A new proposal in Congress would allow public school students to be disciplined for “bullying” for “perceiving” a slight over someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity, and in one case where such a program already has been implemented, it is being used to exclude parents from any input into what their children are taught about homosexuality and bisexuality.

The proposal is H.R. 2262, which was introduced in May by Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., just about the time Kevin Jennings, the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network which promotes homosexuality in schools, was appointed to head the office of school safety in President Obama’s administration.

The alarms are being raised by organizations such as Americans for Truth and the Illinois Family Institute, where Laurie Higgins warned about the impact of the plan.

She described the “Safe Schools Improvement Act,” and said, “Despite its innocuous-sound title, this bill would actually promote the acceptance of homosexuality and gender confusion in schools.

“This bill would ‘amend the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act to include bullying and harassment prevention programs,'” she wrote. “Anyone who has been paying attention knows that anti-bullying/safe schools curricula are now the central means by which pro-homosexual propaganda is secreted into public schools.

“Organizations like the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which endorsed H.R. 2262, are working feverishly to get pro-homosexual/safe schools curricula in all schools,” she warned.

The bill itself defines “bullying” as whatever “adversely affects the ability of one or more students to participate in or benefit from the school’s educational programs or activities by placing the student (or students) in reasonable fear of physical harm” and involves conduct based on “a student’s actual or perceived race, color, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or religion.”

It already has 84 cosponsors and has been referred to the House subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education.

Higgins wrote of her experiences with such a program being adopted by schools in Alameda County, Calif.

WND reported that when the school took those actions, parents responded with a lawsuit.

The action was filed by Pacific Justice Institatute against the Alameda, Calif., school district.

Officials there adopted a curriculum that provides homosexual instruction, is required for the students and does not allow parents to withdraw their children from the program. In other words, mandatory homosexual indoctrination, opponents say.

WND also reported accusations the district was violating federal law for approving a mandatory homosexual curriculum for children as young as 5 – without allowing parents to opt out of the lessons.

‘And Tango Makes Three’ book about homosexual male penguins who name their chick Tango because ‘It takes two to make a Tango.’

Higgins wrote, “A few months ago, a mother from Alameda County, Calif., called me for help in combating the new K-5 ‘Safe Schools’ curriculum adopted by her local school board and implemented this month. It was this mother who directed me to H.R. 2262 and asked whether the passage of this bill would be accompanied by public money, perhaps even stimulus money.

“The ‘safe schools’ curriculum in Alameda … like all other ‘safe schools’ curricula, presents homosexuality, bisexuality, ‘transgenderism,’ and ‘transsexuality,’ (more properly known as gender identity disorder) positively and in ways that suggest that these disordered sexual practices are morally equivalent to heterosexuality,” Higgins continued.

“What makes this situation worse – if that’s possible – is that the school district’s “attorneys say parents would not be allowed to keep their children from taking the courses because the lessons don’t include health or sexual education,'” Higgins wrote.

Under the Alameda plan, parents also will not be notified before students are taught the lessons.

Such actions, she writes, “reveal the deceit and Machiavellian machinations [homosexuals] are willing to employ in the service of using public education to advance their social and political vision.”

Higgins also cited a Massachusetts court decision, written by Judge Mark Wolf, who told parents they could either put their children in public school or homeschool them. But Wolf said if the children are in public schools, there is no requirement that schools tell parents about presentations that promote homosexuality or offer an opt-out.

“Apparently, when activist educators say that it takes an entire village to raise a child, they really mean it takes an entire village of likeminded ‘agents of change’ and boatloads of public money to indoctrinate other people’s children,” Higgins wrote.

“The very real problem of bullying is being exploited to convince the public that pro-homosexual proselytizing belongs in public schools. Don’t buy it. Schools can address bullying without ever mentioning deviant sexual conduct,” she said.

Kevin Jennings

WND previously reported Jennings once boasted that he introduced homosexual advocacy into the school system in Massachusetts by manipulating the message presented to lawmakers.

Jennings, who was named assistant deputy secretary for the office of Safe & Drug Free Schools in the U.S. Department of Education, is responsible for oversight of programs that involve “safety” for public schools across the nation.

In 1995, he gave a speech in which he described how he has used the concept of “safety” in schools to promote homosexual advocacy in public schools in Massachusetts. He gave a speech called “Winning the Culture War” at the Human Rights Campaign Fund Leadership Conference on March 5 of that year.

Excerpts have been posted on the website of MassResistance, where chief Brian Camenker has worked to oppose the demands of homosexual activists.

In the speech, Jennings described how he was concerned about being described as promoting homosexuality, so he chose to campaign on the idea of “safety” instead.

“If the radical right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language – ‘promoting homosexuality’ is one example – is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo that we are ‘after their kids,'” he told the conference.

“We must learn from the abortion struggle, where the clever claiming of the term ‘pro-life’ allowed those who opposed abortion on demand to frame the issue to their advantage, to make sure that we do not allow ourselves to be painted into a corner before the debate even begins.”

He continued, “In Massachusetts the effective reframing of this issue was the key to the success of the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. We immediately seized upon the opponent’s calling card – safety – and explained how homophobia represents a threat to students’ safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common. Titling our report ‘Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,’ we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This framing short-circuited their arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one.”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.