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.
Actually, it does not. The government can attach whatever strings it wants to the funds it provides. If you don't like the strings, you don't take the money.
The Supreme Court has ruled this way many times.
It is obviously a disgusting bill, and pretty lame that Arnie signed it, but if you are a private christian college, just don't take money from the state, and you won't be beholden.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1441_bill_20060811_enrolled.html
SB 1441, Kuehl Discrimination: state programs and activities:
sexual orientation.
Existing law prohibits discrimination on the basis of, among other
things, race, national origin, ethnic group identification,
religion, age, sex, color, or disability, against any person in any
program or activity conducted, operated, or administered by the state
or by any state agency, or that is funded directly by the state, or
that receives any financial assistance from the state. Existing law
also requires, with respect to disability, that these programs and
activities meet the protections and prohibitions contained in certain
provisions of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
and the federal rules and regulations implementing that act, or state
law if the state protections and prohibitions are stronger.
This bill would add sexual orientation to these provisions and
define for these purposes "sex" and "sexual orientation."
The bill would also expand the definition of discrimination under
these provisions to include a perception that a person has any of
these enumerated characteristics or that the person is associated
with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of these
characteristics.
GOVERNMENT MONEY == GOVERNMENT STRINGS
The only way to avert entanglements is to take a pass on the $$$. As government becomes more oppressive, the decision to push their cash back in their bureaucratic faces and tell them to "Buzz off" will pay enormous dividends. Schools that refuse the dirty funds will be able to offer an educational product free from government-imposed gobbledy-gook, and, thus, head and shoulders above what their former peers can offer.
Near-term pain will be greater long-term gain.
Republicans at all levels are making very hard for me to support the party. I know the alternative is worse, but maybe it is time for a wake up call.
I didn't see the unconstitutionality in the link. The state can offer more protection with it's own funding. That is inherent in the Constitution.
Did you read the bill?
This is not even as much as a shell of the former bill.
While I an not happy, but all it says it adds sexual orientation to the list of items, against which discrimination is prohibited.
"SECTION 1. Section 11135 of the Government Code is
amended to read:
11135. (a) No person in the State of California shall, on the
basis of race, national origin, ethnic group identification,
religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color, or disability, be
unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be
unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or
activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives
any financial assistance from the state. Notwithstanding Section
11000, this section applies to the California State University."
So if there's an R by the name, you'll worship them until they day you die, huh?
What do you think Angelides would do?
Angelides is on record that he would have signed the previous version of this bill, which really would have forced schools to teach the virtues of homosexuals.
Angelides also said he will sign the homosexual marriage bill, that Arnold vetoed.
Arnold may not be a "full glass" you would like, but a half a glass is far better than en empty glass.
Can't they support third party candidates?
"The wording of the bill your link led me to seemed fairly innocuous."
Exactly. This used to be a horrible bill, teaching in schools the accomplishements of homosexuals, etc., but Arnold told them he will veto it, so to save face they basically took out everything and just so they still have a bill, they have this, just added sexual orientation to the list of things state agencies are not supposed to discriminate against.
Let's try this one more time.
someone says "Can a third-party candidate take advantage of this unconstitutional signing and take over? Let's pray that happens!"
And you want to claim sanity for this person.
If true,the gov has lost it
Sorry guys, it's completely constitutional (on the surface), if they accept public money(Cal Grants), then they should be subject to the same laws as public schools.
I believe the uproar is how the Judiciary sees the added term affecting the bill.
Some of us have said he never had "it" to begin with.
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.