06 December 2007

Histrionics in California or Syndrome SB 777

How do you like this headline?


Doesn't it look (without reading the article) that there is an institution of learning somewhere whose students are being sodomized by raving unrestrained homosexuals with an agenda to boot? Well, this headline is not about a single institution, but about all schools in California.

The matter is described in this way by World Net Daily - a media organ that definitely has a thing about gay people. But what it is all about? According to WND:
Parents in California have started reacting to the state's newly mandated homosexual indoctrination program by pulling their children out of classes...
"Homosexual indoctrination program". "Protecting our children from the new agenda". "Child will be taught or coerced into a lifestyle...".
Nothing more, nothing less. Sodom and Homorra, in short, is the new name of California.

Now, California is known for some amazingly... er... futuristic shenanigans, like forbidding your neighbors to smoke regular tobacco in their own houses on one hand and legalizing (or trying to) pot on the other. But prescribing an agenda that includes homosexual indoctrination and coercion into a lifestyle (interesting euphemism) is a bit too much, one would wonder.

And one will be right to wonder, because we are talking here about Equality California-Sponsored Legislation, specifically SB 777 - Student Civil Rights Act. And what does the Act say, after you clean up the legalese?
The legislation will help to ensure that current school safety standards regarding harassment and discrimination are fully and properly implemented.
Doesn't sound terribly perverted, does it? In any case, I don't see a call to sodomizing or otherwise corrupting the youngsters, do you? Besides, this Act does not call for any new action, aside for full implementation of the existing ones.

And if you want to know the reasons for this Act, look and the fact sheet attached:
Students in California report significant harassment because of actual or perceived sexual orientation.
There is more in this document, but the gist is in the quote above. I think we all can safely agree that discrimination and harassment of any person are not exactly the behavior we desire our kids to develop.

A special ire of WND and its circle of trust was caused by the following definition in the fact sheet:
"Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.
Well, it is kinda difficult to argue with the idea that the person is who/what she/he feels she/he is. And that nothing in the Act and the attached fact sheet calls for "enforced" indoctrination in the "lifestyle" other than that accepted by each specific student. However, it appears that some people disagree vocally, and many do it in a hilarious manner.
...children are no longer receiving true education, but are being clandestinely recruited into sick social movements threatening to tear families apart at the seams.
When it comes to actively promoting sin to public school children, the homosexuals are light years ahead of adulterers, fornicators and substance abusers.
Both quote above from WND own Olivia St. John. It seems that at least in one respect she thinks about the gays highly...

But wait, here comes Meredith Turney, the legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute:
"The new law states that 'No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias because of' (homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexual or transgender status). Including instruction and activities in the anti-discrimination law goes much further than 'streamlining.'
See, how quickly an act that excludes something became and act that includes something? That's what I call a real sleight of hand! She continues:
The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured.
That's bad. Some people will have to learn terms like "she-dad" or "he-mom". This may surely sodomize a person, but there must be a price to pay for enlightenment...

Now I am going to quote a lawyer (Robert Tyler, the general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom), so I better do it right:
This is such a free-flowing idea that every morning you might wake up and choose a gender.
Yep, I see where it may cause complications with the choice of underwear and other items for the day... But wait, Mr Tyler continues:
What if a football player starts the game as a male, gets hit, walks off the field and says, 'I think I'm a female.'
I would suggest to the learned counsel that everything depend on where precisely our football player was hit and how strongly.

I would also suggest at least one of the reasons that caused the whole hullabaloo: you see, the act was authored by Senator Sheila Kuehl, who has two strikes against her: she is a) a Democrat* and b) a lesbian. Whether it is one reason or two (or even three) - you decide.

(*) I have my own opinion about Democrats, but I happen also to have one about moonbats...

P.S. Should I have mentioned that I am not of a "lifestyle" persuasion?

Nah...

P.P.S. Maybe that resolution should have been numbered SB 666? Just asking...