Same Sex Marriage and Education - Essay Example

? Same Sex Marriage and Education Rasmussen Same Sex Marriage and Education Education As A Means Of Socialization Education was developed to enable children to acquire knowledge through a transfer of information from teacher to student. This process of learning does not happen in a vacuum and is often affected by the issues happening in society and the community. The kind of education a child receives determines the social, emotional and moral stance he or she will take on in later life. It determines how an individual perceives reality, and the meanings that a person attaches to his or her perceptions. Education is value-laden; it is never neutral. It is a means by which a child gets socialized, where a child acquires language, learn values and norms and develop notions of what is right and what is wrong (Randall & Mayes, 2010, p. 21). Through schools, a child learns which social arrangements are acceptable, which personal relationships are proper and what family configurations are legitimate. On its own, education is already a battle ground of values – parents, teachers and school administrators all struggle to find a balance between the kind of belief systems and world views they will pass on to the children and ensuring that students learn the skills they will need in order to cope with their adult life. Some might say that the kind of educational system present in today’s world merely reinforces the culture of the past. Some of its aspects have to be change – what these aspects are, is a subject of various debates. The Issue Of Same Sex Marriage Meanwhile, same sex debates are drenched in emotion where both the advocates and opponents ready to invest enormous amounts of time, money and energy to persuade those who have not yet made up their own opinions about the issue. Most discussion of same-sex marriage elicit an intensity and passion which typically exceed the already vigorous discussion of key policies such as health care and military spending. E. Vance Randall and Clifford Mayes (2010) provides an insight as to why same-sex marriage is a hotly debated issue and describes the issue as that of an iceberg – the visible part of the iceberg is the “heated debate observed in private and public quarters as well as the flurry of legislative and judicial actions…What is often not seen or noticed well at all [the mass of the iceberg which is located underwater] are the assumptions, values, and belief systems of proponents and opponents of same sex marriage” (p. 5). It is the hidden bulk of the iceberg that supports the entire debate; the issue of same-sex marriage is no longer a battle of opinions, but rather, a battle of worldviews (Randall & Mayes, 2010, p. 5). The Connection Between Education And Same Sex Marriage Education teaches the child the ways of the world, and in the process, the child is able to form his or her own view of how the world should work - what is normal and what is not, what is right and what is wrong. In the words of Randall and Mayes (2010), “Every child is born without culture, without a worldview, without a developed personality. Education is socialization or the creative process through which an individual is fashioned and a culture or worldview is passed on from one generation to another” (p.21). The entire process of educating child is value laden because the teacher imparts his or her own view of the world, which also reflects the values passed on to the teacher by his own elders. In short, education reflects the values of the majority and may leave out the values by a certain minority. In the case of marriage, socialization through education teaches children that parents should be heterosexual, and same-sex unions are undesirable. As such, LGBT couples and their children are part of the minority, but this minority is never silent as their cause receives wide support in various sectors of the community. For Randall and Mayes, the entire educational process can serve to reinforce cultural perspectives or it can revamp entire cultures. When parents leave their children in schools, they are ultimately relegating their authority to socialize their children to the teachers. Hence, parents expect teachers to act on their behalf, “presenting the same socializing content that children receive at home” (Randall & Mayes, 2010, p.22). This is why same-sex marriage is a sensitive topic to education – parents react when teachers and schools teach ideas and values which are foreign from those taught in the family. Because most families in the U.S. are heterosexual, where mothers are females and fathers are males, same-sex parenting is unacceptable. Yet, there is no denying the phenomenon of same-sex parenting. As more and more LGBT couples decide to raise their own families there is also increasing reports of harassment (verbal and physical) from other students and adults which are experienced by children of LGBT couples. Because of this, LGBT advocates are calling for the introduction of LGBT issues to the school system. Some advocates of same-sex marriage equate their advocacy to the struggle of Black Americans for rights and acceptance – they are present in the system and since they are protected by the Constitution, socializing institutions must find ways to incorporate their needs. Parents have protective instincts and are bound to defend their own worldview (with has its own moral authority) and would want to ensure that their children will adapt the same view. If schools adapt an LGBT-friendly curriculum, a school war will be ignited, and teachers who simply wish to provide the best educational experience for their students are stuck in the middle of this war. For Randall and Mayes (2010), teaching same-sex marriage in schools would have two major effects: The first effect would be in the relationship between parents and teachers, teachers and students, and parents and children. The second major effect would be with the curriculum of the school in terms of curricular content as well as the “hidden curriculum” or the attitudes, values, norms and perspectives that are not explicitly or formally taught such as safe schools policies, anti-bullying policies, hate speech policies, annual Day of Silence events, assemblies with only speakers with one point of view, and policies equating homosexuality and same-sex marriage as civil rights issues. (p.25) Education is already a sensitive arena without same sex marriage. But with more and more couples from the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community sending their children to school, schools are forced to deal with issues they were not initially trained to handle. Because there is a government mandate for schools to become inclusive, teachers are forced to re-evaluate their own beliefs and values in order to deal with children of same-sex couples. While some states have already started looking into the integration of same-sex curriculum in schools, heterosexual parents are wondering this new educational policy will benefit or harm their children. By allowing LGBT-friendly curriculum in schools, parents may feel that schools no longer prepare their children for a productive and morally upright life. Parents who subscribe to the orthodox view of the family may feel that their trust is violated and the school war can ignite a real civil war to emerge. When the authorities of the parents are pitted against that of the teachers, it is the children, particularly the younger ones, who will suffer. Parenting Norms, LGBT Parents and Educational Policies Laura Bower and Cari Klecka’s study showed that the real problem in incorporating same-sex marriage in the school curriculum is because there are prevailing norms associated with parenting. Teachers still adhere to the heteronormative family configuration, and teaching non-traditional family arrangement becomes difficult because it goes against their own worldview. Using focused group discussions and an interpretive interview, the researchers discovered three norms for parenting: (1) parents provide and support educational experiences, (2) parents prioritize their children’s needs and identities before their own, (3) parents provide physical and emotional safety for their children (Bower & Klecka, 2009, pp. 364-365). To expound on the first norm teachers expected parents to ensure that their children will learn appropriate social skills which are necessary for school. This involved parental involvement in school activities and supporting learning in school through the activities in the home. Further interview showed that for teachers, the main problem with parental involvement in the child’s school is mainly affected by linguistic differences and sexuality is not a deterrent. Meanwhile, the research made by E.M. Diaz and J.G. Kosciw (2008) showed that LGBT parents were in fact more involved with their children’s education compared to heterosexual parents. Hence, it means that there is value in providing institutions and services that addresses the needs of LGBT parents since they are more conscientious in monitoring the progress of their children. If teachers want to know how to deal with the issue of same-sex marriage, the best way to do it is to ask LGBT parents their opinion. From this statement alone, one can already see how the educational landscape can change – because LGBT parents are more involved, there is a tendency that policies will be geared towards their preferences, and non-LGBT parents may feel that they are no longer represented in school policies. Moreover, in order to provide LGBT services to same sex couples and their children, teachers have to re-train and discover a deeper understanding of the issue. In relation to the second parenting norm, participants of the Bower and Klecka researched had mixed responses. Some participants felt that LGBT parents were too focused on sexuality and are neglecting the other aspects of parenting. Moreover, children of LGBT couples are targets for teasing and bullying and some feel that it is the fault of the parents for being too vocal about their gender identity. Meanwhile, there are also participants who feel that the parent’s sexual orientation is non-issue, but none of them expressed that a parent’s sexual identity may have a positive impact on the children. In this case, it seems that participants have grown to tolerate LGBT groups, but they have not yet seen the “benefit” of including same-sex curriculum in school. True enough, in the report by Diaz and Kosciw (2008), it was discovered that there are only a handful of schools offering support for LGBT families, despite the benefit it offers to children of LGBT parents. Moreover, the move towards incorporating same-sex curriculum in sex education is still subject to much debate as many states still prohibit same-sex marriages in their territories. Bias against same-sex parenting is still dominant and even when there are groups expressing their acceptance of LGBT parents, there is no institutional support for same-sex couples who wish to raise their own families. In the case of the third norm, Bower and Kleska discovered that many participants feel that sexual orientations of LGBT parents are detrimental to their children. While LGBT parents can prepare their children to become positive and open about their family structure, many participants feel that other children in school will not understand what LGBT parenting is about and the child may be viewed as a deviant. In the GLSEN reports (Diaz & Kosciw, 2009; Kosciw & Diaz, 2008), it was discovered tht LGBT students, and children with LGBT parents experience harassment from adults and their peers. As such, it is no longer a wonder why Bower and Kleska’s respondents feel that LGBT parenting is a transgression to the norm – children can be physically or verbally abused solely because their family configuration is not heterosexual. How introduction of same-sex marriage to school curriculum can affect education The issue of same-sex marriage is multi-faceted – providing legal rights and institutional acceptance (in the form of LGBT-friendly curriculum) to same-sex couples impacts not only the judicial system but the society at large. It requires the deinstutionalization of various norms and re-norming, which in a sense can be described as the re-construction of an entire civilization. For Charles Russo (2011), the legislative approval for same-sex marriage has various implications. For one, it will open the doors for other marriage regimes such as polygamy and polyandry. For the United States to provide legal basis for same sex parenting, the government has to be ready to deal with other issues that may arise related to various forms of marriage. If one “alternative” system of marriage has been accepted, why would the authorities prevent the acceptance of all the others? Russo believes that advocate for same-sex marriage must realize that the issue is not only divisive, but that it is also volatile. It can remake all the entire American culture. As such, Russo reiterate that since same-sex marriage advocates want to be heard, they would also be willing to listen. In his words, “both sides of the divide should be free to express their good faith differences of opinion without being subjected to vituperative, ad hominem attacks on their persons and values” (Russo, 2011, p. 475). If the entire American belief in marriage were to be revamped, individuals of various marriage and sexual preferences must learn to treat each other with respect and dignity – only then can a new and more inclusive definition of marriage can be realized. More than these however, Russo et al. believes that it is the responsibility of same-sex advocates to learn how their stance can potentially affect various social institutions such as education, and propose solutions on how these effects can be addressed without creating animosity for the other viewpoint. Russo believes that the issue of same-sex marriage has come to a battle of wills over values and does not bode well for education and future generations. To address this, Russo reminds school officials, “educators should focus on the best interests of children instead of pursuing their own agendas as social change agents” (2011, pp. 487-488). While it is desirable to educate children on the emerging issues of human sexuality, the curriculum must be age-appropriate or else the instruction can cause more harm than good. Educators have to keep in mind that education has to be centered on the needs of the children, and in the case of curriculum development, educators ensure that materials they will use in class will not expose children to ideas that they cannot fully comprehend. Moreover, Russo believes that as the effect of same-sex marriage to education is multi-faceted, the approach to mainstream it has to address various factors. In the end, Russo et al. says, “while it may be too much to expect individuals on both sides of the divide to reach an acceptable compromise, they at least owe to children to ensure that their disagreements do not impact negatively of the quality of education that students receive” (Russo, 2011, p. 494). While Russo’s call for action has no teeth, the article is an important resource because it raises an issue which is not commonly considered in the debate over same-sex marriage. His discussions showed the expanse of change that same-sex advocates are veering towards, and the potential for damage is very real. Hence, it is important for both same-sex advocates and pro-marriage activists to take precaution in their activities; they have to ensure that their claims are backed up by research so as to move the issue forward, and ensure a better educational system for the children. Conclusion In sum, the discussions in these paper shows that the various norms for parenting all adhere to a heterosexual family arrangement. Teachers find it difficult to instruct children about same-sex parenting because it does not adhere to their own view of what a family should be. Moreover, it has been discovered that there is threat to a child’s health and security because of the gender orientation of his or her parents. But such finding also shows that there is a need to educate both students and their parents about same-sex marriage in order to garner social acceptance for same-sex parenting. Schools are perhaps the best vehicle for teaching about same-sex marriage but such a venue is also wrought with its own issues. Hence, introducing same sex marriage to education has practical considerations. It is important for the authorities to create a venue where both advocates and opponents of same sex marriage can discourse with each other. Both sides have the right to be heard as this issue has the potential to remake the entire structure of the American society. There is a need for both sides to come to an agreement, or else children, particularly those in the very young ages will suffer. Without respect for the dignity and belief of the other, the issue of same sex marriage will continue to divide society. If the issue is not handled properly, or if it is continued to be dealt with as it is being dealt with now, it will continue promote discord and the bright future for all children will be compromised. References Bower, L., & Klecka, C. (2009). (Re)considering normal: queering social norms for parents and teachers. Teaching Education, 20(4), 357-373. doi:10.1080/10476210902862605 Diaz, E. M., & Kosciw, J. G. (2009). Shared differences: The experience of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students of color in ur nation’s schools. New York. Glass, C. M., Kubasek, N., & Kiester, E. (2011). Toward a “European model” of same-sex marriage rights: A viable pathway for the U.S.? Berkeley Journal of International Law, 29(1), 132-174. Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz, E. M. (2008). Involved, invisible, ignored: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender parents and their children in our nation’s K–12 schools. New York. Nicolas, P. (2011). Common law same-sex marriage. Connecticut Law Review, 43(3), 931-947. Randall, E. V., & Mayes, C. (2010). Same sex marriage and education: Implications for schools, students and parents. Symposium on the Impact of Same Sex Marriage on Education: Implications for Schools, Curriculum, Students, Their Families, and Educational Committees. Brigham Young University. Russo, C. J. (2011). Respect for me but not for thee: Reflections on the impact of same-sex marriage on education. BYU Education and Law Journal, 2, 471-494.  Read More