Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.More ↓Less ↑
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
In a move with national implications, California’s state Senate passed a bill today that establishes a new definition for “sex,” threatens references to “mom” and “dad” and could restrict the presentation of scientific evidence to students.
The plan, SB 777, which actually would turn the state into a promoter for the homosexual lifestyle, is much like a bill approved by lawmakers last year but vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said adequate legal protections against discrimination already existed.
The newest legislation, sponsored by state Sen. Sheila James Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, a lesbian, would ban textbooks, references, teaching aids, activities, events, discussions, posters, announcements, workbooks and anything else within the public school system from anything that “reflects or promotes bias against” homosexuality, transgenders, bisexuals or those with “perceived” gender issues.
“SB 777 is designed to transform our public schools into institutions that disregard all notions of the traditional family unit,” said Karen England, executive director of the Capitol Resource Institute. “This reverse discrimination is an outright attack on the religious and moral beliefs of California citizens.”
References to a “mother” and “father” in any school text appear to be threatened, because they could be interpreted as “reflecting” a bias against the “Partner 1″ and “Partner 2″ of same-sex lifestyles.
“SB 777 requires textbooks, instructional materials and school-sponsored activities to positively portray cross-dressing, sex-change operations, homosexual ‘marriages’ and all aspects of homosexuality and bisexuality, including so-called ‘gay history,’” he said. “Silence on these sexual lifestyles will not be allowed.”
Thomasson said the notion “of forcing children to support controversial sexual lifestyles is shocking and appalling to millions of fathers and mothers.”
“Parents don’t want their children taught to become homosexual or bisexual or to wonder whether they need a sex-change operation. SB 777 will shatter the academic purpose of education by turning every government school into a sexual indoctrination center,” he said.
The current education code’s definition of “sex,” which reads, “‘Sex’ means the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being,” is eliminated. The new “gender” definition considers “a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.”
The new mandate would be enforced by the attorneys of the California Department of Education, which would sue school districts that don’t comply, Thomasson noted.
England earlier warned of the ramifications nationwide, including a tailoring of textbooks by publishers to meet new censorship requirements in California, the largest purchaser of textbooks in the nation.
No matter how traditional a community may be, school officials would find themselves faced with the same religious, moral and social biases instituted in California reflected in their textbooks, she warned.
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.
Opponents say the attacks they have received make clear the priority homosexual advocacy groups have given the proposal.
As WND reported, a board member for the homosexual advocacy group Equality California verbally attacked and threatened CRI for its opposition to the bill.
The board member sent an e-mail and video to CRI threatening the group would be buried if it continued efforts opposing the homosexual advocacy.
“The shocking hate mail we received shows that those behind this legislation do not promote true tolerance,” said England. “Only politically correct speech will be tolerated. Those with religious or traditional moral beliefs will not be allowed to express their opinions in public schools.”
She said SB 777 would have a wide range of impacts on all students in kindergarten through grade 12.
In Los Angeles already, she said, “boys who perceive themselves as girls may enter the girls’ locker room and restroom. Teachers and school officials are required to hide the gender identity of a transgender student if the parents are unaware of what’s taking place at school.”
England earlier told WND that pushing such a radical homosexual agenda would stifle the truth in favor of “political correctness” and create untold numbers of conflicts with the religious and moral convictions of teachers and parents.
She also cited an informational document published by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center that already is lobbying for special treatment in the school system.
“If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity … you should be allowed to do so,” it advises. “Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible.”
Further, the groups advise, “If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you.”
Thomasson said schools shouldn’t be tools for activists with a moral agenda.
“Schools need to do a much better job teaching kids reading, writing and arithmetic, not a better job advertising controversial sexual lifestyles to captive 6-year-olds,” he said.
He also noted that, just as last year, two other bills also are pending: AB 394 by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, would demand that schools distribute to students “anti-harassment” education programs, and AB 675 by Assemblyman Mike Eng, D-Monterey Park, would give $1 million to pay for homosexual, bisexual and transsexual activists to turn 10 public schools into “sexual indoctrination centers.”
Last year, three similar bills were approved by California lawmakers, but all were vetoed by the governor.
Many groups, including several national outreaches such as the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, had lobbied for those vetoes.
One of last year’s plans would have required the State Board of Education to increase sensitivity to so-called “discrimination.” Under the plan, the state Superintendent of Public Instruction would have had unlimited discretion to withhold state funds from schools that did not comply with an individual’s interpretation of the law.
A second would have “integrated tolerance training” into history and social science curriculum and started a pilot program that would have forced students to learn a “new definition” of tolerance, one that would require them to not only accept but advocate for homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism, according to CRI.
The third would have banned anything that “reflected adversely” on homosexuals, bisexuals or transgenders.
Former Assemblyman Larry Bowler, R-Elk Grove, has described the plans as “indoctrination, designed to inculcate our children and our grandchildren.”
Are you a representative of the media who would like to interview the author of this story? Let us know.