Bill #: SB777 Year: 2007

This bill is a reiteration – and expansion – of last session’s SB 1437, which attempted to add sexual orientation to the list of specially treated categories of pupils. It also was submitted by Sen. Kuehl. Although SB 1437 was passed by the Legislature, Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed it from becoming law.

SB 777 attempts to place the authority of Section 422.55 of the state Penal Code (the definition of hate crimes) into all of California’s Education Code. If successful, two dozen sections of the Education Code would be amended to prohibit any instruction, school activities, or instructional materials that may "promotes a discriminatory bias because of occupation or a characteristic listed in Section 220."

Section 220 refers to the characteristics found in the state Penal Code, which includes sexual orientation and "gender." Under that code gender doesn't mean male or female but "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." Sexual orientation means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.

The bill also adds "agnosticism and atheism" to the list of acceptable religions. This new definition includes religious beliefs, observances, and practices.

In reality, agnosticism and atheism are patently non-religious belief systems and should not be classified as “religions.” The basic premise of both categories actually deny or question the existence of religion and, therefore, any inclusion of these two terms as religion is diametrically opposed to the accuracy of the current and historical definition of religion.

In amending the Education Code sections, Senator Kuehl literally crosses out the existing definition of “sex,” referring to “the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being.” In its place, she inserts “gender” as either real or imagined, and not limited to a person’s assigned sex at birth. Kuehl, like many other legislators, serves the “god of progressiveness.” In other words, progressive change that does away with moral absolutes is always considered beneficial to the culture. Such a perspective lacks both historical basis and foresight.

With this bill, Sen. Kuehl’s intention is to further infiltrate California’s laws with definitions and protections for alternative sexual behavior. Based on already established “hate crime” terminology, and building on a subjective interpretation of material or activity that reflects adversely upon certain categories of persons, this bill would re-engineer the curricula and culture of publicly funded schools.

Termed “bias-free education” by its proponents, SB 777 would, in truth, silence students and teachers from the free expression of beliefs and opinions that run contrary to total and complete acceptance of all forms of sexual behavior. In fact, this bill threatens an accurate portrayal of history and social science, silenced by the possibility of reflecting adversely on an individual or group.

Consider the following:
• Individuals of one biological gender – but claiming the other – will require special treatment or services, such as restroom facilities, or participation in the opposite gender’s physical-education class.
• Traditional, school-sponsored social activities, such as a high school’s Homecoming celebration, and the royal court elected by the student body, will be forced to change, or end.
• Wearing a T-shirt that espouses one’s beliefs may be considered by another to reflect adversely upon others who oppose such beliefs.
• Social-science research suggesting patterns of developmental dysfunction that may contribute to the onset of male homosexuality would be silenced.

:: California Family Council :: Current Legislation

you will have somewhere to squat and pee now.....

It's starting. You gotta know those "more inclusive" religious branches are gonna have to "reinterpret" their bibles one day so they won't look like total losers. And you know the "human biology" textbooks need to be rewritten. And "human sexual education" will never be the same.

:::sigh:::

There are many errors in this op/ed piece.

First - atheism does not not deny there is religion - it denies there is a God.

Secondly - they have NOT said that sexual orientation means a person's gender identity - it SPECIFICALLY ADDS that for the purpose of legislation.

Thirdly - it is HARDLY a bad thing for a place of EDUCATION to garner the wisdom, knowledge and findings of new scientific information. It would HARDLY be a good thing for a place of EDUCATION to rely on "historical basis" for it's information!

Now - on for the REALLY stupid parts:
Before the bigots complained that gays were going to see them naked - now they're complaining about them having separate facilities????? Whew - the alternative would be - what? - death?
Total lie.
If it reflects adversely upon others, it SHOULD be considered to reflect adversely upon others.
D'oh
But lets not make it too tough to get girl-on-girl porn


This non-news op/ed piece is as sloppy and obvious as some of the anti-gay posts on this forum

One time I got bored and wrote a list of "honest state slogans."
So, for example, instead of being "The Garden State," New Jersey's should be "You'll be fine, as long as you don't inhale."

Anyway, I thought California's should be "We don't suffer from insanity. We enjoy every minute of it!"

So, regarding some of the points raised:

I agree wholeheartedly.

However, those are not the tee-shirts that get the lawyers' juices and the court cases boiling. Those are the ones about kids who think they have the right to wear tee-shirts that say homosexuals are abdominations or that abdominations should be killed and include a Biblical scripture to "validate" it.

I think those kinds of tee-shirts should be removed from ANY educational or public arena (wear your denigrating tee-shirt in the privacy of your home).

I see no reason to wear a tee-shirt to a public school that says "I hate" ANYTHING

abominations - yes - that's what I meant to type - twice in one sentence, two different spellings, both wrong - I'm doing an impersonation of ..... ?

Ali?

Ohhhh, ohhhhh, ohhhhh!!! I know!!! I know!!! I KNOW!!!