Obscanity: You'll know it when you see it

Mommy, Mommy, guess what I learned in school today??.

What they never told you in the commercials for Prop 8 was that the case in MA was decided under the “mere exposure” rule – i.e. mere exposure to the knowledge that something exists does not constitute a violation of parental rights. For example, teaching that Mormons exist does not equate with teaching the Mormon faith to your children. And teaching that gay people exist doesn’t equate with teaching your children that they should be gay. They were never “teaching” gay marriage; they merely had a packet of information about many types of families, and one of the families happened to have two parents of the same gender.

Mere exposure to the reality of existence does not constitute “teaching” it in public schools. If you don’t want your kids to know that other people exist, don’t send them to schools where they will meet other people. Nothing proves existence like coming face to face with it.

I have an idea for a new commercial. “Mommy, Mommy! Guess what I learned in school today! There are some people who don’t believe Jesus is the Lord! They’re called Jews! Mommy, I think I might be a JEW when I grow up!” [mother shows concerned look, calls the school board for an emergency session…]

Or even better: “Mommy, Mommy! Guess what I learned in school today! All Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law! It’s called the 14th Amendment! And we have a law just like it in our California constitution.” [mother tilts head in horrified consternation.] “Well, sweetie, actually some people don’t deserve equal rights and protections.” “But mommy, they told us in school that discrimination is wrong and everybody is equal!” “Well, sweetie, some people are more equal than others.” “Oh. Does that mean Christians are the boss of Jews?” “Yes, sweetie, it does.” “Oh, good! I’m going to go tell my friend right now; she wouldn’t let me on her swing set and now I can tell her she has to!” “Good job, sweetie.”

Okay, so I’m a little bit bitter. I did have a childhood friend/neighbor whose parents did a perfectly fine job of offsetting whatever tolerance she may have learned in school. One day when we were about 7 years old, we were playing on the swing set in my back yard and she wanted me to get off of my swing and let her have it (we had two swings, mind you). I said, “It’s my house!” and she said, “Well, Christians are the boss of Jews!” Needless to say, I sent her straight home. She frequently had similar things to say when she was angry; while our families had a working facade of tolerance, in which I would go over there and help her decorate her Christmas tree and she would come over and be our guest at the Passover seder, whenever we were in an argument, it always came down to “I hate Jews,” or “stupid JEWS!” or “Christians are the boss of JEWS!” I have absolutely no doubt as to where this sentiment came from. This same girl’s parents pulled their little boy out of school when “Heather Has Two Mommies” was put on the suggested reading list. So I have every confidence that parents will do JUST FINE at making sure their children are indoctrinated with their own morals even if they are “exposed” to “alternate cultures and lifestyles” in school. It’s not the public school’s job to make sure that children share their parents’ moral values. It’s the public school’s job to give the students an education, and to make sure that they learn how to be contributing members of society. That includes learning about all sorts of people and families, because, hey, guess what? This is America, and this is California, and we are beyond diverse.

Kids (and hell, most adults, still) need to learn that groups of people can be different and still be equal, because equal doesn’t mean the same.

A classmate of mine made a comment about equality and how same-gender marriages are not equal to heterosexual marriages because they are inherently different – and how that is just a fact about their difference, and is not meant to demean same-gender couples. Or at least, that’s what I took away from her comment. But I was thinking about that definition of the word “equal” in terms of marriages, and how under that definition, our marriage is inherently different from theirs and is therefore not equal.

Even mathematically speaking, “equal” doesn’t mean “identical.” It means that two sets of numbers or characters have the same *value*. Saying 2+2 is inherently different from saying “4” which is inherently different from saying 5-1 or 8/2 or sqrt{16} or 2^2. These are all COMPLETELY different expressions that mean completely different things and require completely different approaches – but they are all *equal* values. Recognizing couples’ equality doesn’t mean you’re saying that they are identical, or that they are not different. It says that they are *worth* the same and should be *valued* the same. How would you feel if you *needed* something that cost $20, and all you had was two $10s, and the store wouldn’t take it, because they kept insisting that two $10s was simply not the same as a $20 bill? This is the same kind of frustration we’re experiencing now, because we have something that may look different, but has the same value. Essentially, we’re trying to access this institution with our two $10s, and they’re insisting that only a $20 can buy a marriage license (presumably, a $20 out of the man’s wallet). I disagree. We are equal. We should be valued the same. And we deserve the same rights and responsibilities.

And now for the ridiculous parody cartoon that sparked this whole disjointed rant… ridiculous in the sense that what it depicts is pretty much what went on in the Yes on 8 campaign, which was utter ridiculousness. “If your children learn it, they will become it!”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.