I have not seen much discussion in the Bloggernacle on California SB 777, which was recently signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger. Advocates of the bill call it an anti-discrimination measure to protect homosexuals and others. Opponents of the bill say it will inevitably involve politicization of the schools in favor of a pro-homosexual agenda and will involve the schools getting rid of terms such as “mom and dad” in favor of “partner 1 and partner 2.”
This article indicates many parents are pulling their kids out of the public schools and homeschooling them. I’m curious to hear from people in the Bloggernacle, especially those in California, regarding their reactions to the bill. This discussion will be respectful. Any disrespectful language will be deleted.
Here’s my two cents: my sister has six kids in California public schools. She is very apolitical and definitely not a community activist, but two years ago the local middle school proposed changing the curriculum to promote “non-discrimination.” The proposed curriculum included graphic discussions of the specifics of homosexual and heterosexual sex acts and the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle as “normal” and simply a choice that children could make based on their personal desires. The implication was that any teaching against having sex at all was “discriminatory” and that children should experiment freely. Children as young as 11 would have received this instruction. Parents raised a ruckus, and the curriculum was changed to a much less controversial traditional sex education course, concentrating on the basics of human anatomy and how to avoid VD.
I am not convinced that if my kids were in California public schools they would suffer much because of the new legislation. I have no problem with the sex education instruction my 12-year-old receives in the local public middle school. But given my sister’s experience, I’m inclined to be very wary of the types of things that some people would like to teach in public schools. If my kids were receiving instruction that promoted the homosexual lifestyle and promoted sexual experimentation, I would pull them out of the public schools.
Here’s my take on how public schools should handle controversial issues regarding sex education, such as homosexuality: such instruction should be left to the parents and/or guardians to discuss with their children. The basics of human anatomy and a basic discussion of human reproduction and how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases should be taught. Any discrimination and/or bullying of anybody on the basis of sexual orientation, religion, race, ethnicity, etc. should be punished. The California schools already had very good laws promoting the above. There appeared to be no need for SB 777.
I don’t think it’s appropriate for secular schools to include graphic descriptions of ANY sexual activity. I don’t think it’s appropriate for secular schools to teach minors to engage in sexual experimentation. I don’t think it’s appropriate for secular schools to teach value determinations on what intimate acts are “normal” or “abnormal.” I believe sex education programs are important, but they should focus on, as you note, anatomical issues and prevention of STDs.
Nick, I’m glad we agree on this issue.
Geoff, can I address your wise caution about “disrespectful language?” The phrase, “homosexual lifestyle,” really falls into that category. My “homosexual lifestyle†includes working 40 hours (or more) a week in a government program to assist those who have become ill through radiation and toxic exposures in the nuclear defense industry, helping a friend with his resume, volunteering for good causes and donating to community organizations which serve the disadvantaged. My “homosexual lifestyle” involves a whole lot more than what I do in the bedroom, or who I do it with.
Nick, agreed. That’s why the stuff that goes on in your bedroom should not be taught in public schools. I have no problem with acknowledging you and other homosexuals for the many good deeds they do.
Family Leader is spearheading an all volunteer group of concerned citizens to get the number of signatures required to put this bill (SB777) to a vote of he people. We believe that we will accomplish this.
Good luck with that, Margaret. SB 777 is an utterly benign anti-discrimination bill signed into law by a REPUBLICAN governor. Of course, your group’s track record in California has those liberals quivering in their boots, no doubt.
I don’t know that much about it, but I agree with what you posted…and that sex ed should stick to the anatomical basics…not definitions of what is normal or aberrant or encourage experimentation of any kind.
Mike, as I say in the original post, I’m not convinced SB 777 is as harmful as some people think. However, claiming that it is OK because Arnold, who is not really a Republican, signed it, is pretty silly. Arnold is as much of a Republican these days as Bloomberg was in NY, and he very quickly turned independent. You may think that’s a good thing, but many of us Republicans are pretty upset with him.
Margaret, exactly what portions of the law do you disagree with, and why? So far as I can tell, the instance Geoff describes seems well beyond what the actual law directs. I could understand your concern over how that specific district chose to carry out the law, but what is in the law itself, that is so objectionable? I assume, of course, that you’re not hoping to see to it that discrimination against any group is legal in the secular schools.
Nick and Mike, I would turn it around a bit. California already has anti-bullying and anti-discrimination legislation that is quite strong. Why do you think this additional legislation is necessary? I am willing to be convinced.
I note that the preamble of the bill specifically discusses the fact that already-existing laws against discrimination in the secular schools did not address sexual orientation. This bill is not something entirely new, but rather a change to existing law, in order to include sexual orientation as a characteristic which secular schools may not discriminate against (note that religious discrimination is already included). The bill also addresses sexual orientation in terms of hate crimes—a significant feature, considering that recently-released crime statistics indicate that GLBT persons are the third most frequent group targeted by prejudice-motivated violent acts.
Nick, I don’t believe in hate crimes legislation. If you beat up somebody or bully them, you should be punished. Any motives involved help prove the truthfulness of the crime but should not involve any additional sanction. There is no special reason to add any additional punishment to protect individual groups. A lot of this is simply political correctness, which I oppose.
California already had anti-bullying legislation for sexual orientation, even back in my day in the 1980s.
I would also like to add that if you are just concerned about hate crimes you could specifically deal with that part of the law. But instead this legislation ventures into what happens with administration, what happens in the classroom and what happens in textbooks. There are reasons to be concerned about how a California judge may interpret that. Partner 1 and Partner 2 instead of Mom and Dad is a valid concern based on the track record of California judges.
Geoff,
I am trying to post and it keeps saying my post is invalid? Is it because I used words pertinent to the post that send up flags to the filter?
I can certainly understand the viewpoint that where conduct is already illegal, there is no need for “hate crimes” legislation. Reasonable people could see that either way.
Suppose, though, that you have two men convicted of murder. Each brutally beat and stabbed their victim repeatedly. For the sake of argument, let’s suppose all things are equal between the two cases. Suppose Criminal #1 committed this crime upon a random victim, and afterward ran off with the victim’s wallet. Suppose Criminal #2, while attacking the victim, was repeatedly shouting, “I hate you #%@%%^#$% Mormons! You’re going to hell and deserve to die!”
Do you truly see these two criminals as identical? Is one’s conduct no more reprehensible than the other’s? Are neither a greater danger to society? More importantly, do both make you–as a Mormon–equally concerned as you walk through their city streets at night?
Will this post?
Nick,
Hate crimes against the homosexual community, including against students, are already legislated against–so the bill is redundit. Your post is tangential to the discussion at hand.
The hate crimes notion is an interesting one. We are really into specific victims these days, but crimes can be thought of as offenses against society; it is the state that is our adversary when we are tried for a crime. Random murder, like the snipings by John Allen Muhammed and Lee Malvo, in addition to killing some of our society’s members, also puts the whole populace on edge. More targeted attacks, aimed at tall blond-headed men, say, would cause a much smaller group to feel much more worried. It is something intermediate to general, random targetting and specific, personal targetting, and conceivably does a higher integrated harm to society. As the wisecrack goes, you don’t have to worry about a man who has killed his wife.
Well, if I were a parent, my kids wouldn’t have been in public schools in the first place, making it hard for them to get pulled out at a later date. ^_^
Schools work better when they’re in a society or environment in which nearly everyone agrees on the basic cultural and moral issues ahead of time. We don’t have that in the United States and aren’t likely to for at least a few more generations. These kinds of battles aren’t good for anyone except the people who enjoy fighting. The only solutions I know of require us to end centralized schooling.
Randomly: from what I understand, teens are now mostly interested in non-sex sex-ed: stuff about how to have a grown-up relationship and avoid domestic violence and raise children to be stable and happy human beings. Most of that stuff is non-controversial, applies pretty well to relationships that are completely non-sexual, and can be taught at very young ages. Why not have two (completely separate) classes: Human Relationships and Anatomy/Human Physiology? Disease prevention stuff, including STDs, can be discussed generally in the context of (already required) biology classes. The principles of how to avoid HIV are pretty much identical to the ones about avoiding the flu: the mechanics are different, but the way to think about things is the same.
“…..Arnold, who is not really a Republican…”
Now that would be an interesting topic for another thread here. Rest assured there are many Republican party members who would beg to differ with you.
Schools work better when they’re in a society or environment in which nearly everyone agrees on the basic cultural and moral issues ahead of time.
This statement does not describe education, but rather indoctrination. Real education involves interaction with those who have different backgrounds, experiences and viewpoints. By learning to understand others, we learn to better understand ourselves.
mmiles, do you want to try e-mailing it to me, and I’ll post it?
editor@millennialstar.org
mmiles, try geoff@millennialstar.org. Boy, what a mess our software is.
sent.
Here is mmiles’ post. I apologize to all of our readers for our pathetic software.
To clarify, this bill has passed. It goes into effect
January first. A year or so ago a similar bill was
presented and enough bad publicity got out to squash
it, at least on the governor’s desk where it was
promptly vetoed. This year, it quietly passed and the
governor quietly signed it. The one thing that may
stop the bill becoming active at the ringing in of
2008 is getting enough signatures on a petition
(77,000) to make it a referendum to be voted for or
against on next November’s ballot.
I have in my position the official petitions which I
am supposed to be circulating. I signed up for this,
and even sought out the petitions, hoping to activate
my community (or at least the parents at my kids’
school) to stop¦.
And that’s the problem. I’m not sure what I would be
stopping. After reading the bill, and reading the
“talking points,” I’m not sure I want to circulate
them. And apparently, I only have 2 weeks left, at
most.
Here is a conglomerate of tidbits:
This legislation goes far beyond the scope of s-x
education. It has implications that would allow—or
even demand that children who identify themselves as
transg-ndered to choose the locker room they prefer.
This is not so far fetched. This is already going on
in the LA school district. I do think this is harmful
to students. I will add here that I really dislike the
wording that states the children can identify with
whatever gender they choose (no problem with that),
regardless of what gender they were assigned at birth
(BIG problem with that!) Heads up! It’s biology! It’s
not as if a doctor willy-nilly handed out a gender!
The wording is unnecessarily vague. I don’t like vague
legislation in circumstances like these. It gives too
much leeway. On the other hand, the legislation is so
vague it can’t have any real power until it hits the
courts. For example, a school gets sued because its
textbook is deemed discriminatory. In fact, this
legislation is begging for lawsuits to prove its
validity. This will cost millions of dollars.
Which brings up another point. Textbooks. Many of the
nations textbooks are authored in California. This
potentially has far reaching implications for the rest
of the country. The right-wing claims that any
textbook with a picture depicting a family would also
have to depict a g-y family.
This is where things get dicey to me. I don’t know how
that would ever hold up in a court of law, so I don’t
find that kind of rhetoric useful. Nor do I think
that’s on the “g-y agendaâ€, if there truly is one.
I really hate inflammatory scare tactics. There are
many (and I would post links, but I can’t access my
email). And I really hate wording like this:
Parents in California have started reacting to the
state’s newly mandated homos-xual indoctrination
program…
Indoctrination? Oh please! Hom-phobia at its worst!
The right would have us believe that every homos-xual
out there is a very loud activist. The l-sbians across
the street from me are activists of Relay For Life,
and Operation SAM—g-y pride? Not so much. I’m 100
times more likely to put signs on my lawn at election
time or get into a political debate.
I do think if it was a referendum it would open up a
more public debate where these things could be
discussed. As a parent, I do have serious concerns
about the possible implications of this bill. However,
I’m not so sure that my fears are founded—and I don’t
want to condemn a bill simply because I am suspicious.
And when I am suspicious of people, it usually means I
am being uncharitable.
Personally, I have thought hard about this, and
prayed. I have felt I should do nothing. I don’t feel
like its an answer that this is a good or bad bill—but
just to do nothing. And so I have done nothing.
Mmiles, I basically agree with the above. So, to sum up, here’s how I’m beginning to feel about this issue:
1)SB777 was not necessary and could possibly be dangerous based on how courts interpret it.
2)The anti-SB777 rhetoric leaves me a bit cold. Supporters refuse to acknowledge that it is not necessary and already covered by state law.
3)If I were in California, I’d probably sign the petition to overcome SB777, but I’d probably not pass around petitions personally.
Geoff,
My thooughts exactly. My husband and I are mailing our petition with just or names on it.
I am a Christian and attend church every week and it is this type of “SCARE TACTICS that I so much, abhor. I am also a trial lawyer who has spent his entire adult life protecting “our” freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, yet infringed upon by the actions of those judges and Congressmen and Legislatures that are subject to the will or “Gifts” of such “Zealots!” These are the same people who in the main, got us into the war in Iraq through deceitful tactics, who continue to use the weapons of “fear” and “deceit” and would and many times, engage in illegal conduct to accomplish their goal of bending the rest of America to their will and way of life. It is this conduct that makes me fear for America’s future, not such badly worded and improperly vague statutes such as SB 777 and the allegations over what would happen are blown out of all proportion. It is such people who are a true threat to the American way of life but they can always be identified by these type of “Scare Tactics” which they use with great regularity to effect the outcome of any particular to bend the rest of us to their will and this is just one such instance. As a Christian, I can say that I find it repulsive when scare tactics are used to promote a certain position regarding a specific law. The corporate controlled political system and their control of the media is what threatens our way of life, not a statute such as this. These people wish to take away our freedoms claiming they know better than we do what is right for us. I will fight them to my dying day as they have consistently been on the opposite side of the cases I have handled against the Insurance Companies, the Defense Contractors, The large but negligent law firms that do ‘THEIR” bidding and it has become complete;y clear that those who use these scare tactics are the real enemy not that which they are attacking.
Read the statue and look for the words “they” claim the statute prevents being used. It is laughable that anyone would seriously contend that the public would stand for a prohibition on the use of the words “MOM and DAD.”” It is the “Zealot” who scares me far more than a badly worded statute and if we do not protect all Americans equally how do you draw the line between protection of our rights and the destruction of them? Read the statute and look at what they say it will allow and you will see that it is all about nothing. And should anyone interpret the law in the fashion complained of the courts will strike it down quickly. I trust the courts much more than those who use the tactics that drew my attention to this Blog.
Robert, thanks for visiting this blog. I hope you don’t think this blog is some kind of anti-SB777 center for zealots. In fact, I agree with you that the anti-SB777 people have exaggerated on this issue. Look at the top where I say, “I am not convinced that if my kids were in California public schools they would suffer much because of the new legislation.”
A lot of the scare tactics being used are wrong, and I agree with you on that.
Having said that, there are still two problems with SB777 that would cause me to vote against it if I lived in California:
1)It does not appear to be necessary. There is already pretty good anti-discrimination legislation in California, and the anti-bullying laws there are pretty strong as well.
2)Based on their track record, I definitely don’t trust today’s judges to be as reasonable as you may think they will be, especially in California. Haven’t you heard of the 9th circuit court of appeals, which voted to overthrow the pledge of allegiance because it mentions God? Poorly written and unclear legislation definitely needs to avoided because it allows judges to legislate from the bench and impose their own visions of a just society on all of us.
Poorly written and unclear legislation definitely needs to avoided because it allows judges to legislate from the bench and impose their own visions of a just society on all of us.
Unfortunately, one person’s idea of a “just society” is another person’s persecution, and vice-versa. I’m sympathetic to your point about poorly written and unclear legislation, Geoff. When it comes to complaining about judges, however, I’ve noticed that nobody accuses a judge of “legislating from the bench” if they happen to agree with the ruling under discussion. I don’t pretend to have a solution that will please everyone, but I find condemnation of judges troubling, when the only real basis is disagreement with their rulings.
I have a question. I homeschool my kids and things have been hectic lately, so I was considering putting my kids in public schools temporarily. Then I got the petition. I’m still considering public schools but I have questions about the bill. Does the bill explicitly say that children who consider themselves to be a girl or boy can go in whichever bathroom/locker room they please? or is that just an application of this law which the schools can choose to apply? And are the new textbooks a requirement? I was also told that there would be monitors to make sure that the teachers don’t skip over the subject of homosexuality, and that parent’s did not have the right to be informed of when these discussions would take place in class and could not be present. That’s the part that scares me. Is this all part of the law, or just a possible application of it? The other part that I don’t particularly care for is who pays for the new textbooks and these monitors (if this is true)? My guess would be me/us. I have not read the bill yet (it would be nice if it was in bigger writing, but I can purchase a magnifying glass I guess. If any of you know this bill well, I would appreciate some insight. Thanks.
Cyndi, I have a link to the bill on the top of this thread. Click on the underlined portion that says SB777. Basically, the bill says that all existing anti-discrimination legislation should be changed to include discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” So, the bill does not explicitly say that children who are transexual can use whatever bathroom they want. It does not specifically say how textbooks would have to change.
So, you are depending on judges and schools administrators to determine how the legislation should be enforced. If you don’t trust California judges and the administrators of your local school, I think you have reason to be concerned.
My kids are in the public schools in Florida, and I have reviewed all of the curricula for them, and I have no problem with what is taught here. But as I describe above, there will be attempts, especially in very liberal areas of California, to start teaching things that are not appropriate for children. This bill makes it more likely that such things will happen. You need to watch your local schools very carefully.
Personally, if I were in your shoes I wouldn’t put my kids in the public schools without getting to know the principal/vice principal and looking at the curriculum. They have to show the curriculum to you.
But as I say above, a lot of the claims about this bill are exaggerated and based on worst-case scenarios. I don’t see a reason to panic. Instead, I see a reason for increased vigilance.
I just wanted to add that I don’t appreciate scare tactics either. That’s why I want to get these questions answered. However, it seems to me that this bill outlines more specific applications of the previous laws, thus adding to them, thus changing them. It seems pretty sneaky to me – of course legislators would never try to be sneaky or anything. The bathroom thing really confuses me. If someone is bisexual or homosexual, you’d think they’d want to use the bathroom of the same sex anyway. It seems that this bill would only make it more convenient for perverts to take a trip into the bathroom of the opposite sex. It just seems so confusing to children and completely infringes on the rights and privacy of children who are not GLBT.
Thanks for your comments Geoff. I did call the school yesterday and asked about what they knew about SB777. The lady on the phone didn’t seem to know anything about it. I live in a pretty conservative district and none of the parents I know have seemed to have any problems. It is a good idea to ask to see the curriculum though. I was also told by the school that sex education begins in 4th grade (my girls are in 3rd, 2nd, and K), and that the parents must sign a permission slip and also have the option of viewing the material at home with their children. I confirmed this info with a mother whose daughter is now in 5th grade and attends the same school.