Yes on 1's 'teacher', Charla Bansley: More than SFMM wants you to know

[lees20022]

So what?

She a member of the group that she appeared in a video for.

she never said she was a publc school teacher.

The point is that same people pushing for gay marriage ARE trying to require lessons in public schools to young children regardless of the parents view.

Get new gay activists as leaders that respect the right of parents to have a hand in their childs exposure to things that involve sex and sexuality.

[goodasyou]

Are you kidding, Lee?! The entire topic here is PUBLIC SCHOOLING! She didn't have to *say" she was a public school teacher -- the clear implication is that she is.

And yes, it is also a major point that they failed to mention Ms. Bansley's affiliations with the Maine movement.

[lees20022]

She's doing a commericial for them and she has to say she's affliated with them???

That would be stated the obvious.

[GretchenDawntreader]

this is typical. Remember the "A Storm is Coming" ad back with Prop 8, where it turned out they had to audition actors to play the roles of frightened bigots?

Same with Freedomworks and all the fake grass roots on health care reform.

[bakilacat]

why? cuz they are scared. Fear breeds hate. Get busy teaching little Johnny how to be a caring little kid and quit picking at little Pete because he is different he likes art and isn't sporty. Teach respect and not hate.

[logofreetv]

Thank you!

Support normal male with female sexual relations.

YES on 1.

[WhiteTiger225]

Ahhh, Good Ol' Republicans. I love how the far right republicans protect big buisness gangrapes (30/37 voted to do nothing about it) and how they support opressing freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and denying freedom for men and women with different creeds. Congratulation Fox News, you have proven that you in fact, hate America.

[unclepoggy]

Thanks for posting all these videos. It's quite funny how the other side has disabled all the ratings and comments.

[logofreetv]

Pffft. Big deal. Doesn't change the fact that a man sticking his erect penis up another man's anus is unhealthy, infertile and readily transmits AIDS.

Never mind that ALL the reputable social science supports the concept that children do best when raised by their biological parents - something ONLY possible when it's ONE male and ONE female.

It's not rocket science - men and women go together. One has to ask what the 'no' side have to hide when they fail to mention that.

YES on 1.

[GretchenDawntreader]

there's plenty of ways to paint straight sex as raunchy and messy too, have you...surfed the internet much lately? Bet you think when "a man sticks his erect penis" up a woman's anus is AWESOME.

And this isn't "Yes on 1: Defeat Anal Sex!" Nor is it about gay adoption, since you brought the "what about the children" into it. What kind of idiot are you? This is about whether two people who love each other can get married.

THAT'S IT. That your hate doesn't trump a couple's love.

[missfaustus]

I'm pretty sure people are sticking their 'erect penis up another man's anus" anyway, regardless of marriage. This is a gay marriage bill, not a sodomy bill. So how would Question 1 change that?

[pceasysf]

Nice. Awesome research! Thank you.

[NOtoPROP8]

Vote NO! Vote NOW!

Thank you for making this video. The heterosexual-only marriage supporters' strategy is to lie. Lie as long as gay people are denied their right to marry.

[Permaglo]

Thanks for posting this!! Doesn't surprise me. The Wirthlin family from Mass. from that ad are also big conservatives and marriage equality opponents.

[Monica17N]

She was my English teacher!

[SeanChapin1]

Well done on this video - bravo!

[standformarriageme]

No on 1! Stand for marriage equality, ME!

[centexman]

So, BuckJr3, what IS the "definition of marriage"?? In the LEGAL sense? Marriage is a legal contract between two people. This contract allows certain rights to be shared between these people, and in some instances (like the IRS) the 2 people can be treated as one. Again, this is a LEGAL CONTRACT!!! Legal contracts can be changed at any time.

[smeejay]

Exactly! The definition of marriage has changed many times over the years to stay in touch with legal and social advances. Marriage, initially,,was merely a contract of ownership not unlike buying a goat or a cow. Let the puns begin...

[BuckJr3]

Very inspirational smeejay...

Buuut where exactally is oppression happening?

Two men can't get a document of marriage because they're two men, marriage constitutes two people of the opposite sex to marry..

Give gay couples all the rights that they want, as unions.

ANYONE in this nation may get married, but it can only be with one other person of the opposite sex.

[PLmoms]

Inaccurate. There are gay couples who are legally married in this country. How does that harm you?

[BuckJr3]

So we change the deffinition of marriage to free people from DECADES of discrimination, hm?

I honestly could care less what people do in their beds, or WHO has a civil union with whomever..

Gays and lesbians are people too! I loathe anything that would treat them otherwise, but I refuse to alter what marriage IS to pander to their desire for recognition.

[smeejay]

This is about Fairness and Equality. The exact same thing you will feel your children to be entitled to. This is about rights. Inheritance. Emergency Hospital visitation. I know a lesbian whose lover of 25 years slowly died alone because her health care proxies and power of attorney, which they were smart enough to gather ahead for this very reason, weren't recognized. After 2 decades together she and her 3 adopted children(they raised over 14 foster children together) died only feet apart.

[PLmoms]

There are legally married gay couples already. Amierican Heritage, Oxford and websters include gay couples in their definitions of marriage.

Why do you deserve to have your relationship called "marriage" under the law, and I do not? What makes you better?

[smeejay]

That's actually a great story. Just months ago anti-gay marriage activist were up in arms that Merriam Webster went and changed their definition of marriage to reflect same sex coples. Merriam Webster replied why didn;t you get upset 4 years earlier WHEN THE CHANGE WAS MADE. LOL! See, this doesn't harm, affect or change your life Buck. Just breathe and grow along with the rest of the country into claiming the inheritance we are ALL entitled to.

[BuckJr3]

er, observation not argument.

Forgive my blunder.

[smeejay]

Blunder forgiven. Denial of Equal Rights for your Fellow, Law Abiding, Tax Paying citizens not forgivable. If there has been ONE single thing that one can BANK on in this country, it is the overcoming of oppression and the indominatable strength of the human spiirit to persevere. If not now, then tomorrow. If not tomorrow the day after. Your resistence to the inevitable Equality of LGBT Americans is destined to fail as have all other deniers of Civil Rights this country have. FACT.

[BuckJr3]

Yes goodasyou, yet ANOTHER wonderfully relevant argument!

Speaking on something that you care about, but doing so anonymously as long as i'm on the internet, is SUCH a damnedable offence.

I saw the video, wanted to comment, couldn't, made BuckJr.

[goodasyou]

It's interesting that BuckJr3 just joined YouTube today, seemingly for the sole purpose of commenting on this thread.

[smeejay]

I highly doubt the writers of the Consttution had the specific protection of LGBT in particular in mind, as such an identity was virtually unkacknowledged at the time. But I prefer to take my leads from the leaders of the modern day civil rights struggle. Julian Bond, who marched and fought side by side with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., spent over 20 years serving in the both Houses of the Georgia State Government and has been the head of the NAACP for the last decade, says and I quote, cont..

[smeejay]

"When someone asks me 'Are GLBT right civil rights?' I say Of course they are. Civil Rights are positive Legal perogatives. The Right to Equal treatment under the Law. These are Rights shared by Everyone. There is no one in the United States that does not or should not enjoy or share in enjoying in these rights. LGBT rights are special in no way. It isn't special to be Free from Discrimination. This is an Ordinary Universal Right of Citizenship."

[SeanChapin1]

One of my favorite quotes that I like to quote when I discuss LGBT civil rights with others.

[BuckJr3]

Tell me PLmoms, would you give me a quote from that commercial where she speaks on public school policy or the laws about public schools??

--Other than referencing what HAS happened in Mass?

[PLmoms]

she is portraying herself as the expect, pulling together the "facts".

what happened in MA was about discrimination. There is an estimated 1 to 6 MILLION children of gay parents. Gay-led families exist. the teacher wasn't talking about sex or "how to grow up and be gay". Whether or not gay people are allowed to marriage, the fact that some kids have gay parents and schools want to educate children to not bully these kids does not change with marriage equality.

[BuckJr3]

So it would ONLY be honest to say that she is a "PRIVATE" school teacher?

Because of your "Default" -Maine4marriage

?

The issue is, NOBODY in SFMM is claiming that she isn't a member of the organization or an activist. Of course she is, you don't just ask random folks to be in your professionally-made commercial..

The thing is, WHO CARES??

-And smeejay, where in the constitution does it say that homosexual marriage is a "basic right?"

[PLmoms]

I tell my children "lying by omission is still lying".

In otherwords, if you tell only parts of a truth and omit the whole story to give a different impression, iy;s still dishonest.

[BuckJr3]

So as a "player" she's "irresponsible" to be in a commercial for her cause??

She says nothing but her oppinion IN the commercial, she merely sitts in on a role while the video tells the story of what has happened in Mass..

SOOO that's wrong? She doesn't even give annalysis AS a teacher!

Would you be willing to say that if a public school teacher was a "player" in a anti-traditional marriage organization an then was in a commercial for them, would be "irresponsible"?

[BuckJr3]

Hmm. And "Great Lengths"

..

She's not an employee of the state and therefore has no reprocussions of what she says on TV relating to her boss.

How is this "Duping" Maine citizens? Haha she IS a teacher, she IS an activist to protect the tradtional deffinition of marriage. She is NOT an employee of SFMM. She never claimed to speak for public schools or as a teacher in one.

You just just keep thowing these pithy punches and using words like "irresponsible" but you're kiddding nobody.

:-)

BJ

[goodasyou]

She has spoken at multiple SFMM rallies, she works for a state conservative organization, she co-founded a marriage org. with Stand For Marriage Maine's Bob Emrich, etc. She is very much part of the SFMM campaign. Even the campaign acknowledges.

Nobody said she is paid by the campaign -- frankly, who cares. But she is very much a SFMM player.

[smeejay]

The basic rights of the minority must always be protected against the tyranical whims of the majority.

[BuckJr3]

So you, "maine4marriage," would be willing to say that all the public school teachers who have been in pro-gay commercials are NOT activists or involved in any way with the organization putting these commercials out?

Be honest and realistic. The commercial mentions NOTHING about her being a public school teacher, and I'm sure she cares for what is put into the minds of children --the next generation-- in the public schools.

Maybe she just cares.

[maine4marriage]

She is speaking about a public school issue! Clearly, the implication is that she's a public school teacher. That is the default, and it's completely disingenuous to suggest otherwise!

Ms. Bansley is not just an activist or just someone who cares. She has been one of Maine's MAJOR anti-equality activists for years now. She co-founded a marriage org. with SFMM's Bob Emrich! She works as the state director of CWA! She is part of the SFMM campaign, and they should say so.

[PLmoms]

Be honest. Most typical viewers assume public school teacher because that is their experience. SFMM and Ms. Bansley know this. She is not qualified to speak on public school policy and laws around public schools. They are intentionally misleading the viewer into thinking she is qualified. That is not honesty. That is deception. I tell my children, intentionally withholding the truth to give a false impression is also lying.

SFMM have an agenda to "win" at any cost, even dishonesty.

[ttoth3]

Haha so?!

She's a teacher. She cares about the issue. She was probabally involved with the idea to make the commercial.. CRAZY! What does it even matter?? ONLY a public school teacher counts as a teacher now?? ONLY public school teachers can be concerned to what will be taught to our children in public schools?

The video is irrelevant to the facts.

Nice try though, cute effort! :-)

[maine4marriage]

Don't misrep the video, ttoth3. Nobody ever said that only public school teachers matter. But the issues to which Charla is speaking are PUBLIC school issues. Her school, as a private religious institution, already has the freedom to shut out any and all gay acknowledgement!

And while you might not think it's relevant that SFMM has used one of their own people in their campaign and failed to acknowledge it, many others do.

[voteyesonquestion1]

No on 1, never told you that Sherri Gould is a gay activist connected to Maine Equality and a co adviser with another lesbian Jennie Todd of the Gay Straight Club in Nokomis Regional High School.

They are eager to implement the LGBTQ program from the state of Maine.

Behind so called safe schools and anti bullying front programs the ultimate agenda is more Gay sex. Protect your children. Do not be naive.

[maine4marriage]

Being involved with a GSA is not the same thing as being a staffer with the campaign! Charla Bansley IS a major part of the SFMM/Yes on 1 campaign. It is extremely irresponsible for SFMM to not acknowledge that.

[roddster69]

Excellant. Thanks for sharing

[jrad4729]

For anyone who questions the educational credibility of Calvary Chapel Christian School. It is a fully accredited school.

[PLmoms]

Of course it is. Private schools run on a BUSINESS model. They need to make money. so they don't invest in credentialed teachers. The teachers are NOT QUALIFIED to make statements on what they think could happen in public schools and with state law.  Charla Bansley is attempting to come off as credible while she is simply misleading anyone who hears her to get support for her own beliefs. I thank God my kids have teachers with integrity, unlike Ms. Bansley.

[voteyesonquestion1]

Private schools have higher results than public schools. Religious schools do a good job for much less and no profit. Parents pay taxes and pay again for their children to have a religious environment

[PLmoms]

Of course they have higher results, no one is arguing that. Most test and interview kids into the schools, the kids need to be able to absorb the information. for example, my son, who is dyslexic, could not go to most private schools.

They have curriculum writers. The teachers don't determine what is taught. It is fed to them. There is less independent thinking from the teachers. They are also measured in different ways.

I am not opposed to religious, private schools. But it doesn't mean...

[PLmoms]

cont...

...it doesn't mean they are qualified to make statements as Ms. Bansley does in this video. She is NOT qualified to make statements about public school education. She and the people who created this video have very low morals/values to try to give the impression that she is the right person to speak on this when in reality it is only their propaganda they are trying to push on viewers. They want to win, and are doing it at an cost.

[BillMcLean2]

Because they tried to shove this through without giving us, the taxpayers, a vote on the issue. Why is that? I'd say that's going to some lenghts myself... right? Wehter we vote yes or no, it's our right.

[PLmoms]

Why should rights be put to a vote if it doesn't affect you? Why should you have a say in my life when whether or not I am married does not change your life at all?

[Lofnmusic]

When do gay people get to vote on YOUR marriage? Or mine for that matter.

I think it's pretty unfair that my fiance and I can WALK to our court house and get our marriage license, yet everyone feels they must VOTE on our friend's marriages. This screams hypocrisy to me.

[firelight4321]

Great response! Thank you!

[sammyseattle]

What exactly are Ms. Bansley's teaching credentials?

[PLmoms]

You don't need teaching credentials for private schools.

[BillMcLean2]

maybe you're right, but would you hire just anyone if you ran a private school? I would not. I would hire professionals.  Think about it.

[PLmoms]

You would think so. But in reality, private schools have a very stringently dictated curriculum that needs to be dispensed at a fast pace. The teacher just needs to be able to read a lesson and not think for himself/herself. Private schools are a business. Credentialled teachers cost more, and they need to keep OPEX down to show a profit. So they don't need smart teachers as much as teachers who can follow predetermined instructions. It saves money. It's a business.

[sammyseattle]

Exactly, that's what makes me wonder. I know that some of the teachers in the catholic schools where I grew up didn't have teaching degrees, some of the lower grade teachers didn't have degrees at all.

[PLmoms]

Yes, the work is done for them. The teachers don't need to think. They just do and say exactly as the pre-written curriculum dictates.

I am not saying their job is easy. But they certainly aren't qualified to make blanket misleading statements about what they guess could happen in public schools or by state laws.