Someday, two princes will come

Prince Charming finds true love with a charming prince in King & King, a Dutch book for children six and up. Children from liberal families. It turned up in a school library in Wilmington, N.C., where conservative parents found themselves trying to explain gay marriage to their first grader.

“What might be inappropriate for one family, in another family is a totally acceptable thing,” said Elizabeth Miars, Freeman’s principal.

I support gay marriage, but I think propaganda about controversial subjects doesn’t belong in elementary school libraries.

About Joanne


  1. As if you expected propagandists to play fair…how charmingly naive…

  2. “I was flabbergasted,” Hartsell said. “My child is not old enough to understand something like that, especially when it is not in our beliefs.”

    Did these parents only teach their daughter about their own beliefs? I know I revel in teaching my children about my beliefs and how they are different from those of others. It’s part of growing up, being part of society, and learning to appreciate the choices available.

    If propaganda about sensitive subjects doesn’t belong in elementary school libraries, then most good literature must go: works of Twain (slavery, teenage runaways, cross-dressing), Dickens (regicide, revolution, death penalty), Lewis (religion), and others. But what is propaganda? Is it having a strong opinion? Personally, I’m against kings and princes in favor of democratic officeholders.

    If the book was assigned, then there could be an issue. But the girl chose the book. It’s the parents who have a problem here: they have to explain to their daughter their prejudices. That’s where the discomfort lies. These parents need to get over it and teach their child.

  3. “What might be inappropriate for one family, in another family is a totally acceptable thing,” said Elizabeth Miars, Freeman’s principal.

    So i’m sure they have the turner diaries in the school too right? If some kid came to school wearing a rebel flag thats ok huh miss Miars?

    Somehow I doubt it

  4. Tyson Laron says:

    “I know I revel in teaching my children about my beliefs and how they are different from those of others. It’s part of growing up, being part of society, and learning to appreciate the choices available.”

    Isn’t teaching about pedophiles, beastiality, sado-masichism, domination, abstinence, polygamy, incest, golden showers, etc. (all sexual preferences mind you) a little bit much to saddle a 1st grader with.

    Or did you just mean that you revel in teaching your own beliefs to your child, just as the family from Wilmington does?

  5. D. Cooper says:

    Tyson, just in case you’re wondering, Jon is one in the same who thinks that driving while under the influence (drugs or alcohol) is not really a problem and it’s just stupid drivers causing all the fatalities. It’s no wonder his moral compass is a little bent here as well.

    You can’t allow your religous beliefs to be taught in school to your child, but there’s not problem in exposing them to material that opposes those beliefs. I would concede that probably the complete isolation of all children from all things offensive to the wide range of beliefs is impossible, but this is just a bit much. To be sure discussions at higher grade levels are appropriate but in 3rd. grade (even though this was not a result of a discussion), this exposure is unnecessary. Actually, irresponsible.

    What’s next … King Henry Rides the Hershey Highway .. illustrated edition? Gays can do their thing, but it doesn’t need to be ‘in your face’. Especially in 3rd. grade.

  6. I can’t imagine any book about adult lifestyles being worthwhile reading for 1st grade kids. Their are thousands of odd talking animal relationships for them to sort out. What’s going on with those Bremen Town Musicians, anyway? Some poly thing???

  7. D. Cooper and others,

    When issues come up in my family, I use them to teach lessons. My children have gay family members, and I’ve taught them (the children) that homosexuality is something that exists. I’ve also informed them that there are many who want more and fewer rights to be held by gays.

    The slippery slope toward NAMBLA literature and gay porn on the elementary school library shelves isn’t something I imagine here. This is a story with a kiss. Sure, it’s scary for some, but I don’t see the big deal here.

    As for anal sex and golden showers? Get a grip, folks. This isn’t Queer Eye for the Queen’s Little Guy, it’s a stupid fairy tale with an emphasis on the fairy. If there are scenes where the two princes go to get bikini waxes, I’ll take it all back. But I don’t think that’s what happens in the story.

  8. D. Cooper says:

    Oh, excuse me, FIRST GRADE … what was I thinking….double my comments in that case.

  9. Tyson Laron says:

    It’s worse than I thought. Check out the suggested reading level.

    Reading level: Ages 4-8

    OMG! 4 years old. This is not a work of fiction, but a work of NAMBLA.

  10. D. Cooper says:

    Yeah Jon., I had the same discussion with my six year old just the other day. Did you tell them that many people think it not normal? Did you tell them that it was a chosen life style or a forced one? Or, both? I’m not saying how I feel, but just want to make sure we cover all the bases. If you’re explaining/discussing different like styles to a kid in junior high school or high school in the right atmosphere, that’s education. Hidden as the story line in a first graders book is not education, it’s borders on indoctrination or at the very least propaganda. In sends the message that it’s ok … well maybe to some it is, and to others it isn’t. But it’s not the schools place to plant the seed for either side of the argument.

  11. Really, if you guys want to get worked up about something, there’s always Timmy Tiptoes and Chippy Hackee’s odd little relationship to worry about. Now those two have something happening, and I expect that that propaganda-spouting feminist author’s depictions of overpowering wives and “misunderstandings” over nuts won’t fail to come under the scrutiny of those who want to keep children safe from abnormal relationships. Note especially how the introduction of the bear (read: hairy gay guy with a belly) is what frightens Mr. Hackee into retuning to his dominant wife.

  12. Oh, please. The naivete is killing me. I have several students whose parents are a gay couple. I have one student who had 5 parents show up for their first conference. I was trying to figure it out when one of them introduced herself as the surrogate mother.

  13. D. Cooper says:

    Not familar with Timmy and Chippy … my ‘kids’ are in their 30’s … but are you suggesting that this feminist author’s works are justification for the two Kings who are actually Queens book?

    Tell me more, maybe I’ll get worked up over it.

  14. Beatrix Potter is the author. She’s burning in Hell as I type this.

  15. D. Cooper says:

    And Rita, your point is? Where does the naivete come in … I’m sure you’re not the first teacher to find out that Johnny’s got two mommies (or more apparently) so because of that what follows? …. I’ve had kids whose parents were felons (hell, I had kids who were felons).

    If that topic regarding lucky Johnny with all the mommies comes up, and some other kid asks about it, you can suggest that they discuss it with their parents. We don’t need library books with these issues at that age, especially library books that would seem to not only take up the issue, but actually judge it for the six year old. There in lies the problem.

  16. PJ/Maryland says:

    I suppose the authors thought having a prince marry another prince was awfully clever, sort of like telling the wolf’s side of the three little pigs story. And I’m guessing the school librarian thought she was being awfully clever and subversive in ordering the book.

    It’d be nice if the authors had put some thought into the book. After all, the reason the princes are supposed to marry is to have kids. Perhaps they’ll write a sequel that goes into the complex medical procedures now necessary to create an heir to the throne. Or perhaps “King Lee” will arrange for “King Layabout” to fall down the stairs; these co-ruler deals rarely work out in the end.

    Also, I note that the prince is depicted as lazy; is this the model gay male we want held up to our 4 to 8 year olds?

  17. Cooper — we’re naive in “protecting” kids from stuff that they largely already know about. The description of the book doesn’t look particularly shocking. Since we are devout Episcopalians, my 8-year-old daughter (who serves as an acolyte) has heard more about homosexuality in church than anywhere else lately.

    I’m not sure what parents who are felons (or kids who are) has to do with it. I’ve had plenty of those, too, and I’m sure somebody has written children’s books about it.

  18. D. Cooper says:

    Rita, you’re confusing protection with endorsing. The book isn’t an attempt to educate about gay life, it is to endorse it, albiet promote it, as in this is ok. You apparently cannot recognize propaganda when you see it. Most propaganda is not recognized when the person who’s viewing it is already predisposed to that ideal. This is a devisive issue and a seven year old is an unfair place for proponent’s of gay life to be imposing a subtle message to begin their indoctrination.

    On CNN last night this exact book was brought up. The first question asked of the woman who opposed the book’s placement was … ‘why do you believe that it is ok that a few parents can force their opinion on others.’ That is the epitome of the presumptive question. This ‘liberal’ CNN (yes that is presumptive also, but liberal and CNN are almost synomous) reporter has already made a presumption. Why didn’t she ask the exact same question of the gay rights legal aid defending the other side. Something like, don’t you think that this book places a stamp of approval on one side of very controversial issue at a vulnerable age. What an honest reporter should have asked either guest here is what do they see as the problem here, and let them take the ball from there.

    As for your daughter having heard about homosexuality in your church is fine, you’re there to guide your child as you wish, and you choose to take her there. School is much different. And if you were opposed to homosexuality which is neither here nor there, you wouldn’t want those who do subtly placing their point of view on your child in this ‘sneaky. manner. Subtle in that … it’s just two people who fall in love.

    As for the ones I knew, they’re like nothing more than to tell stories (the glorification kind) and it is inappropriate. And the fact that a six or seven year old may have two mommies is also probablt not an appropriate discussion in first or second grade. And my guess, is that most school administrators would ask that you not discuss it at that age and defer to the parents. If for some reason people believe that this is a topic for discussing at that age, then it certainly should not be tainted by subtleties not yet understood by a six or seven year old.

  19. Jeez, Cooper, I’m afraid to let you see a copy of Atalanta. Or is that type of propaganda ok?

  20. D. Cooper says:

    Not familiar with, but if it is propaganda as well, chuck it. No problem here. Sounds like I’ve taken sides on this gay issue, but not exactly. I don’t want either side in my face with it, or subtly passing it by a first grader. The Christian right has gone ape sh– over it, and the Gay activists are determined to rub it in your face. Don’t care for either.

  21. Rita, would you be okay with a children’s book which depicted gay men as reckless and promiscuous? Would you be okay with a children’s book about a family where the woman thought the man loved her, but he was secretly gay and he later quits deceiving her and leaves, devastating their children in order to be with the boyfriend he loves more? Would you be okay with the book depicting this scenario in a negative, not a positive light? Is that okay? Because some unfortunate children can relate to that situation, too. Or would you rather just leave it up to the parents to decide for themselves how to approach this subject when they decide their kids are ready?

  22. Walter Wallis says:

    I believe in Gay marriage, dry rain and taxcutting democrats.
    I do not believe 2nd graders need the original Sleeping Beauty where the Prince woke Beauty with a sex act. I do not believe watching Chip and Dale would be improved by witnessing their bed wrestling.
    However, if you want to include having Prince one infect Prince two with AIDS, I guess I might go along.

    You de man, D.B.

  23. PJ/Maryland – According to this article, there IS a sequel “King & King & Family.”

    So now, your first-grader can learn all about artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood! Aren’t you happy?

    Great comment about the lazy prince as a bad role model, by the way.

  24. JC. No. And I’m not OK with books that show Daddy doing sex chats all night on the Internet and sleeping with other women at a Red Roof Inn 50 miles away, either. Prince meets Princess is ok, but Prince meets Prince is somehow sexually explicit propaganda?

  25. Remember when we use to send our children to school to learn about reading, writing, and arithmetic? Believe it or not, that is still the reason I send my kids to school. It is my responsibility to instill morals in MY children. I choose WHEN and HOW sensitive subjects will be discussed. That is MY right as a parent. If my children had brought a book home that dealt with homosexuality in the first grade, there would have been hell to pay. Don’t bother trying to tell me that you’re right and I’m wrong on this matter. These are MY children, not yours or the school’s. If the school wants to expose MY children to this material, they must get MY permission. Why is this so hard for the liberals to understand?

  26. Laura (southernxyl) says:

    Whatever happened to Cat in the Hat? Is that just totally passe?

  27. D. Cooper says:

    The Cat in the Hat you buy… at Borders, the school library doesn’t stock that sort of stuff. They take care of the rest. The problem is, that the school setting unfortunately provides a unique opportunity for the liberals to promote their agenda. And, to their credit, the conservative gay groups (almost an oxymoron) that do exist would probably be opposed to this tactic.

    If the gay community is wanting to get some sense of acceptability this is working against their credibility. This attempt at subtle suasion is not only dishonest it is absolutely abhorring.

    I suppose telling them to stick it where the sun doesn’t shine would be useless.

  28. Prince meets Princess is ok, but Prince meets Prince is somehow sexually explicit propaganda?

    Did I say it was? Or did I ask if it was okay to have books that show the other side of the propaganda? An honest question, and it’s interesting that you try to set up a false dichotomy here. Honestly Rita, what would be your objection to a fairy tale that depicts real life, like the father in my example? What’s wrong with showing kids something they might be familiar with? If it’s okay to pretend there’s nothing out of the ordinary with Prince Meets Prince, what’s wrong with showing the other side of that coin? If you’d accept one, why not the other? You’re an Episcopalian, so I find it hard to believe you’ve never heard of Gene Robinson. Some kids, can relate to Robinson’s daughters, so why shouldn’t their stories get told, too? I mean, since we’re bringing it up.

  29. Wow, this is a really hateful conversation. I’m sorry; I can’t participate any longer.

  30. Wow, this is a really hateful conversation

    The last refuge of a scoundrel, I take it. So be it, I was hoping for an honest reply from you, but c’est la vie.

  31. Rita’s right. Some of you guys (I’m assuming you’re guys, maybe I’m wrong) are dripping with Derbyshire-esque disdain for the homos. Sorry, I calls ’em like I sees ’em. The AIDS comment, and the “stick it where the sun don’t shine” one, were a bit much.

    The whole gay marriage debate has been very revealing. As in, it’s prompted a lot of people to reveal their ugly thoughts about gays.

  32. The whole gay marriage debate has been very revealing. As in, it’s prompted a lot of people to reveal their ugly thoughts about gays.

    But in fairness, it has also revealed those pro-gay people who would use underhanded means to further their agenda. If your goals are pure, I would think this wouldn’t be necessary, agreed?

    I’m assuming you’re guys, maybe I’m wrong

    Quit assuming 🙂

  33. D. Cooper says:

    Steve, sorry that you’re offended by the levity, but playing the ‘it’s just homophobia card’ is not going to do here. Whether you like’em or don’t there is no justification for their subtle agenda to be perpetrated upon a first grader.

    This isn’t a debate regarding gay rights or gay marriage. It’s about forcing one’s agenda on a six year old. You can do that if you wish, but it had better be your own six year old and not someone else’s.

    If you want to read the King & King as a bedtime story to your six year old, be my guest. But, don’t read it to mine.

  34. Walter Wallis says:

    That’s what a little tolerance gets you – next they insist on doing it in the streets and arresting the animals for getting scared.

  35. D. Cooper says:

    Walter … you’re funny, but Steve’s not gonna like it. BTW, pretty close to that on Fire Island …. only deer to scare there.

  36. UbiquitousHate says:

    Seriously, how could gays think they were going to get away with this blatant indoctrination. I mean, yeah, I’m assuming it was gays that wrote the book, and forced it into the library. And I’m assuming it was gays that forced the child to want to read the book, but still.. I know they did it.

    You know what else? I’m sick and tired of these indoctrinating Disney movies. Sleeping Beauty? Come on now, this movie is practically forcing children to believe that heterosexuality is okay. That’s pure indoctrination aimed straight at children. We need to put a stop to all of these people forcing their agendas on our children. We need to ban anything that in some way has any remote controversial idea in it, whatsoever, so that our children can not learn to think for themselves until we decide they are ready to think like us.

    Note: Sarcasm.

  37. Tom West says:

    Yowza. This topic is kind of shocking. Albeit I’m from Canada, but I occasionally forget the differences between our two cultures.

    Discrimination against homosexuality here is about as socially acceptable as discrimination against blacks. Thus, I’m reading these posts with pretty much the same shock as if many of the posters whose opinions I respect suddenly called a book that had an interracial marriage “propaganda” and unsuitable for ages 4-8!

    Then again, my son was traumatized when he was 7 when he read about adults (who he assumed were a bastion of responsibility and fairness) who screamed racial epithets at the children when schools were desegregated in the 60’s. I explained that was a different time. Then at 8, it happened again when he read a paper and realized that his godmother wasn’t allowed to marry her partner. (He’d of course assumed they were married.) It was difficult explain in a manner that maintained his respect for our government and, thankfully, his assumption of the rationality of society was restored when a few weeks later, they could and did get married.

    I’ve always tried to teach him to respect opinions that he didn’t necessarily agree with, but roundly denounce bigotry and those who espouse it. Now I find myself in the difficult situation. How do *I* handle the bigotry against homosexuality that I find in people I otherwise respect? Do I actively argue against it? Do I treat it the way I might treat anti-Jewish remarks coming from someone who was brought up in an Arab country? Do I just tell myself that 50 years from now their descendants will know better?

    I think I’m with Rita. I find this entire topic far too unnerving. I don’t think I want to debate bigotry, especially with people I otherwise respect. Call it cowardly, but would you debate with someone who called blacks inferior? Who called literature featuring a black character propoganda?

    This is all most disquieting.

  38. TysonLaron says:


    This is not about bigotry. This is about a political cause. In America, the practice of homosexuality is in the campaign phase. A certain segment of our population have picked this topic to present to the voters. So in our news, our literature, our churches, our schools, our TV, etc. they are trying to present their case hoping the voters will like them. As with any election, some voters don’t care for what they see (kinda like American Idol).

    The thing that bothers me most is when I hear this moevement compared to being black, Jewish, etc. That argument just doesn’t wash. You are born into a black or Jewish family. The entire family suffers the stigma of societal hate. You have no one in your immediate circle to help you through it. You also battle the stigma from the day you draw your first breath. A gay doesn’t even know there is a stigma until they are in their pre-teens, and if they don’t discuss it, NO ONE will ever know. So how can they suffer the same bigotry as a black person? Not even close.

    Homosexuality is all about forcing, yes forcing, someone else’s beliefs on the community. So this is not about hate, it’s about the gay community hoping that the propaganda will win friends and influence people. That way they can feel good and loved and accepted.

    That’s what politics is all about. Convince enough people to vote for your cause so that you can change your world. God forbid the day that the gay philosophy does become the majority opinion in any country. Without the natural reproductive cycle between a man and a woman, that society would cease to exist. Kinda of like the dinosaurs.

    Extinction — what a concept.

  39. Walter Wallis says:

    Just for the record, revisit my comment about the original Sleeping Beauty.

    While we are at it, I believe that Bambi is a corrupting influence in that it ascribes human behavior to animals.
    Bambi’s father, in real time, would have put the horn to Bambi for invading his territory.

    It is pederasty to sexualize children, whether het or hom. Stop it!!!

  40. Laura (southernxyl) says:

    I agree that it’s wrong to sexualize children. Without seeing the book in question, I can’t say whether it does that. I don’t mean to harp on “Cat in the Hat” because I’m really just using it to represent a genre, but why can’t the school libraries stock uncontroversial works like that? Why? It’s not like there aren’t enough of them. And that’s what makes me suspicious about “King & King”. It’s not like they have to have it on the shelf because there isn’t anything else. It’s there because there’s a message they want those six-year-olds to get.

    “Thus, I’m reading these posts with pretty much the same shock as if many of the posters whose opinions I respect suddenly called a book that had an interracial marriage “propaganda” and unsuitable for ages 4-8!” It would be possible for a book about interracial marriage to be propaganda. In fact, if the book was written in the 1960s or 70s and the interracial aspect of the couple’s relationship is a primary focus of the book, it most likely is. Propaganda is a systematic attempt to influence the population’s attitudes and beliefs. At one time interracial marriages were very controversial. Many people were uncomfortable with it, and many more thought it was out-and-out wrong. Any book aimed at six-year-olds that depicted such a marriage in a positive way was an attempt to bypass the parents and direct that child’s views of the topic. Interracial marriage might be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but such a book would still be propaganda. Multiply that by 10,000 when it comes to gay marriage, which today is the subject of heated discussions and very strong feelings on both sides. (And may I point out that we don’t recall famous books pushing interracial marriage to six-year-olds, which may account for its becoming socially acceptable.)

    Any controversial issue should be left alone by the schools when at all possible. It just isn’t part of their mandate to see to it that the little folks have the proper understanding of the cause du jour.

    I grew up without “Heather Has Two Mommies”, “King & King”, and all other books of that type. So did Rita, and Tom, and everybody else posting on this thread. How come we aren’t all raging homophobes? I see there is some diversity of opinion, though. Maybe that’s the problem these books are meant to solve.

  41. D. Cooper says:

    Tom, There’s a fine line between approval of a life style and being discriminatory. While I may not approve of gay ‘marriage’, I believe they should have many of the benefits of such (insurance, taxes, etc.). I may for religious or other reasons not approve of gay relationships yet would not approve of discriminating againt them in hiring practices or elsewhere.

    Given that, I believe I have a legitimate right to protect my children from your opinion, repeat opinion. I can when I choose, educate my child to be respectful of others and their chosen (or if you wish unchosen) lifestyle, while not necessarily approving of it. You can of course raise your children as you wish. But, don’t think that you have the right to promote your point of view to my six year old, who as you well know does not have the capability yet to recognize what this King & King is suggesting.

    Different cultures to be sure. I think you might check the establishments in Canada just across the border from Buffalo. I guess you will see a different set of standards. I won’t deny that the border traffic is high, but ‘we’ do have to go to you for it.

  42. Walter Wallis says:

    Wait – were the two Princes of different races? Then by all means, make the book required reading.

  43. So I guess this book will indoctrinate all children to believe that homosexuality is not only a different choice, but the correct one? And then no one will reproduce? And then we’ll die out like the dinosaurs? I remain unconvinced.

    I also guess that the “yuck” factor is the only other way that anti-homosexual politicos can use to justify their opinions. Sure, we all know that homosexual lifestyles consist of nothing more than anal sex followed by the chain-smoking of penises, but I’m not convinced that that aspect of their lives was the centerpiece of this children’s book. From the synopsis, I think it was something about finding a life partner to be faithful to, falling in love, and celebrating that love. Sure, that kind of thing never happens in “real” gay relationships, but the book is only a fairy tale.

  44. D, Cooper says:

    Jon, what the book does is place a ‘good housekeeping’ seal of approval so to speak on a relationship that some parent may or may not want to portrayed to their child. It’s called choice. You are certainly welocome to begin that process with your own children if you so choose. You do not have the right to impose that validation on another’s child whose parents may disagree with you. Your interpretation of the book’s intent is all well and good, but not everyone sees it like you do. Some may see it as an opportunity to promote a gay relationship under the guise of this loving thing you’ve conjured up.

    Bottom line is, you can buy the book or not and do for your children what you will. And, please, let others have that option as well. And, Jon you are welcome to ‘yuck’ away in the privacy of your own home. Be my guest, but don’t let me catch you in the school library.

  45. Yuck… you know what this whole conversation reminds me of?

    It reminds me of being the child of a single parent, in a time and place when people considered divorce “against their religion”. Trying to figure out who to give my father’s day cards to, that I was forced to make. Looking at my puny little family tree next to everyone else’s…
    Shoot, if a book like this means that some kid with gay parents gets to feel a little more normal, then I’m all for it.
    My mom was a great mom, and she worked her rear off to provide for me. No one’s ever going to convince me that she’s going to hell just because she divorced my father.
    And I’m sure kids with gay parents feel exactly the same about their parents, too.

    When you send your kid to public school, you’ve got to accept the “moral relativism” that comes with it. Because, in order to be inclusive and support ALL kids, they have to recognize and accept all sort of different viewpoints. Whether they are Muslim, Jewish, Black, White, rich, poor, straight or gay. If you don’t like it, you need to find a private relgion-based school, or homeschool.
    These parents have no right to go with-holding the book in order to “protect” other children from it. They should return the book and follow the procedure in place for getting it banned.
    And when they have the time, they can teach their dear little girl that homosexuality is evil – as is their right.
    Just as it’s my right to teach MY children that it’s not; that it’s just the way some people (and some animals!) are made. That there’s possibly even some biological rational for having a number of non-reproductive people in a species where the children require such intense effort to raise.

    But that’s just my opinion. In a public school, I expect my opinion to be respected, just as much as the religious fundamentalist’s opinion is respected. (BTW – I’m all for Christmas celebrations, and prayers, and what-not.)

  46. Suppose my some parent decides that your child’s school library shouldn’t have any books about soldiers because her values are supportive of pacificism and “talking out” problems. Now, should books like Johnny Tremain, a biography of George Washington, and a nonfiction book about World War Two be taken out of the library? It is a lifestyle choice she disapproves of, so those texts must go!

    And if anyone is bothered by equating homosexual rights with those of blacks, they should stop emulating the same behaviors as the anti-civil-rights forces of old: suggesting that civilization itself is at stake, relying on “traditional” values (funny: hanging an uppity nigger was once as traditional and acceptable as raping a lesbian to teach her “proper” behavior!), and crying out against those who dare to suggest that gays, like blacks, the Irish, and Navajos, are human beings worthy of respect.

    Cooper, you are an anachronism. Your values are those of fear, hatred and division. I hope you live a long life like Strom Thurmond, so you can see all your fears come to pass.

  47. Christina says:

    I hate to post because several of you have expressed my feelings much more eloquently than I can. But I must say something. We just recently went through the “birds and the bees” talk with my almost 7 year old. I’m not ready to explain to him that some relationships involve two men, two women, and possibly even more. It is naive to think that you can introduce an idea, such as homosexuality, and leave it as a sweet fairy tale with a happy ending. Questions will come up. These are questions that my son should not need to think about. HE IS SIX YEARS OLD. He should be catching bugs and playing with legos. He is not capable of sorting out complex relationships. Putting this book in the school library is forcing me as a parent to acquaint him with facts that he can’t handle yet. Do I resent that? You bet I do! My son will one day have to learn that many things go on in this world that we don’t approve of. I hope he keeps his innocence a little longer. My choice is clear, we are homeschooling. Will we teach him that God intends for marriage to be between a man and a woman? You got it!

  48. D. Cooper says:

    Actually Darby you’ve misread much, and my daughter is in her early 30’s and about as liberal as they come. And, as you’d not expect that’s just how she was raised. To be very tolerant and respectful of others, their view points and inclinations. Strike one. My daughter’s father and mother are also divorced … so? Strike two. And, I’ve made no judgements regarding homosexuals; there are those who do not approve and there are those who accept them. I just do not believe that the gay agenda need be advanced by a book given to a six year old. Strike three.

    No one is disrespecting your opinion … but you on the other hand can not surrepticiously impose your’s on someone else. BTW, I never taught my children that homosexuality was evil. I sure you thought so. I’ve been to a friend’s daughter’s gay ceremony…probably thought I wouldn’t have attended. I’m just opposed to in-your-face anything.

    Jon, stop with the what ifs … and anchronism … a person, thing or an idea that seems to belong in to a different time in history … hmmmm … doesn’t sound in and of itself to be bad. Are all things from a different time in history bad. I guess ‘I Love Lucy’ and the ‘Honeymooners’ are bad, and ‘Extreme Dating’ and the ‘Howard Stern Show’ are good.

    The problem with you two is that you’ve pigeon holed everyone who opposes your point of view. Never assume.

  49. Six year olds aren’t ready for many things. I’ve chosen to homeschool my child of that age, too.

    But it isn’t that hard to describe homosexual relationships. They are like any other: friends, lovers, really-close roommates. Maybe it is hard to describe not because the child isn’t ready, but because the parent isn’t. That’s okay. I wouldn’t bring anything up if I wasn’t comfortable, but if my child has a question I always do my best to answer in an age-appropriate manner.

    My children are full of questions. And I am full of answers. It’s what childhood and parenting are all about. And if it’s done in an honest way, it works, and your children keep listening.

  50. Walter Wallis says:

    Don’t tell me I have to bow and scrape before your ideas while you crap all over mine.

    How about mutual respect?

  51. Whay I don’t understand, is what any of this has to do with sex?
    People are saying that they can’t tell six and seven year olds that sometimes two men or two women pair off, because it raises questions they can’t answer… what questions?
    I have a six and an eight year old, and the talk was quite simple.
    It came up the first time we ran across the words “gay” and “queer” in an old children’s book, and I needed to explain that while the words used to mean just “happy,” and “strange,” they didn’t anymore. That it could sometimes be a disrespectful or hurtful way of referring to two adult people who loved each other, like mommy and daddy do, only who were both men or both women. So, they were not use the words in casual conversation, because the meaning of the words had changed.
    They were preschoolers, and they didn’t even blink at the idea that two men could love each other – they just thought it was very neat that words could change!
    Later when we talked about the human life cycle (which was just about a month ago, where my youngest is concerned) the topic of gay relatonships came up again. And the general consensus was, “Oh, poor people! They can’t have their own babies!” But I pointed out that they could adopt. My two were of the opinion that adoption, while nice, wasn’t nearly as good as making your own.

    Again, there were no difficult questions. No sex. Nothing scary about it.

    And book impose their opinions on children all the time. There are books specifically designed to teach racial tolerance. And books pushing a religious agenda.
    If we wouldn’t exclude books that teach that single parenthood is fine, and that bi-racial marriage is fine, and that Rosa Parks is a hero and the South was the wrong side to be on in the Civil War… well, then why would we exclude books that teach tolerance of gay relationships? Divorce and bi-racial marriage are even more of a choice than being gay, but there are many many books dealing with divorce and bi-racial marriage on school library shelves, and for some reason people never seem to feel that they need to protect children from exposure to them.

    So, I’m curious… what exactly are people afraid of? That their children will decide at age six to marry someone of the same sex? My kids would laugh you out of the house at that idea. They have no intention of marrying anyone other than the opposite sex at this point, because in their mind the purpose of mommies and daddies is to partner together in order to have children. They’re not interested in what we actually DO for non-procreative recreation, and for all I know, they assume gay people are celibate, lol! The knowledge that some people choose to love and live with people of the same sex has not injured them in any way that I can see.
    Nor has it raised any awkward questions, or brought up any subjects they weren’t ready to discuss.

  52. Christina says:

    You misunderstand. I am not afraid of the topic of homosexuality. If I was, I certainly would not be posting my opinion for others to dump on. I believe that all people deserve respect because they were created by God and He loves them. But I do not have to agree with the behaviors that they engage in. I realize that I am hanging myself out to dry for saying that, but let’s try to stick to the topic at hand. I have a problem with anyone, particularly the “school establishment” pushing a “life style” on my children. Obviously, this was one of our reasons for homeschooling. Now you may say that having a book in the library is hardly pushing. Well, maybe, but it won’t stop there, will it? Let’s face it, many schools already offer alternative life styles in their curriculum. Even kindergarteners get it in some districts. Am I afraid to discuss homosexuality with my children? When they are ready, no. But no one will force feed it to them. BTW, drawing a similiarity between civil rights and the gay agenda is comparing apples to oranges. People are born into their racial heritage, there was no choice involved. But people have a choice to pursue a gay life style or not.

  53. “However, if you want to include having Prince one infect Prince two with AIDS, I guess I might go along….”

    Posted by Walter Wallis

    “Mutual respect”? I crap all over your ideas? What are your ideas? You offer hatred and want respect. I don’t expect you to bow or scrape. I only wish you could show a little humanity. But I guess that’s too much for some. I know you were speaking glibly, but I worry you hate glibly, too.

  54. Christina, I don’t care if it’s chosen or not (I think both nature and nurture are at play), gay people do not deserve to be discriminated against because of the things they do that don’t harm anyone else. It is not insulting to compare a civil rights struggle with a civil rights struggle. Apples and oranges are both fruit. Both can hang from trees.

    If you think homosexuality is wrong, you can teach that. But not all parents and children are like you and yours. Indoctrination only works if your child believes what he is being taught (or otherwise exposed to), so you must be an involved parent. This is just as true for the homeschooled as it is for the public school students.

  55. I really do have to wonder what the parents in the article would have done if one of their child’s classmates had told their 6yo that their parents were gay. Wouldn’t that have raised just as many awkward questions? Would they have wanted the kid gagged; forbidden to speak of her two mommies? (Wasn’t there a story like that in the papers recently?)

    And Christina… the slippery slope argument? Do you honestly believe that if this book is on library shelves today, then tomorrow they’ll be actively recruiting kindergarteners into the “gay lifestyle”? That they want to make all straight children into gay children?
    Or is it the fact that it’s presented as a possibly legitimate choice, the part that worries you? Could your child, if he or she knew that there were gay people out there, choose to be gay?

    Honestly, there’s nothing in the world that could make me want to marry a woman – I’m simply not attracted to women. The fact that I grew up knowing several gay couples, male ones and female ones, had no effect on my sexuality. I’m as hetero as they come.

    I truely think it’s biological. And that’s probably the sticking point for all of us in this argument. Because if it IS biological, then God made them that way, and it’s not a sin. Nor is it a choice. And therefore it IS just like being black, if it’s biological.

    However, this is probably not something we’ll ever agree on, so it’s unlikely there’s any common ground for us here.

    (And what’s a gay lifestyle, anyway? Is it owning a dog? Is it holding down a steady job? Is it buying a house and marrying someone and maybe adopting a kid? All the gay people I’ve known lead lives pretty much just like mine.)

  56. Christina says:

    Jon- I agree with you on the point about being involved as a parent. But when you say that indoctrination only works if the child believes it is not quite accurate. Indoctrination is for the purpose of making a person believe something that he/she does not believe already. As you know, Hitler used propaganda extensively during his reign in Germany. Did it work? Well, six million Jews died, so I’m pretty sure he was successful. Maybe the homosexual book wouldn’t affect my children, but that is a chance that I am not willing to take. If nothing else, the conflicting opinions would be very confusing to them.

  57. D. Cooper says:

    Jon, Jon … cool your jets. All your points are well taken, not just above, but further up. No one is questioning the difficulty or lack of in explaining homosexuality to a six year old or a sixty tear old. The point is that you’ll decide when to explain, and you’ll decide what and how. The gay community like it or not has an agenda. This is a prime example of how they promote it. Not to a six year old, thank you!

    And Darby, your first statement hit the nail on the head, this is not about sex. READ …. it’s about people with an agenda foisting it upon others. It is not as you’d like it to be about the defense of homosexuality. I can see you’re a proponent, but that is not the issue. I can see your whole tirade is in that defense. BTW(this is about sex now), just in case you’d like to take your kids on a field trip to enlighten them to the gay scene and loving couples, take them to Fire Island some nice summer day. You’ll have a few things to discuss on the ferry ride home.

  58. I can hardly believe that someone promoting the censorship of a book about homosexuals used Hitler as an example of why such actions are needed. As someone who would have (rightfully) been given a black triangle by Hitler’s regime, I have to suggest some research into the pink triangle motif used by some gay rights groups.

    Come to think of it, under Hitler’s regime I probably would have a green triangle, too. But don’t tell David Duke.

  59. christina says:

    What censorship? Would you consider it censorship if I complained about a Hustler being in a school library? This is an elementary school. Censoring what our children read is a parent’s job. I would not want my children reading a book that they were not mature enough to handle. I can’t make it any clearer than that.

  60. Actually, that would be censorship, too. But the purpose would be legitimate: to keep inappropriate sexual material out of the children’s library. This book isn’t like Hustler (unless the descriptions left out a lot). It doesn’t have exposed genitalia, racist humor, improbable sexual escapades, and advertisements for 900 numbers. Hustler doesn’t belong because it is not for children.

    But this book has a legitimate purpose: to depict choices that affect many children. I don’t think the merits of this book are that obvious (I wouldn’t put this book high on my priorities list), but I really don’t see the dangers.

    Censorship would be taking something out of the library to promote an agenda (good, bad, or otherwise: I liked the pygmy Oompa-Loompas in my older edition of Chocolate Factory and don’t find them racist, the later publishers disagreed). That’s my definition. There is a passive form of censorship that occurs as books are selected and deselected (removed) from library catalogs, but that’s not what is being discussed here. There were earlier questions along the lines of “Where’e the Cat in the Hat?” that are legitimate, but that wasn’t really the point (or at least it didn’t become that).

  61. D. Cooper says:

    Darby…this is about the foisting of an agenda on a six year old … And as for all gays living a normal life like yours may or may not be true, but if you haven’t yet, that ferry ride to Fire Island might open your eyes to the other side (that for some reason you’re not aware of). I won’t go into the late night meeting place called, The Meat Rack’ … Do you live in the boonies?

    But, getting back to the topic …kids of course bring things up and they need to be discussed, but I wouldn’t turn on Howard Stern just to stimulate conversation at the breakfast table. You apparently want this to be a forum on gay acceptance and it is not. And the subtle approach that a book takes like this one does is exactly what many people find offensive. Surrepticious comes to mind.

  62. Basic logic.
    The Meat Rack is to “King & King” as a hetero sex club is to “Cinderella”.
    One’s only appropriate for adults over the age of consent. The other’s appropriate for children.
    Does Cinderella push the hetero lifestyle? Is it a subtle part of the hetero agenda? Is the kiss at the end of Cinderella equivelant to exposing kids to a Hustler mag?
    And I live in Canada. Some people consider us the boonies, I suppose, but I’ll bet my town’s a heck of a lot more cosmopolitan than yours. :-p

    FWIW, I’m done now and won’t be responding to any more posts on this thread. It’s be fun!

  63. D. Cooper says:

    The Hetero Agenda ??? That’s a new one. Someone watch the border please!!!

  64. “If you think homosexuality is wrong, you can teach that. But not all parents and children are like you and yours.”

    True. And not all parents and children are like you and yours.

    Should six-year-olds be given books where it is explained that homosexuality is sinful? Lots of Americans believe it is.

    I’ll say it again: every broad-minded, tolerant person posting here grew up WITHOUT “Heather Has Two Mommies” and “King & King”. Why is it that our children will turn into raving homophobes if we just leave this controversial issue out of their libraries while they’re still figuring out how to spell “cat”?

  65. Tyson Laron says:

    First of all, everything is propaganda.

    TV ads — wants you to lean toward a product
    Sports — wants you to support a team
    Politics — wants you to vote for a cnadidate/cause
    Religion — wants you to choose a savior
    News — wants to effect your opinions
    Literature/Entertainment — wants to affect your emotions
    Parenting — wants to instill certain values

    So the argument that this book is not meant to influence these early readers is just hilarious. You mean that these authors sat around and in a purely business way said “You know, no one has tapped into that questioning 4 to 8 year olds about gay kings market. This has blockbuster written all over it.”

    Also, teaching children about gays is not about sex? What else is it about? There is only one thing that defines the difference between Adam and Steve’s relationship as being best friends or lovers. Sex! No ifs, and, or buts about it (sorry no pun intended).

  66. Rita C. – Hey, I’m the Jay Cee that posted about talking animals. None of the rest. (By my typos, thou shalt know me.)

    Perhaps I should come up with a clever name. There are dozens of JCs in the world….

    And now I’m going to point out that children in the US should not be reading books about royalty! That’s a very proper gander.

  67. I guess you can count me with the folks who are shocked that a book about a fairy-tale homosexual romance would be placed in a grade school library. Actually, disgusted would be a better word. Save it for the high school library, kids there already know everything. But why try to confuse and/or indoctrinate kids who are sexually innocent?

  68. I really don’t see how sex is part of this book. The description i read left out the Fire Island honeymoon, the consummation of the marriage, and the times the princes argued about who had slept in the wet spots.

  69. D. Cooper, you think homosexuality is a choice? When did you actually make that choice? If you chose to, could you enjoy sex with someone of the same sex as you? If your answer is yes, then you’re living a lie and are gay. If your answer is no, then you’ve proven being gay isn’t a choice.

  70. I invite anyone who believes in tolerance, diversity and acceptance to join us in sending copies of childrens’ books (including King & King) teaching these ideals to Ms. Elizabeth Miars at
    Freeman Elementary School
    2601 Princess Place Dr
    Wilmington NC 28405
    You can find many different books with subjects of diversity on

  71. Kudos to James! What a great idea! I have been a long time viewer of these discussion boards, but never really been motivated to post. But, this is a brilliant idea!! Better to be productive and proactive…instead of just sitting around fighting about things. I just went to AMAZON.COM and looked up KING&KING. I clicked on the authors name, and it showed a link for the top 25 diversity-teaching children’s books!!! I just mailed the principal a copy of HEATHER HAS TWO MOMMIES!

    Hopefully more of you on here will do the same, and by the time it’s over, all of these bigots will still be online arguing about things, but it won’t matter because this school will have the most diversified library in the world!!! ;o)

    Here is the direct link to this “diversity list”:

    How about this…if you mail a book out to her, post it on here, just so other people will know not to send a duplicate!

    Come on people…its time to put your money where your mouth is!! This was only $14 for me…definitely a price worth paying!

  72. D. Cooper says:

    Jim, cool down, I allowed that some people believe it a choice and others do not if you read the post carefully. I also said that I’ve made no judgement on homosexuality and that although I think gays, should not have the right to marriage, they should have many of the other legal rights and protections. I also stated that they should not be discriminated against in other area such as securing jobs, etc. Now Jim, if you have a point regarding the indoctrination of six year olds bring it on. Or, as you apparently haven’t done yet go back and read the posts on this thread to get a flavor of it.

    Troy … where did you find that ADversity list again? You see Troy, a bigot is someone with strong viewpoints who refuses to accept different views. Now, you I assume, are referring to those people here who disagree with your view point as …bigots. Which of course would make you a bigot. OR … they’re bigots for refusing to agree with you. I guess a bigot is in the eye of the beholder. But what you are missing is that the arguement is not about accepting or not accepting gays, but rather the right of a parent to decide when, where, and how to take up that issue with their child. Your point of view is that a book in first grade depicting your point of view is acceptable, and others do not. You also believe that this is ok, because you also think that you are right. The problem here is, is that you are dealing with two opinions…. I’ll say it again …. two opinions. When one person’s opinion runs afoul of another person’s right, the opinionated loose. Now, try this …. I’ll not take away your right to your opinion, or your right to buy the book for your child. And for those who’d like to perhaps prolong offering that book to their child, or not buy it at all …you’ll cannot take that right away from them. Sound fair?

  73. When you take your children to the mall and they see two men holding hands, what are you going to say? Your 6-year old will have questions. And believe it or not, you’ll have to answer them. Is it in-your-face if two gay men hold hands in public? That’s not sex, and it’s not sexual, but rest-assured, they are a couple. Will you go up to those two men and tell them they shouldn’t be holding hands in public? Do you hold hands in public with your spouse?

    The need for teaching diversity to children at such young ages is for acceptance. The earlier they encounter something foreign to them, the better they will accept reality. You can keep your children locked behind rose-colored glasses, but please be aware they won’t succeed in an integrated environment, aka the real world.

    I also think you’re really making a much bigger deal out of this than needs to be. Do you think you’re 4 year old is going to understand and question enough in a book about two princes kissing? Unless they *see* it, they probably won’t even realize that it’s different from mommy and daddy. But here’s the real need for these books: What if you’re a four-year-old being raised by mommy and mommy? Psychologists, sociologists, and reality have proven that these children have no less chance of survival in reality than children with two heterosexual parents, but don’t you think they could relate to a book like King & King to let them know their family isn’t the only one with two mommies or two daddies?

    These children would survive just fine without this book, but so would other children survive just fine without any other fairytales about wolves eating grannies…(If you weren’t scared by the wolf in Red Riding Hood, what makes you think a child is going to really pick up on any inuendoes in this book about two princes?)

  74. “The need for teaching diversity to children at such young ages is for acceptance. The earlier they encounter something foreign to them, the better they will accept reality.”

    I guess that explains how no one over the age of 15 can accept the existance of homosexuality in the world.

  75. D. Cooper says:

    Jim ..regarding the 4 yead old with the two mommies …their parents can buy them the book ..

    Pointing out other ill advised reading for children is poor reasoning … (as in illogical)

    I can’t control who walks through a mall… and if my six year old has querstions, I’ll answer them.

    I can control what books are placed in a library, because those are a result of a decision made by somebody. That decision can be brought into question.

    Your claim for teaching diversity is based upon an assumption of correctness… one that you can only make for yourself. You do not decide for someone else’s six year old what is and is not appropriate or acceptable.

    And as for inuendos …. whether you agree or disagree with this books placement, you apparently don’t know jack about how to surreptitiously infuse an idea or concept into a young mind. Get a clue!! This type of subtlety for better or worse is how it’s done. Don’t work for an ad agency, you’d never get it.

  76. “I guess that explains how no one over the age of 15 can accept the existance of homosexuality in the world.”

    The word “no one” is awfully harsh. How about we say a too large a majority of people are not accepting. If they were, there would be no question on the issue of gay marriage.

    As for D. Cooper, there’s no point in responding to you as I’m afraid you’re going to burst a blood vessel in your eye. Simmer down, and in the future, try to stop being so close-minded that you don’t even hear what others are saying to you. If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person in the US.

  77. D. Cooper says:

    So Jim, are you saying that the way to change this is to start ’em off young. And I’m not going to burst anything, and BTW, you are responding. What you are saying then is if everyone saw it your way then there’d be no question about gay marriage. Do you see the arrogance in that? Don’t answer, I know.

    And if it pleases you, I, as do many gays as well, do not believe in gay marriage but support ‘gay unions’ and the rights accordingly. And, accepting the existence of homosexuality is a no brainer, I accept the existence of terrorism as well … what does that actually mean. Because it exists I must also embrace it.

    Jim, you need to read more carefully, as you accused me earlier of suggesting that homosexuality is a choice. I did not. I believe that in probably most cases it is not, and there are certainly many who have chosen it for one reason or another.

    The issue here is the right of a parent to choose for a child when and where to discuss this issue. Many think that at the very least six is not the age. But, you can decide that for yourself. In the very begining, Jon stated that he could understand this if the book were assigned, but that this girl chose the book. Well, ask any six year old what they think this book is about, not having read it, and having picked it by the title. Do you honestly believe they’d have a clue.

  78. D Cooper. , one there should be no issue about marriage or civil unions. Either 2 people should be aloowed to marry wheather be are 2 men, 2 women, or a man and a women, or no one should be aloowed to. Two, if you believe this book shouldn’t be on shelves then Snow white and the seven dwarfs shouldn’t be either. Heel she is living with seven men. What is that teaching children, because last time I looked that isn’t what most people say is normal. What is normal? Are you normal because you married your husband? Am I normal because I grew up with a mom and a dad? I think the parents need to give the book back to the school and if someone elses child chooses to check the book out so be it. If the parents don’t want them to read it then they will take it away and let the school check it back in. I think this country has more important things to worry about besides who is marrying who and who is reading what. That stuff is no ones business but the person that is doing it.

  79. D. Cooper says:

    Well Rocky … you’ve made a very good point regarding Snow White. What’s wrong with multiple partners … What’s next, Heather has Three Mommies or Three Mommies and One Daddy…. Just let me decide for myself and you can decide these issues for yourself. And if parents want them to read whatever… go buy the book. Besides that’ll help the economy rather than sharing a book from the library.

  80. D Cooper…thanks for the comments. I agree. Not all people who disagree with me are bigots. I did not mean to single anyone (or their opinions) out on this site. In fact, I wasn’t even referring specifically to this site. I have been reading posts on several other sites as well. I hope that you would agree with me that, with some careful searching, you too would be able to locate a few bigots leaving their thoughts behind for our review? Having said that, I will accommodate your sensitivities, and modify my response, as follows —-


    Your second argument was that you have a right to prevent your child from reading certain books. Or to at least postpone their exposure until a certain age. I could not agree with you more. You SHOULD have that right, as should every parent in America. However, if you go back and read the original CNN news article, you will see that the parents have refused to return the book until the principal promises to remove it from circulation. That is what disturbs me most about this case. Those parents have every right to snatch the book from their child’s hands…but they do not have the right to hold it hostage from the rest of the student body.

    And, that is why I have decided to send a replacement book. Because, until I hear otherwise, I will assume those bigoted parents are still running up late fees……

  81. “A gay doesn’t even know there is a stigma until they are in their pre-teens, and if they don’t discuss it, NO ONE will ever know.”

    Oh, really? ;o) Thats comical. Thank you for sharing your words of wisdom on the plight of the homosexual. It’s about time a subject-matter expert stepped forward.

    Good luck D Cooper! In my opinion, there’s a paradigm shift happening in our country as we speak. So, I’m gonna sign off of here and go enjoy it. But you go ahead and have the last word. I think you’ll need something to cling to.

  82. D. Cooper says:

    Why thank you Troy … and I agree they should not have kept the book. And the comment regarding…’A gay doesn’t know ….’ wasn’t mine, in case you thought so, but it reads as if it was.

    Enjoy the shift!

  83. D. Cooper,

    you should be allowed to decide what your child does or doesn’t do. But that doesn’t give you the right to decide that a certain book should not be on a library shelf. It also doesn’t give you or the reject in the white house the right to decide who should be able to marry and who shouldn’t be. If 2 men or 2 women are not allowed to marry then a man and a women shouldn’t be able to neither. Marriage is not about a man or a woman it is about unity and love.

  84. D. Cooper says:

    Rocky, I thought you quit. But, if you insist, I do not agree with the White House making that decision regarding marriage via an amendment to the constitution. Should the states? And, why not three or four people getting married? By your logic that would seem to fit.

    And that’s George you were referring to I assume? I guess you wanted to sneak that in here too.

    Call me a traditionalist but yes I think marriage should be defined as only between a man and a woman. And meeting you half way I would give the gay community the ‘perks’ if you will. Did you want the marriage penalty tax too?

    And, you sound a little on the ‘liberal’ side here. Are you the same people who’ve brought us…Extreme Dating, Elimidate, and Howard Stern … thanks ever so much for improving our airways.

    Oh, parent’s do have a right as to what is proper on bookshelves in elementary schools. And if you think not, then who does decide? Someone has to purchase the book. They don’t just mysteriously appear.

  85. This is a kids book for crying out loud. This is what is truly wrong with our society is that we have all become raving lunitics in thinking that there has to be a consipiracy theory or an agenda behind a childern’s book. Each person may have his or her own opinion about the book, but as for as it being kept out of a library, the book was in the library, whether knowingly or unknowingly, but it was there. The library served it’s purpose, as a place for people to CHOOSE what they read. Therefore I don’t understand what the problem is, the book is in the library that has childrens book.. so the book and the library serves it’s purpose… something to be read and a place that has reading materials on all subject matters in order for people to have variety in their reading. If you as a parent do not what certain books read by your child, that is fine, but I would suggest that you go to the library with your child and assist them in picking out books to read or preview them yourself. If you believe that a child should be able to read any age apporopriate material (which this book IS because it is a children’s book, no referrences to anything sexual or inapporpriate in it), then do so.

    It’s just rediculous to bash this book because the only message that is may be potraying is that love is blind, that it is possible for two men in this case to fall in love. If same-sex relationships were looked upon as part of everyday life in this country, this book would be a total non-issue.

  86. D. Cooper… I never said I was quiting that was Troy. If it make 3 or 4 people happy to marry each other than let them get married. Where do you have the right to tell them they can’t? Like I said before marriage isn’t about a man and a women it is about UNITY and LOVE. And yes your right I am referring to George. There is nothing wrong with Howard Stern. If you don’t want to hear or watch him than don’t. That is why there is more than one radio/TV station. The school board is the one who chooses what books should go on library shelves not the parents becuase even though you as a parent do not like something another parent might not have a problem with it. Every book that has ever been written should be on a library shelf for whomever wants to read it. Like I said before if you don’t want you child to read it, return it to the school and let someone else’s child read it. Should we burn all books, like in the book Farenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury?

  87. LGBT advocates say denying same-sex couples the rights and benefits accorded to married couples is unfair. According to a 1997 study by the General Accounting Office, there are at least 1,049 federal laws in which marital status is a factor.

    According to the Human Rights Campaign, same-sex couples “in lifelong relationships pay higher taxes and are denied basic protections under the law” including, in some cases, hospital visitation rights. “They receive no Social Security survivor benefits upon the death of a partner, despite paying payroll taxes. They must pay federal income taxes on their employer’s contributions toward their domestic partner’s health insurance, while married employees do not have to pay such taxes for their spouses. They must pay all estate taxes when a partner dies. They often pay significant tax penalties when they inherit a 401(k) from their partner. They are denied family leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.”

    The power to regulate marriage and the granting of civil marriage licenses is a power that has historically been reserved to the states. A constitutional amendment to prohibit governmental recognition of same-sex relationships would take this power away from states. Further, the U.S. Constitution should never be amended to limit the rights of a group of people.

    The amendment would do much more than define marriage. Leading legal scholars agree that the amendment could forever invalidate civil unions or other legal protections for same-sex couples — such as the right to visit a partner in the hospital or to receive partner health benefits — even if state legislatures passed them and voters approved them.

    The rights and responsibilities of marriage, other forms of relationship recognition, and basic civil rights protections are essential components that make all families, including families headed by same-sex couples, safer and more secure. Marriage licenses, which are granted by the state, and religious marriage, are two separate things. Religious institutions will never be forced to bless relationships with which they disagree, just as today religious institutions can refuse to marry couples of different faiths or individuals who have been divorced.

    D. Cooper, we are not asking for Special rights, just the same rights as heterosexual couples. Which includes Marriage Penalty Taxes.

  88. D. Cooper says:

    Tomster … what part of you deserve all those rights don’t you understand. What part of I don’t think that a constitutional ammendment is proper don’t you get. And, although I didn’t make it clear … leave it up to the states. And where did I say anything about denying you the same rights? And if you really want the marriage tax penalty be my guest.

    And Rocky (not Troy) I lost you with …there’s nothing wrong with Howard Stern, and the 3 or 4 people unions. Despite the fact that he’s on the public airways (Howard) there’s not actually much right about him. What he represents is an example of what’s wrong in today’s society. It’s about the money…. and I’d challenge you to argue otherwise. Sleeze sells. Can you imagine watching a ‘church pot luck supper’ cam. Now that would bring ’em in. How about using Paris Hilton or Courtney Love as poster children for the liberal agenda. Give you liberals an inch and then yadda yadda yadda. Stop already!

    Oh yeah, the book…. how about a special section in the library like they used to have in some of the first video stores … you know for the ‘good stuff’. Or, we could wrap it in plastic like some of the ‘card stores’ do that sell magazines. You know, to keep little prying eyes off the ‘good stuff’. Just trying to be helpful.

  89. D…. There is no reason that this book needs to be in a special section. There is nothing about sex in that book. If you consider kissing sex then every Disney movie out the should be ban for children. Just because the kiss is between 2 men, everyone gets all PO’d about it. As Jason B said about that is what is wrong with this society. We think everything has an agenda behind it. The King and King should be returned to the shelf of that library. If you chose that your son or daughter should not read it then fine but you don’t have the right to chose what someone else’s son or daughter reads. The bottom line is the book is just a book.

  90. D. Cooper says:

    Rocky … the special section … oh I’m sorry I forgot the title … Liberal Agenda Books Only – Non-sex section.

    And, you need to be a more careful reader… your last comment is exactly mine … you don’t have the right to chose what someone else’s son or daughter reads … now you’re getting the idea. Go buy it! If its in the library anyone can read it, and the six year old didn’t necessarily have to take it home. The bottom line … the book is just a book is the liberal agenda. And Howard Stern is just a radio show. (and TV)

  91. D…. people shouldn’t have to buy it!! That is what a library is for to check out a book at no cost and to read it. The is no need for this book to be in the Liberal Agenda Book section because: 1. It is a children’s book and 2. This book has no agenda behind it. It is a story for children to read.

  92. D. Cooper says:

    Rocky … you’ve about made my case … It’s a children’s book and there’s no agenda behind it. Thanks … you’ve stated exactly how the hidden agena of the liberal left works. And like I said … Howard Stern is just a radio show.

    This thread will slowly sink to the bottom of the page and into the archives where few wallow.

  93. As the thread sinks:

    “‘I guess that explains how no one over the age of 15 can accept the existance of homosexuality in the world.’

    “The word ‘no one’ is awfully harsh. How about we say a too large a majority of people are not accepting. If they were, there would be no question on the issue of gay marriage.”

    That’s exactly it. Indoctrinate the little six-year-olds with the politically correct view, and they’ll know how to think when they’re grown up.

    You people who adamantly support gay marriage: You realize that “a too large majority of people” in this country adamantly oppose it. What makes you right and them wrong? Do you have a signed note from God saying that it’s your views that should be impressed on six-year-olds?

  94. christina says:

    Amen, Laura! I have to wonder if a book that opposes homosexuality would get shelf space. My guess is: not likely.

  95. You want to call this book propaganda? Go ahead,call it whatever you like.

    Today’s propaganda is tomorrow’s classic.

    Ever hear of Uncle Tom’s Cabin? History repeats itself…so you can call this book what you want and you can align yourself with whatever side you choose.

    But a new generation is speaking…and its time for the old one to get out of the way! We are tired of discrimination. We are tired of hate.

    Why is America so slow to change? Does it bother any of you that our social constructs mirror those of 3rd world countries? I think its time we joined the rest of the educated world when it comes to this issue.

  96. You want to call this book propaganda? Go ahead,call it whatever you like.

    Today’s propaganda is tomorrow’s classic.

    Ever hear of Uncle Tom’s Cabin? History repeats itself…so you can call this book what you want and you can align yourself with whatever side you choose.

    But a new generation is speaking…and its time for the old one to get out of the way! We are tired of discrimination. We are tired of hate.

    Why is America so slow to change? Does it bother any of you that our social constructs mirror those of 3rd world countries? I think its time we joined the rest of the educated world when it comes to this issue.

  97. TheTrueMoron says:

    I think this book should be allowed. It is wrong to teach kids that being gay is wrong. Many gay people have committed suicide because they thought that they didn’t belong and didn’t want to be hated. It’s not our fault we’re the way we are, we can’t help it and we can’t change. If you don’t like it, then too bad.

  98. TheTrueMoron says:

    One more thing. If you teach kids that being gay is wrong, and the parents talk bad about them, imagine what it’s like to be that kid when they realize that they are gay.

  99. D. Cooper says:

    TheTrueMoron … need I say more. This is starting to sound like Sally Struthers surrounded by those big eyed discheveled children pleading for money for her cause.

  100. For those of you who are so disturbed by this book and its horrific “propaganda”, try visiting

    This is what propaganda REALLY looks like. This is what the gay community is up against.

    Of course, judging by some of your comments, you probably fund this website.

  101. The problem is that unless you are gay or lesbian a person cannot understand what it’s like. To know that you are a minority that in this country is struggling to get EQUAL rights. D. Cooper, I supposed you have never had to struggle with the feeling that you do not fit in the world, that there are other people out there like you, but for most gay kids/teens/young adults, it can feel like you are on an island all by yourself, with nowhere to turn. What TheTrueMoron said is totally accurate, I know personally I had no where to turn when I was struggling with my sexuality, and maybe if being gay was more accepted in this country that it would not have been a problem, that the thought of possible suicide would not have been there. D. Cooper I challenge you to attempt to walk a mile in any gay persons shoes, to see the hatred that is out there for us, to feel like a second class citizen in your own country, your own community, and for some kids to feel as though you are nothing to even your own family, then see if your attitude about the subject changes. What if there was only rights for gay people and not straight people…. would you still have the same outlook?

  102. I agree with Jason B. A gay child could use a book or two like this in the library…to give him or her a sense of hope and understanding.

    Straight people do not realize how there are so many undertones of anti-gay rhetoric in the literature, customs, and media of today. So many things that are jarring and painful for a homosexual…but too subtle for the casual (hetero) observer to notice.

    Anyway, I am following Jim’s lead. I’m sending a book this weekend. Did you send one, Jason B? Check out the earlier post from Jim (keep looking…it’s up a ways….)

  103. I have not sent one yet, I plan on sending a copy to a couple of schools, the school in NC as well as my old elementary school, since I’m pretty sure they do not have it on the shelves either.

  104. Jon wrote: I really don’t see how sex is part of this book. The description i read left out the Fire Island honeymoon, the consummation of the marriage, and the times the princes argued about who had slept in the wet spots.


    Well, Jon, just to satisfy Cooper and the rest of the crowd that thinks a children’s book about gay people need necessarily be one about sex, I hear the authors are [heh] coming out with a sequel: King & King II: The Fisting.

    I can’t say I’m all that fond of social engineering in the schools; I’d prefer they teach actual academic subjects that will prepare the kids for real life. And if a teacher were assigning King & King to his or her class, I’d object.

    But to put a book on the library shelves is not to force it on anyone’s kids.

    Geez, next we’ll be hearing about right-wingers who want Harry Potter taken off the library shelves because it promotes witchcraft, which as we all know is anti-Christian…

  105. Why is it that some adultes keep rubbing their sexual Propaganda into kids lives? wether if it’s heterosexual or homosexual.
    Let the kids keep their innocence while they can. They have more important issues to worry about. Shuch as beeing kids and having fun.
    For now teach the kids to treat others as they would like to be treated them selves.
    When they do get older and start having questions and are old enough to understand, then the facts should be laid down in front of them. let them decide where to go from there.


  1. 10k Blogiversary: Thank You!

    After three months in existence, had its 10,000th visitor today. This probably sounds quaint, since a lot of sites get that many hits in a week or a day, but we’re very proud, being that we’re still so young. While we get a number of hits…