California First-Graders Taken to Teacher’s Same-Sex Wedding as Official Field Trip

There is an interesting feud in San Francisco after first-grade students to the wedding of their Lesbian teacher’s wedding. Opponents of same-sex marriage object that this is a major religious and political controversy and that the event (where students threw rose petals on teacher Erin Carder and her now wife Kerri McCoy) was “indoctrination.”

While I support same-sex marriage (I actually support the term civil union for everyone), I tend to agree that this was not an appropriate trip given the on-going political dispute and a pending referendum to ban same-sex marriage.

Nevertheless, Liz Jaroslow, the Creative Arts Charter School’s interim director, insisted “It really is what we call a teachable moment. I think I’m well within the parameters.” I don’t see that way when the matter is part of the coming election and opposed by so many parents on religious and political grounds.

For the full story, click here.

13 thoughts on “California First-Graders Taken to Teacher’s Same-Sex Wedding as Official Field Trip”

  1. Well, from a “No on 8” perspective it turned out to be bad move! Obviously, it was a political stunt with the mayor on the city hall steps and with the press having been called. Had Californians cheered about it, it would have been a benchmark of change.

    I am actually am more offending by those of us on the No side, who stole “Yes on 8” signs, yelled obsentities at Yes on 8 demonstrators, calling them Nazis, attacked opposing demonstrators, etc. I wonder how much of all this spewing hatred helped the Yes on 8 movement? I suspect it did help. People don’t like to see abusive behaviors from anyone. People like to support the apparent underdog.

  2. UPDATE:

    The proponents of Proposition 8 have now incorporated the Creative Arts Charter School’s little field trip in to their latest false and misleading TV spot airing in California. Nice work Ms Jaroslow, you have played right in to the opposition’s hand.

  3. Were the kids’ parents told what was going on and allowed to choose whether their child could go? If the parents were cool with it, I don’t see it’s that big a deal.

  4. Points taken about marriage and civil union, as a layman I admit to an imprecision in my language that the legal minds participating here have appropriately corrected me on. To insure my meaning is clear, what ever the proper legal term is, I believe no two people should be denied the same rights as any other two people, and I take no issue with the event that took place on the steps of the San Francisco city hall, as enunciated by rcampbell.

    However, I still stand on my position, that regardless if the action of involving the school children in this particular event was within a legal sense, and again, pardon my linguistic imprecision) “not wrong”, and is considered by an educator a “teachable moment”, that it seems to me that the time and place and high profile participation of the Mr. Newsom, and resultant media attention and reverbations here and elsewhere, given the current contentious proposition on the ballot, were a <b?<i?clever exploitation of six and seven year old children as a response to the current proposition initiative. No teacher should ever be permitted to put children in to a position where if not actually exploited, the children would even seem to be exploited.

  5. teknikAL,
    I agree with your additional point. RCampbell,I also believe that marriage is a right for all citizens, no matter their sex. Anything else is a separate but equal kind of marriage.

  6. >I also have no objection to civil unions between same sex couples

    Since this was in California, it isn’t a civil union, it’s a MARRIAGE. I don’t care whether all couples are joined in marriage or a civil union as long as 100% of the rights, privleges and responsibilites are the same regarless of the couples’ orientaion.

  7. >I also have no objection to civil unions between same sex couples

    Since this was in California, it isn’t a civil union, it’s a MARRIAGE, as it should be for ALL couples.

  8. Key phrase in the article: “Parents can excuse their child from all or part of the instruction.”
    rafflaw is correct on all points, yet I would add one.
    Big Fella, even if most all of your points are true, and to assume they are, it reinforces the justification for it being a ‘”teachable moment,”” [as] “Jaroflow said, noting the historic significance of same-sex marriage and related civil rights issues”, fullfilling the California Education Code’s requirement.
    “California Education Code permits school districts to offer comprehensive sex education, but if they do, they have to “teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.””
    Which, obviously, they did, as the classes behavior indicates.

  9. rafflaw-

    I take your point. But the fact the this ceremony was not at some private venue, among family, friends and acquaintances, but on the steps of city hall, with the mayor officiating, in a situation that seemed staged for the media, compels me to infer that these children, were used simply as stage dressing when someone saw an opportunity to promote their agenda. While it was voluntary on the part of the children and their parents, and they may have gained an appreciation that it is permissible to have differences in our society, it was exploitative of the children, I think the school administrator stepped over the line.

  10. Big Fella,
    I don’t understand why there is an objection here because all of the students who were at the event were authorized to be there by there parents. Two families opted out of the field trip and the others could have. When the families and the school administrators are both on the same page, why is anyone complaining? The reason why this story made the news is because of the referendum coming up, nothing else. If the parents had not been informed as to the nature of the trip, I would agree that it would not be right. But with the parents ok’ing the event ahead of time, the children weren’t being indoctrinated or used by Ms. Jaroslaw to press her own agenda. The facts just do not justify the uproar.

  11. I also have no objection to civil unions between same sex couples. But I wonder if Ms. Jaroslow has had her charges participate similarly in a union between a man and a woman as a school field trip. Somehow I don’t think so. It seems to me that Ms. Jaroslow has overstepped the bounds by using those children to press her own personal agenda, and that is not acceptable behavior from any teacher. Kind of a despicable breach of trust in my mind.

  12. Gives new meaning to the slogan from my youth: “white (as in dress), uptight, and outt’a sight.”

Comments are closed.