This goes back a good ways, but it begs the question, why would gay activists oppose this ruling unless they wanted to advocate or even encourage homosexuality in the classroom? Published: January 23, 1985 Homosexuality Law Weighed by Court By Alina Tugend Washington--An Oklahoma law that prevents public-school teachers from advocating or encouraging homosexual activity impermissibly tells teachers to "shut up" on the topic or face dismissal, a prominent constitutional scholar told the U.S. Supreme Court last week. The case, Board of Education of the City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, v. National Gay Task Force (Case No. 83-2030), focuses on a 1978 statute stating that any teacher, student teacher, or teacher's aide who is "advocating, soliciting, imposing, encouraging, or promoting public or private homosexual activity" in a manner that "creates a substantial risk that such conduct will come to the attention of schoolchildren or school employees" may be "rendered unfit for his position." Although no teacher has ever been dismissed under the law, the National Gay Task Force challenged it on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment and has a "chilling... The rest of the article was not available, but you can find many such incidents with a simple google search, as I'm sure you already know. The fact is radical gay activists want their lifestyle promoted and advocated in any forum they can. That is why there is still such strong opposition. You want to be gay, fine, but you can't teach it or suggest it to kids. There's a very fine line between tolerance and advocating and the radicals want that line eliminated.
how does letting gay people have rights promote a welfare/nanny state? if anything, subsidizing single moms because their husbands/babydaddys/whatever won't support them literally creates a nanny/welfare state.
income tax social security federal , state , local govt benefits of partners retirement, medical, dental , . forcing private business to do the same How is it you are so fricken clueless?
I think some paranoid reactionaries are confusing the teaching of gay awareness with the promotion of the gay lifestyle.
Then perhaps you can explain why radical gay advocates would challenge this ruling. Soliciting? Imposing? Encouraging? Promoting? Sounds like a wee bit more than "awareness" orientation, now doesn't it? The case, Board of Education of the City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, v. National Gay Task Force (Case No. 83-2030), focuses on a 1978 statute stating that any teacher, student teacher, or teacher's aide who is "advocating, soliciting, imposing, encouraging, or promoting public or private homosexual activity" in a manner that "creates a substantial risk that such conduct will come to the attention of schoolchildren or school employees" may be "rendered unfit for his position." Although no teacher has ever been dismissed under the law, the National Gay Task Force challenged it.