The biggest reason I am supporting Prop. 8 is that the current law permitting same sex marriage reduces the institution of marriage to a contractual relationship and removes the primary purpose of a marriage, which, in my opinion, is to give birth to children and raise them in an environment that statistics show is healthier for their growth and success in life. In a traditional family arrangement, kids are exposed to male and female influences, which provides for a balanced upbringing. Sure, there are plenty of bad/dysfunctional heterosexual marriages. Divorce and family abuse statistics bear this out well. But, there will be an equal number of unhealthy same-sex marriages as well. There is no reason to believe otherwise. This cuts both ways.

The other important point is that the voters already decided this issue in 2000 with Proposition 22, which was approved by 61% of the voters. But because of the actions of 4 activist judges this past May, we must now decide it again. Vote "yes" on Prop. 8. It will restore the institution of marriage to our citizens who had it stolen by these 4 judges last May. It will give our children a better opportunity to succeed in life. It will retain procreation as a primary reason for marriage.

I don't feel I'm in any position to predict what Jesus would have done with regard to same-sex marriage. Apparently, the "No on 8" folks think differently.

All I can say is that the debate around Proposition 8 has really clarified in my mind the importance of keeping the institution of marriage special. That special quality, in my mind, is that it is reserved for a man and a woman only. To my knowledge, this is the only combination that can produce children and provide the home life they need to grow up to become healthy and happy members of society.

With all the important issues in the world and worthy causes to donate time and money to, why people would devote this much energy to this particular issue is beyond my understanding. So who cares if gays get married? How does it impact anyone else?

Jesus was more concerned with divorce. But I think the passage from the Sermon on the Mount quoted above trumps Leviticus any day.

Prop. 8 is wrong.

I concur with "Yes on 8." I thought this was a nation founded on the principles of "of the people, by the people, and for the people." In this case, "the people" are represented by the 61% of voters that approved Proposition 22 in 2000, which reaffirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman only. It is just plain wrong and goes against all Constitutional principles for 4 judges to decide one day that the voice of the people is wrong. For this reason, and this reason only, I have voted "yes" on Proposition 8.

Yeah, marriage is so special that over 50% of straight couples don't bother to stay in it. And if the primary purpose of marriage is to have kids, does that make all the childless couples law-breakers or bad people? Why is that when judges decide in a conservative manner, that's legitimate, but when they decide discrimination (Prop 22) is unconstitutional, that is over-reaching?

The problem is the courts always seem to decide only in favor of liberal issues (like the decision on Prop. 22), which tells you how biased and invalid our court system is.

There is nothing that proves same-sex marriage would have a success rate over 50% either. It probably would be about the same. So, this argument goes out the window.

The issue with children is that at least there's a chance for procreation is a heterosexual marriage. There is not in a same-sex marriage.

The U.S. Supreme Court has handed out nothing but conservative decisions since Roberts entered the door.

So, you think homosexuals who don't get married to each other will have a better chance of "procreating?" If that's your only goal, then I would say same-sex couples who are married would have a better chance of adopting or using artificial insemination if there are two to help raise kids.

Admit it. You're just prejudiced. That's the not-so-secret agenda here with the YES on 8.

Oh yes, judges are correct when they put out a decision that right- wingers love, but they're defamed as activist when the decision is in favor of the other side. Ho hum.

Over half the straight couples need no help to screw their marriages up. This proves that the recognition of gay marriage in the state will have no effect on hetero marriages, and the backers of Prop 8 are ridiculous to put out such a weak argument. Something more concrete, please, with some data to back it up? Studies also show that children of gay couples do just as well in school and are just as self-confident, with just as many friends as the offspring of straight couples. So clearly, sexual orientation of the parents does not affect the emotional and cognitive development of the offspring. Gay parents also do not make gay kids, either.

Teachers in CA schools are forbidden from talking about marriage at all grade levels--they can only talk about respecting relationships in a very general sense. They aren't allowed to talk about hetero relationships any more than homosexual ones, so the lies in the ads about this being taught in the schools if Prop 8 doesn't pass are also debunked. However, my son in middle school sure has seen a lot of 6th graders spouting out how much they hate gays, and how they're hoping that Prop 8 passes, so it's obvious these kids get exposed to a lot of hatred at home. Not much you can do to prevent these kids from spreading their discrimination around the school campus, huh?

Gay couples adopt children or use IVF methods, just like straight infertile couples do, but I'm sure adoptive parents of any stripe don't really get bogged down in semantics. They're just happy to be able to provide a home and love for a new person.

Bottom line--some Christians still want to force their dogma on everyone else. Keep your discrimination in your church--and leave the rest of California out of it.

I love the tolerance for differences of opinion that are expressed over and over again by the "No on 8" folks. Your hypocrisy shows through with every comment posted.

Because I differ with your opinion, Faulty Logic, I am prejudiced.

It seems you all are very tolerant, open, and accepting as long as we agree with you. As soon as we disagree, you come at us with both barrels blazing.

No you're just prejudiced.

Admit it.

And you want to inflict your prejudices on everyone.

I am absolutely not prejudiced. My opinion just happens to differ from your's, therefore, all you're doing is projecting your own feelings of prejudice onto me. That makes you prejudiced.

It's pretty sad, actually. You guys claim to be so open-minded and tolerant, but you really aren't, are you? Your comments speak for themselves. Thanks for confirming my previous comments though.

Ok, fair enough. I'm prejudiced against people who are prejudiced.

You're also thick as a stack of bricks, but that's OK. All in the name of democracy...

Do you always resort to name calling when you can't win an argument? Do you always sit on blogs and lurk like a vulture?

Go steal some No on 8 signs or something...

Sounds like you might have the disposition for breaking out car windows that had "Yes on 8" bumper stickers on them. I heard there was a lot of that going on in the east end of the County where you guys are clearly outnumbered.

Speaking of name-calling, I believe you threw the first stone with the "prejudiced" remark. So, the hypocrisy continues. But, since I'm so tolerant and accepting, all is forgiven.

Don't waste your time with this guy, Yes on 8. You got it right earlier - thick as a stack of bricks, or stack of bull****.

Faulty Logic,

Have you checked the returns on Prop. 8 lately?

I specifically went to Lassen's to buy stuff just becaues of the tacky behavior of the No on 8 people picketing the place.

Good for you, Juandeveras. I also went to Lassen's yesterday and purchased over $200 worth of goods. Both myself and my wife are now both committed Lassen's shoppers.

I also think it's wonderful what John Lassen did, participating in the democratic process by putting his money where his mouth is. I wonder how many so-called gay activists did this. Probably not many, they were too busy smashing out car windows and tearing down campaign signs.

Maybe more and more parents will be hassling public schools' teachers' unions as a protest against the state teachers' union donating over $1,000,000.00 in opposition to Prop. 8 - what's the point ? The gay marriage business in Calif. died real fast; so did the mayor of Palm Springs' business - he'd performed 115 gay weddings.

Good point. All you hear about is how much money the Mormon Church contributed to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Nobody talks about this public employee union (the CTA) kicking in $1 million to defeat it. That's downright sinful, as far as I'm concerned.

I thought the schools didn't care one way or another about the gay marriage issue, since they claim not to teach about gay marriage in public schools. Yeah right!!! Apparently, they care a lot.

I say disband the public school system in California and go to charter and private schools only. Public education has proven itself to be an abysmal failure in this State.

School teachers are represented by their union and that same union stands up for the values and rights of their members, including their gay members.

As far as violence is concerned I condemn it from any side. But the same people here who don't seem to speak out against violence to people, both physical and emotional are real upset about car windows and yard signs. Both are wrong, but I am more worried about people.

What about the violence perpetrated against that poor elderly woman in Palm Springs who was surrounded by the "No on 8" fanatics who physically and verbally assaulted her? Shall we discount that little incident in the name of civil rights? What about her civil rights? What about her free speech rights?

Clearly that is wrong and the people that violated her rights should be held to account for it.

Why did you bother to ask though? Did you not read my comments? I clearly said "As far as violence is concerned I condemn it from any side."

But stop pretending it only comes from one side. Clearly gays and their supporters have faced a long history of violence and discrimination from those that don't respect their rights.

I'm just saying it doesn't help their cause much when they display the same sort of violence and intolerant behavior that they claim to abhor.

"Teacher":

Teaching and schools should be about education. Teachers' unions are not about students - they are EXCLUSIVELY about teachers and they are extremely liberal - period. I spoke with a local young bright female hispanic grammar school teacher who was shunned by most of her colleagues for innocently wearinga "yes on 8" button - IT IS PRO-MARRIAGE / IF THE REST WANT TO CALL IT "HATE" THEN LET THEM CONTINUE TO LIVE IN THEIR PARALLEL UNIVERSE - after they unilaterally created it.

If she was wearing the button at school that is against the rules. How would a family with gay people in it feel about walking in and seeing that their child's teacher is against their civil rights. The same rules should apply to everyone.

I am not surprised that young teachers support equality. After all No on 8 won in a landslide, among younger voters.

Yep, that's true. But it also won in a landslide with African American and Hispanic voters. How do you account for that? Aren't these the very minorities that have fought for their own equal rights for many, many years?

It seems like this initiative had very little to do with depriving people of their civil rights and everything to do with reaffirming a definition of a cultural institution that pre-dates religion and gay rights - marriage. Sorry, but better luck next time.

Teacher:

Before your teachers' union " stands up for the 'rights' of its gay members", I suggest you have your teachers' union have their counsel define to them: 1. How supporting marriage with a button is a violation of their freedom of speech and, 2. how a defined "right" to marriage is stated within state law for same sex couples ? This teacher is a very fine person. She is leaving her job, which she dearly loves, because of the unionistas like yourself who seek to inhibit quality people from teaching. The acceptable SAT score of a teacher in many states is 800. Unfortunately many working teachers function at that level of intelligence. I hope you are not one of them.

Judging by her comments here, juandeveras, I wouldn't put her a point over 600 on the SAT.

Juan, Yes,

Are you really suggesting that teachers should be able to use their classroom to promote their political views to their students by wearing buttons for candidates or ballot propositions? They are of course to do it on their own time, but not while they are teaching! I don't care what their political ideology is, they shouldn't be promoting it in class.

Your second strange comment is about the SAT's. They are used to judge applicants for college acceptance, not grad school or jobs. Why use a score from when someone was a junior or senior in high school for a job after they finish a degree in college and they finish a credential program?

I am sorry you are uninformed of state law and hiring procedures but I wouldn't normally insult you for any of that ignorance you signed your name to in your post.

Then again, you did use a factual error, posted after an error of understanding in a basic law, to attack my intelligence.

I don't need to insult you, your post insults you.

Teacher: Enough with the self-righteous and the sanctimonious. I did not know that supporting marriage and the family is now considered a "political view". It has traditionally been the core of our civilization. A person supporting Prop. 8 is simply stating publically that they support marriage between a man and a woman. You think otherwise. Go picket in front of Lassen's, where the regular folks are increasing their business as a result of your crowd's whining. Our Judeo-Christian civilization has considered the concept of marriage as the glue which holds this civilization together for the last number of centuries in this country and this is the civilization you have chosen to live in. I am a bit sick and tired of the majority of the US population, and I include myself in that crowd, being referred to as bigots because people of your persuasion do not agree with a core value in effect since the beginning of time. You should be ashamed of yourself. Homosexuals throughout the world statistically marry each other less than 5% among that portion of the respective populations, so it becomes obvious that the primary goal is to stick it to the majority just for the heck of it. This population of Americans is becoming profoundly sick of your corporate behavior and will fight you to the end over it because it is a core value. Other minorities such as blacks, whom your crowd constantly attempt to identify with as co-victims, think your cause is a bit much, and do not like being thrown in as co-victims - and have so stated with their recent vote. Go and attempt to live in a Muslim society, or most societies throughout the world, where homosexuals are killed or publically ostracized. People of your persuasion have the right to civil ceremonies here. Give it a rest. As to teachers: I have taught school. The teachers and administrators' associations have thousands of pages of rules to cover their respective rear ends. You should be concentrating your efforts on quality teaching of the children of taxpayers who pay the highest price per child for some of the lowest quality results. Even the Catholic schools, with far less resources, put out a better product than the public schools where you apparently teach. Liberal social engineering has dumbed down the education system, aborted discipline and has wasted the taxpayers' money in social engineering and free lunches. You teachers constantly whine about conforming to " No Child Left Behind" when the real story is you do not want to be accountable for results which you cannot achieve. Get a grip, teach. The atmosphere in any public school is pro-liberal. The Larry King incident would never have happened if the liberal teachers/administrators had done their job. Now the taxpayers are going to have to anti up to pay off his family for yet another example of the derogation of duty by those who were supposed to be in charge - you teachers.

As to SAT scores - they are a valid evaluation of intelligence. You seem to suggest that going to college raises your IQ. I don't think so. And, I did not attack your intelligence, O wise one: I simply stated I hoped you were not one of those teachers with a low IQ.

Juan,

Again, it isn't your friend's politics I am objecting to, it is a any staff member, liberal or conservative, campaigning in a classroom by showing their support or opposition to a ballot proposition. The same rules should apply to everyone.

I didn't talk about boycotts, protests, or anything of the sort. I simply and clearly stated that your friend is not allowed to campaign in class to elementary students.

As far as the SAT scores go they are not an IQ test. It measures skills, which do increase with studying. That's why students study for them.

But that is besides the point. I have never heard of a school asking a prospective teacher for their high school Junior year SAT scores. I would be interested in you proved that point with an article or news story to back it up.

As far as your ramblings about the laws in some countries with many Muslims, of course I agree America is much more free.

My last point: I am not gay, but funny you would assume I am. Also, don't assume to know my race.

Teacher:

I made no mention of whether you were gay, your race, and/or Junior Year SAT scores.

How and why would one assume anything either about your race or any proclivities you might have ... and who really cares ?

As to my "...ramblings about the laws in some other countries with many Muslims...": my comment was quite specific. Read it again, please. If you cannot engage intellectually, then kindly refrain from sophomoric condescension. One notes you avoid all topics except "campaigning about a ballot measure".

Comment: If wearing a button supporting marriage constitutes " campaigning",then it would seem to follow that my 15-year-old daughter being asked in a 5-page public school sex questionaire given out without parental approval in a non-sex-ed class, to wit, with the following question, among many others of a similar nature: " How many times have you had anal intercourse in the last three months ?" ( prepared by the Rand Corp. and sold to the school to be paid for with taxpayer money ) is at least a more serious form of "campaigning", yet educrats consider this to be acceptable "campaigning". Any thoughts, teacher ?

Juan,

You said "People of your persuasion have the right to civil ceremonies here." Please explain how this isn't an assumption about me.

I don't understand what your point is exactly. You think teachers should be able to campaign for a ballot proposition if you agree with it? I think teachers should teach and not campaign in their elementary school classrooms. My position is backed up by the state education code. Does being a conservative exempt you from this code? Proposition 8 was on the ballot and your friend violated the education code by supporting it in her classroom. Would you be upset if a teacher wore a button against it in an elementary classroom?

You keep bringing up SAT scores and all I asked is what public or for that matter private school uses them as part of their hiring process? I think you made it up, but feel free to post it.

While your at it, what local school and classroom was handing out that survey you mentioned.

I wouldn't bother responding any further if I were you, juandeveras. Her low SAT score (particularly in the reading comprehension area) is becoming painfully obvious. Now I'm certain she teaches in the public school system. Yikes!

I know you think engaging in personal attacks wins debates but it would be a stronger tactic to actually answer questions.

You said "People of your persuasion have the right to civil ceremonies here." Please explain how this isn't an assumption about me.

I don't understand what your point is exactly. You think teachers should be able to campaign for a ballot proposition if you agree with it? I think teachers should teach and not campaign in their elementary school classrooms. My position is backed up by the state education code. Does being a conservative exempt you from this code? Proposition 8 was on the ballot and your friend violated the education code by supporting it in her classroom. Would you be upset if a teacher wore a button against it in an elementary classroom?

You keep bringing up SAT scores and all I asked is what public or for that matter private school uses them as part of their hiring process? I think you made it up, but feel free to post it.

While your at it, what local school and classroom was handing out that survey you mentioned.

Teacher: I repeat: " People of your persuasion have the right to civil ceremonies". Obviously I have not a clue about your personal proclivities - how would one ? By your nom de plume we all know you choose to be anonymous. You can discern from the context of my remarks I am referring to "people of your persuasion" as being those opposed to Prop. 8. Suffice to say my offspring graduated from a Southern California public secondary school.

A comment in today's WSJ letters page: " ...Marriage does not discriminate. Whether people choose to marry or opt for an alternative life style is their choice. Californians have been quite tolerant and have made substantial provisions in their laws for gay unions. Other systems could be easily modified to facilitate the well-being of gay people without corrupting the primary unit of society. But this is not what advocates for "gay marriage" are pursuing. The debate is not about civil rights; it is an attempt to obtain total public acceptance through the pressure of political correctness and ultimately through the force of law."

Gays would have it enforceable by law that all churches would have to perform " marriage" ceremonies for gays. Gays have already severely cracked the Episcopal Church, caring naught about the 95% of members who are straight. This has brought about entire dioceses within that church breaking away from the national church this year - we're talking 600 churches and multiple lawsuits over real estate - primarily to satisfy the egos of the gays. " We're here, we're queer, get used to it" is the motto they have adopted. They need to get over themselves.

Juan,

"People of my persuasion have the right to civil ceremonies" clearly means you assumed I was gay, which I am not. I don't see another reason to bring it up. I guess people of your persuasion are free to get civil unions too.

How did 5% of people create a rule change? I guess you somehow again assumed that only gay people support equality. Obviously, many of the 95% of the church also supports equality. Are churches forced to marry people that don't follow their rules now? Of course not, and they never have been.

I am still awaiting your answer on which public schools check 11th grade SAT scores to hire teachers.

I am also waiting to hear which school handed out the survey you claim they did. I don't think it happened, but I could be wrong.

Teacher, Teacher, you lost. What is a teacher like you campaigning for "No on 8" to begin with? What does gay marriage have to do with teaching. Unless you're gay, I see no reason you'd be remotely interested in the topic.

Teacher,

Yep, you could be wrong. I made no comment concerning which public schools check 11th grade SAT scores to hire teachers. I only mentioned earlier that some states allow teachers who have 800 SAT scores. I trust that is not too difficult.

PS - what is your favorite kind of apple ?

A teacher like me? I don't understand why some people don't get that you don't need to be gay to support civil rights. But thanks for proving my point that you think Juan was calling me gay, which he clearly was when he said people of my persuasion can already have civil unions.

Some states allow teachers to have 800 on their SAT's? How would they know if they don't check?

How about you list the states and show a source.

Also, what school handed out the fake survey?

Teacher, I can understand that you don't need to be gay to support civil rights. But, this isn't a civil rights issue. This is a moral issue.

The majority of Californians voted on November 4th to affirm that marriage should "remain" legal only between one man and one woman. The thing that people are finding most repugnant now is the reaction of the gay community and so-called civil rights activists, such as yourself, to something that was decided through an open and democratic process.

That's how we decide public policy matters, such as this, in a democratic society. Time to accept it and move on.

Good points, Yes. The only thing that gays seem to be lacking is the label "marriage." Is this something to be so obsessed with? They can still engage in civil unions and live with the person they love. Isn't this the most important thing?

I agree that it is a moral issue and it is a civil rights issue. You believe for moral reasons the civil rights of others need to be restricted. Sometimes that makes sense, in this case I disagree with you. I agree that Proposition 8 won and is now law. But that doesn't mean I am not going to argue against it give up on changing the law.

If I think it is a civil rights and a moral issue do you expect me to give up? I understand for you it is a moral issue and that's why I wouldn't expect you to give up either.

I don't expect pro-life activists to give up. In fact, I would doubt their sincerity if they did.

What did I ever do that was repugnant? I would take offense at that statement if I valued your opinion more. I am not protesting anything, boycotting anyone, or doing anything uncivil. Posting a serious, reasoned argument on the internet is not repugnant.

Juan,

Since you called me gay and said schools had SAT reqs to hire teachers you should do us the favor of saying what school, if any, uses SAT scores in hiring.

Otherwise, we all assume you made it up.

Same goes for the hoax survey you made up.

Teacher:

1. I do not recall ever referring to you as "gay". If you believe that I did so, I regret that anything I may have said could be interpreted as such. Please know that was not my intent. I already suggested that it would be impossible to come to that conclusion when I do not even know who you are - you great big anonymous thing you.
2. I stated that one particular state had a minimum requirement that teacher applicants must have a minimum of 800 on their SAT. Boom. That is what I said. End of story.
3. The fact I did not name the school in question has nothing to do with the veracity of my comments nor does it warrant your referencing it to be a "hoax". People have their own parameters - your being an apparently pushy schoolmarm does not change that fact. Please, end this thang.

What state checks the high school test scores of applicants with college degrees to hire them?

Do you think we should require the same of police officers?

Sorry if I keep asking what school handed out that survey locally, but it is a powerful charge and we shouldn't believe it unless it is verified somehow. I understand you don't want to offer proof or even the name of the school so I will stop asking about it.

Teacher:

I suggest you contact the Rand Corporation in Santa Monica. They prepared the test. I spoke with the two who did the work for Rand. They had been promised by the school in question that the test would not be administered - but it was anyway. They claimed they got their questions from the CDC in Atlanta. That'll keep you busy for a while.

Juandeveras, I think Teacher implied that she is gay by some of her previous comments, which she then denied (thus my "low SAT" comment). I think we can all agree this is just becoming a circular argument though. Nobody is going to convince the opposing side of the merits of their arguments, so I think we should all agree to disagree.

Low SAT's.

Point to a single comment that implies I am gay that I posted.

Juan,

What state looks at high school SAT scores to hire college graduates to be teachers? By the amount of times I have asked you and you didn't answer I guess we can assume you weren't truthful.

Just post the state or stop insulting people.

I guess I will have to end this with two new character traits yet undiscovered, assigned by the self-designated schoolmarm: "untruthful" and "insulting". How would you like to be in her class ( assuming she's a "she" and a real "teacher" - we do not know that yet )

I think she's Mrs. Doubtfire wannabe...

Juan,

What state uses SAT scores to hire teachers?

Are you withdrawing that fabrication or providing some proof?

Low SAT scores,

Do you believe Juan is accurate that any state uses SAT scores in hiring or do you think he is wrong?

Not sure which states use SAT scores to make hiring decisions, but that's not the point. The point is SAT scores are an indicator of performance and reflect on the individual school districts as to areas needing improvement in terms of teacher performance and accountability.

Juan,

Most problems with ineffective teachers don't start from a lack of knowledge about the subject they teach. It more often relates to effort, teaching skills, class control, and support.

I bet a great math teacher could do a fine job teaching health.

But that is besides the point.

The point is you made something up and instead of admitting it you have run away from the debate.

Juan, what states look at high school test scores for hiring college graduates? Should law enforcement agencies do the same?

Teacher:

09/02/08

"high school grads who say they intend to major in education score in the bottom third compared to 36 other intended majors, according to SAT data released last week - 25th in reading, 27th in math and a combined 57 points below the national average in both".

If you just count the teachers who remain after 3 years, it's even lower.

Juan,

You said "The acceptable SAT score of a teacher in many states is 800".

What state looks at the SAT scores of job applicants for teaching?

Major in education? What subject majors in education? Science or math teachers?

Seriously, why not just admit you were wrong and that no state looks at SAT scores?

Teacher: According to the New Teacher Project, some states offer as an option to the Praxis test an evaluation based on student grades and SAT scores. According to Educational Testing Service, teacher prospects taking the licensing exams in elementary ed. and P.E. were significantly below the average for all college graduates and the same with their SAT scores. Certain North Carolina schools will accept entrants with 800 combined scores, on the condition they do exceptionally well otherwise. Hence, their initial SAT scores do become part of the job applicant package.

Why did it take you a few weeks and dozens of posts to admit your friend violated the law by campaigning in class and to post your sources? Great, North Carolina lets PE teachers skip a test, but is that to get a job or get into a credential program?

A link to the story would be great.

"Teacher" and "WTF"

I refer you to my 11 ( that's e-l-e-v-e-n )comments since 12/03 ( something significantly less than "a few weeks and dozens of posts" ). If either or both of you you have the intelligence and discernment to read them all carefully you will have thoughful answers to all your subsequent questions ( perhaps not the answers you desire )Forgive me: I thought you could figure this out by yourselves. To date, I have posed certain questions and made certain observations which have received no adequate response; just more ad hominum invective.

I "admit" to no "wrong" nor to any acquaintance " violating the law" by "campaighning in class".

Let's see: On 12/03 I posed two questions to which you failed to respond.

On 12/06 You stated I made a "strange" comment ( about SAT scores ), was "uninformed" and "attacked" your "intelligence". I have responded, yet not to your apparent sstisfaction.

I stated the following on 12/06: " The acceptable SAT score of a teacher in many states is 800 ". Your multiple responses have been acccusatory rather than enlightening. You demanded multiple times of me to know which states and under what circumnstances ? The fact that I did not respond in a manner and style which you found acceptable generated more ad hominum attacks. I assumed you could look this stuff up yourself - you do have access to the internet. When a school announces it will accept 800 combined SAT scores for prospective applicants to be teachers, ipso facto one can assume that any state which accepts these schools' graduates knows that - it is published information.

on 12/07 - "Teacher" suggests I accuse it of being gay, that I somehow know it's race and condescendingly refers to my " rambling about the law ( in other countries )" - simply additional ad hominum stuff.

On 12/11 In resonse to your claim, I suggest to you that I made no comment as to which schools check SAT scores.

You accuse me of falsely commenting about a survey my child was given. The fact that I happen to consider some things private isn't good enough for you - you call it a hoax.

12/13 - You accuse me of "insulting" people - I might suggest you take a couse in logic.

12/16 - My comment was referred to as a "fabrication".

12/17 - Comment by Low SAT that SAT scorse arere needed for balance within specific districts is part of the literature ( which I assumed poeple of your alleged heightened interest would already be aware of )

12/17 I am accused of having "made something up" and of "having run away from the debate ".

12/29 - WTF - That's elementary ed and PE - not just PE.

Juan,

Can you post a link so we can see your secret information? Are you modifying your claim and saying that schools like CSUN don't require high SAT scores and therefore schools that hire their applicants are hiring people with low SAT scores?

You did clearly attempt to insinuate I was gay when you said people like me can already get civil unions. Explain any other reasonable way to understand that sentence if you care, otherwise I have already accepted your apology for assuming people that care about equality must be gay.

Teacher:

You wrote:

" You did clearly attempt to insinuate I was gay when you said people like me can already get civil unions".

Comment: I did not "attempt to insinuate" anything. I already responded to your comment on this subject.

You should enroll in a law school - you will then learn that words have meaning - that precision in what one says is very important - you seemingly have yet to learn that.

This will be my last comment on this matter. Happy Holidays ( "Merry Christmas" might be offensive ).

I know you already explained that when you said "People of your persuasion have the right to civil ceremonies here." you somehow didn't mean I was gay.

I didn't bring it up again. You did, I let it go, but you brought it back up! Just drop it, as no matter how you try to explain it away it looks funny.

But after all of these posts I think everyone can see you never did post a link to your study that schools were looking at high school SAT scores to hire people. If you change your mind, post a link for us.

Merry Christmas.

Most of the people taking offense at that live inside the paranoid heads of right wingers.

Merry Christmas to all!