1. Editor:
After reading the article “Culture wars over „two mom‟ lessons” by Erik Eckholm (Nov.
7). I immediately realized how ignorant some critics can be. I was astounded by the stupidity of
certain religious critics who expressed their self-absorbed allegations of a “homosexual agenda.”
The story elaborates on the highly publicized suicides of gay teenagers and how Helena
schools are pursuing educational procedures to increase acceptance of homosexuality. Their
objective is to reduce bullying and harassment among peers, but according to religious critics,
it‟s all a subliminal endorsement tool for same-sex marriage. I find the statement highly
offensive and shockingly distasteful.
This statement assumes that gay rights groups are advocating just to promote same-sex
marriage. This proclamation is obviously based on opinion, not fact. Yes, both issues are very
serious but they are also very separate. Not many things are more important than preserving the
lives of our youth. Our gay and lesbian youth shouldn‟t be an exception.
Harlan Reidmohr, 18, talks about his struggle through the years attending the Helena
schools. After coming out during his freshman year, peers relentlessly tormented him and
slammed him against lockers. Because sexual orientation was never discussed in the classroom,
Reidmohr believes that this is the reason why he faces so much sexual harassment.
How can these religious critics intentionally decline efforts to nullify harassment towards
gay and lesbian students? Especially when it‟s referring to an issue that contains such severity.
Gay teenagers are taking their own lives because of constant harassment from there dissenting
peers. I think it‟s time to take a stand and end this.
2. I agree 100 percent with the school‟s anti-harassment rules with early lessons in
tolerance, especially when the federal Department of Education states that schools are
“obligated, under civil rights laws, to try to prevent harassment.”
The supremacy clause, located in the US Constitution, says that state government may
not interfere with the functioning of the federal government. So if state governments don‟t even
have the power to change federal laws, what makes angry parents and religious critics think that
they have the right to interfere with federal law?
