Category: Warren Throckmorton

I didn’t see it, but I hear Richard Cohen demonstrated holding techniques with George Foreman last night (June 28) on Jimmie Kimmel Live. If anyone watched, how was it?

Word from the NEA is that Reg Weaver, NEA prez, is not happy about the press reports regarding the NEA support for gay marriage. Someone on site reports are that he is using foul language from the podium in expressing his ire over the matter. The NEA flip-flop is stunning given the fact that the union should experience no difficulty getting supportive language passed at their Delegate Assembly. At least one gay blogger seems to think the NEA has caved but I suspect the original language will return.

UPDATE: An eye witness on the scene in Orlando tells me that NEA president, Reg Weaver, in a public meeting, today held up a copy of the American Family Association newsletter announcing the NEA resolution language supporting gay marriage and said, “This is a crock of s–t!” Very strange. All the delegates have to do is look at their resolutions book and see that the new resolution language has changed.

As reported below, the NEA seems to have created a firestorm of resistance in some quarters over the proposed resolution to support gay marriage.

The original resolution was delivered to delegates at their winter meeting, Feb 23-25 of this year. There was no fuss until a delegate alerted the American Family Association and then all of a sudden the language was changed.

The Alabama Education Association seems to read things differently than the Ohio EA . And in contrast to NEA president Reg Weaver’s statement that the NEA has no position on gay marriage, the CA Education Association does.

Anthony Bogaert has a new study out today about the older brother theory. Well, technically tomorrow, since it is not out on the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science website yet. This study seems to leave the “feared older brother” theory looking pretty shabby. However, the hype over the study is sure to overlook Blanchard and Bogaert’s estimates that only about 15% of gay men owe their attractions to this effect.

I have been reviewing prior work in this area today. About half of the studies looking for a birth order effect have found it. The studies have either found no effect or an elevated ratio of brothers to sisters of gay men. One study examined the feminity hypothesis. Anthony Bogaert looked for a birth order effect in a general sample of homosexual men and then in very feminine men. He found it in very feminine gay men but not in a general sample, even among more feminine (but non – gender identity disordered) gay men. I would like to see a general study of cross gender behavior and sex ratio but this was not examined. In any case, cross gender behavior in childhood does explain some of the orientation in extremely feminine cases but not in all cases.

This study like most biological studies is a challenge for the media to report. Here a potentially very misleading statement from the LA Times writer: “In an analysis of 905 men and their siblings, Canadian psychologist Anthony Bogaert found no evidence that social interactions among family members play any role in determining whether a man is gay or straight.” Of course it is correct; the authors found no evidence, but the statement leaves the impression that the authors looked for all possible “social interactions between family members” and didn’t find anything. It appears they only looked a birth order.

The National Education Association may be backpeddling on their original language regarding gay marriage. Originally, the education union offered the following proposed resolution:

The language in this statement mailed to NEA delegates a week ago states:

B-8 Diversity

The National Education Association believes that adiverse society enriches all individuals.Similarities and differences among races, ethnicity, color,national origin, language, geographic location,religion, gender, sexual orientation, genderidentification, age, physical ability, size,occupation, and marital, parental, or economicstatus form the fabric of a society.

The Association also believes that education should foster the values of appreciation and acceptance of the various qualities that pertain to people asindividuals and as members of diverse populations.

The Association further believes in the importance of observances, programs and curricula that accurately portray and recognize the roles, contributions,cultures. and history of these diverse groups and individuals.

The Association believes that legal rights and responsibilities with regard to medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption, legal immigration, domestic partnerships, and civil unions and/or marriage belong to all these diverse groups and individuals.

The Association encourages affiliates and members to become part of programs and observances that may include cultural and heritage celebrations and/orhistory months. (1995, 2006)

However, the NEA seems to have shifted the language regarding this proposal within about a week. Here is a letter from the Ohio Education Association released yesterday.

Date: June 21, 2006 From: Gary L. Allen, OEA President
Dennis M. Reardon, Executive Director

To: OEA Executive Committee, District Leaders and OEA Staff

Re: NEA RA Anti-Discrimination Amendment and the American Family Association

We need to bring to your attention a malicious e-mail campaign to distort and criticize NEA’s position against discrimination and a proposed NEA RA resolution on that same subject.

As you know, the NEA opposes discrimination in any form and has a specific position calling for the protection of our members’ rights, regardless of race, color, creed or sexual orientation.

There is a new Resolution up for discussion at the July 2006 NEA Representative Assembly that would underscore NEA’s opposition to discrimination in any form. On June 29, the NEA Resolutions Committee will consider language that clarifies and reaffirms this
anti-discrimination position. The revised, proposed language states:

“The Association also believes that these factors should not affect the legal rights and obligations of the partners in a legally-recognized* domestic partnership, civil union, or marriage in regard to matters involving the other partner, such as medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption, and immigration.”

Nothing is official until the delegates vote in July, but this issue has already drawn an e-mail attack based on claims by the conservative group, American Family Association (AFA). The e-mail claims NEA plans “to approve and promote gay marriage.” This e-mail is being sent to NEA affiliate staff and members throughout the country.

AFA’s message distorts both NEA policy and the process of formulating NEA policy. NEA President Reg Weaver has issued a statement explaining, “NEA has no position on same-sex marriages, and leadership is not seeking to establish such a position. We are focused on Great Public Schools for Every Child.”

We couldn’t agree more. Nevertheless, you should be prepared to answer questions from members who may have received the distorted information by e-mail. We will keep you updated.

Thanks for your support in this matter.
_____________________
*As of June 2006 in the United States, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage, while California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, and Vermont grant persons in the same-sex unions a similar legal status to those in acivil marriage by domestic partnership, civil union or reciprocal beneficiary laws.

The new proposed paragraph(s) are in bold italics. NEA insiders believe the AFA letters have provoked the NEA leadership to change the language to focus on states with existing regulations regarding gay partnerships. I cannot verify as yet which is the actual language since the delegate’s resolutions book says one thing and the more recent OEA letter says something different.

Whatever one believes about gay marriage as a social/political issue, it seems offensive to require union dues to support initiatives that may be against conscience. Certainly socially liberal members would not want the NEA to go on record as being opposed to gay marriage. Seems best to me to commit to the provision of great schools for all.

UPDATE: Here is what I am hearing this morning:

The NEA sent information to State Leaders on Tuesday about this issue, as a result of questions posed by a state president and a member ofthe NEA Executive Committee. As the result, a change was recommended to Resolutions Committee Chair, Brent McKim. The Tuesday NEA memorandum stated, “The recommended language cited below was acceptableto all. If adopted, this language is proposed for movement to Resolution B10-Racism, Sexism, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identification Discrimination, and would clarify the meaning of the original proposed amendment, reaffirming the Association’s long-standing opposition todiscrimination in any form. This revised language will be considered at the June 29 Resolutions Committee meeting.” The proposed, revised language states: “The Association also believes that these factors should not affect the legal rights and obligations of the partners in a legally-recognized* domestic partnership, civil union, or marriage in regard to matters involving the other partner, such as medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption, and immigration.”

This language is referenced in the OEA letter above. I suspect the NEA recognizes that it is losing membership among conservatives and this quick change may be a response to those concerns.