Arguments are heating up in court in California over a challenge to the state’s decision to conceal the signatures of people who signed a referendum, but then had their names disqualified by county clerks, as pro-family organizations fight a legislative plan that’s become known as the “coed school-bathroom bill.”
That law allows public school students to choose which gender-specific bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams to utilize based not on biology but on their ‘self-identified gender.”
The law would not even require students to verify that they have a diagnosed gender orientation problem to school officials before they are granted permission to use a boys or girls locker room.
Arguments began in a state courtroom over the dispute on Friday, but didn’t finish, and an attorney in attendance told WND that the judge scheduled more arguments next Friday, April 18.
The referendum seeks to overturn AB 1266, which was adopted last year.
More than 620,000 voters signed petitions asking to have the issue put on the election ballot, but the state said only 487,000 signatures were valid, short of the number required.
However, the Pacific Justice Institute, working on behalf of the Privacy for All Students coalition, said its investigation in several counties found many signatures had been wrongly disqualified.
The group filed a lawsuit to challenge the disqualifications, but now it must go to court because the state says the names that were disqualified are confidential.
At issue in the hearing is whether counties must turn over more than 130,000 signatures that were disqualified.
“The state is now arguing that the signatures cannot be turned over due to voter confidentiality. If successful, the state’s arguments would deprive referendum backers of the evidence necessary to prove that signatures were wrongly thrown out,” advocates said.
The state’s motion to quash subpoenas is being heard before Judge Timothy Frawley of the Sacramento Superior Court.
PJI President Brad Dacus called it “yet another attempt by the secretary of state to deprive voters of their fundamental rights.”
“It is outrageous that the state wants to avoid all accountability, even when referendum signatures are wrongly invalidated. We’re not going to let this happen without a fight. No state or county official is above the law.”
When a similar demand was made by the other side in Washington state, the court ultimately released the names of petition signers.
In that case, pro-homosexual activists threatened voters who had signed a petition for a referendum on same-sex marriage. The petition signers asked that their names be kept confidential.
The Supreme Court said signatures on petitions generally are public record and should be hidden only in case of threats. But even then, a judge in Washington went ahead and released the names despite the many documented threats. A threat of “I will kill you and your family” was delivered to the young son of a political candidate, Elizabeth Scott, who had signed the petition.
Scott also was the target of a threat on a YouTube video: “This woman is so f—ing stupid. Why doesn’t someone just shoot her in the head again and again. And again.”
Among other threats that were documented were: “I’m a gay guy who owns guns, and he’s my next target,” and “I warn you, I know how to kill, I’m an ex-special forces person.”
In the California case, Pacific Justice claims some 130,000 signatures – “more than enough to place the referendum on the ballot” – were unlawfully thrown out by election officials.
Dacus said, “It’s about letting the voice of the people be heard. We want to make sure every signature is counted, and every voice is heard.”
The suit seeks to have the secretary of state, Debra Bowen, certify the referendum for the November ballot. It contends election officials have unlawfully disqualified signatures, causing thousands of voters to be disenfranchised.
It was just a few months ago that PJI had to go to court to force the state to follow the law.
At that time, the issue was over the acceptance of signatures. The California Constitution gives voters a full 90 days to hand in their signatures from when legislation is passed – even if those days fall on a weekend or a holiday – but local elections officials refused to accept them.
The final date for submitting the signatures was Nov. 10, 2013. Officials in two counties, Tulare and Mono, claimed the signatures came in late, but evidence provided to the court showed they were on time, delivered on the 88th and 89th days.
Pacific Justice said that in Tulare, the county mailroom clerk simply refused to sign and accept a package from a FedEx driver. In Mono County, the signatures were delivered, but county personnel did not process them until after the deadline.
Author Michael L. Brown chronicles in “A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been” how America has been transformed from a nation where homosexuality was unmentioned to the point it’s a constant topic of conversation from foxholes to the White House.
A Sacramento judge rebuked elections officials for those actions.
Judge Allen Sumner of the Sacramento County Superior Court said the thousands of signatures from the two counties must be counted.
PJI Attorney Matthew McReynolds, who testified against the bill in the legislature and has been highly involved in the referendum efforts, told how he discovered that his own signature was thrown out. Officials said his signature didn’t match a prior one on file, which is plausible because McReynolds has become blind over the last few years.
The “coed bathroom bill,” California AB 1266, is the latest in a long list of sex indoctrination laws adopted in California, including one that requires a day of recognition for Harvey Milk, the homosexual politician who also was an advocate of infamous cult leader Jim Jones.
Karen England of Capitol Resource Institute said parents in other states also should be concerned.
“We’re not like Las Vegas. What happens in California spreads to other states,” she said.
England told WND the law is a direct assault on parental rights. It allows schools to treat children as members of either gender and send them to locker rooms or restrooms that may be in conflict with their physical gender. The law also keeps all such information away from parents.
“This is as far as they’ve (lawmakers) ever gone. This is the most extreme. Parents and teachers are absolutely outraged,” she said.
She discussed the issue earlier with Gov. Mike Huckabee:
“We respect that some students are struggling with their own sexual identity, but we ask for respect for the other students who will be humiliated when a boy walks into the girl’s locker room,” said England. “This is a privacy issue, a safety issue, and a common sense issue.”
She said it seems “unbelievable that this bill would ever have made its way through the legislature and signed into law by the governor.”
The law, the first of its kind in the nation, drew the wrath of state Assemblyman Tim Donnelly.
Allowing teenage boys and girls in the same locker room, showering side by side, is a bad idea. In fact, AB 1266 is a recipe for disaster. This will take the normal hormonal battles raging inside every teenager and pour gasoline onto those simmering coals. The right to privacy enjoyed by every student will be replaced by the right to be ogled.
While trying to address a concern of less than 2 percent of the population, California is now forcibly violating the rights of the other 98 percent. Many of the parents I have heard from within the last few days have literally pulled their kids out of public schools and have enrolled them in homeschool and private school programs. My boys, who went back to the public school after many years away, will not be returning.
It is completely unreasonable to expect teenagers, who are uncomfortable with themselves at this age, to accept this level of privacy invasion. After all, in the Capitol building, not only do they not allow men in the women’s bathroom, the women must enter a code to access their restrooms.
The controversy earlier reached the ludicrous when a woman who has “transitioned” to be a “man” became outraged when a pro-family advocate, Randy Thomasson of Save California, addressed her as lady in a CNN interview.
See Thomasson’s closing words in the CNN interview:
In a recent analysis, WND Managing Editor David Kupelian wrote of the atrocities that develop because of gender confusion, especially for children.
“Indeed, the recent renaming of gender identity disorder as gender dysphoria, thanks to pressure from the powerful LGBT lobby, means the condition itself is no longer considered abnormal or ‘disordered,’ but only the anxiety one may feel over it,” he wrote.
“This is a halfway measure; the unabashed, publicly stated goal of the LGBT world is to get gender identity disorder completely de-pathologized so it is officially and legally declared to be an absolutely normal variant of human sexuality. It is, after all, the ‘T’ in the LGBT coalition.”
“Being transgender no longer a ‘mental disorder’: APA,” reported NBC News last December, along with other major news outlets, Kupelian documented.
However, he continued: “Reality check: Transgenderism (or transsexualism) is not normal. In fact, it’s so abnormal and unnatural that a staggeringly tragic 41 percent of all transgender individuals living in the United States have attempted to commit suicide, according to a 2010 study.”
He highlighted the dangers: “Consider the incredibly sad story, reported last week in the London Telegraph, of ‘female-to-male’ transsexual Nancy Verhelst of Belgium, who was legally euthanized by lethal injection after a botched sex-change operation. The back story? Her parents hated and rejected her because she was a girl and they wanted another boy. So this poor girl tried to become a boy, and when it didn’t work, she took her life.”
Further, making such conditions “normal” then results in the amputation of health body parts, he said.
Majority Democrats on a California state legislative committee at one point killed a plan that would have cracked down on intimate relationships between school teachers and their students. The unsuccessful Assembly Bill 1861 would have made it a felony if any teacher or employee of a public or private school “engages in a sexual relationship or inappropriate communications with a pupil.”
Another bill, SB48, requires positive portrayals of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in public school social studies and history classes.
Others California laws:
- SB 543, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2010, “allows school staff to remove children ages 12 and up from government schools and taken off-campus for counseling sessions, without parental permission or involvement. The purpose is to permit pro-homosexuality teachers and administrators to remove sexually confused children in 6th grade and up from campus and take them to pro-homosexuality counselors who will encourage them to embrace the homosexual lifestyle.”
- ACR 82, approved by the California Legislature in 2010, “creates de facto ‘morality-free zones’ at participating schools (pre-kindergarten through public universities). Schools that become official ‘Discrimination-Free Zones’ will ‘enact procedures’ (including mandatory counseling) against students from pre-kindergarten on up who are accused of ‘hate,’ ‘intolerance,’ or ‘discrimination’.” What is the hate? Peacefully speaking or writing against the unnatural lifestyles choices of homosexuality and bisexuality.
- SB 572, signed by Schwarzenegger in 2009, establishes “Harvey Milk Day” in K-12 California public schools and community colleges. In classrooms, schools and school districts that participate, children will now be taught to admire the life and values of late homosexual activist and teen predator Harvey Milk of San Francisco the month of May.
- SB 777, signed by Schwarzenegger in 2007, prohibits all public school instruction and every school activity from “promoting a discriminatory bias” against (effectively requiring positive depictions of) transsexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality to schoolchildren as young as five years old. SB 777 means children will be taught their “gender” is a matter of choice.
- AB 394, signed by Schwarzenegger in 2007, effectively promotes transsexual, bisexual and homosexual indoctrination of students, parents and teachers via “anti-harassment” and “anti-discrimination” materials, to be publicized in classrooms and assemblies, posted on walls, incorporated into curricula on school websites, and distributed in handouts to take home.
- SB 71, signed by Gov. Gray Davis in 2003 and implemented in 2008 through the new “sexual health” standards approved by appointees of Schwarzenegger and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, teaches children as young as 5th grade that any consensual sexual behavior is “safe” as long as you “protect” yourself with a condom, and teaches children that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality is “normal.”
- AB 1785, signed by Davis in 2000, required the California State Board of Education to alter the state curriculum frameworks to include and require “human relations education” for children in K-12 public schools, with the aim of “fostering an appreciation of the diversity of California’s population and discouraging the development of discriminatory attitudes and practices,” according to the state legislative counsel’s digest.
- AB 537, signed by Davis in 1999, permits teachers and students to openly proclaim and display their homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexuality, even permitting cross-dressing teachers, school employees and student on campus, in classrooms, and in restrooms.
The state legislature even demanded that students in public schools every year honor Harvey Milk, a homosexual activist, reported sexual predator and advocate for Jim Jones, leader of the massacred hundreds in Jonestown, Guyana.
Save California contends that in honoring Milk, schools are advocating for the acceptance of what Milk sought: the entire homosexual, bisexual and cross-dressing agenda; a refusal to acknowledge sexually transmitted diseases spread by the behavior; his behavior as “a sexual predator of teenage boys, most of them runaways with drug problems”; advocacy for multiple sexual relationships at one time; and “lying to get ahead.”
A 1982 biography of Milk tells of a 16-year-old named McKinley who “was looking for some kind of father figure.”
“At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him,” the book says.
“It would be to boyish-looking men in their late teens and early 20s that Milk would be attracted for the rest of his life.”
PJI also has released a video of parents and students talking about a Colorado school district that decided to allow a boy into the girls restrooms and other facilities.
The girls at the school explained how problematic it was to have a boy in their restrooms, and parents explained how the school district simply had told them their daughters had no rights in the dispute.