Insensitive Sensivity Training

September 23, 2003 | Rick J. Radecki

[DesertGOP]

I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank Gov. Davis and the Democratic-controlled state legislature in California for forcing decent, hardworking, traditional Christian families like ours out of the state-regulated foster care system. By recently signing a bill (AB 458) that would require all foster care parents to enlist in state-mandated transsexual, homosexual, bisexual “sensitivity training” instruction, the legislature has collectively singled out and offended, quite possibly, many more households than they may have bargained for.

Cutting through the spin, the purpose of the bill is to indoctrinate prospective foster parent applicants and current foster caretakers into how best to encourage a child who exhibits transsexual, homosexual or bisexual tendencies to continue doing so, irrespective of that household’s religious convictions concerning the same.

AB 458 would adopt specialized training requirements for foster parents and foster care staff and grant special rights to foster children on the basis of actual or perceived race, ethnic group identification, ancestry, national origin, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or mental or physical disability.

If the aim here is to protect the children, then this legislation is as redundant as it is unnecessary, since existing statute already prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic group identification, ancestry, national origin, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or mental or physical disability in the delivery of public services. The law already requires every foster child to be accorded dignity, to be free from humiliation, intimidation, ridicule; as well as to be informed of the provisions of the law regarding complaints—including, but not limited to, the address and telephone number of the licensing agency's complaint receiving unit. The law also gives foster children the right to move from the facility to a different home if they don’t like their foster parents.

This new law could discourage people of faith from serving as foster care parents, if only for the mandatory sensitivity training classes, alone, that purport to “enlighten” parents and social workers on how to deal with and raise a transsexual, homosexual, or bisexual child, but fail to address the issue of hetero-sexual child-rearing methods. (Are we to naturally assume that, regardless of a parent’s or couple’s sexual orientation, they will know how to care for a child exhibiting heterosexual behavior?)

Parents who do not wish to betray their convictions concerning traditional sexual orientations and historically acceptable male/female behaviors will virtually have no choice but to gracefully bow out of, or avoid all together, any private or county-sponsored foster care opportunities. Some people, after all, prefer to remain true to their convictions despite the consequences—in this case, losing out on what could be the most practical means for some to take in a needy child on a temporary or permanent basis.

Keep in mind that, in many cases, even those parents seeking only to adopt a child (with possibly no inclinations toward foster care, per se) must first be technically licensed for foster care—while the necessary paperwork is being processed—before a child is placed into their home for the interim and while they wait for the adoption to run its full course through the courts. So, these parents, as well, would be affected by the new law, if only for the additional required sensitivity training, before the adoption becomes final.

To avoid taking such potentially offensive sexual orientation instruction (per the California statute scheduled to take effect come Jan. 1, 2004), picking up roots and relocating to a more foster care-friendly state is always a possibility, too, though not always as convenient as desired. There’s the matter of selling and buying a home, finding gainful employment elsewhere, and transferring any existing children from one school environment to a brand new one—all key factors that must first be taken into account before a family pursues foster care or adoption in a state other than California.

Bottom line. This bill is nothing more than a cowardly attempt on the part of certain Sacramento politicians to pander to those forces that usually decry traditional families like ours as intolerant and out of touch with an evolving and sophisticated society. However you look at it, though, AB 458 is simply unfair, unjust and unnecessary.

[DesertGOP]

I just had to "sound off" on an issue--foster care/adoption--and a piece of legislation--AB 458--that have greatly affected my wife and me since we first adopted our wonderful five-year-old daughter, Michaela, but also after Gov. Gray Davis took the action to sign AB 458 into state law (slated to officially become California statute on Jan. 1, 2004).

I've written this commentary, "Insensitive Sensitivity Training" from firsthand experience, having already once going through San Bernardino County Adoption Services "Fos/Dopt" program, then proceeding to take in another child.....that is, until "Uncle Joe" Davis forced Christian families like ours (NOT "Homophobes" or "intolerant religious zealots" as some might have you to believe) are now forced to make a choice: either partake in the special state-mandated "sensitivity training" classes and move on in the foster and/or adoption process, or be true to our convictions when it comes to proper sexual orientation and behaviors and drop out of any opportunity to be licensed by the state for placement of a foster child (or a child who technically is a "foster" child, but is in the process of being adopted by that family).

I've sent this same letter to the editor of our local paper (High Desert of So Cal), but, sad to say, will probably never see the printer's ink, as it is probably too "politically incorrect" and would step on too many toes, so to speak.

DesertGOP Victorville, CA

[Diva Betsy Ross]

This speaks directly to the agenda of the gays, lesbains and the NEA. It is an outrage.

[Dan Evans]

I sure would like to know how the recall candidates come down on this -- especially Arnold.

[netmilsmom]

>>Er, sorry, but in what sense aren't you homophobic or intolerant zealots? <<

Why don't you start by defining what YOU think homophobic and intolerant zealots are? Then we can see where you stand.

[netmilsmom]

Oh you have got to see this. A long read but worth it.

[=Intervention=]

" Er, sorry, but in what sense aren't you homophobic or intolerant zealots?"

Your presumption is full of hate. In fact, it's name-calling, which is against the rules here.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[leadpencil1]

This is the old we'll cram it down your throat approach that they think sheeple will just go along with. Sad to say, most will. Question is, how the hell did it get passed into law? Outrageous.

I wonder if they'll force all new parents who want to deliver in a hospital to go through the same sensitivity training as a next step.

[netmilsmom]

The poster actually quoted post number 1.

[steve86]

I sure would like to know how the recall candidates come down on this -- especially Arnold

If he were opposed to it it would be the most out-of-character thing he ever did.

[Cobra64]

I'm homophobic and an intollerent zealot, and proud of it!

[neutrino]

Not meaning to be unkind...and I certainly have sympathy for your position on the matter...but I cannot understand why anyone would be willing to be a foster parent, or, for that matter, to adopt.

I am childless, for which I am deeply and truly thankful! But, seriously, why would anyone want all the problems, even without this law?

[netmilsmom]

>>I'm homophobic and an intollerent zealot, and proud of it!

I think that if you ask the troll who came in and dropped that bomb, all of us are.
Unless you are a flaming queen or a bull dyke. Oooops did I say that, my apologies to my dear friend Rob (the self proclaimed queen) and my sister Betti (who is such).

Not everyone who is forced to take a class to tolerate gays is against gays. Just the intrusion into our lives. This is like someone telling me now, 30 years since I got my drivers licence, that I need drivers ed.

[steve86]

I am childless, for which I am deeply and truly thankful! But, seriously, why would anyone want all the problems, even without this law?

I used to think like you do...Until a couple of children showed up here who needed to be raised.

Best thing that ever happened to me. Looking back, I was only half alive til then.

Not meant for eveyone, I guess.

[Publius6961]

If I am ever assigned attendance to sensitivity training, I would be the model student.
My only potential problem is hiding the grin on my face.
And perhaps the chore of a good attorney to pursue the charge of assault.

These "sensitivity" types tend to have very short fuses.

and very low IQ, I might add...

[DesertGOP]

Dear Dan,

I CAN tell you that we are NOT "homophobes" or "intolerant zealots" in that we DO believe in absolute truth--that is, the same absolute truth that is found in what we believe to be inerrant scripture (the historically-accurate, manuscript-supported, and, quite frankly, common-sensical, too, traditional Bible).

It's the old, but true, adage: "Hate the sin, Love the sinner." And, YES! It is very possible and practical to adhere to this attitude. It's really not that difficult to comprehend...or to follow, for that matter.

I guess what really bothers me is how we Christians, in particular are TOLD (not asked) to be so tolerant of everybody else's lifestyles or perspectives about what is "good" or "bad" or "acceptable;" yet, the prevailing mind set with these folks who attempt to push off their beliefs onto us are the same ones who are NOT tolerant of how we feel and what we believe or what we base our moral decisions from.

My whole "beef" with AB 458 is that it's being assumed that homosexual (as well as heterosexual) parents and couples will know exactly what to do with a child placed into their care who exhibits hetersexual tendencies; but, on the other hand, the state has no problem whatsoever forcing ALL foster care parents and couples to undergo indoctrination into how best to raise a child who shows transsexual, homosexual or bisexual sexual orientations.

Please tell me what I'm missing here, because I'd really like to know.

Personally, I have NO PROBLEM working with or befriending someone who prefers the homosexual lifestyle. I don't see them as "diseased" or folks to be avoided at all costs (despite what so-called experts might tell you on any of the "alphabet network newscasts"); but, I will also, if they inquire, tell them my opinions as to why I see their lifestyle as contradicting what my moral foundation tells me is outright wrong.

So, I would prefer if you and so many others would just try to be a little more fair when passing judgment on folks such as I, and stop asking (telling) us to be tolerant when there is, most definitely, a double-standard of expectations at work.

At least we can agree to disagree. Come over for dinner sometime in the High Desert of So Cal and you'll see firsthand that we're not all ready to "shove a Bible down your throat"......at least, not without following it with a tall glass of milk (HA!)

[Clemenza]

Have you seen the episode of "South Park" where the kids are sent to a "Sensitivity Camp?" Funny stuff...

[Arpege92]

I wonder what could be next....biological parents having to take this course if they want to bring their baby home.

[Vigilantcitizen]

"Have you seen the episode of "South Park" where the kids are sent to a "Sensitivity Camp?" Funny stuff... "

I believe it was "Tolerance Camp". IMHO..one of the best episodes because of it's message. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

"Alright children, we must learn to be tolerant of all people and their...hey you...evil, nasty, smoker. You stupid piece of s%#$%#, what the h$#& do you think you're doing you stinking lowlife!"