My letter to California Teachers Association about 1.25 million contribution

To the CTA and Pres. David Sanchez,

As a father, I was extremely disappointed this morning to read that the CTA has donated a million dollars to the vote no on Prop. 8. Thus, bringing the total to $1,250,000. In doing the research, this accounts for nearly 10% of all campaign contribution dollars on the “no” vote. It is shocking to me that this association which educates our children would not have educated themselves before deciding on which way to recommend their members to vote on Proposition 8. Let alone spending a ghastly amount of money when it would have been better directed elsewhere with a much deeper effect for the children as well as teachers. At times, I have wondered why our education system here in California was so flawed and behind other states. I no longer do. With choices such as these, it is no wonder why as a society we have lost our morals and therefore are starting to pay for the ignorance of leaders in this state.

To me the number one objective of the CTA should be what is best for the children. Without children, teachers would not have the job they do, much less an association. Ironically, children are unable to vote in this election and so it is imperative that we study this issue and understand what is really at risk so that the rights of the children will be heard. Is it really the rights of gay/lesbian couples who are at risk? No. Proposition 8 simply defines marriage as between a man and a woman as legal in the state of California. No rights, privileges or positions would be negated or revoked for others. They will continue to have all the civil rights granted them through domestic partnership. If passed, Prop 8 will RESTORE to the citizens of California the mandate (61%) of the people as voted in 2000, to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Is it the rights of our children who are at risk? Yes

So the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Throughout the history of the world society has defined marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage at its core is virtually universal, it has existed in nearly all cultures since pre-history. Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. It is clear, that the optimum mode for a child to be raised is with a father and mother in the home. Studies bear this out. Children with a father and mother in the home have higher academic performance and higher levels of attainment. They are also much more likely to avoid crime and other self-destructive behavior such as drug abuse and high-risk sexual conduct.
By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children? Is it really wise to instruct our children that hetero and homosexual relationships are the same? It would have to be taught this way in school in the name of equality. Do we really want our children to be taught that their sexual orientation is kind of like trying new vegetables? You don’t really know until you try it to find out which orientation you are. This is how it was described by a child at school in Massachusetts.
In countries where same-sex marriages are legal studies bear out important facts about this radical experiment. What happens in these countries is that the institution of marriage is devalued and in essence deinstitutionalized. Rendering marriage unimportant because now anyone can get married. Marriage rates steadily decline. Out of wedlock birth rises causing more children to be raised in a home where there is not both a mother and a father raising them. This takes away the Child’s Bonding Right. Every child has the right to know and be brought up by his/her biological mother and father. Internationally, this is known as the Child’s Bonding Right. In nature, it is the only way a child can be born in this world through a relationship between a man and a woman. If Proposition 8 were to fail we would be taking away the Child’s Bonding Right. Who wants to take away their rights? Better yet, who is even thinking of their rights?
When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.

CTA claims that all people should be guaranteed the same freedoms and rights. No one group should have their rights taken away. But what if one’s group rights start to affect the rights of others. For example, rights of children, rights of freedom of religion (oh by the way a 1st ammendment in our constitution), etc. That needs to be taken into account. And what about the right to give blood. I believe everyone should have the right and freedom to give blood. I recently went to give blood and found that some groups were excluded from their right to give blood. One such group were males that have had, even one, sexual contact with another male. How come male same-sex couples aren’t fighting for this right? Maybe it is because the Red Cross and FDA know that the activities they engage in are spreading infection and do not want others affected or infected. It is for the good of society. So why should we think that this behavior should be taught in school. They have lost the right by the activity they are engaged in. Yes, there are consequences to our choices. Even when we think our choices don’t affect other people. This group of people does not have the right to give blood because they don’t have the right to infect and harm another individual. Please see below for Red Cross Eligibility guidelines.
BLOOD DONATION ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES
Note to users: This list is not complete. Specially trained technical staff are available at each blood collection center and details of each donor's health and activities are discussed in a confidential setting prior to blood donation. The majority of donor eligibility rules are specified by the Food and Drug Administration for every collection center in the country. Other rules are determined by the medical professionals at specific blood centers, or with other regulatory bodies. Therefore, these rules may differ between programs. Donor eligibility rules are intended to protect the health and safety of the donor as well as the patient who will receive the transfusion. The criteria listed below are provided as guidelines to assist you in determining whether you may be eligible to be a blood donor. The final determination of eligibility is made at the time of donation. The guidelines listed below were last revised on 5/08/08. There may have been some changes to these criteria since the last revision date. The most up to date eligibility information can be obtained by contacting the American Red Cross blood center nearest you.
HIV, AIDS You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.
You are at risk for getting infected if you:
are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977

CTA claims that supporters of Prop. 8 know they are purposely trying to “deceive the public” when supporters say it will affect teaching in our schools. That no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school according to California Law. That a California Superior Court Judge (we all know how great the judges are in California, especially after they overturn the voice of 61% of Californians) has already ruled that this claim by Prop. 8 proponents is “false and misleading”. Thankfully we have the state of Massachusetts to prove to CTA and this “Superior Court Judge” that they are in fact the ones who are deceiving the public as well as misleading. You see, schools won’t have to ask for parents permission to teach same-sex education. How will they get around it? Well what the opponents of Prop. 8 don’t tell you is that they can simply teach it under the title that same-sex is a law in California and that they are required to teach it. Because it is not a health or family issue and is simply a legal matter of the state of California, no parental notification is required. If you don’t think it can happen and actually believe CTA’s “claim” that education won’t be directly affected please see this link. It is eye-opening. http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713

Could you please tell me who is trying to deceive the public and mislead?

In fact if Proposition 8 fails, what happens to the teacher’s rights who say they do not want to teach that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are the same? Many teachers will lose their rights and be forced to teach something they may not believe. It may force many to stop teaching entirely and discourage others from teaching. This will lead to fewer teachers in our state; thus, less qualified teachers will have to replace them. How will this help our already challenged school system? I already know of doctors who are being sued because they are not providing in-vitro fertilization to lesbian couples. These doctors are giving up their practices either due to law suits or no longer wanting to be in the medical field because it goes against their beliefs and convictions.

So before you decide to vote “no” on Proposition 8, you might want to consider the rights of the children, the rights of the teachers, and the rights of the parents. Remember that everything starts in the home. If you have strong families, you have strong communities, strong communities lead to strong states, strong states lead to a strong nation. Isn’t this what we want? We should be more concerned about what is most ideal and right and less concerned about what is equal and fair.

Please gather all of the correct information you can and support me in voting “Yes” on Proposition 8.

Regards from a very concerned parent,

Matthew Miller