Gay rights duel heads to voters

The Sacramento Bee ^ | 12/3/07 | Dan Walters

[cold666pack]

Current California law makes it illegal for schools to offer instruction or an activity that "reflects adversely upon persons" because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin or ancestry.

A new law scheduled to take effect in January would revise the protected list to disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation. It would also change the words "reflects adversely" to "promotes a discriminatory bias."

(snip)

A fundamental philosophical, or even moral, conflict lies at the heart of the political clash – the same conflict that fuels the perennial battle over same-sex marriage. One side believes that homosexuality, bisexuality or other non-heterosexual orientations are within the normal range of humanity. The other side believes that they are immoral aberrations.

Setting aside, for the moment, the underlying philosophical conflict, SB 777 is another troublesome step down the slippery slope of politics dictating what version of history and current events children should be taught. Moreover, while the law professes merely to protect against instruction that "promotes a discriminatory bias" – which sounds plausible on its face – lawsuit-leery educators may see it as forcing them to censor or repress anything that even indirectly touches on sexual orientation in a way that someone, somewhere, sometime might consider offensive.

The specter of a 250-pound linebacker seeking to shower with cheerleaders is extreme and unlikely, but SB 777 does open a door to vexatious litigation. The protected classes in current law are fairly self-evident, but sexual orientation is a matter of personal identification. Just about anyone – including the most testosterone-soaked heterosexual – could claim injurious discrimination.

[cold666pack]

I got to thinking today how this SB 777 is just a vehicle for setting up trial lawyers for future lawsuits from people offended for any little thing they come up with that they think is an attempt to discriminate against them. And it occurred to me, it's absolutely nothing for Californians to offend Christians. They have become the new whipping boy, According to many many people, Christian's feeling are about as important as SSmokers feelings, in my opinion. But what would their reaction be if I was a devout Muslim, which forbids being attracted to people of the same sex. If I were a muslim, wouldn't they be violating my rights by forcing me to tolerate homosexuals as normal? I know it's a stretch, but it seems libs always are sensitive to fringe groups, but whose side would they flock to if it was between Muslims and Homosexuals? Your thoughts are appreciated?

[ChocChipCookie]

I think that ultimately the mere mention of a normal, two parent home will be considered hate speech and discriminatory.

[Always Right]

Is bestiality a legitimate sexual orientation?

[Publius6961]

Current California law makes it illegal for schools to offer instruction or an activity that "reflects adversely upon persons" because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin or ancestry.

I noticed immediately that "religion" was conveniently overlooked.
An inadventent oversight, I am sure...

< /sarc >

[Always Right]

I think that ultimately the mere mention of a normal, two parent home will be considered hate speech and discriminatory.

I am sorry, but I am going to have to report you. Your use of the word 'normal' just violated California law.

[GourmetDan]

Watch for ‘unintended consequences’.

They’ll get this law in place and white, Christian males will start suing everyone in sight. LOL!

[Munson]

that would be a real bad leftist culture civil war. Sadly I find leftists dishonest when they dont bash islam as much as they bash the christians.

also, do we see islamic californians protest against these GLBT pieces of legislation unlike the serbian christians in sacramento?

[goldstategop]

People are up in arms because the Left is not just attacking the family, it is attacking parental authority. And they are fit to be tied. A constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage and the AB777 referendum will likely be on the June ballot. And that places California Democrats on the unpopular side of the Culture War. One they are going to lose.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[samtheman]

If a kid says, “my father is a man and my mother is a woman”, then both parents and child should be subject to arrest, prosecution and persecution for implying there’s something wrong with being an AIDS-infested faggot.

[goldstategop]

Exactly. That's the entire idea behind homosexual agenda indoctrination in California public schools. The Democrats stepped in sh*t again. They should know well enough what to leave alone. But their enlisting on the side of homosexual activists will bring them grief next year.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[vikingd00d]

>>I noticed immediately that “religion” was conveniently overlooked.

“religion” is covered by “creed” under the current law and explicitly listed as “religion” in the new version. Although I’m sure the intent is to only protect non-Christians.

[goldstategop]

Yep. Every one knows the traditional family is nothing but homophobic bigotry.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[donna]

Lawmakers pass redefinition of ‘sex’
Bill threatens references to ‘mom,’ ‘dad’ at school (excerpt)

The Los Angeles district already has implemented many of the proposals in the legislation. Among the most obvious changes:

Words such as “mom” and “dad” and “husband” and “wife” would have to be edited from all texts.

Cheerleading and sports teams would have to be gender-neutral.

Prom kings and queens would be banned, or if featured, would have to be gender neutral so that the king could be female and the queen male.

Gender-neutral bathrooms could be required for those confused about their gender identity.

A male who believes he really is female would be allowed into the women’s restroom, and a woman believing herself a male would be allowed into a men’s room.

Even scientific information, such has statistics showing AIDS rates in the homosexual community or statistics relating to births or deaths among various cultural groups, could be banned.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55852

[goldstategop]

This is enormously unpopular. It is also stupid. Count on the Democrats to try to confuse the issue before the voters.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Neoliberalnot]

Hollywood in league with the homos are a big reason the muslims hate us so much. More than homos getting hooked up for the feces fetish how bout “If it’s all right for Heather to have two mommies, then why can’t she have two mommies and one daddy?” This challenge provides perspective on current demands that government endorse homosexual marriage. Why should society support the novelty of queer relationships ahead of polygamy, which was practiced nearly everywhere for thousands of years and would appeal to far more people than homosexuality?

[cold666pack]

No, see that’s another part of the problem, just because it does not specifically address their religion, they don’t get involved, but I think it has more to do with other factors. I lived in Beverly Hills for a while and noticed a lot of the folks from Iran, the Persians, they don’t really care about what their kids are taught, they send kids to school, as they are supposed to, but they dont get involved, like christian parents. But I still think they would be up in arms if they knew their kids were being taught it’s perfectly normal for a kid to have 2 mommies or 2 dads.

[donna]

Oct. 12, 2007

“Late Friday, Schwarzenegger signed SB 777 (transsexual, bisexual, homosexual indoctrination of schoolchildren by requiring changes to all instruction and activities) and AB 394 (transsexual, bisexual, homosexual indoctrination of students, parents, and teachers via “anti-harassment” training). Signing the bills was a switch for Schwarzenegger, who vetoed nearly the same bills last year, in the midst of his reelection campaign.”

[cold666pack]

Thats a great point i had not thought of. 2, 3 4 wives for one man is absolutely normal in many traditionally Muslim cultures. I have known girls who had a lot of “aunts”. They would call them their mom’s sister, but they were really just the other wives of their mom. Very good point.

[cold666pack]

Thanks for clarifying that. When it was pointed out that religion was not listed, I was taken aback for a second. So religion is still one of the things one cannot expressly discriminate against, then.

[cold666pack]

Funny, I did not expect the author to look like such a caricture....