We Can Laugh - This Time

Out in California they're talking about changing the law a little bit to treat discrimination in the schools on the basis of sexual orientation the same as discrimination on the basis of religion, disability, and things like that. There are also some wording changes in the bill. Here's how it starts:

(1) Existing law states that it is the policy of the state to afford equal rights and opportunities to all persons in the public or private elementary and secondary schools and postsecondary educational institutions of the state regardless of their sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, or mental or physical disability and prohibits a person from being subjected to discrimination on those bases and contains various provisions to implement that policy.

Existing law prohibits a teacher from giving instruction, and a school district from sponsoring any activity, that reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.

Existing law prohibits the State Board of Education and the governing board of a school district from adopting for use in the public schools any instructional materials that reflect adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.

This bill would revise the list of prohibited bases of discrimination and the kinds of prohibited instruction, activities, and instructional materials and instead, would refer to disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate crimes that is contained in the Penal Code. The bill would define disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation for this purpose. BILL NUMBER: SB 777

OK, you might approve of that and you might not. Personally, I think it's good to add sexual orientation to the list, and I suppose the new terminology is better, probably. To tell you the truth,under normal circumstances I wouldn't give this a thought.

But, you know, there's a discussion to be had there. You could argue that these different groups don't need special treatment, or you could argue about what should and shouldn't be on the list. That's cool, you and I could have a great argument about that. Maybe we'd agree in the end, and maybe we wouldn't.

But here's what a group called Capitol Resource Institute (motto: "Educating, supporting, and defending California families since 1987") says about the bill:

What exactly does this mean for California's school children?

SB 777 will transform our public schools into institutions that disregard all notions of the traditional family unit. It scorns all religious and moral teaching that is contrary to its agenda, regardless of what is taught in the home by the child's parents.

The practical implications of SB 777 could include the following:

Textbooks would have to be rewritten to eliminate references to the traditional family-or at least give equal time and preference to homosexual roommates as is given to a man and woman in a committed marriage relationship. References to "mom and dad" or "husband and wife" could be banned as discriminatory. Brave New California Schools-Legislation Promotes Homosexuality, Bisexuality, and Transsexuality

Now, we can laugh, because this is all the way on the other side of the country from us. But this is exactly the way the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum have talked about the new sex-ed classes, making things up, blowing things out of proportion, turning things around, assuming the worst -- no, not really "assuming" it, pretending the worst.

Listen to these guys:

*Gender-neutral bathrooms could be required, to accommodate those students who are confused about their gender identity.

*Cheerleading and sports activities would not be permitted to have gender distinctions.

*Schools could be prohibited from having a "prom king and queen," to avoid showing bias based on gender and sexual orientation. Or, schools could be required to crown a female "king," which is something that nearly happened at Fresno High School when transgender student, Cinthia Covarrubias, born a female, decided she would run for prom "king" instead of queen. The issue became moot when Ms. Covarrubias was not elected by the student body.

*Teachers might be barred from stating their support for traditional marriage. AIDS statistics, including disproportional infection rates in the homosexual community, could be considered taboo.

"Pushing this radical homosexual agenda in California schools will stifle the truth in favor of political correctness and will inevitably conflict with the religious and moral convictions of both students and parents," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute. "The full ramifications of this sweeping legislation could affect the entire nation as most textbook companies tailor their material to their number one purchaser: California."

And on and on it goes.

Normal people can talk about these things. Two people with differing opinions, differing philosophies about life and how it should be lived, could look at this California bill, and pick out things they liked more or less, and they could express their opinions about aspects of the legislation. In the end, they can vote for candidates who they think will support their conclusions about things like this, or they can even get involved and call their representative in the legislature. Whatever, there are lots of ways to handle this.

So where is the handbook these nuts get this stuff from? How is it that this group in California is exactly like a group in Montgomery County, Maryland, all the way on the other side of the country? Where does somebody learn to "think" this way?