Children are not “Mere Creatures
of the State” Reflections on the Impact of
Same-Sex Marriage on Education
By Lynn D. Wardle
Charter & Home School Group
Dean & Linda Forman’s Home
Sacramento, CA
Saturday, October 11, 2008
THE DILEMMA OF MINORITY
• The total incapacity of humans at birth, and
variable maturation.
• Our legal system in based on the notion of
individual competency for accountability.
THE DILEMMA OF Legalized Same-Sex
Marriage
• Same-Sex Marriage Is Based on Assumption
that opposition to SSM is same as opposition
to inter-racial marriage: bigotry.
• Bob Jones Universisty case
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FOR PARENTAL RIGHTS
• Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
• “Without doubt" among the undefined "liberties"
protected by the 14th amendment are the rights
"to marry, to establish a home and bring up
children. . . ." Corresponding to this right of
control, "it is the natural duty of the parent to
give his children education suitable to their
station in life.”
• Plato’s ideas of state rearing of children would
violate “both letter and spirit of the
Constitution."
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925):
[W]e think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922
unreasonably interferes with the liberty of
parents and guardians to direct the upbringing
and education of children under their control. . . .
The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all
governments in this Union repose excludes any
general power of the State to standardize its
children by forcing them to accept instruction
from public teachers only. The child is not the
mere creature of the State; those who nurture
him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled
with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him
for additional obligations.”
Prince v. Massachusetts (1944):
“It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and
nurture of the child reside first in the parents,
whose primary function and freedom include
preparation for obligations the state can
neither supply nor hinder. . . . And it is in
recognition of this that [Meyer and Pierce]
have respected the private realm of family life
which the state cannot enter.”
But "the family itself is not beyond regulation in the public
interest. . . .” Because there were substantial risks of physical and
other harm to children from selling religious tracts on busy public
streets the Court upheld the conviction.
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972):
“There is no doubt as to the power of a State,
having a high responsibility for education of its
citizens, to impose reasonable regulations for the
control and duration of basic education. . . .
[Likewise,] the values of parental direction of the
religious upbringing and education of their
children in their early and formative years have a
high place in our society. . . . Thus, a State's
interest in universal education, however highly
we rank it, is not totally free from a balancing
process when it impinges on other fundamental
rights and interest such as . . . the traditional
interest of parents with respect to the religious
upbringing of their children so long as they, in the
words of Pierce, "prepare [them] for additional
obligations."
Yoder (cont’d)
•
[“T]his case involves the fundamental interest of
parents, as contrasted with that of the State, to guide
the religious future and education of their children. The
history and culture of Western civilization reflect a
strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and
upbringing of their children. This primary role of the
parents in the upbringing of their children is now
established beyond debate as an enduring American
tradition.”
ABUSES AND INCIDENTS INVOLVING
EDUCATION
•
•
•
In General:
-In Australia, the use of the terms “husband” and “wife” would be
banned under education regulations that were proposed (and later
withdrawn due to parental protests)
-In SC, Immo HS Principal resigned after being required to recognize a
gay club for students;
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Elementary & Middle School:
-Adams Middle School in Brentwood cross-dressing day (cancelled)
- Mennonite school (11 students) in Quebec
A community of a dozen Mennonite families in Quebec is ready to
leave the province rather than succumb to provincial government
demands that would require their children to be taught evolution and
homosexuality. While the government sees its actions as nothing
more than enforcing technical regulations, many view the case as
intolerance of Christian faith.
High School:
CA new HS student (Mormon) teasing-teasing back letter in file
University:
Yeshiva University student housing
Georgetown University Gay club recognition & funding
Trinity Western University (Evangelical Free Church) lost accreditation
(Prov. SCt aff’d)
Hostile environment (Harvard posters torn down)
Other Headlines
•
•
•
•
•
070223
Montgomery County Gender-beding Sex Ed
020530
Haywood School Encourages Gay Teacher Proselyting
020418
Class humiliates students with religious beliefs against
homosexuality
001014
Mass Lesbian Judge Orders School Let Boy Wear Girls
Clothers at School
991123
Gay tolerance booklet sent to 15,000 school systems
ANALYSIS OF HOMOSEXUAL
CURRICULUM IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
• Parker v. Hurley
• Brown v. Hot, Sexy and Safer Productions
Constitutional Significance
•
“Religion, morality and knowledge being
necessary to good government and the
happiness of mankind, schools and the means
of education shall forever be encouraged.”
•
Ordinance of the Northwest Territory, art.
III (1787)
“Virtue” Clauses
The importance of virtue was explicitly acknowledged in several of the state constitutions of the
founding era. The original Vermont Constitution of 1777 contained a “Virtue Clause,” ch. II,
§ 41, later combined in the revised Vermont Constitution of 1786 with the “Education
Clause” to read. “Laws for the encouragement of virtue and prevention of vice and
immorality, ought to be constantly kept in force, and duly executed: and a competent
number of schools ought to be maintained in each town, for the convenient instruction of
youth. . . .” Vt. Const. of 1786, ch. II,
Commenting on the evolution of this provision the Vermont Supreme Court noted: In 1786 . . .
the Virtue and Education Clauses were combined to form a single section. Nothing could be
more indicative of the close connection in the minds of the framers between virtue and all
that that implied—civic responsibility, ethical values, industry, self-restraint—and public
education than this textual union within the Constitution. No explanation for the 1786
modification survives, but the logical connection is self-evident. The amalgamation was
perfectly consistent with the commonly held view of the framers that virtue was essential to
self-government, and that education was the primary source of virtue.
. . . .In thus characterizing education as the “cement of [the] State,” Allen was expressing “a
central tenet of republicanism: no democracy can survive without a virtuous citizenry. . . ‘and
to inspire it ought to be the principal business of education.’”
-J. Nelson, Adequacy in Education: An Analysis of the Constitutional Standard in Vermont, 18 Vt. L.
Rev. 7, 35-37 (1993).
Brigham v. State, 692 A.2d 385, 392-94 (Vt. 1997).
CONCLUSION
• As Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institution at Stanford put it in a
column, “High Ideals and No Principles” (October 8, 2008):
•
• "What is called "sex education," [or I would add sexual diversity
public school curriculum] whether for kindergartners or older
children, is not education about biology but indoctrination in values
that go against the traditional values that children learn in their
families and in their communities.
"Obviously, the earlier this indoctrination begins, the better its
chances of overriding traditional values. The question is not how
urgently children in kindergarten need to be taught about sex [or gay
families] but how important it is for indoctrinators to get an early
start."