Posted on 08/28/2006 9:27:06 PM PDT by Heartofsong83
Schwarzenegger Squashes Religious Freedom
Thomasson: “Arnold Schwarzenegger has two faces. He speaks at churches and says he believes in religious freedom and family values, yet he’s stabbing pro-family Californians in the back.”
Sacramento, California – Campaign for Children and Families is shocked and dismayed that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed SB 1441 (Kuehl). Today’s disastrous action by Schwarzenegger means Christian and other faith-based colleges in California will be forced to promote transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality if they accept students with Cal Grants.
“People of conscience are appalled that Arnold Schwarzenegger has trampled religious freedom to satisfy hyperactive sexual activists,” said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), a leading California-based pro-family organization. “SB 1441 will force religious colleges to either abandon their Biblical standards on sexuality, or reject students with state financial aid. Schwarzenegger is doing what Gray Davis did – trample religious freedom at the bidding of liberal activists from San Francisco and West Hollywood.”
“Arnold Schwarzenegger has two faces,” said Thomasson. “He speaks at churches and says he believes in religious freedom and family values, yet he’s stabbing pro-family Californians in the back. People of faith are suffering under Arnold Schwarzenegger. He’s not the lesser of two evils, he’s doing evil.”
CCF had informed thousands of Californians about SB 1441, generating thousands of phone calls, faxes, and emails opposing this offensive bill. Last week, the Governor was faxed letters pleading for a veto by Christian colleges, including Westmont College (Santa Barbara), Shasta Bible College (Redding), The King’s College and Seminary (Van Nuys), Vanguard University (Costa Mesa), Life Pacific College (San Dimas), Trinity Law School (Santa Ana), William Jessup University (Rocklin), and Simpson University (Redding).
Supported only by Democrats in the California State Legislature, SB 1441 specifically requires “any program or activity that…receives any financial assistance from the state” to support transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality or lose state funding. SB 1441 contains no exemption for religious colleges and universities that accept students with Cal Grants, or child-care providers that accept CalWORKS vouchers.
CCF’S FLOOR ALERT OPPOSING SB 1441
Campaign for Children and Families opposes SB 1441 (Kuehl), which would trample the religious freedom of faith-based colleges and universities, infringing on their values for sexual standards and appropriate role models for the children and students in their care. SB 1441 could easily harm the religious freedom of dozens of religious colleges and universities in California that accept financial aid for students. There is NO EXCEPTION for Protestant, Catholic, Jewish or other religious institutions.
1. Trampling Religious Standards
SB 1441 requires “any program or activity that… receives any financial assistance from the state” to support and promote “gender identity” (transsexuality) and “sexual orientation” (bisexuality and transsexuality). By importing these controversial sexual lifestyle definitions from the Penal Code, this intolerant bill tramples the religious values of faith-based institutions:
- Penal Code, Section 422.56(c) "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.
- Penal Code, Section 422.56(h) "Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
If signed into law, SB 1441 would mean religious colleges (which accept students with state financial aid), children’s day care centers and after-school programs (many which receive state funding) could be forced to allow men to wear women’s dresses and hire transsexual, bisexual or homosexual instructors. SB 1441 would destroy these institutions’ standards for role models and their dearly-held values to provide for the best interest of children in their care.
2. Forced Upon Religious Universities, Private Child Care Centers
The Senate Judiciary Committee noted how the effect of SB 1441 was “wide-ranging and deep,” affecting both religious universities that accept students with state financial assistance (through Cal Grants), and private child care facilities (through CalWorks child care vouchers):
Because Gov. Code Sec. 11135 covers not only the state but also state agencies and any program or activity at the local level that receives funding from the state, the impact of this bill is both wide-ranging and deep.
It will also affect contractors with the state (such as nonprofits), where the services provided locally are funded directly by the state or where the contractor receives any financial assistance from the state.
Some of the programs that would be affected by this bill are: Medi-Cal, State Disability Insurance, CalWORKS, food stamp programs, Unemployment Insurance, Workers' Compensation, financial aid programs administered by the University of California or the California State University, child support services programs and services for veterans, legal services programs, home loan assistance programs, licensing of businesses, government contracting and procurement activities, and voter registration. -- Analysis of SB 1441, Senate Judiciary Committee
The Assembly floor analysis reports that all kinds of financial aid programs would be affected by SB 1441:
Some of the programs that would be affected by this bill are: Medi-Cal, the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids, food stamp programs, unemployment and disability unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, financial aid programs, child support services programs, services for veterans, legal services programs, home loan assistance programs, licensing of businesses, government contracting and procurement activities, and voter registration. -- Analysis of SB 1441, Assembly Floor
OTHER SEXUAL INDOCTRINATION BILLS HEADING TO SCHWARZENEGGER
SB 1437 prohibits textbooks, instructional materials, and school-sponsored activities from "reflecting adversely" on transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality, thus indirectly requiring positive portrayals of these sexual lifestyles in curriculum in all grades in all public schools. Consequently, schools would have to promote "same-sex marriages" and even sex-change procedures. SB 1437 is on the Senate floor.
AB 606 authorizes the California Superintendent of Public Instruction to arbitrarily withhold state funds from any district that does not adequately promote the State Department of Education’s “model policy” promoting transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality in its school policies. Clears the way for transsexual, bisexual, and homosexual curriculum to be forced on all public schools. AB 606 is on the Senate floor.
AB 1056 would spend $250,000 in taxpayer dollars to promote transsexual, bisexual, and homosexual lifestyles under the banner of "tolerance education." Redefines "tolerance" to allow schools to force attitudinal support of transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality. AB 1056 is on the Senate floor.
-- end --
CAMPAIGN FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (CCF) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan educational organization representing children and families in California and America.
Uh, no. I'm not "selling my soul" to the Rats just because I very reluctantly support Arnold against Phil Angelides.
Power certainly isn't "the only thing that matters" to me.
Where the hell did you get that idea?
You don't have to support Arnold. But don't trash other dedicated conservatives who do. It's people like us who give Republican beliefs, including social-conservative beliefs and basic freedoms, a fighting chance -- sometimes even in Rat-infested California. If it were up to people like you, the Republican party would be nowhere because it would be a pure but totally ineffective splinter party.
marker
Your post is inexplicable by short memory. Your earlier post to FareOpinion, Asking questions to rabid wanna-be pundits will get you bit, was directed toward FO in a post FO directed to me. Logically therefore, you were referring to me as a "rabid would be pundit."
That's name calling on your part by any objective standard. So either your "failing memory" includes the inability to chase down the sources for your own posts (see "incompetent"), or you are dishonestly portraying an indirect but very broad insult subjectively narrowly, which I charitably tend to assign to the latter.
So don't bother with the apology. Your stridency on this thread as a Maryland resident betrays an inordinate interest in this California bill, explainable only by delight in today's action by the Grovelnator which is certainly open for query.
Finally, my reference to incompetence was to FO, not necessarily you, although it definitely (and, given your posts on this thread, quite deliberately) left open that door. I don't know yet how clueless you are, but for the indication that you support this monstrous curse of a Republican governor, which is certainly an indication.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
I read the first few sentences. You accept all the other questions/insults. I take it you don't have to work either.
That "totally ineffective splinter party" came within 5,000 votes of electing Tom McClintock as controller (see ballot fraud), and 325,000 votes of electing Bill Simon with 1.6 million registered Republicans not bothering to vote, with thanks to the CAGOP leadership for deliberately sabotaging Mr. Simon's campaign and starving McClintock's.
Defeatism such as this is what is doing the real damage, but supporting Schwarzenegger will do no good toward developing a new generation of viable conservative candidates, as the current leadership is bent upon purging conservatives from the Party.
Why would I apologize? The term rabid is mild.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
One name I have called you, lest these fingers be wasted...
When you go throwing around insults and can't back them up, you'll be called to account with proof of your bogus assertions.
Deal with it.
As opposed to "incompetent"? So now they aren't insults because they're (in your subjective world) "mild."
I'll add "pathetic" too.
You don't get it.
I didn't say that a real conservative can't be elected in California. I did say that your ideal Republican party, which apparently wouldn't allow anyone in it if he/she compromised and reluctantly voted for an Arnold as the lesser of two evils, would be an ineffective splinter party.
That if you drummed realistic conservatives like me out of the GOP (it will never happen, but it seems you would like it to), the Republican nominee would get about 5,000 votes. He/she would certainly never, ever come within 5,000 votes of winning any statewide office. I doubt such a party's candidate could even get elected in a solid-red district.
Your amnesia is remarkable. It was only four years ago that Bill Simon ran. Simon certainly wouldn't qualify as your kind of Republican, either, and he would regard your posts on this thread with utter contempt -- as would Tom McClintock. Simon wasn't my ideal candidate, really, because he wasn't conservative enough or outspokenly conservativve enough. But he was a hell of a lot better than Arnold, who is still substantially better than any Rat.
If you don't understand the importance of such distinctions (on top of the fact that you cannot rationally construe a FReep post with more than five simple words in it) I sincerely hope that there aren't as many of you out there representing the GOP as I fear there may be.
You lied about me calling you names(I called you none). The thread is public and transparent. Name calling was expected.
I agree there are times, and this is one of them, when we need to "break the 11th commandment" by "speaking ill of a fellow Republican." I have done so, on this thread and elsewhere, already tonight.
I don't agree that this is a time to allow a Rat to be elected. Arnold has vetoed some very bad bills, including ones involving homosexuality. That's just a plain fact. Would he do it again? I don't know. Would Angelides? Absolutely not, in his first three years as guv, and probably even in an election year.
I also think "Okie's" posts speaking ill of Republicans like me, who have a different ... uh ... strategy than he/she does, are a very bad and uncalled-for violation of the 11th Commandment.
I think you're addressing this to goldstategop. I never suggested that anyone should be purged from the Party, although we do need to clean house on a leadership that has no interest in promoting the Party platform.
Simon certainly wouldn't qualify as your kind of Republican, either,
This is patently false, as anyone who was on FR during that election can attest. There is virtually no one on this board who did more to defend Bill Simon from sniping within his own party.
It is your amnesia that is therefore remarkable.
As to Tom McClintock, he has proven himself a wonderful leader with horrible political acumen.
If you don't understand the importance of such distinctions (on top of the fact that you cannot rationally construe a FReep post with more than five simple words in it) I sincerely hope that there aren't as many of you out there representing the GOP as I fear there may be.
If you can't see the hypocrisy in this paragraph, you're absolutely right about your conclusion.
well, he just lost his base for the next election...
My apologies, "Okie." I should have directed these angry comments to "GoldState." I was a little too quick on the draw. He/she was the one who trashed me, not you.
I agree with you that there should be a purge of the state party leadership -- after the election. I also stated publicly last winter that the state Republican convention should refuse to endorse Arnold in the primary. I have also stated publicly, elsewhere, tonight, that by signing SB 1441, Arnold has lost any claim he had to be a leader of the Republican party.
Again, my apologies.
"I feel ... beat up by the Terminator."
Good line. I'll have to remember it.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Tom McClintock"
Yup.. me TOO..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.