« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


'No on 8' parents to anti-gays: 'NO on our less-than-8-year-olds!'

by Jeremy Hooper

So do you remember that field trip where a group of San Francisco first-graders, all of whom had obtained permission from their parents, went to see their lesbian teacher get married at City Hall? And do you remember how the far-right has completely ignored the aspect of parental permission, instead making it sound as if these poor, innocent children were "indoctrinated" against their will? And maybe you saw over the weekend that we posted the following ad, which tries to make fear-mongery hay out of the whole matter:

Upon seeing the ad, our immediate reaction was that the parents who gave their kids permission to attend this wedding would probably be less-than-thrilled with the anti-gay side for exploiting their children in this way. And as it turns out, we were TOTALLY right:

SACRAMENTO – The parents of the two children most prominently featured in the latest multi-million dollar Prop 8 political spot today termed those ads “distasteful and exploitative” and demanded that the ads be taken off the air immediately. Both sets of parents – Laura Hodder and Matt Alexander and Jen Press and James Moore, sent two hand-delivered letters this morning. The first letter is to the Prop 8 Campaign demanding the ad be removed from its television and its Web site where it is being used as a fund raising tool. The second letter to the San Francisco Chronicle asks them to intervene on their behalf. The Prop 8 campaign manipulated video that the Chronicle has posted on its Web site.
FULL RELEASE: Outraged Parents of Children Featured in Latest Prop 8 TV Ad Demand that Commercial be Taken off the Air Immediately [No on Prop 8]

It remains to be seen if the side that is always crying about "child protection" and "parental choice" will honor the ACTUAL form of both concepts and pull their cruel, exploitative ads. Though we're not all that hopeful, as this crew really seems to have put their consciences in storage until after November.

**MORE: Read the letters that have been sent to 'Yes on 8" and the SF Chronicle. Plus, watch a video of the parents voicing their opposition:

Upload a Document to Scribd

The parents:

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

But the Yes side is saying if the marriage happened in the classroom then the students would not be protected.

I know there are parents who want to keep their children ignorant until they are 18 or continue to be ignorant for the rest of their lives.

But the goal is to make the public schools work for both liberal minded and traditionalist parents and students.

Posted by: Matt from California | Oct 27, 2008 3:10:15 PM

Those prop h8'ers stepped into some deep dookie on that one! As yet, I have seen nothing from them that would indicate that they plan to comply with the wishes of these families.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Oct 27, 2008 3:26:52 PM

I thought it was law in most places that you could not use the image of a child in either picture form or video form without written permission of the parent or guardian. I know that my partner and I are always having to sign forms at out school or community center so that they can use our children's photo on their website etc. And when our Community Center was making up advertisements for the Center, All children who might end up on the ad had to get permission from the parent/guardian, Is this not the case in California?

Posted by: Fiona | Oct 27, 2008 4:21:02 PM

I agree with Fiona, I thought children were protected from this sort of exploitation, mostly as a way to keep PEDOPHILES from getting pictures of them. So I guess the "pro-family" people who are so eager to call US the pedophiles are using the tactics of such perverts.

Posted by: emily k | Oct 28, 2008 12:46:00 AM

Please see the link >


Posted by: Stella | Oct 28, 2008 11:23:44 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails