“At last the big day has come for Princess Daisy. The Daddies make a big fuss and everyone has a good time at the party,” reads a page from King & King & Family.
Written by Dutch authors Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland of Berkeley, California in 2004, no one at that time believed that a single book could possibly be on the forefront of public schools following yesterday’s landmark events.
King & King & Family is actually the sequel to King & King, the storybook that posed nationwide controversy when read by a 2nd grade school teacher in Massachusetts.
In this sequel, King Lee and King Bertie journey through a jungle on their honeymoon and come across a stowaway. Wanting to expand their family, they adopt the young girl and she is later named Princess Daisy.
Joey Wirthlin and The Kiss
It was March 24, 2006, in Lexington, Massachusetts, and Joey, the son of Rob and Robin Wirthlin came home from Estabrook Elementary describing a book his schoolteacher had read to the class. The book, told by Joey in his own words, was about two princes who were married.
The original story, King & King is about a Queen who wishes that her son, Prince Lee would marry. After introducing him to multiple princesses, Prince Lee is attracted to the brother that Princess Madeline brings with her during one of the introductions. At the end of the story, illustrations suggest that the princes marry and engage in what appears to be as a kiss.
The 2nd grade school teacher, Heather Kramer, admitted that she had read the students the book and although it was outside of the school’s curriculum, claimed that the students themselves had pressured her to read it.
April 19, 2006, Lexington public school officials told Rob and Robin Wirthlin :
“gay marriage is legal” they may describe homosexual relationships to their son in second grade, without notice, and that parents may not opt their child out of such discussions.
Was this a tremendous win for the activists of gay rights? Or a tragic blow to gay oppositionists? Maybe both.
Mommies and Daddies
In 2008 with the institution of Proposition 8 with sub section 7.5 known as the Declaration of Rights reads, “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, ” religious leaders stood staunch in their convictions encouraging patrons to uphold their Christian values. The same stood true for their belief on same sex adoptions.
Gay couples attempting to adopt through Christian organizations were turned away and rejected. Frustrations soared and lawsuits were filed, but the Churches have stood firm in their voices.
The arguments from gay activists that Christianity would rather practice bigotry than allow a loving same sex couple adopt a child in need pressed forward.
One of Scotland’s most senior Roman Catholics has rallied against legislation allowing same sex adoptions. When asked to respond that he could be regarded as a “bigot,” Rev. Joseph Devine, Bishop of Motherwell, stated:
“Not prepared to stand by and watch the destruction of Christian values and truth,” adding
“…Yet another violation of family life”
Same sex couples wanting to adopt have questioned and criticized Catholic and Christian religious organizations for what they believe to be is the practice and preaching of hate, discrimination and breaking their constitutional rights. The appeal of Prop 8 supports their measure causing religious organizations to foresee more likely pressure from the state and government through proposed heavy taxes and other fines.
The feeling of Christian leaders felt the same extending into Mexico. Archdiocese of Mexico, Father Hugo Kaldemar, stated,
“…The Church would continue to condemn the act as immoral.”
The Catholic Church has already made the demand for its adoption agencies to be exempted from the proposed law that will allow gay couples the right to adopt.
Some gay rights activists have challenged same sex marriage and same sex adoption comparing the discrimination equal to that of racial discrimination. While many felt that this was in no way in comparison to the unconstitutional unfair treatment that was the basis of racism, many in the gay community felt the parallel was exacting.
13 million wide, the Mormon Church responded yesterday,
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regrets today’s decision. California voters have twice been given the opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage in their state and both times have determined that marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We agree. Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of society.”
“King & King & Family” written by Linda de Haan/Stern Nijland, Berkeley, CA
“I do” or “I don’t”
Rallies of people gathered at Harvey Milk Plaza on the corner of Market andCastro Streets in San Francisco last night celebrating the controversial landmark decision that would be added into law books and printed in history books throughout the country.
Judge Vaughn R. Walker, Chief Judge of the Federal court of California, negated the votes of 7 million Californians banning the legalization of same sex marriages in California.
Walker’s decision could ultimately impact the decision making of 45 other states in the country where same sex marriages is not yet recognized or legal. Walker deemed the ban of same sex marriage as,
“unconstitutional,” “violating due process and equal protection clauses.”
It was an unforgettable moment for Californians on both sides.