As some here may know, I began this year at another high school, in part because the principal is an old acquaintance who knows and respects how I teach. It does not hurt that two of the three assistant principals are themselves former Social Studies teachers, and have made clear they like what they are seeing in my class.
I teach three sections of AP Economics to seniors, and one of AP US Government and Politics, primarily to freshman although there are a handful of upperclassmen.
My other two sections are of Gifted and Talented students in classes of Local, State and National Government. While primarily freshmen, there are also a handful of students in higher grades. Those two classes contained 56 students (I got one more this past week).
As a result of of two recent assignments, I can report the following
1. Same Sex marriage was a closed issue for them, even before the Supreme Court decision not to accept appeals that came down on a Monday
2. The Republican party has a problem with communicating with young people.
I will explain below the squiggle.
The first assignment was on the Full Faith and Credit clause. We had explored a bit - how many had parents married in another state? I gave the history of the Defense of Marriage Act, how it was hurriedly passed while Clinton was President because it looked like the Hawaii Supreme Court might rule the state's constitution did not allow refusing marriage certificates to same sex couples.
I took them through Loving v Virginia, looked at some of the language (marriage as a fundamental right) and the fact that it was a unanimous decision.
I noted that states had pretty much accepted many marriages they themselves would not contract but that were legally done outside of their boundaries
- between first cousins
- when at least one of the parties was too young to get married in their state
We noted there was at least some jurisprudence which provided exceptions to Full Faith and Credit, for example, someone obtaining a divorce in state which they entered only to establish temporary residency for that purpose when that state's rules or constitution required one to moving there permanently - that divorce might not have to be recognized by the state to which the person returned.
We talked about specific examples, in light of the decision in Windsor to overturn the Federal part of DOMA. Imagine for example a couple one of whom is in the military, who conceivably were married in a military chapel, and one spouse. (civilian) is on the health care plan of the military spouse. That currently some states would not grant hospital visitation and medical decision making rights, even though the Federal government recognized that marriage.
We talked about the recent case in Texas of the couple married in CA where the married name change was being refused for one spouse which meant TX was denying her a drivers license. We talked about other ways that person might be denied because of name change, including voting.
What about divorce?
What about child custody issues?
We noted that same sex individuals and couples have been allowed to adopt in some states.
We referenced the notion of Equal Protection - the idea of recognizing some out of state marriages a state would not itself allow but not others - might that be a violation?
The question before the students was whether states should be required under Full Faith and Credit to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in states where it was legal.
Students were told they could take any position but attempt to justify it legally and constitutionally as well as what they felt.
Only two students felt states should NOT be required. One argued solely from her religious beliefs, which was outside the assignment. The other argued on the basis that marriage is still a state issue which the federal government recognizes, that the Supreme Court had not addressed the issue in Windsor, and that when Loving declared marriage a fundamental right in no way did the Justices anticipate the issue of same-sex marriage (not a bad argument for a 14 year old).
Among the 54 who felt states should be required to give recognition, at least a dozen chose to inform me that they themselves personally opposed same-sex marriage, but nevertheless saw it as an issue of fundamental fairness.
I have at least one student of whom I know with two mothers, although she does not make an issue of it (her close friends obviously know, most of her classmates do not). Maryland has marriage equality.
On social issues, the extreme conservative wing of the Republican party has a real issue with young people, if my students are a reasonable proxy. Granted, we are in a diverse community in the suburbs of a big city (Baltimore) - I have Muslim girls whose hair and body are covered (although no faces), I have Hindus, atheists, Jews, many varieties of Christians, and Buddhists, as well as agnostics and at least one or two self-identified Wiccans. I have students whose parents were born abroad and students who themselves are not yet citizens (I do not inquire about legal status because even undocumented aliens are entitled to free K-12 education). Note how they came down on what was once a very controversial issue.
But it is more than that. Students had another assignment - to take an issue about which they cared and explore the positions of at least 4 political parties on that issue by going to the party's official website. All students had to do Republicans, Democrats, and Reform, and they were given a list (as well as URLS for all parties) of a number of other parties, including Libertarians, Greens, Communists, Socialist, and Constitution.
They were also to see what their initial reaction was to the website, and their overall experience of being on that website.
Some of my students do not have a party identification. OF those that do, the ratio of Democrat to Republican is about 3-2, which is reflective both of Maryland and of the county in which they live.
So here is the interesting thing. There were some criticisms of all the parties. Some students were a bit surprised to find that a party to which they would not have thought they had an affinity was the best on their particular issue. Issues included liberty and freedom, education, health care, taxes, national defense, jobs, abortion, and the environment - and remember, the students picked the issues that mattered to them.
What was really surprising was that no one, not even those strongly identifying as Republicans, thought much of the Republican website. They complained it was hard to get information on issues compared to the Democrats and some of the minor parties, and what they got was minimal, bare bones. One student even commented that it was as if the Republicans really did not want you to know were they were on the issues.
I know. Websites are not a major influencer in people's political decision making.
These are young kids, most 14 years old, and for the most part not as yet involved yet with politics.
And yet notice the unanimity.
This is anecdotal evidence.
It is striking the results, both on marriage equality and on the relative appeal of the websites of the two main parties.
Make of it what you will.
Peace.