Content uploaded by Lynn D. Wardle
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lynn D. Wardle on May 02, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
The Impacts on Education and Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage and Lessons from Abortion Jurisprudence
Abstract
One of the most contentious issues to arise in public policy debates concerning the legalization of same-sex marriage is whether legalizing same-sex marriage has a significant detrimental impact on education, particularly public education. However, legal scholarly and professional consideration of this issue is scarce and one sided. This article reviews the evidence that legalizing same-sex marriage has had a serious, profoundly controversial, and arguably detrimental impact on public education. It then explains why legalization of same-sex marriage must have some impact on educational curriculum. When the meaning of marriage changes it must be reflected in the curriculum that covers that subject. Next, the existing constitutional protections against detrimental impacts upon parents’ rights and family integrity interests of legalizing same-sex marriage are reviewed. The article also presents an analogy from abortion jurisprudence that may provide some protection for parental rights to control the education of their children and protect them against some detrimental effects on education from legalizing same-sex marriage. Finally, the article provides some recommendations for legal remedies and community action that may address these concerns.
... This parental right should be especially clear in light of reasonable concerns that their children are being exposed to inappropriate material at a point in their lives when parents may wish to address such controversial topics with their young in the privacy of their homes. Educators need to be honest and recognize that when dealing with issues of sexuality and accompanying curricular materials, particularly about same-sex relationships, public schools might wish to follow the lead of their colleagues in nonpublic schools and seek greater input in Downloaded by [University of Dayton], [Charles J. Russo] at 12:21 01 July 2012 devising policies and/or curricula in which parents have at least had the opportunity for some input (Wardle, 2011). ...
The Supreme Court's 1925 ruling in Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary (Pierce), striking down a law from Oregon that would have required all children, other than those needing special education, between the ages of 8 and 16 to attend public schools, essentially upheld the right of nonpublic schools to operate. At the same time, the Court recognized that state officials could “reasonably…regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise, and examine them, their teachers and pupils” (p. 534). However, in practice, other than health and safety code issues, educational officials typically impose fewer restrictions on nonpublic schools than on public schools, particularly on curricular content. In light of the significant curricular differences between public and nonpublic schools, this two-part article reflects on how educators in both systems can learn from one another as they seek to ensure the presence of diversity of educational perspectives in the marketplace of ideas. The first part of the article examines legal developments on selected curricular issues, and the second section offers recommendations on how educational leaders can work to maintain the vibrancy of American schools by affording parents the opportunity to send their children to study in schools best meeting their needs.
This article examines Section 3 of DOMA, which answers the question of who decides whether, when, and to what extent same-sex marriages created in an American state or elsewhere will be recognized by the federal government. Five layers of policy controversy are implicated in the DOMA debate, and additionally, there are three levels or sites of politics in DOMA, due to the fact that it is a creature of legislative creation. DOMA has been subject to constitutional criticism, but those arguments fail under constitutional and conflict of laws analysis. The continued viability of DOMA lies with popular sovereignty and constitutional consensus, not judicial order. DOMA makes a significant contribution to protecting the sovereign body of the United States, the people, by maintaining the important balance in federalism. The people, not the courts, must decide the issue of same-sex marriage.
The case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on appeal. See Julea Ward Case Information re: American Counseling Association Code of Ethics
- Keeton V
- F Anderson-Wiley
- D Supps
- Ga
Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, 733 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (S.D. Ga. 2010). The case is
now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on appeal. See Julea Ward
Case Information re: American Counseling Association Code of Ethics, EASTERN
MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY, http://www.emkh.edu/aca_case/ (last visited June 13, 2011)
(university press releases and documents).
php; Lee Duigon, Pastor's "Human Rights" Ordeal to Continue, CHALCEDON (undated), http://chalcedon.edu/researchiarticles/pastors human-rights-ordeal-to-continue
- Lund Alberta Human Rights
- Ctr Law
- Constitu 'l 'ion
- Stud
Lund: Expression and Discrimination under Alberta Human Rights Law, CTR.
CONSTITU'l'ION. STUD.,
Sept.
17,
2009,
http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centresl
ccs/issues/Boissoin_v._Lund.php; Lee Duigon, Pastor's "Human Rights" Ordeal to
Continue, CHALCEDON (undated), http://chalcedon.edu/researchiarticles/pastors
human-rights-ordeal-to-continue/. See also Lund v. Boissoin, WIKIPEDIA,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiiStephen_Boissoin (last visited June 2,2011).
politics/counselor-wants-gay-marriage complaint-thrown-out!. 67. See generally News Release, Alliance Defense Fund, Maine Counselor's Career Threatened for Support of Marriagenokomis-employees-land-in-the-spotlight-with-ads on
- Catholic News
CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY, Nov. 3, 2009, http://www.catholicnewsagency.comfnews/
schooCcounseloctargeted_for_supporting_maines_promarriage_question_1/; Counselor
Wants Gay Marriage Complaint Thrown Out, BANGOR DAlLY NEWS, Nov. 23, 2009,
http://bangordailynews.com/2009/11/23/politics/counselor-wants-gay-marriage
complaint-thrown-out!.
67. See generally News Release, Alliance Defense Fund, Maine Counselor's
Career Threatened for Support of Marriage (Oct. 30, 2009), available at
http://www.adfmedia.org/NewsIPRDetaill3330#20100412.
68. Id. See generally Scott Monroe, Nokomis Employees Land in the Spotlight
with Ads on Question 1, THE PORTLAND PRESS HERALD, Mar. 4, 2010,
http://www.pressherald.com/archive/nokomis-employees-land-in-the-spotlight-with-ads
on-question-1-_2009-10-25.html.
69. See generally News Release, Alliance Defense Fund, Complaints Dismissed
Against Maine Counselor Who Supported Marriage (April 12, 2010), available at
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/3330.
Homosexual Activists Appeals Exoneration of Canadian Pastor Boissoin The Issues in Boissoin v
- Patrick B Craine
Patrick B. Craine, Homosexual Activists Appeals Exoneration of Canadian
Pastor Boissoin, LIFESITENEWS.COM, March 30, 2010, http://www.lifesitenews.com/
newslarchivelldnl2010/mar/10033008.
90. Boissoin v. Lund, [2009] A.B.Q.B. 592 (Can. Alb. Q.B.), available at
http://www.albertacourts.ab.caijdb%5C2003-%5Cqb%5Ccivil%5C2009%5C2009
abqb0592.pdf.
91. See generally Craine, supra note 89; Ken Dickerson, The Issues in Boissoin v.
In 20ll, three other states (Illinois, Hawaii, and Delaware) legalized same-sex civil unions
WASH. REV. CODE § 26.60.010 (2007). In 20ll, three other states (Illinois,
Hawaii, and Delaware) legalized same-sex civil unions. 78 Del. Laws 22 (2011),
available at http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LISI46.nsf/2bede841c6272c888025698400433
a04/916160214dbb 1927852578540067 ce 78?OpenDocument (effective Jan. 1, 2012);
- Haw
- Sess
Haw. Sess. Laws 232, available at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/
lists/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=232 (effective Jan. 1, 2012); 2010
WI. 583129 (Cal. Super
Feb. 27,1998), rev'd by constitutional amendment, ALASKA CONST. art. 1, § 25 (1999); In
re Coordination Proceeding, Special Title [Rule 1550(c)] Marriage Cases, No. 4365,
2005 WI. 583129 (Cal. Super. Mar. 14,2005), aftd, In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384
(Cal. 2008), overturned by Prop 8, November 4, 2008; Baehr v. Miicke, Civ. No. 91
1394, 1996 WL 694235 (Haw. Gr. Ct. Dec. 3, 1996), on remand from Baehr v. Lewin,
Haw. 1993), rev'd by constitutional amendment
P.2d 44, 67 (Haw. 1993), rev'd by constitutional amendment, HAW. CONST. art. I, §
23 (1998);
- I.I V. State
I.i v. State, No. 0403-03057, 2004 WL 1258167 (Or.
Cir. Ct. Apr. 20, 2004), rev'd, 110 P.3d 91 (Or. 2005);