I have to credit the election for providing me the motivation to blog for three days in a row. For so long, I felt like I just did not have anything to say that mattered. Now, it seems that I do. All in all, I am tired of the lies.

Please read the California Education Code (EC) more closely:

51933.  (a) School districts may provide comprehensive sexual health education, consisting of age-appropriate instruction, in any kindergarten to grade 12, inclusive, using instructors trained in the appropriate courses.

   (b) A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, shall satisfy all of the following criteria:

"May" is not "shall." This is an option, not a requirement. Okay 96% of school districts currently take this option, but they ARE NOT required to. If the local school district "elects to provide comprehensive sexual health education" one of the criteria already in the EC is:

   (7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.

So, whether Prop 8 passes or not, children have been and will continue to be taught respect for marriage AND committed relationships. Frankly, I think more people would be upset if they realized Section 51930 is already in EC:

51930.  (a) This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the California Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Education Act.

   (b) The purposes of this chapter are as follows:

   (1) To provide a pupil with the knowledge and skills necessary to protect his or her sexual and reproductive health from unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

   (2) To encourage a pupil to develop healthy attitudes concerning adolescent growth and development, body image, gender roles, sexual orientation, dating, marriage, and family.

However, if any of this creates a concern for a parent or guardian, they have and will continue to have "the right to excuse their child from all or part of comprehensive sexual health education:

51938.  A parent or guardian of a pupil has the right to excuse their child from all or part of comprehensive sexual health education, HIV/AIDS prevention education, and assessments related to that education, as follows:

It seems to me that more clarification is needed on the idea that gay marriages will be taught in school if Proposition 8 fails to pass. Now, before I continue, let me type that the views expressed herein are solely those of Bobby G. Roy and do not reflect the views of my employers, associations, or other entities that I am affiliated with, including friends and relatives.

A major argument of the proponents of Proposition 8 is that students will be taught about gay marriage if Proposition 8 fails. That argument is pretty definitive right?

Being that I work at the California Department of Education (CDE), I sort of know my way around the CDE Web site, with tens of thousands of Web pages of content. Proponents argue that one of the benefits is that Proposition 8:

"...protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage."

Opponents argue that children are not required to teach about marriage in school, to which proponents argue:

"State law may require teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. (Education Code § 51890.) If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage."

Anyone can do a text search of the California Education Code (EC) on the California Law Web site at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. Do a search for the word "marriage". Then look up Section 51890.

First of all, one should not take a look at a section of the law without looking above and below the section. Laws are written to complement and support one another. So, Section 51890 reads:

"For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to ensure that:

 (1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to include the following subjects:

 (D) Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood."

I want to emphasize that Section 51890(1)(D) provides that comprehensive health education programs will include in-class and out-of-class activities designed to ensure that pupils receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of family health, including legal and financial aspects and responsibilites of marriage.

In-class and out-of-class activities. That usually means classwork and homework, which we hope parents can look over and go over with their children. That is where the marriage and sexuality conversation should begin.

Proponents argue that teaching about gay marriages would happen as young as kindergarten. While Section 51890 does say all educational programs offered in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, Section 51930 provides for age appropriate instruction, which:

"...refers to topics, messages, and teaching methods suitable to particular ages or age groups of children and
adolescents, based on developing cognitive, emotional, and behavioral capacity typical for the age or age group."

Believe it or not, society has invested a lot of money in studying the social and personality development in humans. There is a whole major called human development that covers this stuff. There are widely accepted theories that suggest when concepts can be best taught to and understood by people.

All the while, this comprehensive health education program is not mandated. It does not have to be taught, and if it is, parents have a right to opt their child out of the instruction. In fact, when I was in grade five, I had a friend who did not receive the instruction because their parents did not want them to. In fact, their parents pulled them out of the public school we attended and enrolled them in a Catholic school. They even went so far as to recommend that my mom take me out of the school and send me to the same Catholic school. When my mom said that she could not afford the thousands of dollars that tuition would cost, they even offered to pay for it. My mom, a former teacher and child psychology major, declined their generous offer.

Originally, ads used a red herring argument and said that this is taught in all schools. Now, some acknowledge that there is an if statement in these laws. If comprehensive health education is taught, then it will include instruction on the financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage. However, one person wrote a letter to the editor, "which school district doesn't?" Well, I do not know which does or which does not. I do not think that the CDE has the data on that. It is a district choice. California's educational system relies on local control for the management of school districts on the theory that those closest to the problems and needs of each individual district are best able to make appropriate decisions on behalf of the district.

The letter to the editor that I referred to earlier was entitled, "Other Side's Hypocritical Argument." In it, the wrote that all of our fundamental rights are taught in schools. Specifically, they wrote, "If gay marriage is a fundamental right, then it should be taught in school. Can you think of another fundamental right that is not taught in school?" There are two points of this statement that bother me:

1. What is a fundamental right? I would argue it is one codified in the United States Bill of Rights, and other rights afforded to American citizens through the laws, statutes, and court rulings, not in some broad, subjective concept of fundamental rights. For example, some people say that higher education is a right. I argue that in America, it is not, even though I think it should be. I can expound further upon that some other time.
   
2. How to purchase and own a gun is not taught in school. The right to bear arms is right in the Second Amendment. Yes, we are taught what the Second Amendment is, but not how to go out and purchase a gun. I argue that even if a class is taught about committed relationships and marriages, they are not taught about how to participate in a gay or straight marriage.

I also recommend viewing the Comprehensive Sexual Health Education Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/se/sexeducation.asp. It comments further that comprehensive health education is not required and how, if taught, instruction must be age-appropriate and bias-free.

I am obviously not impartial on this matter. So just to show that I am not all about propaganda, look at both the No on 8 (http://www.noonprop8.com/) and Yes on 8 (http://www.protectmarriage.com/) Web sites. However, it angers me that for every sign for one side I see, there are five for the other side. I just feel the need to exert the agency I have.

Read the sides, consider the different perspectives, check your biases, and then vote. I am counting on you.

As far back as the late seventeenth century, when the thirteen colonies were established, laws banning the intermarriage of Whites and Blacks were enacted.

In the United States, anti-miscegenation laws (also known as miscegenation laws) were state laws passed by individual states to prohibit miscegenation, or interracial marriage and interracial sex. These laws prohibited the solemnization of weddings between persons of different races and prohibited the officiating of such ceremonies and made miscegenation a felony. All anti-miscegenation laws banned the marriage of Whites and non-White groups, primarily Blacks, but often also Native Americans, Mexicans, and Asians, including Filipinos. In many states, anti-miscegenation laws also criminalized cohabitation and sex between Whites and non-Whites. In addition, the state of Oklahoma in 1908 banned marriage "between a person of African descent" and "any person not of African descent", and Kentucky and Louisiana in 1932 banned marriage between Native Americans and African Americans.

Although several anti-miscegenation amendments were proposed in United States Congress, a nation-wide law against racially mixed marriages was never enacted. From the 19th century into the 1950s, most US states enforced anti-miscegenation laws. From 1913 to 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states did so. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them.

Fast forward to 2008, and people are trying to ban the intermarriage of same-sex couples in California by amending the California Constitution with a new section that reads, "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Replace all the colors of people with their sexual preference and we have the same bigoted agenda. I hear people justify Proposition 8 by saying that homosexuality is a sin, and same-sex couples should not be able to marry.

Others justify it by saying that civil unions are the same thing. People used to think that separate schools for Whites and non-Whites were equal. Then the Brown v. Board decision ruled that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

From a religious perspective, if God is all about love, and God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, then how can I reconcile restricting who can express their love to the world and to one another in the most generally accepted and binding manner? There is confusion about civil unions and what rights are afforded under civil unions. If civil unions are the same as marriages, then why not call it a marriage? Technically and essentially, they look the same on paper. Realistically, they are not.

From an economic perspective, this is a source of revenue for city governments. I am not sure about the number of same-sex marriages that would take place, but the windfall could be quite large. This does not mean that we should go out and legalize prostitution because the government can get money out of it, but in the grand scheme of things, it is a factor.

There was a time when all non-Whites were subhuman, justifying concepts of slavery, segregation, racism, benevolent assimilation, voting restrictions, landowner restrictions, anti-miscegenation laws, etc. It looks as though that time has not quite passed.

I have a desire to add value to people and things around me. It is not an easy thing to do, especially when there is so much going on in the world and in life. I attended a financial seminar today and learned some great tips on how to preserve wealth for an individual and for their progeny. The tips were very basic:

1. Open an individual retirement account (IRA)
2. Get life insurance

One should also keep in mind that a person's return can be improved by:

1. Starting sooner than later
2. Contributing consistently
3. Holding out in the down markets

The sooner I can make a plan, the less likely I will have to take a plan.

On April 3, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke to a group of striking sanitation workers. While addressing the audience, he said, "And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation." The following day he was assassinated. His quotation provides a message we must never forget—especially in an election year: We have the power to cause positive change in our country.

People say Dr. King died for a cause. Really, he lived for one. Imagine what the world would be like if we all did the same.