from the Protect Marriage Yes on 8 campaign in California rather cleverly points out the same groups now charging its a lie public schools will teach about gay marriage whether parents like it or not — were just in court in Massachussetts filing amicus briefs arguing parents don’t have any right to opt their children out of the pro-gay marriage curriculum.
From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:
“In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.” [p 5]
From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:
“There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue – or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.” [pp1-2]
From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:
“Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…King and King.” [p 9]
Which side is really telling the truth here about its aims?