Congrats on your 500th post.

Because no textbook or instruction in California public schools currently disparages transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality, the practical effect of SB 777 will be to require positive portrayals of these sexual lifestyles at every government-operated school.

Pretty much hits the nail on the head.

From what I have read online, it’s unclear to me what problems, exactly, SB 777 and it’s sister bills are designed to address.

Is it merely to give lip service to Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender political activist groups?

In any case, the CCF website makes no attempts to provide any real, informative, unbiased information about the subject. I can’t help but feel a little bit of skepticism about their motives, or about the analysis they give of the bill.

Furthermore, among the many problems facing the public school system, I consider “systematic” discrimination against G/L/B/T’s to be rather small fry.

If any sort of discrimination exists in pubic schools (e.g. sexual, racial, religious, or whatever) I think you’ll more likely find it in the persons of teachers and administrators, rather than in the curricula or the general school policies. (For example, it’s an open secret that, on average, teachers and admins regularly discriminate against blacks and other minorities, when it comes to taking disciplinary actions.) Changing the textbooks, or forcing public schools to “comply” with “the new policy” will change very little.

I think that any kind of “systematic” sexual discrimination, or “sexual indoctrination” that a student is likely to receive, can hardly compare to the constant bullying, abuse, harassment, and “indoctrination” that they’re likely to get from their own classmates, rather than from the schools themselves.

Just another reason to homeschool.

Man I am glad I’m at BYU now… that’s ridiculous

The full text of SB 777 can be found here.
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20070917_enrolled.html

While the letter to the governor, from the CCF can be found here.
http://www.savecalifornia.com/CCFSB777vetoletter_092607.pdf

I must admit that the language used in the actual letter, is far more mundane, and far less inflammatory, than that which is to be found in the description of the the bill, on the CCF website. Comparing the comments of CCF president Randy Thomasson, to the actual text of the letter, he seems rather two faced.

After more reading, I do not agree with the analysis by the CCF, that the language in the bill should be construed as “sexual indoctrination.”

Nor do I believe that the bill should be considered an immediate threat to to children and families….

I do agree that the bill is poorly worded, and at best, misguided. It should be defeated for these reasons, and for the fact that it is probably redundant and superfluous.

At the risk of sounding my own horn…..

My main issue with political action groups, such as the CCF, is this.

They claim to represent the voters, but in reality, they do not. The representatives, and the voters themselves represent the voters. They claim to be part of the solution, but in reality, they are a large part of the problem.

Political action groups usually just represent the money. I resent the fact that small groups of well moneyed, private individuals, claim to represent my interests as a voter, and presume to tell a democratically elected government how things ought to be run.

(Of course, in the real world………….I’m told that things aren’t quite that simple…..:-)

Gotta love arguments based on assumptions. Nothing more than an unsubstantiated slippery slope. I guess it’s not just politicians and marketing agencies who use FUD to promote their own agendas.