The book should STAY on the shelf.

It would be helpful to know how old the Vandervoort daughter is, who she was with at the library, how she got there, what exactly was the nature of her book selection? Was she looking for a book on gerbils, uncles, gay men, gay marriage? This story seems odd to me.

They should keep the book available to whoever wants to read it. We are not back in the "book burning" era. The book was meant to gently teach children about the differences in people. People in my generation grew up where gay people had to hide and/or pretend they were not gay. They have become much more known to this generation, by not hiding and being very proud of how God made them....and make no mistake, they are born that way. I know and also respect the way people still feel about them, and that is their choice. I myself have known a lot of gays and lesbians and they are wonderful people, just like the majority of us. The best boss I ever had, was a gay man. We all need to get much more tolerant of the differences in us all...be it color or gender or even being sick. You would be surprised how much sick people are looked down on, by some. My daughter goes to the library with her 12 year old girls, and watches that they get appropriate books. That's what all people should do.....don't take them off the shelves, just because you don't think they should be there. Other people may not have a problem with it.

Gay marriage isn't illegal in the same way that robbing someone or assaulting someone is. This guy is obviously an extremist who teaches bigotry and hatred to his own children.

I wasn't aware that any marriage between gerbils (regardless of sexual orientation) was legal. Don't try to turn a child's book into a cause.

A family is a family is a family. Leave the book on the shelf.

This makes perfect sense, because we don't have any other issues to worry about right now? By the way, that was sarcasm...let the book stay.

Gay marriage is not illegal at all. It is perfectly legal for a gay couple ANYWHERE in the United States to have a marriage ceremony. It is just not RECOGNIZED everywhere. But there is nothing stopping anyone or any church from holding a sacrament. There are many churches that recognize and bless same gender marriages, even if the government doesn´t acknowledge the validity of them.

The legality / illegality of the subject matter of a book is not a useful standard to judge whether a particular book is apprpriate for a collection. If that standard were applied to all children's books, then we need to remove all the pirate books! Then we would have a mutiny on our hands.

love is love, a family a family. LET THE BOOK STAY. I cannot believe this is an issue, today.

I agree with most of the previous commenters that the book should stay. Rather than trying to censor what children read, parents should be involved in their children's decisions about what books to bring home. The fact that Mr. Vandervoort’s daughter brought this book home without his knowledge suggests that HE is the problem here. If he is concerned about what his children are learning from books, he should involve himself in their lives, not try to prevent everyone else from learning.

I am a 60 year old woman, who has been happily married to a wonderful man for almost 40 years, we have three wonderful grown kids and we enjoy our grandchildren. I hope that all of them have as much love and enjoy their family as much as we have enjoyed ours. We do not care if that love and family come from same sex or opposite sex, because we truly want them to be happy and loved. I do not believe that reading a book on any subject is going to persuade anyone to change their sexual identity. Taking that book off the shelf would be the worst thing we could do. What about the children who DO have parents marrying the same sex? I hope they never find out that James Vanderhoot even made this into such an ugly issue.

This guy obviously has not had anyone he knows -- or is related to -- openly refer to being gay. I guarantee him, he DOES know, work with or is friends with persons who are homosexual & not by choice. He is persecuting people for who they have fallen in love with. Who is the supremacist here??? Quote from a recent online CNN article on white supremacy "[white supremists] bring in these kids that are on the outskirts of society that feel rejected by society ... They brainwash them into believing that hate is the way to go ..." I have not seen this book but it does not sound like it advocates hatred & predjudice as Mr Vandervoort does.

Sorry, Mr. Vandervoort, just because you don't approve of a book doesn't mean no one at all gets to read it. When your daughter brings a controversial (in your opinion) book home, take the opportunity to share your values and explain your thinking on the topic. Then she can make up her own mind, and I'm sure you respect her ability to think for herself, don't you?

At the point we tell our children that certain issues are off the table for conversation, that's when they stop talking to us. I'm wondering why dad didn't invite his daughter to express her thoughts and invite the opportunity for a dialogue where he could express his views and show his respect for hers.

I can't believe this is even a topic. The book should stay in the library.

“If we say this is OK, would it be a jump to think that NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) in Brentwood or the region would say, ‘we think this is such a good idea, we would like to extend the joys of homosexual marriage to younger people.’” -James Vandervoort

That is not logical. Gay marriage is man with man or woman with woman, the idea being that they are grown-ups and capable of making their own decisions when it comes to love. The majority of human beings in our country believe that is acceptable. How many people believe NAMBLA is ok?

This guy is homophobic, but doesn't mean a children's book about male gerbils getting married should be pulled from the shelf, it means he should not allow his daughter to check it out again.

I hope Mr. Vandervoort learns from this incident. Brentwood and especially Brentwood public school families are extremely liberal and permissive. He must take a more active role in his daughter's education if he wants her to know truth. He should not expect the Brentwood schools or the community to protect his children.

Dear Mr. Vandervoort, I am sure you are trying to protect your child but you really needing you have not yet done so, talk with your child/children as to why you do not think that book is appropriate. It is even possible that what you find inappropriate had not ever entered her mind. It is our job as parents to give children all the information that is available on a subject. We have to expose our children to BOTH sides of an issue so they can make an informed decision on a plethora of subjects. Now is a great time for you and you child to learn together as much as you can about a subject that interests her. I am sure you do not want to bias your child but start teaching her to search for answers to any questions she may have no matter the subject. This will teach her how to make decisions and not just say to you what she thinks you want to hear. Even if you don't approve of something you need to have that trust so she will know she can come to you with ANYTHING she doesn't understand. You have to trust that you have taught her well and keep communication open. Next time it could be about drugs. Do you really want her to not be able to come to you and ask questions or be afraid to tell you something? I don't think you have thought through how far this could impact on her and your relationships. Good luck it is tough parenting in these times. But I do believe the book should stay and you should discuss books she wants to check out before the two of you leave the library.

So, can i rent this book out or not tomorrow?

The book should stay.

The book is advocating an activity which has been rejected by the voters of the state of Missouri. The Vandervoort family is not a "hateful" family. They disagree with a political agenda and a book in a tax-payer funded library. Everyone needs to cool off and take a good look into their own motivations. I wonder if the Library Board invited the Patch to the meeting in order to harass Mr. Vandervoort and his family, because that will be the result of this article. People keep begging for civility in the public square. This is a good opportunity for everyone to have respect for opposing view points.

Mr. Vandervoort, please take your interests back to the middle ages where they belong. It is my job to decide what my child reads, not yours. This is the United States of America. Please try to remember that. I'd prefer my child not read the Bible because it subjugates women and has stories about stoning and infanticide. Does that give me the right to have it removed from the library?

I applaud the Brentwood Library for having the book accessible! It is a great library that has an incredibly diverse array of books, cds, dvds, etc. that protray so many aspects of lifestyles that are different as well as similar to traditions, values and perspectives of our residents. The mission of the library SHOULD be to educate about a broad spectrum of topics. Opening up our minds helps to break down stereotypes and biases, teach us acceptance and ideally, helps facilitate actions that make our society a better place for EVERYONE.

Folks, I'd ask that you please be respectful with your comments on this article. Doug and I really appreciate your participation, and we appreciate respectful participation even more! Thanks, everyone.

If Mr. Vandervoort found the book objectionable, it could have been used as a learning/ teaching experience with his daughter. He could express his views to her, and listen to what she thought about it. To ask that the book be taken off of the shelf, however, is the wrong way to deal with it, because then he is denying other children of the same learning opportunity. It's up to parents to decide what their children read, I can make that decision without the help of other parents. If you don't like a book your children read, use it to open a discussion, but don't try to make a book inaccessible to others just because you don't like it.

Vandervoort is a "Senior Packaging Engineer" who graduated from a college that openly discriminates against same-sex couples in its hiring practices (Calvin College, MI).

His is not a reasoned argument aimed at the betterment of society; it merely reflects the status quo of his particular conservative evangelical training. Thus his values are not "traditional," as some here would have it, but do in fact represent a specific religious and political agenda (the college of Vandevoort's training is associated with the Christian Reformed Church).

That is the origin of the claim against the collection of a public institution, supported by public monies (not "your" tax dollars, the specific use of which is under the purview of the state).

In a democracy, a "Senior Packaging Engineer" is neither a censor, a tax allocator, nor the conscience of the public. The banning of books is, in a free society, an extreme measure; when it is proposed by someone of Vandevoort's particular background, it is neither bullying nor extreme in itself to refer to such action as "extremist."

Here is what I think happened: Vandervoort saw this book mentioned in the Patch a week ago. Vandervoort had his daughter check out the book so that he could raise a stink about it.

The bottom line is the book in question affirms something that is illegal in our state, whether you agree with the law or not... I wonder if we would jump as quickly to the defense of a preschool library book that included recreational drug use in a positive light? Or cigarette smoking, which is not illegal? Where do we then draw the line, if not with our current laws?

I just read an article that the Westboro Baptist Church is coming to town soon. Maybe this Vandervoort guy can work with them--they'll help him limit freedom of speech in libraries, while he helps them limit it in public schools. It's good to know we're the last generation in history that will ever regard homosexual marriage as anything but an acceptable, if mildly curious, part of life.

I found out about this book being contested at a previous library meeting and thought it would be worth following the story. I wasn't invited by anyone to the recent board meeting with Mr. Vandervoort.

I have not read the book, but from my understanding from a friend who did read it, was the book is mostly about how the little girl gerbil is worried that her uncle gerbil will not be around much because he is getting married, not the fact that it is to another male gerbil. I get that we have our own personal feelings on gay marriage. But kids of ALL school ages will recognize if two people of the same sex are a couple. Children are not naive. They know, that a friend of theirs might have two dads or two moms in the same house. This is a great book to use as a learning tool for your children, regardless of your political or religous views. And whether someone supports gay marriage or not, we still need to respect each other and let our children know about the real world, When they do encounter some one with this type of lifestyle, we don't have any right to judge.

Censorship is wrong. Who let this child walk out of the library without first reviewing the material? I review everything my kid wants to check out from a library or purchase at a bookstore. I do this to insure the material is age appropriate. Where is the parental oversight for this preschool child? Instead of attempting to regulate the public, this parent might start regulating at home.

Apparently its easier to argue for the banishment of books and for censorship of the public than it is to look at the books one's preschool child is checking out at the public library. Next will be books on evolution and sexual reproduction.

Pease google "gays and gerbils" and get back to everyone on the results!

Let me just add that I have a degree in developmental psychology. The book is developmentally appropriate. Please look at Director Jamie LaRue's response to a similar challenge to "Uncle Bobby's Wedding" in his library. Best, Ann
http://jaslarue.blogspot.com/2008/07/uncle-bobbys-wedding.html?m=1

Some empirical evidence might help, Mr. John Q. Public. I have cited evidence with each statement I've made. I've demonstrated reason. You have demonstrated personal politics by offering none. Show me yours and I might believe you.

By the way, I come from the point of view of a parent of preschoolers, a developmental psychologist and a librarian. What is your credibility, John? I would sincerely like to know. I'm not unreasonable. I just want to see evidence.

Library board meetings are public but guests are rare. Mr. Miner attended the last 3 meetings for his own reasons. No one from the library asked him to attend. I also know the Vandervoorts; they are a wonderful family. I often see them at school events; it’s clear they are involved in their children’s lives. Mr. Vandervoort shouldn't be ridiculed for his beliefs. He has more guts than most of us by acting on those beliefs. We need to applaud not only his right to take a stand but his courage to do so. It is his right to request a book be removed! No one has the right to say another person’s opinion is wrong. The library board cancelled the Oct 8th meeting simply because we wouldn't have a quorum to bring this situation to a resolution. We thought we could on the 15th; we still didn’t have a quorum. Rather than postpone Mr. Vandervoort again, we met and listened to his case. I personally feel that, as a public institution serving all of the needs of the community, the library is obligated to present materials on all sorts of subjects. The library provides the materials for the public to use however they wish. Whenever we leave our homes, we do so knowing that we will encounter people and actions that do not agree with our own personal beliefs. It is up to us as individuals to educate our children in our values and help them navigate through the world that offers so many different and conflicting messages.

Lynne: You say, 'He has the right to request a book be removed,' and you also say, 'No one has the right to say another person's opinion is wrong.' I don't know if you realize these two sentences are mutually contradictory. By requesting a book to be removed, he IS saying other people's opinions are wrong: that the people who support and believe in same-sex marriage are wrong, and should not have their opinion represented in the collection. This is the sort of illogic that always results whenever we try to rationalize our own prejudices. There is simply to excuse for censorship, none.

Perhaps the guinea pigs (why were people thinking of gerbils?) live in Maryland...

I think the book should stay on the shelf. It sounds like a great teaching tool for young kids and I applaud the author for writing it and Brentwood library for carrying it. However, James had every right to ask for the book to be removed. In turn, the library has every right to deny the request. But please do not vilify this family. They were my neighbors for 7 years, until I moved out of state last year. They are loving parents to their children and great friends. I spent time with them nearly everyday of those 7 years. Our kids played together, we had many cups of coffee together and at times spent holidays together. My husband and I are very liberal. They know that. Sometimes we would talk about our differing beliefs and sometimes we agreed on things and sometimes we didn't. Never once did I feel judged. James morally objects to this book. That's fine. It's his right. I don't agree with it, but I promise you that if I walked into their house tomorrow, I would be greeted with open arms.

I also agree with Laurie and Lynne. I am one of those "Brentwood liberals" and feel strongly that this book should not be banned. Although I feel the book should remain in the library, I have to support James Vandervoort's right to request it be banned. That is the beauty of this country, and these rights need to be defended. The Vandervoort's are an amazing family, and I am proud to know them. This city seems to be torn apart lately. It's like things are getting stirred up way too much.

Since the local news media could scarcely be bothered to ask for my side of the story, I’m using this forum to provide it. This is part 1 of 2.
“Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” was one of a number of selections in a stack of books that my 5 year old daughter collected at a summer visit to the Brentwood Public Library. My wife and I objected to the book, and after my written “Request for Reconsideration of Materials” was denied by Library Director Vicki Woods, I requested a hearing with the library trustees.
I’m pleased to report that at least until the closing moments of the hearing, Ms. Woods, the trustees, and me enjoyed a healthy and respectful discussion of this and several related but tangential issues, despite the fact that there were obvious differences of opinion represented in the room.
I repeatedly stressed that the foundation of my objection to this book rested on this fact: this book promotes, to the target audience of juveniles, an activity that is prohibited in the Constitution of Missouri, namely, homosexual marriage.
It is a matter of debate if materials advocating illegal activities should be offered to adult readers, but it should be beyond question that such material ought not to be included in the library’s juvenile collection.

Part 2 of 3
The question thus arises of precisely whose standards shall be used in evaluating what material shall be included in a public library. Understandably, in a society as diverse as ours, a great many of these debatable topics arise, and a wide range of opinions on each of these topics will be represented and often held with passionate conviction.
I therefore argued that the only practical and reasonable limits upon which the library can base its collection are those that respect the established law of the land. If the Rule of Law is not followed, the library’s collection is apt to follow the personal, political, and moral tastes of the library director and trustees. These tastes may often conflict with those of the public whose taxes fund the purchase of the collection in the first place, and whose votes have elected the legislators who have established the law of that land. If one has a desire to change society, a well-run democracy demands that it be done through the ballot box, not the bookshelf.

Part 3 of 3
Unfortunately, it became clear in the meeting that Ms. Woods sees no problem with books that seek to circumvent the established law - nor in circumventing her library’s own appeal process. My suspicions that this appeals process was no more than a kangaroo court appeared validated when Ms. Woods, unusually free from the inhibitions of professional better judgement, informed me towards the close of the discussion that she was adamantly NOT removing this book from the collection. (hey, who needs to wait for a quorum?) I don’t think I need to wait for my official letter of response in the mailbox to know what the outcome of the “voting” will be on this one.
Finally, I find it notable that people who have never met me, and most of whom know very little about the facts of this situation, feel compelled to vigorously decry my actions, my assumed beliefs, and most of all, my presumed hatred of homosexuals in their posts. Ironically, it is this very bigotry they decry that they themselves may be practicing. We’re all better off if those who inhabit the extremes at both ends of the spectrum put away their pointed sticks and pitchforks and join those of us who wish to engage in reasoned political discourse.

Thanks for the comments.

Homosexuality is not illegal. A same sex marriage is not recognized as a marriage legally in MO. However, a ceremony for same sex couples, even if they call it a wedding, is fully legal.

Thus, the basis for removing this book is flimsy at best. I am praying that the library board does the right thing and rejects your request.

I refer back to my original statement: why was this child allows to leave the library with a stack of books that had not been reviewed as appropriate for the child, her reading level, and content. I believe the library should have a wide selection of material and that its the parent's job to monitor the actions of their child. Parents, not the public or the school system, have the responsibility to teach their children character and morality based upon their individual belief system. Shift the argument away from the library and back to the person ultimately responsible: the parent.

If legality is going to be the litmus test for children's books, then I guess we need to remove all books that contain pirates, imprisonment (rapunzel), attempted murder (snow white), or slavery/indentured servitude (Cinderella), stealing (robin hood), etc. Clearly this issue ISN'T legality or we would be hearing about a whole host of books that are inappropriate. This is an issue of one person wanting to inflict his moral judgements on everyone.

John, you are making an impressive effort to miss the point. The complaint was made on the grounds that the book was about an illegal activity, however, no other books regarding illegal activities were mentioned. This is clearly an issue of someone not wanting to be honest about WHY he is bothered.

In regards to moral values, a library's job is not to give morality. That is the job of parents. I teach my child that all people are created equal and adults have the right to enter into loving relationships. Sadly, not everyone beleives that. I'm glad that the Brentwood library is willing to make materials available that encourage tolerance. However, I will continue to be an active participant in my child's life so I can help her pick reading material that I think is appropriate. That's my job, not the library's. No one is forcing me to show my child any book I deem inappropriate.