I love how the government says that marriage is a religious institution and yet when there is a church or religious group who wants to have marriage equality, they are then told no that is is against the law.

That IS animus, despite all proof to the contrary.

And they are forgetting that schools, especially public schools, cannot engage in non scientific, and prejudice inducing education.
They ARE obligated to teach facts, and give children opportunity to be prepared for each and every social encounter.

So NO, parents cannot dictate the curriculum and terms of how and what a child is taught. Because the child’s NEEDS can well outweigh what the parents are willing or capable of meeting.
The historical and socio/political context of discrimination and prejudice and it’s consequences ALSO dictate the terms of workable and effective curriculums.
If these same parents wouldn’t want their children taught about Jews and being Jewish from non Jewish anti Semitic information, than the same holds true for other minorities that have historically and traditionally been maligned.
These people are assuming that what’s said about and done to gay people is right and justified.

THAT is something else proven in court to be wrongful and dangerous.

I have often suggested to parents, AND school boards, that they should require parents to attend classes as well on the FACTS regarding the sociology and context of things to do with sexuality, and discriminatory practices and their effects on others throughout American history.
This should be a requirement. No opting out, if you want your child to be in public school.
And they can go the home school route and turn out children without a clue if they want to.

I say if they want the curriculum to go THEIR way, then they can keep their little darlings at home.
Something they should be told too, that segregationists and any other prejudiced political groups suggested.

It should also be pointed out to them, just how selective and inconsistent this religious objection is regarding gay people and homosexuality.
All manner of religious directives that inconvenience all these people isn’t enforced against heterosexuals.
So they’d also have to explain to children why that is.

It’s not gay people and learning about them that confuses children.
It’s teaching children that gay people are a problem, then having their children learn the contrary. Children are confused by hypocrisy and lying to them.
And no school can participate in that either.

It’s a safe bet that these folks belong to sects of Christianity that also believe that drinking (legal, with age restrictions) and premarital sex (legal, with age restrictions) are wrong as well.

So sooner or later they’re going to have to have a talk with their precious, precious children about the difference between God’s Laws and Man’s Laws — just as Hebrews have to have this chat regarding Ham & Cheese sandwhiches and Hindus have to have this talk regarding eating meat.

I don’t see why all things LGBT can’t be added to the list of Things Our Religion Says Is Wrong, But The Government Doesn’t. Their religious rights aren’t violated by the sale of Budweiser or the reality of singles having sex, why would another “sin” being legal suddenly cross the line?

Oh right, these folks think they have an exception to the establishment clause in their back pocket.

I’m not attorney, but my understanding is that amicus briefs generally have little impact on the appellate courts, and are rarely given any consideration unless they offer some novel (and relevant) insight into the case at hand.

We certainly haven’t seen any of that here, and I think the more of these filed the stronger is Walker’s finding there was animus, but I think it helps call attention, in a good way, to the issue. There are plenty of people in America who really don’t care because they feel it doesn’t affect them, but when these groups go this far over the top, some of those people even start getting offended (and if part of one of the groups, sometimes even embarrassed). So they often start realizing it’s time to do something.

So I say, keep them coming.

I hope more of these briefs are submitted. Each and every one makes out case more and more clear. There can be no doubt that we are the victims of civil discrimination based on religious persecution, as in persecution from religious people and institutions.

Actually, it is neither a right nor a privilege. Heterosexuals often pop out children for no other reason than this:

They can.

It’s all a plan on the part of the homosexuals to destroy family and society; first they redefine marriage and then they’ll take away our children.

Actually, I believe the state has a legitimate and compelling interest in how children are raised.

Children deserve to grow up in a safe, loving and accepting environment and be raised by competent and enlightened adults. Simply put: parenthood is NOT a right; it’s a privilege, one that must be earned, and I’m afraid not everyone qualifies.

You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car – hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they’ll let any butt-reaming a**hole be a father.

– “Parenthood”

Go for it.

Let’s see if Religion will be allowed to set Legal Precedent here.

I just read through Robbie P George’s brief, and I think I can show that it is okay for the people of California to make a horse a Senator, so long as there is some theoretical argument that it is “moral”, whether or not a single voter had that intent when enacting a law to do so…