Donald Mendell is a h.s. guidance counselor/social worker in Maine who publicly supported marriage as union of one man with one woman.
He was a former nominee for State Teacher of the Year.
Same-sex marriage advocates have accused him of ethics violations, wanting his license revoked.
What happened --FIRST, a Mrs. Gould, English teacher at the same school, labeled as a former State Teacher of the Year in 05, made a commercial supporting gay marriage. So Mendell appeared in a later commercial opposing it.
The Portland newspaper wrote: Mendell thought it was important that ''people would know at least one experienced educator, counselor, who thought at stake here was something that would have a profound effect on the raising of children.'' The issue for him is the ''equal rights of children to have a mother and a father, if at all possible.''
Mendell also sees a distinction between his professional work with all students and his personal opinion outside of work
______________________________________
Teachers must not lose their free speech rights outside the classroom just because they are teachers. After, all, if democrats have their way, we’ll ALL be working for Uncle Sam –and all have a muzzle. We must not let that happen! All gov’t employees have free speech rights. Since when have we arrived at the place where counselors and teachers have to champion gay life while ON the job? That would be wrong, also.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
16 comments:
I think this raises an interesting issue. For all the talk of an marriage amendment, children's rights to their own parents and then normal parents seems to me to be a reasonable legal trajectory. By trajectory, obviously I think it would be horrid to remove children from a home of a single parent due to divorce or death, but we do in fact at least punish fathers for leaving the family through child support requirements. That's already the kind of legal trajectory that could be emphasized. It would require adoption agencies to choose heterosexual married couples.
Basically, the issue I'm speaking towards is that before a marriage amendment, perhaps we should persue an heterosexual marriage adoption amendment.
This would probably be more difficult to do in light of the gay couples who've adopted children would be seen as martyrs of a sort. "happy" families would come out of the woodwork to decry this as barbaric. Ironically, It might take the western public to normalize and take the gay headed nuclear family for granted and normal before the social sciences can take a non-politicized honest look at the damage that homosexual adoption would lead to.
Fact is, social sciences already prove that the children raised by a Mom/Dad original marital unit have a leg up in every measurement --on average.
Also, I wouldn't call it "punishment" that a man is made to pay child-support for the children he makes --it's necessity for his child. But it leads to poverty for all because there is no way most men can support adequately more than one household and family. The children and the wife are the usual sufferers because child support isn't adequate to make up for the man and his income in the home.
Gays may have 2 parents in the home --and likely, 2 incomes. But they are missing one parent or the other --and social science generally proves the benefit to children of both role models in the home, male and female.
So far, the pregnant man (a woman transgendered to male who kept her female organs) was a child who lost her mother around age 10 or so. Rosie O Donnel, famous lesbian, lost her mother early in life, I believe. homosexual males often lack affirming fathers in their home. The father of one gay I know left his family when the boy was around 12. Three others I know from my kids' school system lacked fathers in their homes. Another had a smother mother.
I do know a few homosexuals from intact marriages. Watching them grow up, I think you could see reasons why they developed a self-image of "different" and got in with the gay crowd.
You know, Mudrake, it's sort of sweet how you keep reaching out to my son--first with a blog just for you and he to discuss philosophical and religious issues --and now encouraging email. If you want to further and deepen this relationship, show up at church some Sunday.
Who barged in? I think it's MY blog, Mudrake. You're lucky I don't delete you the way you delete all Christian women. I figure if I let you spew here, it brings you over into the light now and then.
You have no idea about "sonny" and control issues, BTW.
What do you THINK my record is in raising fully functional adults? You must have your opinions through some liberal gossip mill, perhaps? or are you just being a creator of lies and rumors through insinuation here?
It is by the grace of God that none of my children are consumed by addictions--that they all have jobs and college degrees --that they all attend church faithfully; and ARE believers--that they all sing beautifully, together or singly --that 2 are happily married to good people--that 1 has 2 grandchildren who are being raised with diligence and godly guidance --that all are in people-helping-jobs or ministries. The girls are at jr. high contest today guiding the development of young musicians. And all like to come home and spend time together. None are estranged from us or each other or their churches. They are very good and considerate of their parents and grand-parents.
I commend YOU if your 2 are doing well. It's hard today to have good careers, even with educations. It seems to be hard for people to stay married and stay free of alcohol, nicotine, drugs and porn, etc. I wonder if they have faith in Christ through their Catholic upbringing given that you are their skeptical father. I hope so.
We parents are BOTH blessed if our kids are happy contributors to society in a positive way these days--and if they are believers in God and Christ.
As for Christian women, we aren't perfect but you are being wrongly and harshly judgmental --and Jesus said with the judgment you judge, you will be judged. I'd think about that if I were you before you come over here spilling your bile again. We never went to your blog to be nasty, but to participate in discussions there --to disagree with your negativity about Christians, Christianity, and Christian beliefs and morals. And sometimes just to be agreeable when we could be. Didn't matter. You deleted everything like a man obsessed with hatred. Which you are.
Anyone who follows you and me knows that the issue for you is defense of homosexuality --you want to see it as a race, something inborn. I don't believe it is. The Bible says it is not. To believe the Bible --that the only God-ordained sexual intimacy belongs to a man and wife doesn't make me a hater. It means I'm a believer --in the Bible as the Word of God.
You pretend to be non-prejudicial, Mudrake.
Does the word "Negroes" mean the same thing as "drunken Injuns" do to you?
You don't allow anyone with opposing views to post on your blog and you are afraid if you did have an open blog people might tell your "regulars"---nuts in all cases, that you are indeed a bigot.
Barb at least has an open blog and how she allows you to stink it up is beyond me. She must have the patience of Job.
You know, Mudrake, even Satan "believes" in Jesus and quotes Scripture for his own evil means. Your quoting scripture means nothing other than you are Satan-possessed.
Jeanette, one reason I let Mudrake's comments in is because I do believe in free speech up to a point as he does not. As for his insults of us, he shows what he is, tells on himself, by so-doing --which is important when he goes to other blogs impersonating us.
You know, I found recently where he went to a gay dating site and posted a post in my name that was clearly not me --but he was doing his poor imitation of a fundamentalist Christian --and it linked back to this blog because you can do that --register as someone else if you know their email address --and he does know the address of any who ever sent him an email and can do this deceptive blogging unless my password is asked for --which blogs can't do. Well, they could ask you to establish a password just for their blog, I suppose. It does bring inquirers to my blog, of course.
He doesn't need to know your email address. All he has to do is create a Gmail account using your name and makes up his own password.
I do wish he'd get his prostate fixed as maybe if it were functional he'd spend more time in bed with his wife and less time worrying about us.
Remember, Mudrake, when you point a finger at someone four more are pointing right back at you.
Go slither under your rock and, like a vampire, don't come out until dark or like a werewolf only at a full moon. Woooooooo!
See a psychiatrist and sign yourself into a treatment center asap as your OCD is getting uncontrollable. I invite you to have your amen chorus follow you around to the different sites so they can see the nut you are, but then they're all nuts too.
Yes, Jesus loves Jeanette.
But do you, Mudrake?
Post a Comment