Can’t use terms “mother” or “father”

Diane Robertson

In drafting a law that would legalize gay-marriage in France, French law-makers are taking gender neutrality one step further. They plan to remove the terms, “Mother” and “Father” from all government documents.

The law that will be presented to France’s President Francois Hollande’s cabinet for approval on October 31, states, “marriage is a union of two people, of different or the same gender”. The law also states that all references to “mothers and fathers” in the nation’s civil code will be swapped for the non-gender-specific “parents.” In addition, the law would give equal adoption rights to same-sex couples.

A law this extensive is bound to have a profound effect on other laws. From a legal perspective, using gender-neutral terms will oversimplify complicated situations that arise from conflicts between a biological parent and a non-biological partner. Will this law allow a same-gender relationship to deny a child visitation rights with his or her biological mother or father?  This law undoubtedly puts the interests of adults above the interests of a child.

In a world where more and more of the population feels entitled to certain benefits from the government– healthcare, housing, jobs, food, education– governments are forgetting the most important entitlement. Children are entitled to a relationship with both their mother and their father. At the same time that laws are being made to provide food, healthcare , jobs and housing, other laws are being made that remove a child’s most important need—both a mother and father.

Fall Preview: Same-Sex “Marriage”

Diane Robertson

The United States Supreme court convenes soon. This season, the court will look at several cases concerning family law. On September 24th, the Supreme Court will begin its first review of Hollingworth v. Perry, commonly known as Proposition 8. On this same day, the court will review Windsor v. United States, one of the four court cases challenging DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).

Every year, the Court receives approximately 10,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari.  The Court grants and hears oral argument in about 75-80 cases. With so many cases concerning gay-marriage appealing to the Supreme Court this year, it is almost certain that 2013 will be the year that gay-marriage is argued in front of the nine justices of the Supreme Court.

Of the four DOMA cases and the proposition 8 case, none require the court to address the constitutionality of gay-marriage on a national level. In all four DOMA cases, section 3 of the law is the main portion being challenged. DOMA’s Section 3 — affecting more than 1,000 federal laws — restricts provisions in any federal statute to marriages between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court only needs to take up the issue of whether or not the federal government is required to validate the marriages of homosexual couples from states where gay marriage is legal.

In the proposition 8 case, the ninth circuit court of appeals ruled in such a way that affects only the state of California—ruling that if a state once grants a right to same-sex marriage it is unconstitutional to remove that right when it serves no other purpose than to “lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians.” The Supreme Court need only to decide if Proposition 8 is unconstitutional for removing a right already given.

These cases, however, do grant the court opportunity to decide whether or not gay marriage is a “right” under the Constitution. If the justices decide to rule on the constitutionality of gay marriage, then the legalization of gay marriage for the entire United States will be decided by nine non-elected persons.

Where gay marriage is legal, abundant changes in law, education, and society occur—religious freedom and the right to act on one’s conscience is threatened. With so much social change that gay marriage brings, one would think that the Supreme Court would do better to leave this sort of legislation up to the elected officials in Congress. If gay marriage is to be legalized throughout the United States, shouldn’t it be decided by the hundreds of law makers the people have chosen rather than nine appointed judges?

A Microphone or a Muzzle?

Diane Robertson

Should public school and public university teachers and coaches be allowed to speak up in city councils or post political or religious opinions on Facebook? Should they be allowed to lobby their state legislatures and testify during committee meetings about laws they feel passionate about? Should  free speech and the right to be involved in the democratic process be allowed to every American citizen no matter their career choice?

Some teachers and coaches over the last couple of years have found that their communities and employers don’t agree that they should have these same rights given to every other American citizen.

Most recently, a University of Nebraska assistant football coach, Ron Brown, attended an Omaha City Council hearing and testified against a proposed anti-discrimination ordinance that would give a special protected status to homosexual and transgendered people.  In his three minute testimony, Brown expressed his belief in the Bible and declared, “the real question I guess I have for you all is – what does God say?”

A member of the Lincoln Board of Education, Barbara Baier, wrote to the Administration of the University to request his dismissal due to his city council testimony. She cited the university-wide non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation. Baier believes Brown’s testimony at a city council creates an atmosphere hostile to gay student-athletes in his University job.

Fortunately for Brown, Osborne, the athletic director at the University, said Brown is within his rights to express his personal views, “I think it’s important that there be clarity with what you do in your capacity at the university and what you do as a private citizen.” Even then, Brown has declared, “To be fired for my faith would be a greater honor than to be fired because we didn’t win enough games.”

Others in the teaching profession have not been dealt with so kindly by their employers. Last fall, a teacher in New Jersey, Viki Knox, posted on her personal Facebook account her thoughts about homosexuality. Attorney John Paragano was alerted by a parent about the post and sent a copy to the Union Township school district arguing for her dismissal. Knox was put on paid administrative leave. In January, the Union Township school board announced that it had filed tenure charges against Viki Knox, beginning the lengthy process to terminate her employment—all because of what she wrote on her personal Facebook page.

Earlier in 2011, a high school teacher in Florida, Jerry Buell, made a similar “mistake” of posting his personal feelings about gay marriage onto his Facebook page. A former student filed a complaint stating that Buell was “dangerous to gay students.” The school board moved him to an administration position during an investigation. After a lot of support from the community, Buell was allowed back in the classroom, but not without a “list of directives he needs to follow to return to work”. Buell argued that he was following the constitution and his right to free speech.

If a teacher or a school official has an opposing opinion than that of a child, youth, or young adult that they work with, and expresses this opinion after work hours and not in an employment setting, does that make them “dangerous” to that child? Would one say the same thing about the store clerk or bank president—what about a pediatrician?

I would argue that the danger is in stripping the rights of free speech from certain individuals because of their job. Sure, parents can complain that they do not agree with the opinion of a teacher or coach. But declaring an opinion in a political setting or on a social media outlet, not associated with one’s employment, is the exercise of free speech guaranteed in the first amendment.  That guarantee should be allotted to all citizens including those who work in education.