Let's worry about real, inappropriate behavior, people. Let's worry about DCPS and PCS employees with a series of inappropriate contact allegations with minors still working among DCPS and PCS children. Let's worry about teachers and administrators who ignore complaints about bullying behavior in elementary, middle, and high schools...until a student attacks other students or harms her- or himself.

Gay marriage is marriage between two people who happen to be of the same sex. Let's stop calling it "gay marriage" and just call it "marriage." Then, people can stop getting up in arms about explaining to their children why Susan and Jill are spouses.

It would go like this, "Susan and Jill love each other just as much as Mommy and Daddy loved each other when we got married. So, they made a promise to stay together forever like we did." Yes, you will run into problems with this simple statement if you are a divorcee, a former domestic partner in a hetero relationship, or simply a single parent who opted for in-vitro fertilization or surrogacy (to avoid the whole relationship trap). I can't solve all of the world's problems.

She's also a birther. Her father-in-law, John Hemenway, was the lawyer who worked with Phil Berg to file a suit about the whole birth certificate thing. Recently, however, as birthers do, Phil Berg is involved in a birther war with Mr. Hemenway. Berg and another attorney named Joyce contend that Mr. Hemenway is not all there anymore. Margaret defends her father-in-law.

Margaret also writes about the evil of Islam.

Everything is evil to Margaret. She should just stay home with the curtains drawn.

In this case, people can debate all they want about whether or not it's an 'appropriate' topic for first-graders, but it's inevitable. What happens if the children draw pictures of (or talk about) their families and one student has two daddies? What happens if some child says "I went to my aunt's wedding and she got married to a girl!" during some sort of show-and-tell/sharing time? During those situations, kids are going to start asking questions to the teacher, and are going to get very curious if the teacher suddenly tries to change topics or distract them.

Also, I think that however such a discussion comes up, reading a children's book is not an inappropriate response. Sometimes it's easier to deal with awkward questions by reading a book that's been pre-screened and deemed appropriate rather than by trying to answer them yourself and worrying if you're giving out too much information or saying something that is age-inappropriate. IMO, all teachers for young children should have a supply of age-appropriate books like that for awkward questions like "Where do babies come from?" or "My aunt and uncle are getting something called a divorce, what is that?" or "Why is our goldfish swimming upside-down?"

call me when the shuttle lands.

Bill, I'm not sure if you're aware that some folks who don't identify as able-bodied find the term "retarded" quite offensive. Try to bear in mind that feminism blogs should be safe spaces for all people, not places that make some people feel excluded/insulted/unsafe and/or alienated.

Apart from that, some of the comments in this thread, particularly with regards to the way the writers seem to be oblivious of the normative status of heterosexuality, and the politicised characterisation of being gay, are quite disturbing.

@Jeff Chang #97 - also, hetero married teachers should leave their wedding bands at home and never mention their spouses or children while on the job. Because it would be wrong to indoctrinate children on their personal sexual lifestyle choices.

Here are the citations you requested concerning my comment, "...and how children do best when raised by their two opposite-sex biological parents."

I very, very rarely cite studies because anyone can find a biased study supporting their view, and most studies usually state something we already knew. (As you can see, I do not have a hight opinion of studies.) But you did ask me to cite some sources so here we go...

In my opinion, the first two sources I cite have the most value and seem to be ignored the most often. (And I am not implying that you, ACG, do not use these sources. I only wish to express their importance.)

Citation #1: Everyday Common Sense
Citation #2: Recorded Human History

And now for the others:

Mary Parke, "Are married Parents Really Better for Childre?" Center for Law and Social Policy, Policy Brief (2003)

Ronald Rohner and Robert Veneziano, "The Importance of Father Love: History and Contemporary Evidence," Review of General Psychology (2001)

David Popenoe, "Life Without Father: Compelling Evidence that Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensable or the Good of Children," (1996)

Paul Amato and Fernando Rivera, "Paternal Inovlvement and Children's Behavior Problems," Journal of Marriage and the Family (1999)

Bronislaw Malinowsk, "Sex, Culture, and Myth," (1962)

Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review (2001)

Kristin Moore, "Marriage From a Child's Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, What Can We Do About It?" Child Trends Resarch Brief (2002)

Kyle Preuett, "Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child," (2000)

---------------

ACG- Your wrote, "I don’t know a single gay parent – or, for that matter, a single gay person – who doesn’t “support” heterosexuality."

I would have to disagree with you here in only one sense. And I want to stress "in only one sense." Many homosexual activist and advocate websites and organizations seem to offer much support to heterosexuals who feel that they are homosexual. However, these websites and organizations do not support homosexuals who want counseling or assistance to change to a heterosexual lifestyle. Some claim that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts are ineffective, though the American Psychological Association did not support that conclusion in their "Appropriate Therapeutic Responsese to Sexual Orientation" report (2009).

Anyway, I prefer compelling arguments to citations because then I do not have to go back and look through the piles of paper on my desk. I hope some of these citations may be of some help to you or someone else.

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

hahahaha.

I understand the gay marriage victory recently, and the excitement for a lot of people, but excitement is no reason to throw the particulars of your relationship around at kids, especially when they're not yours. It's really not the teacher's decision when the kids will learn about homosexual relationships. A "loss of innocence" is a complete joke, but a teacher doesn't make parenting decisions; parents do.

- I put quotes around it because it's what these people are thinking but are too afraid to put into words.

Teachers get married. Teachers have babies. The kids know why teachers are out on leave, or on vacation, and there's a substitute teacher for more than a day... At that age, in particular, kids LOOOOVE their teachers, and want to know even their dogs' names -- it's a very personal relationship, and it would be sad to deny the kids the comfort of a nurturing relationship at school.

As for how my husband and I handle these matters... My kids probably have no memory of a time that they DIDN'T know that there are girl/boy relationships, boy/boy relationships, and girl/girl relationships that are more than just friends.

I haven't gone out of my way to bring these things up, because I haven't had to. As we were out & about in the world, my kids have seen things, and I in turn have seen the curiosity in their faces. I've always asked if they have any questions, or what they're thinking, and they ask. They've learned about "THE facts of life" and other facts of life as exposure to real life has introduced questions which I answered.

This woman, by artificially imposing "innocence" on her kids, is missing huge opportunities to be the first to discuss important things with her kids. Instead, what little they learn will be rumors and misconceptions their peers share with them.

At some point, "innocence" just becomes ignorance. Her children are no doubt well on their way down that path.

to your other point, when I was going to school, the majority of parents didn't pay a lot of attention to the content of their children's classes, so I don't accept that a lack of outcry is in itself damning.

I also think that the fact that the principal approved it suggests that it was in fact a lesson, not just a casual mentioning of ones marital status. The fact even that she ran it by her boss indicates the the teacher knew it might not be deemed appropriate or was at least part of an ongoing public debate.

I think that 1st graders are a captive audience. I don't, as someone else noted above approvingly, support the notion that public schools should be in the business of socializing values. The fact is that though we think it is fine value, others do not, and they have a right to have their children raised their own way. Cutting in line is not an appropriate counter example, you have to have some discipline and basic fairness in your school to run it right so kids don't run wild.

I intend no irony in this, but its like the free speech issue. To respect it, some ugly things will be heard. If this weren't so, great myths that were popular could reign forever supreme with those of differing opinions jailed or their books banned. Many people don't really support free speech, just speech they agree with. A lot of people on this thread support the lesson because they believe the values inherent to it are good, and I agree. But you have to imagine that this may not always be the case, and that with a different school or time, etc.. values you do not appreciate were being taught. I for instance don't support public religious displays at school either.

everyone likes the controversial lesson they agree with..but what about when it becomes one that you don't? what then?

So if it happened as Hemenway says, then the teacher was certainly out of line. If it happened in such a way that it didn't draw any other attention and the principal, by Hemenway's own report, approved it, chances are it was something ever-so-slightly less objectionable.

No, that's the exact issue here. And as of tomorrow, under the laws of the District of Columbia there is no difference between gay and straight marriage.

School is absolutely the place for socialization. And that socialization is perhaps more important during the early years than the later years. Just as it's important to teach a first grader that it's wrong to cut a line, it's equally important to teach them the existence of gay marriage, seeing as both are about respecting other people's rights.

So in one way I agree with Hemenway. It is socialization. But guess what? It's socialization of the right value. To keep it out would be socialization of the wrong value, namely marginalization.

Besides, I seriously doubt Hemenway would want gay marriage discussed to middle school or high schoolers unless it was adequately marginalized.

but on the other hand, Hemenway sounds like a nut job.

I have no opinion about "innocence", but this is a captive audience of 1st graders. if the complaint is correct, i would say the teacher was clearly exploiting her role as teacher.

I too am a Northwest DC public school parent,
And though it’s not from Mrs. Hemenway’s behavior apparent,
Usually, we’re a friendly and tolerant bunch,
But she’s an exception, I’ve got a hunch.

Margaret Hemenway mourns her daughter’s lost innocence,
So first let me just say, in her defence
That I too remember when my daughers were small,
Untouched by the world’s slings and arrows and slings and all.

Children lose their innocence when they start to see the world as it is--
A homeless man on the corner, or someone screaming in public at their kids.
It happens little by little, and it’s usually hard to know
Exactly when a child’s innocence starts to go.

But in this case, the reason is clear
Why little Christina’s innocence started to disappear.
Her loss of innocence can be traced to one action
And the person responsible should answer for her infraction.

The person responsible should be harshly condemned
For the loss of innocence which from her act stemmed.
And the person responsible is none other…
Than little Christina’s very own mother.

People believed blacks were inferior, back in the Day,
But even bigoted parents know what they can and can’t say.
Society now looks upon racism suspiciously,
So if you want to teach it to your kids, you’ve got to do so surreptitiously.

Not so with homosexuality, for which “religious” parents state
That the Bible requires them to discriminate.
Religious beliefs must be respected, as we all learn in school.
After all, who’s against the Golden Rule?

Never mind that the Bible was also used to justify
Slavery and racism in years gone by.
That view’s long since been discredited,
And those parts of the Bible edited.

But homosexuality is still seen by some as an abomination,
Which in their minds justifies civil discrimination.
Conservative Christian parents teach their children
That homosexuality is a horrible sin.

Mrs. H, there are a million different ways you could have explained
The teacher’s announcement about which you complained.
What kept you from simply telling your daughter then
That sometimes girls like girls and men like men?

Or you could even have said that you believe marriage is meant
A union between a man and woman to represent,
Adding that not everyone believes as you do,
So we shouldn’t be unfair if they want to get married too.

And so far as Uncle Bobby the gay guinea pig is concerned,
These books teach a lesson that by kids should be learned:
People are different, with different wants and desires,
And it should be love, not fear, those that difference inspires.

Instead, you pass on your “traditional” views, whatever the cost,
And then complain that your daughter’s innocence is lost?
Ms. H, you’re the one that caused all this upheaval
By telling poor Christina that her favorite teacher is evil.

(Read more at http://newsericks.com/gay-rights. PS: Christina's not the daughter's real name. I called her that because that's the daughter in "Mommy Dearest".)

So from now on, no teacher can mention being married. There can be no references to a husband or wife or, for that matter, partner; if the subject of a significant other comes up for any reason or in any context, that person must be referred to as "friend." No pictures can be displayed that aren't of blood relatives or pets. If a teacher becomes pregnant, she can never mention it, and she has to step down as soon as she begins to show and not return until after the baby has been delivered so her first-graders never wonder about how it was made, since that's more sexual than anything. And absolutely no wedding rings.

Because apparently marriage is sexualized and political and innocence-stealing.

A poster commented that there is no difference between discussing hetro marriage and gay marriage. Some people agree, some people don’t. That’s not the issue here. The issue is that it's not part of the curriculum, and so those parents have a right to disagree with a book on the subject being given to students and the teacher opening the subject to comments (again, if that is actually what happened).

(For the record, I live in Palm Springs, CA where 50% of the population is openly gay. My wife and I have many gay friends, including married couples. I don’t have an issue with the teacher being gay or married.)

Nothing robs a child of their innocence faster or more effectively than a shut down fearful parent who in the name of protecting children teach judgment, hate, and suspicion instead of wonder, love, and trust. The anti-gay people are suspicious of gay people because they refuse to acknowledge them as whole individuals.

Their act of denial and inaccurate judgment is transmitted to children as harsh inflexible rules based on suspicion and fear. In this way Margaret C. Hemenway damages the innocent of the growing spirit of the child. She is a bad parent.

I don't know about the "innocence" part of this equation, but politics doesn't have a place in a first grade classroom. Obviously the teacher has an agenda here and was using a captive audience. If the shoe was on the other foot opposition to this would be strong. This is a clear abuse of her role as a teacher. No one should be surprised that people complained, guess what, gay marriage is controvercial.

This is the kind of unprofessional conduct that hurts the cause by feeding the stereotype that gay teachers have an agenda to exploit the classroom to advance personal political/social opinions.

I simply can't imagine walking this earth with the kind of hatred and bigotry towards the very gay children that were all 100% created by heterosexuals.

What kind of deplorable species, besides heterosexual humans, would ever treat their offspring in such a vile manner? Oh, that's right - NONE. Only the 'human breeders.'

Where can I sign up for 'the gay?'

Because it is becoming increasingly embarrassing to be on the hetero end of the spectrum.

Mark my words that there will be comments beneath this one that state that homosexuality is not natural and does not occur in nature.

Well, human beings ARE part of nature. And so the existence of homosexuality IS natural by definition.

And it does not only exist in human beings. It is observed in nearly every species of animal.

However, human beings are the only ones to abuse, degrade and dehumanize living beings for being as nature made them.

Read all about gay animals here: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_gay_animal_kingdom/?page=all&p=y

And to my fellow 'breeders:' It is time to stop abusing our gay children!!!!!

No matter what God tells you.

The first time they talk about what your mommy does and what your daddy does.

(((When will this teacher read from a book on traditional marriage? )))

The first time she reads from a book where the princess marries the prince.

I truly hope C.S. Hander is never in a position to be deciding who gets to "be" and who doesn't.

Frankly I distinctly remember already feeling attraction to the opposite sex as early as first grade. I assume, therefore, that many first graders may find themselves attracted to kids of the same sex. Why not let those kids know as soon as possible that the feelings they have are completely normal and acceptable?

In other words, why not let first graders know it's ok to "be?"

Until you make a law that forbids ALL heterosexual teachers from revealing their "sexuality", which includes NOT having any pictures of family present, refusing to answer all questions about family, husband, etc., and forbiding ALL discussions of marriage and weddings (which promote the Heterosexual Dictatorship), then you will just have to DEAL WITH US!

What this teacher did was simply to be open about who she was--not about "pushing a gay agenda" but just exercising the freedom to BE. Just like I would not object to any teacher amusing students with a story about their husband or kids, or referring in an offhand manner to something that happened at the church/temple/mosque picnic, because we all benefit by being open and free about who we are as people.

As for the book, I would absolutely support a teacher including information about sensitivity toward other religions, non-traditional families, etc. This is NOT to say class time should be spent proselytizing for any cause, but any one of those you suggested could be a teaching moment for "in-your-life-you'll-meet-people-who-are-different-from-you-and-appreciate-them-and-be-nice-to-them" (yes, even being transsexual: trans people generally know that they are trans from when they are toddlers, and a teacher may indeed have a student as early as first grade dealing with a non-traditional gender identity, and as such the classroom should be a place of openness and acceptance).

Going beyond this instance, I feel that it shouldn’t be appropriate for a teacher to go into details about their personal life with students on any subject. While you can focus on this issue and make it about a stance on gay marriage, if you consider it in a larger view, would it be appropriate for a teacher to discuss their beliefs on religion or politics with your first grader? Their has to be a line drawn between the curriculum that a teacher is assigned to teach, and material that is personal to the teacher.

Some comments have made reference to expanding kids minds on all subjects and making them aware of what is going on in the world. While I personally want my kids (including my first grader) to be informed about the world around them and be able to make their own choices free of the constraints from my beliefs or religious views, there are many parents who do not want their kids exposed to material that conflicts with their religious or political views. This is their right. For example, if you are Catholic, would you approve of a teacher talking about their beliefs as a Jehovah’s Witness to your first grader and then giving them the Watchtower to read? Probably not. Just as I would doubt that a Jehovah’s Witness would approve of a teacher talking about their beliefs as a Muslim to their first grader and giving them a primer on the Koran. How about if the teacher is a swinger? Or believes in plural marriage? Or wants gender reassignment surgery? There have to be topics that are still relegated to Parents to teach as they see fit.

and how children do best when raised by their two opposite-sex biological parents.

Citation, please.

TownCryer -

WHAT IF A GAY-PARENT SENT THEIR CHILD TO SCHOOL AND THE STRAIGHT-TEACHER OPENED A DISCUSSION ABOUT ADULT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMEN … DONT YOU THINK THAT THE GAY-PARENT WOULD BE UPSET THAT SOMEONE ELSE IS CULTIVATING VALUES THEY DON’T SUPPORT?!!!!

Once again, no. I don't know a single gay parent - or, for that matter, a single gay person - who doesn't "support" heterosexuality. It's not like they object to it as a concept and campaign hard to make everyone be gay because heterosexuality will be the downfall of humanity; they just want the freedom to live their lives without being condemned as evil and aberrant by all of the closed-minded fundamentalist wackaloons out there. And they want their children to have the freedom to, gay or straight, live their lives as they choose.

Now, if a gay parent sent their child to school and the teacher opened a discussion of how gays are immoral and evil and want to corrupt the innocent little children and are all going to hell and will cause Jesus to blow up the world, that I'm sure they would object to, because that would go against their values.

LeftSidePositive - Yes. What you just said.