Obama and sex ed for kids

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:23:56 GMT

How much of a problem "inappropriate touching" really is in kindergarten that Obama would include that in his speech?

Obama and sex ed for kids

CJ — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:25:15 GMT

That is how you tackle smear tactics, fight it with sense and logic. To bad Romney resorted to simple minded/wiseguy remarks that is quite typical of candidates these days, it came back to bite him.

Obama and sex ed for kids

CJ — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:30:58 GMT

Yiannis are you serious...molestation from relatives and family associates happen every day. He was addressing a topic that was well within the domain of the group he was addressing.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Lorraine, Tennessee — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:36:00 GMT

Thank you for posting this information, Chuck! I really appreciate the way YOU are treating Senator Obama. Even though I truly believe the mainstream media is doing it's best to push Hillary Clinton on us as the Democratic nominee. David Brody is definitely one of the good guys. He has ALWAYS been the fairest journalist of them all, who is why he is not a member of the mainstream media, and he gets it. I'm a Christian semi-conservative who is a fan of Reverend Pat Robertson's 700 club and I'm a supporter of Senator Obama's Presidential push. Yes, these two can co-exist! If anyone watched Anderson Cooper (I love this guy) last night one of the main members of the Christian Conservative moment talked about the Evangelical vote. He said that if Ruby is the Republican nominee the Evangelicals might look to the Democrats because alot of Evangelicals are concerned about the Environment and Racial unity. That sounds like Evangelicals for Obama to me.

Thanks again for posting this information.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:51:03 GMT

CJ it's an honest question. I don't know how much difference teaching a 5 year about inappropriate touching in kindergarten would make if we are talking about molestation.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Mel, Illinois — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:53:38 GMT

Pre-school teachers in Illinois are taught to be aware of the signs that indicate a child could be a victim of molestation and/or physical abuse. Over a ten year period my boss reported several suspiciuos incidents to DCFS and she was right each time. And that's only what we noticed at one school in one small town.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Barbara, Phoenix AZ — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:56:22 GMT

Yiannis,it is a concern. I worked in a kindergarten class for a year, and yes, the amount of inappropriate behavior, although infrequent, was still there. I agree that some introduction to appropriate/inappropriate touch is necessary even as young as kindergarten. I would be very pleased with a curriculum that is age-appropriate in public schools dealing with sex education, especially since "sex ed" deals with all reproductive functions and contact thereof, not just the act of copulation.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Lorraine, Tennessee — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:56:27 GMT

Thank you for posting this information, Chuck! I really appreciate the way YOU are treating Senator Obama. Even though I truly believe the mainstream media is doing it's best to push Hillary Clinton on us as the Democratic nominee. David Brody is definitely one of the good guys. He has ALWAYS been the fairest journalist of them all, which is why he is not a member of the mainstream media, and he gets it, and reports the TRUTH. I'm a Christian semi-conservative who is a fan of Reverend Pat Robertson and his 700 Club and I'm a supporter of Senator Obama's Presidential push. Yes, I am and these can co-exist! If anyone watched Anderson Cooper (I love this guy) last night one of the main members of the Christian Conservative movement talked about the Evangelical vote. He said that if Ruby is the Republican nominee the Evangelicals might look to the Democrats because alot of Evangelicals are concerned about the Environment and Racial unity. That sounds like Evangelicals for Obama to me.

Thanks again for posting this information.

PS...I hate typos! Thanks for reposting this for me

Obama and sex ed for kids

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:56:41 GMT

Once again Obama responds to criticism with logic, intelligence and class. Too bad those qualities have been missing in US politics for awhile.

Obama and sex ed for kids

John B, Des Moines, IA — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:58:06 GMT

This will be the first real test to see if the Obama campaign has what it takes. The punditocracy and talk radio will do everything in their power to cry that Obama wants to teach kindergartners about sex regardless of your personal family values. The reality is that children desperately need to know the difference between touching that is OK and touching that isn't. If the campaign can make the wingnuts look as crazy as they are then Obama is well on his way to being a serious candidate. If not Dems need to look really hard at the "electability" question.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Phil Viet Vet, Pearblossom, CA — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:59:51 GMT

Thank you Lorraine. The image portrayed in the media over the past decade or more has made some organized religion's involvement in politics look more like an organized crime operation than the church that Christ was sent to establish.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:00:04 GMT

I was wincing and about to post how I thought this was a mistake by the Obama campaign. Then I read the rest, and the explanation makes it fine, much like the incentive pay for teachers.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Joe, Dc — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:01:31 GMT

Obama supporters, quit the BS, take off your rose-colored glasses, and admit the truth: talking about sex education for kidergartners in the middle of a presidential campaign is dumb.

Obama and sex ed for kids

jed — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:05:08 GMT

I can;'t believe these poeple and Drudge take stuff so out of context knowing its not true. Obama was responding to an accusation by alan keyes taking the exact same idea of teaching kindergardners to be aware of molestation and claiming "Obama wants to teach kindergardners about sex!". Apparently the right wingers are so willing to jump at anything before even reading what was said. Too bad the people Romney is speaking to in that video won't even bother to look up the facts and will instead just take his word for it.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Jamie, Elmwood Park, IL — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:06:43 GMT

Yiannis, if just one child is saved from molestation because he was able to discern inappropriate touching, it's well worth it. And how could educating the children hurt?

Obama and sex ed for kids

Alex, Detroit — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:08:22 GMT

This is why I love Senator Obama, he is a thinking man. And though that may not play so great for sound bites for the talking heads to feed on. It shows that unlike a lot of candidates he actually has an opinion that has been formulated and not a script on how to pander.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Joe Justice — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:11:40 GMT

I'm sure we can now expect a flip-flop from Romney and an over-produced ad about inappropriate touching of children in Peggy Noonan's Dirty Ocean.

A sensible and straightforward explanation from Obama's camp. Well done.

Obama and sex ed for kids

CJ — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:14:49 GMT

I think there was no better response than to notify the CBN of all places...when was the last time you heard a Democratic candidate address them on a campaign? And it was done in a legit way that spurs reasoned debate.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Joycelyn Elders — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:16:33 GMT

Finally, a candidate that thinks just like me!!

Obama and sex ed for kids

Ricardo in California — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:17:51 GMT

I bet you the catholic schools never taught their kids about inappropriate vs appropriate touching ...instead they encouraged their kids to become alter boys ... I'm sure Cardinal Mahoney is regretting that cirriculum. Better yet ..lets follow in the steps of the GOP and assign someone like Mark Foley to head up the Washington Page Program.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Lorraine, Tennessee — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:19:00 GMT

You are welcome, Phil :)

Please don't believe that lie. Where did Dr. King so his last speech? In the pulpit of the historic Mason Temple which is the headquarters of the Churches of God in Christ. Where did the Civil Rights Movement start? In the pulpit.

Psalms 127:1 tells us if God doesn't watch the city the watchmen, watch but in vain. I'm convinced that if we simply give God, His due, our Country will be Blessed beyond belief. We know some of our fellow Americans are believers (that’s okay) but those of us who are must take a stand. This is why I'm supporting Senator Obama, he is a Christian and he is respectful of all Faiths or those who don't have a Faith in our beautiful Country.

I love Reverend Robertson, I always have, I believe he is a Conversative Christian who simply was the best for our Country. I’m fond of Focus of the Family founder, James Dobson too, he has a place in this debate and I would like to hear more from him.

I believe Senator Obama will get alot of Evangelical votes in the General Election.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Lyn, Silver Spring, MD — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:20:20 GMT

Way to go Mark and First Read. Thanks for the context, for those who needed it.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Dee of VA — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:25:31 GMT

Yiannis,

You live in Baltimore, a City with one of the highest rates of childe abuse and neglect, and you don't know the answer to your own question? When do you think child abuse starts...at the age of consent? MSNBC should not only be taking Romney to task for distorting Senator Obama's message, they should be taking its own resident bigot, Joe Scarborough, to task fo reporting the same distorted information on his show this morning. Senator Obama, in responding to a question at the Planned Parenthood Convention about early sex education in schools yesterday, reflected on his Senate race when his crazy Republican opponent accused him of wanting to teach explicit sex education to 5-year-olds. Which is a complete lie! When he was the head of the IL state Health and Human Services Committee, he proposed that teachers, with the input of local communities, come up with a science based--but age appropriate-answer to the question most kids ask, "where do babies come from?" rather than lying to them and telling them they come from storks. Additionally, given the growing rate of molestion, he says, like most reasonable minded people, it's imperative that kids even as young as 4 or 5 be able to recognize inappropriate touching and know to report it--before its too late!

Obama and sex ed for kids

The Edge, Macon, Ga — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:28:36 GMT

Jed, the right wingers aren't concerned with facts or research. They have the answers to all the world's problems....just blame Bill and all becomes well in their universe. Right, Jerry??

Obama and sex ed for kids

Tina Bensfield Goodyear Az. — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:38:24 GMT

When government enters your home AGAIN, kick them out and lock the door.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:39:03 GMT

Ricardo - not true. My son is in Catholic School. In our diocese, sex ed starts in kindergarten. I was pretty suprised to hear this, but when I saw the curriculum, much like when I heard Obama's explanation, it was fine. And as they grow older and the conversation turns to something we'd actually recognize as sex ed, as you can imagine it has a strong abstinence flavor in my son's school. But it is age appropriate all the way through, from what I can tell.

Obama and sex ed for kids

CJ — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:40:21 GMT

I hope Joe Scarborough didn't directly quote Romney and not objectively look at what Obama said. I really repsect him and I didn't catch his show this morning. Chuck and Todd I encourage you to contact Joe about an editorial correction if that is true.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Al "Global Warmer in Chief" Gore — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:45:15 GMT

"Jed, the right wingers aren't concerned with facts or research. They have the answers to all the world's problems..."

That's right. They are not like us at all. We got the facts and research on our side. We are the ones with the answers. There needs to be no more discussion.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:47:13 GMT

Dee, my question was whether talking to 5-year olds about inappropriate touching will make a difference to those kids likely to be molested. It's a pragmatic question in no need for preaching to the choir type answers.

In principle I think it's better to address the culprit before the crime happens rather than poison every child's brain about touch. Can a 5 year old tell?

What about those who become fearful of any touch even though they had nothing done to them? I think appropriate touch is very important for a family and have known people who are emotionally dysfunctional because their parents never hugged them after a young age.

In a society with imperfect beings there will be some that get abused no matter what rules and regulations one puts in. Then again it really depends on how much of a problem this really is, hence my question.

Again I would much rather treat the culprit to correct a problem than teach a possible victim to be fearful of everyone who touches him or her. And I'm sure there's a lot of room for confusion in a 5 year old's brain.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:50:38 GMT

It's just good sense to explain to children the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching. How else are they supposed to know? This is particularly true considering the high proportion of child sex abuse victims that are molested by someone they trust, i.e. family member, friend of the family, who is likely telling them that it is okay. Kids in that situation need to know that, contrary to what their abuser says, it is not okay and they should tell someone.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Ricardo in California — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:53:13 GMT

Paul given the number of accusations against Catholic preist in the US and the number of admissions (pay-offs), it seems to me that something is not working.

Obama and sex ed for kids

JJ in NJ — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:53:28 GMT

Yes, Senator Obama is a thinking man. And unfortunately we've seen what happens to thinking men in campaigns -- they get their behinds kicked by idiots like George W. Bush -- because Americans distrust brains. We revere athletes and make fun of people with minds. It's the American way, which is why we're in the mess we're in.

Obama and sex ed for kids

CJ — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:00:46 GMT

Yiannis I see what you are saying and I that is your view, that is fine. I just think what you mentioned is always a post-crime situation. Teaching a child about innapropriate touching is specifically crime prevention. And I think those who often do so teach specifically enough to make an simple enough distinction...almost specifically to genitals and extensive groping. This type of education existed even when I was in grade school.

Obama and sex ed for kids

CJ — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:03:06 GMT

JJ there may be hope yet..I think Neil Cavuto gave a veiled indorsement for Obama on his show yesterday.

Obama and sex ed for kids

John Doe, The Peanut Gallery — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:07:30 GMT

Yiannis:

I think you make some very valid points regarding sex ed for the the very young. I was wondering if you think it is possible to convey these ideas to young children without scaring them?

I've always been of the opinion that children in our society are alot smarter than we give them credit for as adults. Certainly we shouldn't be deliberately attempting to scare children. But I would have no problems with a program that instills into the minds of children that if someone touches them in a way that makes them uncomfortable they have a right to say "stop" and an expectation that their request be honored. There are plenty of ways to educate the young about inappropriate vs appropriate touching without scaring them.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Connie, Tn. — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:11:58 GMT

JJ in NJ: Hopefully, enough people can get past the "good ole boy" image to vote for someone with a brain. I don't think this country can take any more of idiots in office!

Obama and sex ed for kids

Rachel, Kennesaw, GA — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:24:04 GMT

JJ - That's an interesting theory you have there. I never really thought about it that way. I'll have to ponder that a little more...

I don't know how many of you have actually seen Barack Obama speak in person, but I'm hear to tell you that I have and I was amazed. He came to Atlanta recently and over 20,000 people showed up to hear him speak. It was the biggest political rally turnout in the history of Atlanta. He came across as open, honest, caring and (best of all) very practical. I think he's the one candidate that has the ability to truly bring people together. Obama has been criticized in the media for not "attacking" his fellow running mates often enough. I applaud him for it. He tells it like it is and he also gives us hope that change can really happen with the right leadership. If there's one thing this country needs right now - it's change.

Obama 2008!

Obama and sex ed for kids

Independent, Texas — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:33:54 GMT

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD (Sent Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:47 PM) et al.

From what I've been able to determine, kids subjected to this sick and disgusting behavior already know it is wrong at some level. You can tell that by their behavior. Trained professionals can detect it without even having to ask.

What this early education approach does is VALIDATE to those abused children that they are correct in feeling bad about the activity and that they should feel very free to tell someone about the activity so that they can get help!!

The children who are not already subjected to this disgusting behavior are NOT traumatized, they are educated and, because they haven't had to suffer it, do not get scared by it.

Look at the material sometime. It differs in different areas but it is all very very subtle and changes to be appropriate at age level.

Being concerned about this approach scaring or scarring children is very reminiscent of when, during the initial AIDs programs, providing condom teaching to teenagers would increase sexual activity was more of a concern than the fact that these kids could contract that deadly disease.

Look into all this directly yourselves. Don't forget that this world is completely different now (or at least more open) than when I was a youngster. Since parents now aren't able to protect the kids so carefully as mine were, they need all the help they can get.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:34:00 GMT

Senator Obama's idea makes sense, but why is this something for a candidate for President to bring up and push? Education issues are for the States and localities to determine, not the Federal government.

I only hope that bringing this up doesn't turn into another Federal intrusion into something that it has no business mucking with. If that happens, the reference will do much more harm than good.

NOTHING good can come from the Federal government's continued expansion into areas it's not supposed to get involved in.

Obama and sex ed for kids

amac, charlotte, NC — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:41:57 GMT

Uh, the comments that I have read are some the most ignorant responses I have ever heard. First off, why does obama think the government has the role of teaching five year olds about appropriate vs. inappropriate touching? Why not the parents? Second, why is obama talking about this? He's talking about this to gain support from planned parenthood...ie it's politics. Besides, there are more important things in this world that we have to deal with than teaching kids about 'touching'. Thirdly, and most important of all, why does obama not talk about stiffer penalties for child molesters. Instead of giving a 50 year old man who molested a 5 year old a 5 year sentence...give the sob life without parole. If you lock up these sick people, they won't be able to do harm...and thus, you don't have to poison a five year old kid's mind (in school) with appropriate vs. inappropriate touching. This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard of from a presidential candidate!!!!!

Obama and sex ed for kids

Sierra, San Francisco — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:53:23 GMT

Thank you, Lorraine ! Let me agree with Phil Viet Vet. Your comments were refreshing. I'm going to have to rethink my prejudices against fundamentalist Christians. I've always thought of them as right wing clones. Thanks for straightening me out. I guess life isn't all black and white.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Independent, Texas — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:57:21 GMT

amac, charlotte, NC (Sent Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:41 PM)

Oh amac. I am so very sorry that you feel this way.

I'm not even an Obama supporter but do feel that it is critically important that this issue be very openly and frequently discussed.

I don't recall that Mr. Obama said anything about the "government" teaching it. He was saying that he supports the fact that schools should use this material.

There are other very important topics to be discussed, true. However, the very little time (percentage wise) taken for this topic surely can't be seen as overshadowing those important issues, can it?

I believe, but will look to the Obama supporters to clarify, that Mr. Obama's position is very strong on penalties for all types of sexual misconduct not limited to pedophilia.

In this day and age, it is impossible to say that we can lock up all the offenders overnight, agreed? Until we do get them all locked up, let's do what we can to help children feel safe to report such abuse (as this education approach is intended to do) so that we can get a leg up of finding, apprehending, trying, and sentencing those abusers.

Does this clarify why this is certainly not "the most absurd thing" you can hear from a candidate?

Personally, the "most absurd thing" I've heard from candidates is "stay the course in Iraq".

Thank you for taking the time to read my response to you.

Obama and sex ed for kids

CJ — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:08:16 GMT

Amac I see what you are saying but all politics is local. You can't believe that a POTUS candidate will go to a local district and not address issues that constituents of that area ask him or what is related to that audience. Plus it is typical for groups to ask of some form of federal funds to assist their programs, whether it is feeding the homeless or drug rehabilitation centers. And as mentioned above, he is not disconnected from what he said..it was an issue from his own Senatorial campaign when Alan Keys ran against him.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Al, KS — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:11:57 GMT

amac - did it occur to you that it might be the parents that are doing the inappropriate touching....don't teach the children anything...let Uncle Joe teach them...he knows all about the subject.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Jed — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:11:59 GMT

Richard, he wasn't pushing it. It was in response to a question at a planned parent hood conference. Obama doesn't script his questions and pre-pick his audiences so sometimes he may have to answer something off the cuff.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Rachel, Kennesaw, GA — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:12:51 GMT

Independent, Texas - Great post!
It's so refreshing to see a response to an unreasonable post handled so thoughtfully and informatively instead of with anger and name-calling. I agree with you 100% in regards to "stay the course in Iraq" being the single most absurd thing to come out of a candidate's mouth.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Los Angeles, Ca — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:14:12 GMT

To Amac
Senator Obama is talking about prevention. Preventing a crime is as much if not much more important than being tough in sanctioning criminals after the crime has already happened. I'm a catholic and i live in Los Angeles. I'm a parent and i know very well how child molestation can be devastating.

Obama and sex ed for kids

E. Trask — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:18:28 GMT

Lorraine, Tennessee (Sent Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:19 PM)

Thanks for helping change the perspective that we EC's can't think for ourselves. We do bear some responsibility as we've allowed the politicization of our beliefs to become so much a tool for some in political circles.

Maybe our continued voicing that we seek to share our faith, not to legislate it, will help others see that just because someone calls himself a christian doesn't mean that he knows the Savior.

Titus 1:16, Mt 7:16,

Obama and sex ed for kids

KnowledgeIsPower — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:01:42 GMT

When I was in Kindergarten, 27 years ago, I was taught about "Good Touch/Bad Touch" and I didn't have a problem with it then. I don't have one now. I thought everyone was learning about that. I guess Southern California really is way ahead of the rest of the nation. Oh, and one time, when I was in Third Grade, they took all the Girls into a large Auditorium and showed us a video about our Menstrual Cycle. They were a little late because I started the day before my 11th Birthday. My point is, Sex Education is not dildo's and intercourse positions. People need to chill.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Lyn, Silver Spring, MD — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:12:00 GMT

According to Jonathan Martin on Politico seems Mr Romney supported "age apprroipriate" sex education in 2002 for young kids. Does this guy have any idea which side of an issue he is on.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0707/Romney_also_once_backed_ageappropriate

Obama and sex ed for kids

RJP3 Boston — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:16:35 GMT

You all must have been brought up in nasty backwater towns... I am 43 and in 1969 was in kindergarten.

I lived in a small New England town. We may not have been told about "inappropriate touching" but we sure were given books about "strangers" and how to avoid them if they behaved inappropriately. Scared us good. Now if we want to address family molestation which is rampant in the human society ... then inappropriate touching has to be taught at school - because those Mom's and Dad's who molest certainly are not teaching their kids how to identify it as wrong and how to report it/get help.

I honestly dont think most American's would want to help kid's in this way. Sad.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Independent, Texas — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:30:42 GMT

RJP3 Boston (Sent Thursday, July 19, 2007 3:16 PM)

I'm sorry RJP. Forgive me for being dense but what do you mean when you say?:

"I honestly dont think most American's would want to help kid's in this way."

You don't think that most Americans wish for the topic to be addressed in the schools? Is that what you mean?

Obama and sex ed for kids

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:01:13 GMT

I do see the merits of what many of you are saying. I guess children at 5 can discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate touch. I definitely see the point of validation of what's ok and not ok.

What would be ideal is that those who touched children inappropriately, were prevented from doing so.

I have lived in a much more patronizing society in the UK for 6 years. I have seen how wacko everyone gets when young children are being hugged and everyone suspects every touch has a sexual implication to it.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:46:16 GMT

Jed--If this was, as you pointed out, merely an off-the-cuff answer to a question, then I have somewhat less fear.

Unfortunately, responses like this have a distressing tendency to become policy points down the road. That distressing tendency must be resisted.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Dave — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:51:10 GMT

How many liberals that support Obama's view would advocate teaching kids at any grade level how to properly handle guns as to avoid the accidental shooting deaths from kids mishandling guns?

It's basically the same argument I see being made here by liberals but most liberals advocate guns should be illegal even though that view is unConstitutional. Pedophilia is already illegal so unless you're going to advocate teaching proper gun safety to children you're a bunch of busy-body hypocrites.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Robert Catalano, Salem OR — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:08:01 GMT

Yiannis, that is a problem too. When kids are taught to fear something, as opposed to being educated about it, many will turn that fear back on people and accuse them falsely.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Scott in South Texas — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:09:03 GMT

Dave, most liberals do not advocate that guns should be illegal. Many liberals believe there should be limits on the sale of some types of firearms, but you might be surprised how many liberals are gun owners and hunters.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Larry TC Guy, Memphis TN — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:10:19 GMT

"How many liberals that support Obama's view would advocate teaching kids at any grade level how to properly handle guns as to avoid the accidental shooting deaths from kids mishandling guns?"

I do hate word problems. Wild guess, 163?

Obama and sex ed for kids

John B, Des Moines, IA — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:24:07 GMT

Romney seems to be on both sides of most issues, why should this one be different?

Obama and sex ed for kids

Tony Weese — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:26:23 GMT

This wouldn't be an issue if parents stuck together, raised their children rather than let daycare, TV or the computer do the job. One parent works for income the other runs the house. Children need interaction from a mother and father daily.

If you can't commit to these basic rules then don't have children.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Independent, Texas — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:26:25 GMT

Hmmmm - comparing gun control to pedophilia.

Let's see. Pedophiles are adults who abuse children. Children need to understand that they are being abused and that it is ok to report the abuse.

Gun control - always possible to keep guns out of the hands of children. Guns in the hands of children are there when gun owners do not take care of the weapon.

Teaching gun handling to children doesn't make much sense. However, there are already plenty of avenues for them to learn such as firing ranges and so forth.

Where are the avenues for children to learn about abuse defense? Only in the schools because of the FACT that most abuse is done by a family member.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:27:36 GMT

Dave - One would hope that parents who own guns would be responsible enough to a) not leave them in a place where their children would ever get access to them and b) teach their children about gun safety. That is something more easily controlled by parents than molestation, which can basically occur anywhere the child goes.

And to echo what others have said, liberals do not necessarily think all guns should be banned. I don't. But I also think there should be regulations that limit not only the type of gun people are allowed to own, but the manner in which those guns are purchased. There should be mandatory waiting periods, and there should be extensive background checks. There is also no reason for anyone to own a machine gun.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:57:31 GMT

Lyn I'm laughing my ... off Romney is the biggest flip-flopper the world has seen.

How much fun would it be to run against him

Obama and sex ed for kids

Giancarlo, Cambridge, MA — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:10:04 GMT

The degree of people's stupidity never ceases to amaze me.

Obama is 100% right. Kids should know since an early age what's inappropriate touching and know when to report it.

The media has already made 2 hit-jobs on Obama this week. This story and the one about the # of donors. Why haven't I read a single article about Obama cutting Hillary's lead in half in New Hampshire?

Obama and sex ed for kids

Independent, Texas — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:16:25 GMT

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD (Sent Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:01 PM) and

Robert Catalano, Salem OR (Sent Thursday, July 19, 2007 5:08 PM)

Check the materials we are discussing.

I think you'll see that is very careful and subtle. However, Yannis, keep in mind that "hugging" and so forth is not what we are trying to control. If you have a very strong stomach, google "child abuse". I refuse to describe some of the most horrific things that are being done to children. If you are a 5 year old, how do you know that this isn't normal? All you know is that you feel really awful and that that person who is supposed to love and protect you is the one that makes you feel really awful.

If you aren't aware of these issues, please, please, please do some research. You will be amazed and horrified at how wide spread this is and of the fact that it is NOT restricted in any way to income level, race, or cultural environment.

Tony Weese (Sent Thursday, July 19, 2007 5:26 PM)

Sounds wonderful. Wish it were true. Until and unless it is proved to be that utopia, don't you wish for children to have as much chance of helping themselves find the help that they need?

I think it is the end of the day so I wish to thank all of you for the discussion. Maybe, this will help spread the word that this issue can no longer be kept in the dark.

Again, thank you

Obama and sex ed for kids

Ted, Sacramento CA — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:34:15 GMT

What is great about Obama is that he doesn't "skirt" sensitive issues. And sure this is a sensitive issue, but a crucially important one. Just scanning a few of the comments above, I see a few of the "wingnuts" spouting their pablum about the "government" corrupting the minds of children. And arguing that we should just "lock up all the sickos and throw away the key" as if that were even possible, let alone a realistic public policy solution to the problem. Mostly, however, I see comments from reasonable people on all sides of the political spectrum, who appreciate a leader who takes on these issues. Obama cuts across political lines with issues like this. The more I hear him, the more I like him.

What is fantastic about Obama's response is not only that it shows him as a thoughtful, intelligent leader who is willing to address problems, it shows his attackers as reactionaries who didn't bother to find out what he was really talking about before blasting him. As a result, he sounds intelligent and they sound ignorant. Serves them right.

Obama and sex ed for kids

George Nephi, Utah — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:49:06 GMT

Does it bother anyone that Senator Obama is a Muslim with Just as much devotion and obedience to the Koran as Mitt Romney has to his faith?
I'm all for teaching about apropriate and inaproriate touching education, but when people attack about religion. There should be some balance there.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Independent, Texas — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:58:22 GMT

George Nephi, Utah (Sent Thursday, July 19, 2007 6:49 PM)

Absolutely false statement. Mr. Obama is a Christian. His father was a muslim. His mother left his father. Remarried. Mr. Obama was raised as a Catholic.

I'm not even an Obama supporter and I knew that.

Obama and sex ed for kids

John Campbell — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:14:13 GMT

You notice that MSNBC would not reprint Obamas remarks.
All a pedophile needs is an experienced child to satisfy a sick fantasy. That pedophile prevention excuse is just as bad as jobs Americans won't do. This is the mark of a disturbed presidential candidate that believes the government should control the sexual upbringing of a child instead of its parents, or basically deprive a child an essential part of natural evolution and discovery of ones own being.

Obama and sex ed for kids

ROSE, BARSTOW, CA — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:32:47 GMT

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PEOPLE DO NOT LET HIM BECOME PRESIDENT. IF HE WINS IT WILL BE A INSULT TO BE CALLED AN AMERICAN. OTHER COUNTRIES TEACH THEIR CHILDREN HOW TO FIGHT IN WARS WHEN THERE SIX YEARS OLD AND WERE TRYING TO TEACH OUR KIDS SEX WHEN THEIR SIX YEARS OLD. WHICH ONE IT WORSE? TO ME THEIR BOTH EVIL AND SAD.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Rich — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:53:38 GMT

Yeah, but can they teach reading, writing, and arithmetic?

Obama and sex ed for kids

Irv, Los Angeles, CA — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 01:08:46 GMT

Hey, George,

This is from Wikipedia on Senators' religious affiliation:

United Church of Christ - 2 - Max Baucus, Barack Obama (2 Democrats).

Obama and sex ed for kids

Steve, Pittsburgh, PA — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 01:12:18 GMT

Hey Obama makes sense AGAIN and is attacked by a right winger who misquotes and falsely implies what was said. This is exactly the type of politics that Obama has rejected. Romney looks like a jerk here.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Tiffany, Seattle, WA — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 01:38:45 GMT

Joe, Obama wasn't talking about sex education for children in the middle of the campaign. Romney was dumb enough to try and bring it up and twist it around even though he has checked that he supported age appropriate sex education on a Planned Parenthood questionnaire. Obama was merely explaining his vote in a reasonable, logical and intelligent manner.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Tiffany, Seattle, WA — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 01:46:52 GMT

amac, why not the parents? This might shock you but sometimes the parents themselves are abusing the children. Without the knowledge that this is not appropriate and they are not bad because of it, some of these children face the possibility of being abused further and longer with no real help.

Obama and sex ed for kids

RAH — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 02:28:08 GMT

I've read many articles on the blogsphere about this headline and it's amazing the amount of rude and wrong reactions to it. I wish the people out there could read these comments from very reasonable and understanding people. I'd recommend those of you who understands what Senator Obama was saying to try and counter those mispresentations out there. I fear the misrepresentations far out way the real meaning of what he said.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Vridar, Seattle, Wa — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 03:17:47 GMT

amac: In regards to why it is within the purview of the federal government to mandate the teaching of the sort of sex education being discussed in this thread. 1) Of course, parents are free to teach such to their kids within the confines of their own home and family, but 2) said kids spend much, perhaps most, of their time not in the home but in the outside world, in society. 3) Obviously, such kids' behavior and worldview--which can be drastically affected by their education, at home and otherwise--is a concern to members of their community with whom they interact. 4) Despite the fact that parents are free to provide their children "sex education," many either choose not to or are not capable of doing so in a reasonably effective way. And finally, 5) as such, society has an interest in picking up the slack because such children do not only affect those who live in their homes, but members of their community, e.g., classmates, future romantic partners, future victims (since predation often spawns further predation, etc.)

Obama and sex ed for kids

Jeff Morgan, Austin, TX — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 04:23:50 GMT

George, Utah: At what point in life has Senator Obama been a muslim? Maybe you haven't seen how that FOX "Madrassa" ordeal ended.

In this conversation I think there is a point that hasn't been emphasized. Child molesters are very rarely any sort of stranger. Child molesters are almost always family friends or family members (parents too). These are the people who can tell a child "it's okay" or get the child to agree not to tell anyone about it. Be clear, when we're talking about child molesters, we're talking about these people (note that you really can't expect to make kids fear and distrust their family and family friends).

Here in Texas in the last gubernatorial election, our Lt. Governor's re-election campaign's main platform was mandatory 25 to life with death penalty option for child molesters. It was a popular message.

The problem with this is children will still be sexually abused. That is, this as a strategy is sitting on your hands and letting it happen, and then after the child is sexually abused then we do something, -- IF it get reported--. And guess how often these crimes are reported (remember who the molesters are, by the way). And then the molester has to be successfully convicted.

So actually having a platform of 'just lock em up' is so naive that you'd almost think Mark Foley would have came up with it.

The 'just lock em up' strategy all hinges on the hope that if we increase the prison time, then pedophiles considering acting out will change their mind. That's some wishful thinking. Are we imagining someone saying, "well if it were 10 years in prison, I'd do it, but 20 years, don't think so." (Notice how murder rates really aren't varying because we're changing the stiffness of penalty?) The shame and humiliation of the scarlet letter they would receive is probably the deciding threat to them. I mean, that's suicide-grade (being caught).

People considering acting out on their pedophilia will do it because they don't think they'll get caught. Sadly, they often believe the child will welcome their advances. At least convince the child not to tell, or worst case, be in a position where you can just deny it and not have any evidence (hence their apparent trustworthiness, which also contributes to children expectation that no one will believe them if they do tell, win-win for pedophiles). I don't think I need to explain how teaching good/bad touch directly attacks this.

I really do fail to see any good reason to be against the good touch/bad touch education. The only other additional thing I would want to do is initiate more rigorous psychological (and maybe genetic, just in case) studies not just to figure out their profile, but to figure out if a psychological treatment could be formulated that could be available for anyone who feels they may have or are developing 'unhealthy' sexual motivations. I'm not trying to propose a throw-back to the homosexual thing, I'm just saying if anyone wants to be tough on child abuse, you better be looking down every avenue for trying to stop the sexual abuse from ever happening, or you're just all talk.

Sorry to vent, but I get like this when I think there is sustained failure to understand a problem. I'm not angry at anyone here or anything, when I say 'you' i don't mean anyone in particular, just the nation as a whole heh.

Obama and sex ed for kids

CJ — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 04:57:58 GMT

Obama is not a Muslim, where in the world did you get that??

Obama and sex ed for kids

EG — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 04:58:33 GMT

as far as teaching kids about sex in kindergarten i believe it is a Parents duty. Not a teacher or schools duty. we as parents need to take sole responsibility for training and raising our young impressionable children about this topic. my parents did for me and my sister and i believe it is the best possible way to handle it. as far as not having the room or resources to put all the molesters/pedophiles in prison. one solution and it should be done across the board for murderers, rapists and other major offenses as well. Death penalty. these people CAN NOT BE REHABILITATED!!! the reason they put these "rehab programs" in place is another way to spend our tax dollars! and keep the offenders voting for them. i guess some absentee ballots count.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Diamond — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:53:09 GMT

This is exactly why I became a Republican For Obama.

It's a shame that everytime someone talks about sex-education, all people hear is the SEX and not the education.

Romney was Pro-choice when he wanted to become Governor of a Liberal state, In 2002, Romney said he also supported age-appropriate sex education, today, he is Pro-life because he's running for President as a conservative and he thinks 'zero' should be the number of sex-education for children. What a sham! What a farce!
The republican candidates are so inconsistent and so fake that it's evidence of people who tout conservative values while they're closet pedophiles, wife-abusers, porn-lovers, etc. With Obama, what you see is what you get.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Diamond — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:56:17 GMT

Obama and sex ed for kids

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:18:03 GMT

George, the only people who would vote against Obama because he happened to have a Muslim biological father probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway. And much like Romney and his Mormonism, the attacks coming from that angle are likely to backfire and actually insulate the candidate from more substantive attacks.

This ought to be the lesson of the Clinton and Bush administrations, I think. When opponents attack everything, the silly attacks tend to drown out the valid ones. The end result is polarization, with opponents firmly convinced of evilness, and supporters convinced the opponents are simply attacking to attack.

Who knows. Maybe Obama and Romney will face one another in the general. Hopefully that will be a battle of ideas. Been too long since we had one of those.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Dee of VA — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:29:07 GMT

CJ,

It's most definitely true. I sent the tip to Media Matters; they checked it out and posted it on their site. He continued the same distortion on this morning's show w/o providing any context. I encourage you to watch the show more often. You will find that Joe Scarborough has a pattern of defaming Senator Obama, which is why he felt the need to respond to emails accusing him of having a racist attitude towards the Senator. This was NOT an isolted event; it's a growing patter, and I can not believe that MSNBC and NBC News isn't checking him for it.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Dee of VA — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:40:09 GMT

"treat the culprit to correct"??? What world do you live in? There is no reliable treatement of sexual abusers. Check the recividism stats even among those who have been so-called "treated". The only treatment of sexual abuse is prevention--through knowledge. Your question was NOT pragmatic because it was based on a false assumption that child molestation is not an epidemic. Child sexual abuse is the most prevelant but unreported crime in this country. When children don't understand what is happening to them, they can't articulate it. What is this pervasive fear of knowledge--at any age?? People opposed to sex education are the same people who believe that their 11, 12 or 13 year olds are complete innocents, not even kissing, when they are in fact s*ing and f*ing behind their parents backs. I'm just saying folks need to drag themselves out of the 19th century and wake-up to what's going on in the real world.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Joshua, Seattle, Washington — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:23:21 GMT

Hey, it's only fair we do it here, since the "One Laptop per Child" program has given Nigerian children the opportunity to download pornography.

Obama and sex ed for kids

amac — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:54:18 GMT

why does the left think the government's role is to teach or tell everybody what is right or wrong? The answer is because the ideal goal, the profound truth, the underlying argument of the liberal is to be 'morally superior' to everyone else. To the poor, black, hispanic, or white trash...the role of the liberal is to tell these people what is right and what is wrong. You isolate a very small minority of the population who are at risk and you make it sound like it is a national problem. For example, parents molesting their own children. Come on, it's a very small percentage...but, according to some it's a national problem and we therefore need to 'teach' all the children. Same thing with universal healthcare...you want healthcare...get a job. I think Wendy's and Mcdonald's offer healthcare benefits.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Richard Fifield, easton, PA — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:35:23 GMT

Vridar, Seattle, Wash--While some of amac's points aren't all that clear, her one point is: education is NOT a Feederal responsibility under our governmental system. It belongs with the States and the localities (depending on how each State structures itself), or with the families themselves. Nothing you said justifies Federal intervention in this.

I believe that there is a role for responsible sex education in a school cirriculum (even for the very young). I also believe that the best thing the Federal government could do is not involve itself, and refer the matter to the States.

And candidates for Federal office have the obligation to do the same thing. When a candidate for President, the U.S. Senate, or the U.S. House speaks on this (or a similar) subject, it necessarily conveys the impression that the candidate believes this is something the Federal government has a responsibility for, and that, if elected, the candidate intends to advocate Federal involvement.

So long as Federal candidates continue to be involved in and speak about issues that don't belong in washington's lap, Washington won't get out of those issues, and people will continue to clamor for Federal involvement in things that the Federal government doesn't belong in. This type of activity needs to be discouraged.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Independent, Texas — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:52:54 GMT

amac (Sent Friday, July 20, 2007 1:54 PM)

said:

"For example, parents molesting their own children. Come on, it's a very small percentage"

Oh - if it is only a "very small percentage", well then, that makes all the difference doesn't it? Who cares about those children? They, obviously, aren't important, right? Let's just let them get ruined so that they, themselves will grow to do the same or even worse. That's just fine. No problem, there right?

I have a question: Are you pro-life? I am. I believe in protecting the unborn. I also believe in protecting those that are alive already. I simply do not understand how someone can be so callous as to not only relegate this issue to such a low level of importance but to actually not care that there exists a method that may provide early detection of such abuse so that the child in question can be helped. Simply, utterly, completely, amazes me.

For the last time - the item had NOTHING to do with federal intrusion - this item had only to do with Mr. Obama saying he supported schools who use this curriculum.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Nick Brandt, Brooklyn, NY — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 05:28:41 GMT

Shows a new level of desperatation by the Right to sully Obama. Pathetic.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Kari, Richland, MI — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 05:37:09 GMT

I doesn’t surprise me one bit, that the thought of “Sex-Ed in Kindergarten” scares all of you narrow minded people out there, who tend to take things out of context and comprehend them with such literal thinking. In this matter, Kindergarten “age-appropriate” content consists of discussing with children what appropriate & non-appropriate touching is, not only by their peers, but also by adults. It is expressed to children as a SAFETY measure- just like we teach children to look both ways before crossing the street… it is for their own safety.
For those people who feel that “such discussions” aren’t necessary at a young age, or feel that the affluent neighborhoods and schools they encompass is protection in itself & “such discussions”, just wouldn’t pertain to “their” kids… For the sake of your children, I hope you’re right. Unfortunately though, REALITY continues to paint a much more disheartening picture then those above. As an elementary teacher, each passing year adds to the ever increasing number of children I encounter, whom have fallen victim to a sexual predator. When listening to their stories you hear some common themes amongst them all, regardless of race, gender, or socio-economical status. First, many children knew and trusted the person who abused them-(babysitter, family friend, relative, neighbor). Second, when asked why they didn’t tell anyone right away, many of them stated that they were told by their predators that “it” was a secret & not to share this “secret about their friendship”, with anyone else.
Each child fell victim to their predator’s trickery- tricking them into believing that they were their “friend” and as a “friend”, they would never do anything to hurt them. Each child also didn’t have the power, to know or believe any different.
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, & when the opportunity to gain such knowledge is taken away from children, you only place MORE power in the hands of child predators- they gain the knowledge that many of today’s children, in fact probably wouldn’t know the difference between appropriate and un-appropriate touching, because they were never given the opportunity to learn & know about it.

Wake up America! Obama is 100% correct on the matter.

Obama and sex ed for kids

leon — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 03:11:00 GMT

Did bush not involve himself in Federal education with no child left behind. It is now ruining states that have long had excellent education programs in place. There are at least 7 states suing nclb and thinking about refusing fed. money in order to keep their programs in place. Seems like that was a real big involvment.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:17:44 GMT

Jed--I don't think I said Senator Obama was "pushing" the idea, nor do I think I said that it was a "bad" idea, or that he was "wrong" to answer the question.

My comments were directed to the way these things work sometimes. A response to a question can morph into a policy idea which can then lead to more government action. It is the morphing I object to.

If the senator's response was along the line of: "Of course age-appropriate sex education is or may be a good idea for studnets, even as young as kindergarten. If you think it's a good idea, go take it up with your State legislators and your governor. They have the power to make it happen. The President does not. I'm seeking the Presidency. Next question," I probably wouldn't even have written into this chain.

I fail to understand why people cannot draw distinctions between what belongs at the State level, and what is appropriate for discussion in a national campaign. Neither left nor right seems to be able to grasp this very fundamental distinction. It gets blurred every time somebody brings up education, gay marriage (which I support, incidently), housing policy, health care, and a hundred other matters that have nothing to do with the duties of the national government. It frustrates me, and every time it happens I get a little more frustrated and a little more worried for the survival of our country.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Independent, Texas — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:52:07 GMT

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 9:17 AM)

I agree with you completely. I also think that most American citizens have no idea what the constitution does and does not say.

There is some justification, however, for the misunderstanding of the states rights issues. (That is why I've been saying that SCOTUS is gonna be where all the action is in the next 10-20 years.) We have become such a mobile society that I believe we don't really associate ourselves with a state anymore. Certainly not as strongly as Americans did up to the 20th century. In fact, I'd wager that most people don't even know that the primary purpose of the Constitution was to carefully detail the responsibilities of the Federal government to PREVENT incursion by that gov on the states and on individuals.

That being said, it may be time to consider updating that document (if it still exists after Bush, Cheney, et al. have finished shredding it) to reflect what roles the government has in ensuring some level of consistency across states where civil and individual rights are concerned. An example is,as you state, same-sex marriages. There is a powerful amount of housecleaning that needs to happen where our laws are concerned.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:50:35 GMT

Independent, Texas--Thank you for understanding what I've been trying to say, and making it clear where I apparently could not.

You are correct in stating that the Consititution may need some updating. I myself rewrote it five times between 1967 and 2001. What does not need changing, however, is the idea that the national government is not the primary government. Any changes must continue to emphasize that the national government must continue to be a government of limited and delegated powers, subordinate to the States except where national uniformity is absolutely necessary and national intervention is absolutely required.

Most areas of socieal endeavor do NOT require such a heavy-handed uniformity. The States are quite capable, if left to their own devices and forced to do their jobs (and pay for them), of solving most of society's problems, either separately or by joint action (see the UCC, for openers). The problem is that it has been made too easy for the States--they (and their citizens) run to Washington whenever there is a problem or concern, and Washington never sends them home to solve their own problem. This has been the case since at least the 1930s, and, of course, the Supreme Court hasn't helped the matter by refusing to curb the practice.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Independent, Texas — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:14:02 GMT

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 10:50 AM)

I agree. Since an ammendment to the constitution takes 3/4 of the states to ratify, I think that strong state action on any specific social issue could lead to a quick and easy ammendment process. However, I don't see states going that route. I, being the cynic that I am, think that states kinda duck these issues because the general populace does, due to ignorance, tend to go the federal route first.

Taking the examples we've been discussing, same sex marriages, if 3/4 of the states independently addressed this in the same way, it would seem to me than a constitutional ammendment would fly through the process. In that particular instance, a federal opinion is required because of the impact on taxation that such unions would cause. If the union allowed dependents that are not recognized now by the federal tax code and all states do not have the same recognition of the unions, then taxation would be different across the states. Can't have that.

What do you think? (Gonna be some really interesting court action over the next few years.)

Obama and sex ed for kids

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:11:00 GMT

Independent--I don't think we need a Federal constitutional amendment relating to same-sex marriage. Marriage is a traditional State prerogative, and each State has its own policies with respect thereto. States are already at l,iberty to not recognize marriages which conflict with their own public policy (as in the case of defining incestuous relationships). Gay marriage can be treated exactly the same way.

The Federal role with respect to marriage is derivative (or at least it was until the Defense of Marriage Act (1995) and the Federal blundering into child support policy): if a State recognizes a marriage as valid, the Federal government must, also. If the State does not, the Federal government cannot, either. There is no "Federal" definition of marriage, nor should there be, since that is left to the States.

This is exactly the type of encroachment the federal government should resist, and people should stop clamoring for. Some may consider it "benign"--it isn't. It is erosive of the Constitution and corrosive in its effect on the country's legal structure (which underlays our entire society, even if the economic determinists and others would prefer it not to be so). THIS needs to be stopped--last year if not sooner. Until it is, the country is at grave risk.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Independent, Texas — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:50:40 GMT

Richard (I think it is just the 2 of us now that this item has "fallen" off the main page.)

I agree with all your "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts". The fact is, however, that all states currently have agreements in place that recognize marriages granted by other states. Therefore, the tax laws governing "spouse" for income tax purposes are not a problem. That will not be the case if/when some states start recognizing and granting licenses to same-sex unions. Some states have already published that those unions will void the agreement with those states and their own. Then, when an income tax return is filed with the feds, the couple from a same-sex-union state can and should list a dependent or claim the married status. The feds will have to accept that. A couple in a non-same-sex-union state will not be able to claim the same status on the income tax return. That is when the "not taxed the same" argument will take place. Appropriately so. Also, if the couple in the 1st example move to the state in the 2nd example, then they would have to file differently and, also, would not be able to claim spouse protection in probate and custody matters either. It is this kind of nitty gritty that most people fail to consider. Most people focus on the "fairness" part of such argument. They don't seem to realize that there is a mass of legal code that backs up all of this and all of it would need to be examined. Yep - gonna spend the next 10-20 years in the courts. Exciting, huh?

I really enjoy conversations like this but will accept if you are getting weary of it.

Thanks for your response.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:16:43 GMT

Not at all, Independent. I enjoy this kind of theoretical discussion (and jousting).

If there were a way we could contact each other directly, it would, of course, be preferable to looking for an archived post.

I don't know how to do that, of course, and I don't really want to post my e-mail address and invite all of the kooks, etc.

Any thoughts?

Obama and sex ed for kids

Independent, Texas — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:10:07 GMT

I have a temporary email address that will expire shortly. Independent@281.com. I set it up specifically to get in touch with some bloggers. Feel free to use it and I will, then, give you my "real" eamil address.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Independent, Texas — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:13:16 GMT

BTW - I'll "test" your email to me with a question back to this blog to ensure that you are the one who sent the email. I also will welcome any other blogger but will also test them in the same way.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Independent, Texas — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:41:54 GMT

What was the time stamp on the email?

Obama and sex ed for kids

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:04:28 GMT

I got your confirmation. My system didn't save my "sent", so I don't know exactly when it was sent (although I sent it at around 2:30 EDT, I think).

Yours is dated 7-23 at 2:40 P.M.

Obama and sex ed for kids

MG — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:08:36 GMT

Obama just lost my vote. This type of conversation should be left up to parents. I takes a parent 30 minutes to dicusss inappropriate touching. Why do we need a whole class?
I'm disappointed because I had hoped he was not too far to the left. Is he going to favor teaching homosexuality to kindergartners too?

Obama and sex ed for kids

MG, Charlotte — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:13:27 GMT

Obama and sex ed for kids

LC Kent Cape Cod, Massachusetts — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:32:39 GMT

I am a mother of a current kindergarten who sadly was touched in a very inappropriate manner by another kindergarten. It shocked my to the point I almost pulled my kindergarten from the school. The fact that it happened every day for a month until recently she told us really hit us both hard, I hope that Obamas views are taken to heart. This article pulled up when I was looking for others to read on ways to help my child.

Obama and sex ed for kids

Janet, Florida — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:30:44 GMT

Teaching kids to be safe is very important. But at the age of 5....would we call that class "Sex Education"? How has Obama even come to this idea anyway? Who is he to give permission to discuss such issues with my children????

Look at what is taught in the high schools about "sex education" now!! Where do we draw the line as to what is age appropriate? Do we leave it to the teachers to decide?

What about teachers having intimate discussions with our kids that are inappropriate? Many teachers who would love this freedom of speach---- and may even use it to seduce our children themselves!