Marylee = yellow journalism

I am sure she must be intelligent, but just a shame she cant write an unbiased anti gay attack. Maybe she is a homophobic? I am sure she is going to say she has gay friends and they agree w/ her.

"Critics of the bill are predicting a mass exodus from public schools to private, faith-based schools or the even safer environs of home. Critics of the bill are predicting a mass exodus from public schools to private, faith-based schools or the even safer environs of home."

Critics of gay marriage is Mass. predicted all sorts of bad things too (like earthquakes, locusts or more terrorist attacks).  And we saw how nothing bad happened at all.  Just people getting on with their lives.  How in the world that banning the teaching of hatred of homosexuals (which is all this bill is really doing) is destroying California families is beyond me.  It is so easy to throw this term out, but I have never really heard exactly how California families are being destroyed by teaching tolerance.  Yes, families may not have the right to see to it that hatred of gays and lesbians are indoctrinated through the public school system as they would like, but the state is not taking the right of the parents to brainwash their kids on their own.  The root of this "problem" seems to be really about the fear of discovering that gays and lesbians are just as normal as everybody else, and that contradicts what they learned all their lives  in those churches who told (indoctrinated) them about what God said.  And if that is proved wrong, they can't deal with the implications that other things they've been taught about God could be wrong.

The governor is proposing a bill that would protect a minority from being deliberately maligned in grade school texts and library books read by school children.  Would Marilee have the same objection if that minority was blacks, Amish, Hmong, or any other minority?

I doubt it.

How about the truth about AB 777 -- from AB 777 itself>

Here's SB 777.  And here's a clip from it:

"SEC. 11. Section 220 of the Education Code is amended to read:

220. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid."

And:

And here's AB 14:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/p...

Help me see what I'm not seeing.

"I apologize for the error."

Good enough for me.

So Marylee, you have no problem with indoctrinating kindergarteners that one in ten of them will grow up to be evil and condemned for loving the wrong people?  The law you cite would prohibit doing that...

.

Removing the children of bigots from public schools will, if nothing else, make them more pleasant places for those who remain.

Linfestyp, you forgot Mitt Romney.  I figure he's divine retribution upon the country for failing to ban same-sex marriage in Massachussetts.

.

Just like Bush is the Goddess' way of showing what happens when Democrats don't campaign hard enough...nice to meet you last night, by the way. :)

Marylee, why must you write about things from such a forced perspective? 

This law does NOT introduce homosexuality into schools.  What this law says is that no child, or teacher, should be discriminated against.   My daughter has a friend with two mommies.  Should this little girl, age 5, be able to stand up proudly in her class and talk about the love that she has for BOTH of her mothers?  I think so.  Should this little girl be made to feel as if her family is something to be ashamed of?  I don't think so.  This child should have the very same rights as my own daughter to discuss her home life in her classroom.  And, if you think YOUR child will be ethically or morally challenged  by the presence and discussion of families with homosexual parents, then you didn't do a very good job of parenting.  Let's try this: I'll go to any church youth group and then we'll step inside a Kindergarten classroom.  Which one do you think is going to make the greater number of references to homosexuality?  I guarantee you it will be the church group. 

As for a "mass exodus" from public school - yeah, right!  But, if it does happen, so be it.  The children who remain will be better for it.  They'll illustrate what it means to live in a united country and learn tolerance, empathy, and compassion.  And, as an added bonus, science teachers will finally be able to discuss biological topics in full and with greater academic rigor. 

Let's see. 

If I oppose gay marriage I'm a homophobic.

If I oppose gay marriage and then tell you I have gay friends I'm a hypocrite

If I use the words illegal immigrant I'm a bigot.

If I use the term black person I'm a racist.

If I approve of In God We Trust in classrooms I a fundamentalist radical right wing nutcase.

If I disapprove of In God We Trust in classrooms I'm some kind of satanist.

If I oppose abortion I'm violating civil rights.

If I believe in a womans right to choose I'm a baby killer.  (or is that a Viet Nam Vet..I get confused.)

If I approve of the war I'm a war monger and a killer of our youth.

If I agree with Marilee I have a tiny town mentalitly and clearly don't know what I'm talking about.  (how lucky for us that we have people here to show is the error of our ways.)

Now..what have I left out.  Any more tags you folks want to assign?

Since you are so big on %'s there Random just where do you get that 10% are gay?

I've always read its more like 4%

Of theres a really good joke that goes along with that.

But where do you get your 10%?

I have laid out the invitation to point out what parts of these bills pave the way to perdition.

Links to both 14 and 777 have been supplied.  Where is the devil in the details?

Spam code: KOOKC

Uh Oh..I guess I'm not a good faith blogger.   I should add that to the list.

Nice set of comments, Nancy.  Good way to sum up the great damage that has been done to political discourse in this country.  A person can hardly state a position without feeling forced to immediately parry and disprove a litany of utterly mindless charges.

Let's hope that damage isn't irreparable.

Heh Ling..and my granddaughter in law is a HickArab.  We have a few Hick-Spanics and a couple of HickBlacks not to mention the HickMutts.

Hey..this is fun...thanks for bringing it up.

Speaking of our HickHalfBlack...he was named the Fresno Bulldogs Star of The Week today.

Blog..you can't be after my money..I don't have any.   You can't be after ME cause you're married and I'm old enough to be your mother.  You can't be after me for my looks because they dazzle people to blindness.  (cough)

You must be after my hat to flatter me so.

But...keep it up..I love it !!!  :-)

Bruce I think she's great too ! Same age she not married but I'm.

Ron   PS: i do love her HAT.

Ten percent seems a more reasonable figure when you add in the thousands of closeted Republicans and Catholic priests who can't even admit it to themselves, Chico.  

Add in the heavy social penalties keeping many from expressing themselves.  And, of course, there are differing definitions.  The Christian Right seems to go by a "practice" definition while I would maintain that orientation and attraction to the opposite or same sex regardless of what you do about it, would be a more accurate definition.  Kinsey's estimate was ten percent, and although he's been attacked by people unsteady in their own orientation, for a first approximation I'd call it pretty good.

But of course it's an arbitrary estimate--the scale from homosexual to bisexual to exclusively hetero is a continuum.  Nobody but a few poor bastards are all one or all the other.   If the penalties were lifted, I'd say about ten percent would be where things would shake out.  That would include some people who are bisexual--also as guilty-and-goin'-ta-hell, of course.  As a flaming heterosexual, I'd be out of the woods if they didn't include us atheists in the handbasket as well.  Toss us in as well and I'd guess one in six Americans would qualify (there's some overlap, particularly at parties.)

If homosexuality is that uncommon or unnatural, then why is nearly all sexual graffiti in the men's restroom homosexual?

BLT, the law in question is intended to prevent discrimination against those groups.  That's why the wingnuts are up in arms about it.  There was widespread opposition to anti-lynching laws in the South, too, but folks got over it.  Well, some of them.

.

But the question raised was not about their reaction to the minority--which does indeed constitute condemnation--but the size of that minority.  I don't care much for blondes, but I certainly don't want teachers saying *THEY* are going to hell either.  On two counts.

It seems it's intended to discriminate against those who regard the issue of sexual orientation as a moral one and those who want to parent their children according to their own values and not according to somebody else's.
No, it doesn't!  This bill makes no moral judgment on any issue.  It simply says that you can not discriminate against a student because of their religion, creed, sexuality, or sex.  Do you not see that the bill would protect a theists right to say their lunch time prayers, if they want, too? 

How is this bill preventing any parent from raising their child in the manner they choose?  Examples, please?  This bill says nothing about what is taught in the home.  It says nothing about what the child may learn at church.  This only applies to school - where EVERY CHILD (even the homosexual ones) should feel no threat.  School is for academics - not faith based bullying and intolerance.  You guys can continue to spout that stuff in your youth groups. 

I'm baffled by the fact that conservatives are crying foul over this - what, exactly, is wrong with trying to create an environment in which all children have the opportunity to talk about their families without fear of reprisal?  What is wrong with saying that prejudice  won't be tolerated? 

political issues regarding the sexual identity of Joey's guardians are irrelevant in a classroom setting.

Here's the problem though, Bartley; a child's parents and family are not irrelevant.  Let's just say that the class has to draw or prepare a poster about their family (a standard Kindergarten assignment).  Should Joey be prohibited from displaying a poster with his mothers or fathers?  Can his parents come help in the classroom?  Should it be okay for someone's parent to object to Joey sharing what every other kid is sharing because his parents are homosexual?  Kids don't politicize issues- parents do.  This bill is NOT, as conservatives would have people believe, trying to force a discussion on homosexuality.  I sincerely doubt that teachers are going to tell their students that they should be gay or even that, if their church disagrees, that homosexuality is "right".  Much in the same way that I'm sure teachers don't encourage divorce or adultry... since Catholicism considers divorce to be a sin, should teachers refrain from talking to a particular student about the impact of divorce?  Would reading a book in which a character comes from a divorced family be inherantly immoral and sinful? 

The issue here is control and exposure.  I get it.  I am kind of annoyed whenever my kids come home with tales of how someone stood up in class and talked about their personal testimony for LDS.  Oh yeah...it's happened.  The teacher allowed it.  But, you know what...it was that child's right to share that because it was relevant to the question being asked "what was a memorable moment in your life?"  And, I'm confident enough in my parenting to recognize that, so long as the teacher or the State does not enforce the exercise of religion or brand one philosophy to be "better" or "corret", the lessons I teach at home will not be sabotaged by the discussions at school. 

The conservative Christians want their right to impose their moral standards on other people's children.  You don't see me standing in front of a microphone stating that children shouldn't be encouraged to question their religion and apply MY standards for belief in their own home.  Why should a conservative Christian have the power to dictate that little Joey can't share about his home life?  Also, this bill prevents Joey's parents from coming in and telling any child that their lifestyle is better than a traditional family. 

The arguments against these measures seem to resemble the sort of argumentation against the In God We Trust displays in KHSD classrooms.

If I were to argue against these measures, I'd take a different track than the wild-eyed fearmongering over remote near-impossibilities like "mom and dad" being banned (which would itself be actionable under this law). 

I'd criticize the patchwork approach to civil rights protections that leave people outside the definitions unprotected.  It has been argued to me that the patchwork approach is better than nothing at all -- and that is true -- but it leaves other important possibilities unprotected, such as the increasingly likely specter of discrimination based on political beliefs.

To go back to the law's defense, though, Doc and others here have stressed that holding a moral objection to homosexuality is not the same as condemnation of, or discrimination against, homosexuals or people closely associated with them.

If your argument is valid -- and it does have some good mileage in it -- what, then, is the problem?

This bill isn't aimed at quashing people's moral objections.  It's about quashing behaviors that actually harm others arising from these moral objections and/or bigotry.  (Notice the distinction between moral objections and bigotry, so don't seize upon that word.)

Well, Bartley...the problem is that discussing families is part of the curriculum for some grades.  Kids learn about their community through their family first.  How can you teach children about responsibility without referring to home life?  Do you throw out discussions about the chores that different people do in the family?  Do you throw out the discussion about what makes each child individual and, therefore, valuable to their families, communities, and the world?  For small kids, you have to start with something they understand.  And, what they all have as common ground is this thing called a "family". 

Blognroll - Actually, yes.  I have heard from a number of homosexual parents that they were told that there help was not needed in their child's classrooms.  One particular incident occured very recently in Bakersifeld.  Prior to a conference, the teacher was unaware that one of the parents who came in to help frequently was a lesbian.  The partner had a name that was masculine (like, Pat or Chris or Terri) and so the teacher figured the kids other parent was a man.  Well, guess what happened at conference time when both mommies arrived?  If I got the story straight, another parent waiting for the next conference noticed these women leaving and had a conniption fit.  To avoid being accused of discrimination, the teacher had to stop asking for all help because a few parents couldn't handle the idea of a lesbian parent helping out.  Despite the fact that she'd been helping out for a quarter and it hadn't been a problem...  so, you tell me...is this a problem?

H4F...you summed up my exact feelings on the subject with this line.

"Notice the distinction between moral objections and bigotry"   People are too quick to toss the "bigot" word around when others don't agree with them.

Doc...   "Don't pass bills that protect one group at the expesne of discriminating against the other."  I'm not sure that's possible.  It may cut down on the discrimination but as I too often say, one persons rights will always trample on anothers in one way or another.  All we can do is minimize the impact.

Possum has a good point about the two moms and helping out at school.  Though some of us disagree with the lifestyle, how can it be kept out of the classroom if there is to be family involvement?   Havng said that, I don't believe it should be taught in the classroom.

IS there an answer that will satisfy all?

I only agree with Marylee about 30% of the time, but I'm wondering why so few people in the opposition can spell her name correctly.  Is it intentional?

'Ppreciate the nod there, Doc, but it looks like there's one more little peeve that I'll need to get over:

The way that the word "conservatives" is being used to necessarily connote social conservatives.  I'm quite fond, actually, of the Barry Goldwater conservatism, and it took me a while to realize that Rush Limbaugh was using Barry Goldwater conservatism to bait-n-switch people into that other kind.  ;-)

I suppose I should give up this losing battle for the definition of "conservative" and realize that the world now has 25% more liberals than it realizes.