HUSD’s Jeff Cook on Proposition 8

Hayward school board incumbent candidate Jeff Cook wanted to get this “My Word” piece into The Daily Review this weekend, but because of the way these things are planned and laid out, it’s a bit too late for that. Never too late for The HayWord, though.


Yes on 8—For the Children


Marriage is either a sacred institution ordained of God between a man and a woman—or it is not.  For many of us, it is really that simple.  Have you thought to pray about it?  However, even for you non-believers, or “secular believers,” there are compelling reasons to preserve traditional marriage—and those reasons are about children, not adults.


The fatal flaw in all the arguments in support of same-sex “marriage,” and against Proposition 8, is that they are all about the wants and needs of adults.  The historical anthropology of marriage shows that its primary purpose has always been to conceive, raise and protect children.  The overwhelming body of research demonstrates that children have the best chance for success with a father and a mother in a low-conflict home.  (The one third of children that grow up without a father in the home accounts for about 80% of all negative youth statistics.)


Opponents of Prop 8 claim that it is “unfair and “discriminatory,”  which appeals to people of good will who don’t want to be unfair, but it only has validity if you have already redefined marriage as merely a relationship between adults primarily for adults.  The “sexual revolution,” easy divorce, and the media have all contributed to the cultural weakening of the traditional marriage and its transformation into something primarily for the needs of adults.  Same sex marriage may be the final nail in the coffin.


Thus, the assertion that Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools is ludicrous.  If Prop 8 does not pass, the legalization of same-sex marriages will undermine the ability of traditional parents to teach their children the meaning and importance of marriage.  If you wish to teach your children that marriage is a sacred relationship between a man and a woman sanctioned by God or society as the best way to organize families and rear children, your children will be taught in schools that this is not so—that there is nothing special about the marriage of their mother and father, and that all family configurations are just as good as any other (and therefore the sex of the husband is irrelevant to the role he plays as husband and father).


You doubt this?  As a school board member, I assure you that it is already happening in our schools.  But it goes beyond that.  Just last week here in Hayward there was a publicized example of a kindergarten teacher exposing her students to the concepts of “gay, lesbian and transgender.”  These concepts are routinely discussed under the guise of “anti-bias” or “anti-bullying” curriculum.  For example, the book, “King and King” is used for little children, which depicts two princes marrying and kissing.  Can’t we teach children not to bully or mistreat others without indoctrinating them with adult agendas and sexualizing them at inappropriate ages?  Teachers have actually been trained that they do not need to notify parents of such discussions.  This “curricula” is more pervasive than has been acknowledged by the school district. 


Why are we spending time and resources on this kind of social engineering in our schools when less than half of our students can even read at grade-level proficiency? 


I have been warned that publicly breaking ranks from the school district on this issue will likely ensure my defeat for re-election.  Then so be it.  Parents need to know what is really happening in schools, and that it will become more pervasive if Prop 8 fails.  The preservation of marriage and the protection of our children are far more important than whether I continue serving on a local school board.  Vote Yes on 8—for the children.


Jeff Cook


Member, Board of Education

Hayward Unified School District

Eric Kurhi

  • qodrn

    Perhaps Mr. Cook or someone on the board or running for office can explain to me how kids who are supposed to be in the custody of the school district, walk out of school and go off to San Francisco. I guess those over 18 can do as they wish, but how are the school officials so unaware as to allow this to happen? Or did they acutally support the protest?

  • J. W. Kyle

    Good for Mr. Cookn !

  • Doxie

    I believe allowing same sex couples to marry will strengthen marriage. I have seen many very loving, happy, and committed same sex couples marry in the last few months. It has been extremely uplifting to me to witness the support of the community and to be reminded of the meaning of my own heterosexual marriage.

    There are so many flaws in the argument about children being the reason same sex couples should not be allowed to marry. In that case, I should not be married since I do not have children. On the other hand, many same sex couples do have children. And yes it would be nice to have a loving father and mother, but the reality is that our standard heterosexual parents are often not there or don’t do a good job. The simple fact that they are heterosexual does not make them good parents.

    Denying gay people rights is not going to stop them from being gay nor will it make the world a better place. It will simply unnecessarily hurt good people. And I really can’t see any way in which gay marriage would change my heterosexual marriage with my husband. If I did have a child, and if that child were gay, I would wish for him or her to have all the possibilities to be the best he or she could be and to be able to eventually marry the person that he or she loves.

  • Hayward Voter

    We do not live in a theocracy. This is a country that was founded on religious freedom. Your religion does not dictate what the rest of us choose to do. Your church has its rules and they should stay within the confines of your church.

    You speak of children. Mr. Cook, we have students in our school district that have same-sex parents. What difference does it make to you whether they are married or not? These kids should be able to go to school and feel safe. They should feel accepted, not tolerated. They should not have to hide their families. You want to teach these children that their families are not as good as their classmate’s. That is disgraceful, Mr. Cook.

    I keep hearing about the “threat to traditional marriage”. How weak is your marriage that it is threatened by the union of two people you don’t even know? Is it that you’re afraid that the children of “traditional parents” will be so exposed to “gay-lesbian-transgender concepts” that they will become gay themselves? Mr. Cook, you know as well as I do that children raised in religious homes, with a mother and a father and little to no exposure to “gay-lesbian-transgender concepts” have turned out to be gay. You have never met anyone that fits that description?

    There have been no arguments made in favor of Prop 8 that are based on logic, reason or subjectivity. All of the arguments are based on religion (separation of church and state), fear (you can’t catch “the gay”) or plain bigotry (shameful). You say that the historical purpose of marriage is to conceive and raise children. Following that logic, sterile couples should not be permitted to marry. Couples that are beyond reproduction age should not be able to marry. Couples that choose not to have children should not be allowed to marry.

    There is nothing behind this proposition but fear and hatred. You hide behind the children. Children are hurt when the feel less than. They hurt when they are viewed as different. They hurt when they are told that their parents aren’t as good as their classmate’s parents. Your job as a trustee is to make sure that children aren’t hurt. You are supposed to do everything you can to protect them. Instead, you are openly saying that their families aren’t good enough. Shame on you. You are a disgrace.

  • qodrn

    I am voting no on 8. It has nothing to do with religion. I have never liked the state regulating my marriage period. They also do a very poor job with the information. My current gripe is that while if you marry you must test for syphillus and gonarrhea but not aids, which has no cure, but the other two usually can be treated. I don’t need nor want special treatment under the law for my family. Thank you.

  • J. W. Kyle

    Hayward Voter.

    Well we all then must come to a decision!

    Suppose we ask Merriam Webster and the courts etc to describe the type of marriage in which folks engage.
    We can’t just sit and permit Merriam Webster to continue confusing the children raised by gay couples.

    Try this for a formal request to Merriam Webster for the needed erudition of chuildreb raised in a gay relationship.

    Ask Webster AND THE COURTS to expand the definition as follows:

    Civil Marriage:

    A marriage between two NON-RELIGIOUS people of the opposite sex, carried out by a justice of the peace or other civil servants and carried onto public records with that description above the recording on public records..

    Gay Marriage : A marriage between two people of the same sex and recorded on public records as such.






  • K Rocchio

    Interesting that we would have questions about Ally Week, communication and then this posting. I believe the events at Faith Ringgold give us a classic example of our District failing to communicate with the community, allowing the situation to be turned into a circus.

    Words from our own California Department of Education:
    The California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 (Assembly Bill 537) was enacted to amend California Education Code specifically prohibiting discrimination against and harassment of students and staff in schools on the basis of sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, color, or mental or physical disability. This law added the provision that all students and staff in public schools have the same right to a safe learning environment, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

    I have been asked numerous times where I stand on Prop 8. What I think you need to know is that I believe we must promote fair and equal treatment of all students in our District. We must teach our children to accept one another and be inclusive, regardless of differences. Hayward is a diverse culture and we can find differences around every corner we turn. We need to be aware and help our children learn to be proud of their differences, not to exclude those who don’t mirror our own image. We must all realize it could be our child some day being pushed to the outside, if not because of their sexual orientation perhaps because of their skin color or religion.

    As far as Faith Ringgold goes, it does sound like there were some snags in the process of making the families aware of the purpose and program content, and that will need to be looked at by the school site and the District. It is also important that we consider age appropriate materials and the level of understanding.

    Unfortunately, it is way to close to election time and this event played right into the hands of those with an agenda other than the well being of our students

  • Deez12

    damn, this guys post has been distorted in so many different ways.

  • Hayward Voter

    Kudos to Ms. Rocchio for giving coherent, thoughtful and honest input into this blog. Mr. Cook spews his propaganda and doesn’t stick around to deal with the aftermath. It’s nice to see that Ms. Rocchio addresses issues and answers questions, and has been since the Daily Review started blogging about the election. Thank you, Ms. Rocchio, for making yourself available to us via this forum.

  • qodrn

    The resolution of the Faith Reingold issue will indeed by very interesting. I hope th district does not use this as an excuse to close the school.

  • J. W. Kyle



  • dpb

    Mr. Cook’s article is a sad example of very poor reasoning. He opens with the title “Yes on 8 – For the Children”. “Won’t someone please think of The Children!” has been used to justify more stupid knee-jerk legislation than virtually any other cry. (And I’m a parent!)

    He goes on to invoke a religious argument to justify a piece of state legislation (though to go on historical biblical grounds, shouldn’t we allow polygamy?).

    Then, perhaps realizing that allowing anyone’s religious interpretation to be the sole basis for legislation is perhaps not the best idea, he tries to cite statistics. He states that the healthiest parental unit has a “mother and a father” and as “proof” supplies numbers about the outcome of children raised “without a father”. The institution of gay marriage has allowed couples to form a stable legal bond to REDUCE the number of single-parent households. If his objection is to children raised “without a father” perhaps he should endorse only male-male marriage… the child gets 2 fathers!

    In closing, when reading the voter’s guide for this year, there was no sign in Jeff Cook’s blurb that he was this type of irrational individual. I appreciate this insight into his decision-making process and he is correct, it will guarantee that I will NOT be voting for him for HUSD. It’s not, however, because he’s “breaking ranks”, it’s because he’s shown himself to form arguments that I’d hope would receive a failing grade in any of our schools.

  • monica ruiz

    Why didn’t the Daily Review make any recommendations for the Hayward Unified School District School Board?

  • Lawrence Fitzpatrick

    I was reading Mr. Cooks letter in the Hayword and I would like to respond. First off two people are not married by a minister priest or any other part of a clergy , they are married to each other by each other, all other participants are witnesses for the state and or god but make no mistake when they take their vows they marry each other .I am a religious man .I believe in God .

    Really Mr. Cook what does it matter to you if two people get married whatever their genders? The issue we have to deal with is not this, nor is it anthropology, if the only reason to get married is to raise children then men and women who are incapable of conceiving or have decided for not to have children, they too should be prevented from marriage. The overwhelming body of research you quote does this include children being raised by homosexual couples?

    Prop 8 is unfair to some people that already have protections and rights under a civil union similar to marriage, but that is not the issue. The real issue is whether the people who are educating our children are determined to force feed adult political views. In that recourse it leaves us parents no choice but to vote yes on prop 8, for the protection of our children. I do not condone the unmetered, unfiltered content related to human social relationships just for the sake of exposure to its existence.

    You go on to speak of what happened at Faith Ringold although you don’t say the name of the school (is this shame for what you permitted on your watch) and you bring up the book King and King.” Can’t we teach children not to bully or mistreat others without indoctrinating them with adult agendas and sexualizing them at inappropriate ages? “Well Mr. Cook it is your watch.

    You ask “Why are we spending time and resources on this kind of social engineering in our schools when less than half of our students can even read at grade-level proficiency?” .Well, Mr. Cook you are the elected official who should be able to answer that Question, so answer it. Why have you permitted this without even whisper until election when you worry about your position on the board and then use it for notoriety and exposure?

    I assure you if you are not reelected it will have nothing to do with your stand on prop 8 but how you have thus far conducted your self in your present position, as school board member.

  • J. W. Kyle

    A leading comment, found in the R.C. Catechetical discussion on homosexuality is: “The number of men and women who have deep seated homo-sexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    The discussion goes on to cover positions on responsibility, procreation etc.

    Personally I belive one of the difficulties in the good old U.S.A, (as well as elsewhere), is that in the matter of teaching about homosexuality in Public Schools, many teachers are quite probably in the serious position of not knowing the subject matter in sufficient depth of understanding. Thus they may be sublimihnally subject to personal bias on one side of the topic or the other.

    ‘Entertainment’ as found on televison or theaters has become a disaterous force in the decline of understanding in matters of sexuality as well as homosexuality!

    I personnally think that prior to turning loose, teachers engaged in this subject at public schools, they should be required to attend a class at the Greater Theological Union in Berkeley where cross teaching, i.e. Jesuits teaching protestants students, Protestants teaching Jewish Studenta and Scholars versed in Torah are teaching Jesuits etc, is an atmosphere where a course can be put together and taught under acceptabl;e conditions useful to the current needs at public schools.

    The age level at which bullying occurs at school is not fully understood; it is a serious mattrer. I do not understand why it is thought to be limited to what some children possibly perceive as homosexual tendencies. I suspect that the problem emanates from within conditions found at home.

    Perhaps it is time to compel parents to attend a course prior to the moment that their child enters third garde by which time kids start pickimg up ideas emanating from mouths and actions of other youngsters who are carelessly taught things which ebentually become harmful to their own personal progress.

    Thoes classes can be taught in a PS Calssroom while ‘site residents’ are watching their youngsters upon the play ground on a Saturday Mmrning. ( sorry,I just had to sneak the latter though into this…. a compulsion I guess!)

  • observer

    Mr. Kyle (response to #5 among others)
    Since you seem to be so familiar with merriam webster, you will know there is a difference between copyright and plagiarism. According to merriam webster plagiarism: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source; use without crediting the source. It is unethical to copy and paste an answer from someone else and offer it as your own words. It makes me wonder when a candidate is unable to answer questions on their own, how they will function when there are no cut and paste answers to be found. When questioned on NCLB Ms. Heredia struggled to answer how she felt. Perhaps she could refer back to this article http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/most-calif-primary-schools-wont-meet.html. ou will notice paragraph 5 looks very familiar. As a matter of fact, the only thing changed are that the quotation marks have been removed!

    However you seems not to be able to move beyond convincing everyone here that the whole public school system should be tossed out and we should all become catholic. Blinders on and ignore reality. Curious???

  • jeffcook

    Fear mongering, hate mongering, unfair, discriminatory, bigoted, shameful, disgraceful, ignorant, intolerant, irrational, fool, and “wretched horrible human being.” These are but a few of the milder responses to my letter that I would repeat here. (More unrestrained vitriol came via direct email.)

    And for what? For expressing sincerely held religious and philosophical beliefs and values shared by millions of people throughout history. For suggesting that we ought not alter the fundamental unit of society. For suggesting that alternative lifestyles and concepts contrary to the core values of parents should not be imposed on children in elementary schools. For suggesting that we can teach tolerance, anti-bias, anti-bullying and respect for others without indoctrinating our youngest and most impressionable children with concepts that parents should have to right to introduce to their children at a time and in a manner they think best for their own children.

    Where is the tolerance and respect from those who would demand not only tolerance, but total acceptance of their values and the abandonment of all others?

    I assure you that there is not an once of hate in me for gays or those who disagree with me. In fact, I am greatly grieved by the grossly unchristian, hateful speech and actions of some professed “christians.” We are all children of God and commanded to love each other. Like many families, I have close family members who are gay, and I love them dearly. I want the best for them, support them and laws that afford them equal legal protection. I do not lump all those who disagree with my beliefs with the hateful extremists of the other side, nor would I assume that all gays agree with some of their advocates who openly espouse the “saturation” of children with LGBT indoctrination beginning in kindergarten.

    I will stand alongside anyone to fight the harassment, bullying or mistreatment of students for ANY reason. We can teach children that such behavior is unacceptable, and cause them to think about how they would feel if they were so mistreated (the “golden rule”). We do not need to expose our youngest students to LGBT concepts to accomplish this–and certainly not without the parents’ knowledge. We can teach tolerance and respect for others who are different or who have different beliefs, without requiring children to abdicate their own family or cultural beliefs, or portraying those beliefs as “hateful” or otherwise undesirable.

    We are already approaching the time when holding traditional values is portrayed as “hate speech.” Recently in Oakland, some city employees, an African-American women’s group, announced via the email system a forum they were holding about “traditional family values.” The city said that they could not use the email system for such announcements, as it might “offend” someone and be considered hate speech. The words, “traditional family values” are hate speech? Ironically, this email had followed an announcement by a LGBT group about a “coming out day.” Whether this offended anyone didn’t matter. This email was okay.

    I wish I had the time to respond to all the responses to my letter, but frankly most of them are rebuttals to arguments or statements that I never made. They take my statements to extreme conclusions that I did not make. For example, the anonymous “Hayward Voter” says that my religion does not dictate what “the rest of us choose to do.” I never said it did. I simply maintain that “what you choose to do” should not dictate what my or my children’s religious, moral or philosophical beliefs should be–in school or elsewhere.

    Nor did espouse the absurd notions that children of same sex couples should “not be able to go to school and feel safe,” or that they “should not feel accepted,” or that they should have to “hide their families,” or that I want them to be “taught that their families are not as good as their classmate’s.” I simply ague that young children should not have to be exposed to specific discussions of LGBT issues at all in elementary school–certainly not in kindergarten. It would be quite sufficient at these early ages to simply mention differing families–that some kids are raised by a mom and dad, or by grandparents, or an uncle, or even two daddys or mommies (some have two daddies by virtue of a divorce as well). There is no need at this age to specifically single out and discuss LGBT concepts such as what a gay “two daddies” means vs two non-gay daddies, or what “transgender” means.

    I do maintain that although there is no need to be judgmental about the “value” of one student’s family over another (as this is always an individual assessment), by high school we ought to be honest with soon-to-be-adults about the demonstrated benefits of a child having both a father and a mother, and the impact on society of the decline of that nuclear family. This does not mean that gay parents or single parents cannot be successful in raising children, or that heterosexual parents always do well. However, to teach that all family configurations provide children with equal odds of success is just flat wrong.

    To “Dpb” you also rebut an argument not made. You argue that same sex marriages reduce single parent households. The point of the research was not the number of parents in a household, but the importance of a child having both a mother and a father–preferably the biological parents, but emphasizing the importance of both sexes in raising children.

    Again to “Hayward Voter” and Mr. Fitzpatrick, I did not state that the “only reason” for two people to get married is to have and raise children. I said it was the overall primary societal purpose of marriage to conceive, raise and protect children. This does not argue for the ridicules positions extrapolated that no one should be allowed to get married if they don’t have children. Obviously many people have childless relationships with or without marriage. My point was that marriage has historically been a special relationship apart from all other relationships between adults, in that in general, it is more about children and continuing the survival and success of society, than about adults.

    In fact, one liberal “progressive” professor set about to prove that marriage was an outmoded, unnecessary and even destructive institution. He studied all available data on marriages in societies throughout history for which records were available. The data he found was so overwhelming to him that he changed his view 180 degrees. He concluded that societies that had a strong culture of traditional, monogamous marriages, were consistently more “energetic” and progressive, and that other societies were less energetic and regressive. He further found that the weakness of such traditional marriages was a key predictor of the decline and fall of a society.

    So, you may disagree with me, but a great many people, including (non-religious) social scientists and psychologists do not. These positions are certainly not “unreasoning, illogical,” mean-spirited, etc.

    How logical is it for less than 3% of a population to demand that the rest of society accept a fundamental change in the definition of the basic building block of their society and societies since recorded time? How logical is it for you to expect all of society to accept the indoctrination of its children at their most vulnerable ages with concepts neither necessary at those ages, nor consistent with most families’ core values? By continuing to insist on this change in the institution of marriage, the LGBT community guarantees itself continual opposition from much or most of society, whether this current battle is won or lost. By recognizing the traditional distinction between marriage and other relationships, and not continuing to advocate for the early sexualization of our children, you allow people of good will to more easily respect legitimate support LGBT concerns despite our differences of opinion.

    For me, this truly is not an anti-gay issue at all. I harbor no ill-will whatsoever. It is honestly about what I and many people believe is best for children, families and society. It is not “illogical” nor “shameful” to expect these views to be respected. It is not for me a matter of “intolerance” towards gays. I want to protect gay students from harassment and protect the self-esteem of children of gay parents, but I also want children to be protected from unnecessary and inappropriate LGBT indoctrination at inappropriate ages.

    To K. Rocchio, I find little to disagree with in what you say, as your comments are not inconsistent to my stated views, except that there is more than just a “snag” in one school, and I take issue with your implication that my views are inconsistent with the best interests of students. I will put up my record over the last 40 years in serving and advocating for students with you or anyone. My wife and I have spent thousands of hours and dollars in support of kids and I have fought against many individuals and special interest groups whose interests were not in line with the best interests of the students. More than anyone, I have often been the lone opposing voice against the pandering and acquiescence by board members and staff to special interest pressures. This has at times been at great personal cost and sacrifice to me and my family and brought retaliation even from former friends and groups who had been prior allies in various causes.

    So, no, Mr. Fitzpatrick, I desire neither the “exposure,” nor “notoriety,” but I will not shrink from it either in fighting for students. This was a difficult decision for me, because of the hate calls I knew would come to our home, but the recently publicized events at Faith Ringgold (and others not yet disclosed), and their relevance to Prop 8, made me conclude that I could not lay low until after the election, even though local political experts told me I was sure to be re-elected if I did not raise this issue. I really would rather lose the election than expose our children to more emboldened, inappropriate indoctrination. This is not a stunt. I believe in preserving traditional marriage. (And no, same-sex marriage is not a threat to my marriage–again this misses the point of it being a threat to the institution of marriage). I believe that governments, schools and society ought to be trying to reverse the damage done in the last 50 years, and in every way possible, try to strengthen and ensure the survival of traditional marriage and parenthood of a mother and a father.

    I will continue working for kids whether I am on the board or not, as I have done for 35 years before I decided to run for school board. I only left my volunteerism to help get HUSD out of the fiscal and governance mess it was in five years ago, and to avoid a state takeover–which we did. However, the community has the right to know how I feel on this issue before they vote, and I am quite comfortable with that either way. I will support the new board in everything it does that is in the best interest of the kids–and I will oppose it when it strays from that interest.

  • mamaschnoodle

    As a grandmother and as a human being, I feel strongly that love is a fragile and wondrous thing that needs tending, support, and respect. Regardless of the gender of any two people, the fact that they love each other entitles them, in my opinion, to marry and live their lives together. Love is rare enough these days that we should not be denying the opportunity to those who wish to live together in a community supported state. How many heterosexual couples decide not to have children? Should they be denied marriage on that basis? How many heterosexual couples practice oral sex or anal sex? Should they be denied marriage on that basis? What are we talking about here? What any two people do together to show each other real love, can only be positive whether those two people are a man and a woman, two women, or two men.

  • observer

    Amen Mamaschnoodle!! I happen to be from one of those non-procreating hetrosexual couple so I guess my marriage of 22 years should be nullified. I just don’t understand why people are so afraid of this. It won’t affect or invalidate my marital status at all.

  • J. W. Kyle

    Observer at 3 16 You offer good example of the limited powers of thought which support use of ‘nom de plume’ by limited minds.

    I recited some thought taken in whole out of the R.C. Chatechism using the words “catechetical discussion”.

    Your criticism is an indication of your basic problem. Nit picking is poor debate technique since it exposes shalloowness of disputatious thought processes.

    I made reference but did not accurately nor fully quote a line from thr last scene of a movie version of “Gone with the Wind” which ‘book’ was written well over 70 years ago. How then did I harm the author?

    I have never cut and paste from another! If you think you have an argument, recite the instance it occurred
    Frankly, I think of you as an ineffective sniper whose ‘shots’ are a mile off the mark.

    Your last paragraph at # 16 above is pathetic. Take your blinders off and effectuate use of good example tailored to your own need……You will be much happier! By the way, is there a law against a Catholic’s interest in Public Schools.

    I once had a dismissed former HUSD principal state that I was not logically entitled to use of public comments at HUSD meetings….” since he sent his children to “Parochial Schools”. I was quite pleased at the immediate reaction of a trustee, known to me to be a Presbyterian, when she made an off hand, public remark to the affect that … “should we give him back his taxes?”

    Kudos to Mr. Cook for defense of his point of view. Had he been as forthcoming in some of the matters I pointed out at HUSD ‘public comments’ he might have gained a vote in the absentee ballot I mailed off weeks ago!

  • observer

    Dear Mr. Kyle,
    Speaking of limited powers of thought, if you read your post that I referred to (#5) you made a joke at the end (I assume it was a joke) about my earlier post regarding the plagiarism of Maribel Heredia. I was not accusing you of anything except supporting a candidate who can’t put their own thoughts into words so they copy from other sources and don’t acknowledge that as a reference.

    I don’t want to argue your “nom de plume” comment. Some of us don’t have the need for the recognition simply to express our opinions in a public forum.

    I am however happy to see that you have finally acknowledge my posts 🙂

  • J. W. Kyle

    Observer….. #5 above wuz writ by Qodrn.

    Snipers hide from view too!

  • ponee007

    Not like I was voting for him anyway, but I guess my NO on PROP 8 will cancel him out. Nice to know we have discrimination on the HUSD board.

  • Hayward Voter

    Jeff Cook as the martyr:

    “I could not lay low until after the election, even though local political experts told me I was sure to be re-elected if I did not raise this issue. I really would rather lose the election than expose our children to more emboldened, inappropriate indoctrination. This is not a stunt.”

    Of course it’s a stunt. Your actions speak to your cowardice. You waited until four days before the election to make your position public. You didn’t raise the issue when it would have made a difference and you know it. You waited until the absentee ballots were in. Why didn’t you make your position known sooner?

    Mr. Cook’s logic:

    “How logical is it for less than 3% of a population to demand that the rest of society accept a fundamental change in the definition of the basic building block of their society and societies since recorded time?”

    The U.S. Constitution was designed to protect the minority from the majority. The U.S. is a constitutional democracy. A majority rules, with protection of minority rights. The framers of the Constitution knew that an unrestricted majority had the potential to take the rights away from people they simply didn’t like or agree with.

    Traditional Values:

    Is tradition always good? It was traditional to not permit interracial marriage until 1967. It was tradition to not allow women to vote until 1920. It was tradition in the Mormon Church to not allow black members to be ordained into priesthood until 1978. They were considered Canaanites and were not allowed to participate fully in the Mormon religion. It was tradition to only elect white male presidents when they may not have been the best choice. Things change, Mr. Cook. Thank God for that.

    Mr. Cook, you can believe whatever you want. You can vote however you want. You can worship however you want. The problem here is that you are using your position as a trustee to lobby for legislation that takes away the rights of others. Lobbying for your own religious and “traditional” beliefs has no place on the HUSD school board.

  • DylanMom

    With liberty and justice for all! Unless your gay. Or unless your another race. Or unless your poor. Why is it that elected religious public officials are the biggest hypocrites of all? What’s all this judge ye not yet ye be judged yourself? I myself am not religious and I am so tired of having all of your views encroaching on my rights! I leave you all to your views, don’t force your views on me. I just don’t think it is appropriate that a school board member would preach such hate and inequality. I am a single parent with a “Bastard” child who just doesn’t believe in marriage period. Maybe I should go on a crusade and do away with all marriage? Why should your view be anymore valid than mine. Churches won’t be required to perform gay marriage. You can still go to your church and spew forth your hate messages and not allow gays to get married in your church. But if church and state are supposed to be seperate, what basis do you have for denying others equal rights? If you are elected to school board, I am for having you recalled. For a mother of a “Bastard” child born out of wedlock, I teach my son about tolerance. I like the fact that I can explain that there are all kinds of different family dynamics out there from single parents, to two mothers or two fathers, divorced parents, etc. I’d like to say that my son and I have more of a chance of getting into your so called Heaven then do you and your religious hypocrites. I teach my son to love and respect all. To help those that need it. You spread hate and cast stones? What would your god say to that?

  • Hayward339

    Changing a document such as the Constitution (Federal or State) to restrict freedoms is a very serious action. As stated by many previously, it took many years to add basic freedoms to those that should have been afforded them from the beginning. In the face of our history and future, why should we limit freedoms due to our fear of the unknown, uncertain or unfamiliar? We should have a much higher standard in our considerations and deliberations for removing rights to a certain class or category of persons. I hope we follow the tenet of “first do no harm” when it comes to changing the fundamental laws of our land. Who do we hurt if Prop 8 passes? Who do we hurt if it doesn’t? The argument that we hurt our children is a slippery slope because for some that means we may need to limit discussions about other controversial topics such as sex education (remember that battle) and evolution.

  • J. W. Kyle

    who among the blog readers is able to identify the date of hire of HUSD Supt Vigil’s hire?

  • Hayward Voter

    I agree with DylanMom. I think that, if re-elected, Jeff Cook should be recalled. There is no place in HUSD for a tustee that advocates for a constitutional change that strips people of their rights.

  • Lawrence Fitzpatrick

    Mr. Cook;
    Your answer to all who criticized you shows how little attention you paid to what was written, if you had actually spent time reading what I wrote you would see I also voted yes. I criticized your reasons for your vote not its necessity, and if you would consider if it fails it is people such as yourself who are unwilling to see both sides of the issue and only their view has any meaning that have caused this to happen. Listen to what is said. I did not write a letter of hate, or perhaps you have so much in your own heart you can not understand when someone else does not
    Lawrence m. Fitzpatrick

  • J. W. Kyle

    aAt # 25 above Dylanmom makes a contribution which saddens me a great deal.

    If ever there was a confused scribble, in effect a confession of confusion, hers ov Nov. 4th cries out for charitable treatment. In Charity I attempt thoughtful input when I challenge her thitd sentence. I surmise she really meant what she implied that anyone having an affiliation with religion is not qualified for public service.

    My thoughts also turn to her son. He is apparently being taught religious bigotry.

    My Father died when I was seven and the oldest of three. My Mother passed away 12 years later. I was internally exhilarated with the thought that she died on Christams Day and thus given an opportunity to join a Bi8rthday Party that we muight someday all enjoy….

    I missed both my parents but would not have ‘made it’ without my Mother. Only a firm, well founded belief in God did I find real support. That continues today in a marriage into it’s 56th year that has been founded upon shared religious belief.

    Now my thoughts turn toward Dylanmom’s son. How would he survive and what woould he become if she passed away without conveying some understanding of what others find in Faith? In sufficient awareness to aid assistance toward maturation?

    At the risk of offending Dylanmom, I shall attempt a prayer now and then, for the son as well as for her!

  • monica ruiz

    Vigil’s hiring date: May 2005 according to this article: