On May 11, the California State Senate passed Senate Bill 1437. The bill demands “no teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that reflects adversely upon persons because of their … gender … sexual orientation.” Current California law already prohibits discrimination in teaching based on “sex, color, creed, national origin or ancestry.”
The addition of “sexual orientation” means that condemnation of homosexuality by public school employees would now be punishable by law. The addition of “gender,” which substitutes for “sex,” is defined according to California law to include “perception of the victim’s identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the victim’s sex at birth” – in other words, if a boy decides to come to school in a dress, teachers may not even request that he change clothes.
But that isn’t all: Homosexuality is to be actively forwarded as a legitimate lifestyle. According to the California Senate Judiciary Committee, “The bill also would direct the school governing boards to include only instructional material that accurately portrays the cultural, racial, gender and sexual diversity of our society, and, in instructional material for the social sciences, include the contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to the economic, political and social development of California and the United States of America.” Grade level is not specified in the bill, so presumably, third-graders may be learning about the sexual proclivities of Allen Ginsburg.
Naturally, the sponsor of the bill is radical lesbian Democratic state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, who explained in a letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times, “The invisibility of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the history curriculum only exacerbates school climates in which homophobic bullying, harassment and violence are rampant.”
Geoffrey Kors, of the homosexual activist group Equality California, told the Los Angeles Times that possible classroom topics include the assassination of homosexual San Francisco City Supervisor and three-time failed mayoral candidate Harvey Milk in 1978, as well as the sexual practices of the poet Langston Hughes. Milk’s life and death are vitally important to the homosexual community, but basically, a historical footnote for the broader population; Hughes’ sexuality is perhaps even less important than Lewis Carroll’s pedophilia, especially since, despite the best efforts of homosexual activists to prove Hughes’ homosexuality, they can find no clear-cut evidence that he was, in fact, gay.
But grasping at straws is what the homosexual community does best. In the past few decades, Abraham Lincoln (married), Alexander Hamilton (married and famously promiscuous with women), Emily Dickinson (no evidence), George Gershwin (carried on a long affair with Kay Swift), and Herman Melville (married) have all been held up as closeted homosexuals by the gay community.
Kuehl claims the gay community is short on role models. But so is the straight community: Role models are in short supply for everyone. The solution isn’t to falsely “out” great men and women, especially when their sexuality is less important to their identity and achievements than their favorite color. Even if Lincoln had been gay (which he most assuredly was not) we would not teach about him because of his sexual preference, but because of his actions as president.
But the homosexual movement sees sexuality as identity. With that in mind, homosexual activists claim that pushing homosexuality in public schools will make “gay” children feel more accepted and tolerated. Their proclivities – their identities, according to the homosexual movement – will be granted legitimacy. Of course, normal anti-harassment policies already prohibit maltreatment, but that’s not enough for homosexual activists – they want the practice of homosexuality legitimized in the classroom.
This is antithetical to the very concept of parental authority. Homosexuality remains a controversial practice, and our public schools should not be a breeding ground for liberal values that may very well undermine parental wishes.
Kuehl can proclaim “it’s all for the children” to her heart’s content. But placing Milk and Hughes in the public-school curriculum when students can’t even read (former Democratic California Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg has pointed out that Los Angeles schools have a 50 percent dropout rate, and that Los Angeles leads the nation in both “gang violence and adult illiteracy”) says otherwise. Kuehl and her ilk aren’t worried about education – they’re worried about re-education.
At the least, Senate Bill 1437 reminds us that this is indeed a culture war. Kuehl and her allies are the aggressors in this culture war. They are assaulting traditional morality, and they are targeting children first and foremost. And they don’t care how many parents they have to force aside to assure the victory of their agenda.
