December 5th, 2007

California’s Upcoming Homosexodus

photo credit: kangamini

Beginning next month, SB 777 (PDF) will become law in California. Written by a lesbian Senator and signed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, this bill mandates (among many other things) that a teacher or school not sponsor an activity nor teach something that discriminates against one’s perceived gender status.

A large problem with anti-discrimination initiatives is that they can easily be a veiled attempt to promote the value or principle allegedly being discriminated against. In crafting an anti-discrimination bill, you are in essence enforcing one of two options: teach the value/principle on an equal plane with others, or don’t teach any.

As an example, under this law, California teachers may not teach about “mom and dad” without also teaching about “mom and mom” and “dad and dad”. The other option remains, allowing the teacher to mention none of the above, effectively sanitizing all educational materials from any mention of “traditional families”.

That sanitizing of values and principles leads to the neutrality many lobby for in public education. But as President Hinckley has observed, the result is detrimental to one’s education and the society as a whole:

Neutrality in the teaching of values can only lead to an absence of values. (Gordon B. Hinckley, via Quoty)

The reaction in previous months has been interesting to observe. Some groups have called for a total boycott of public schools in California, while others don’t see a large threat with this new legislation. Uninformed parents are curious as to what the big fuss is about, and wonder why “anti-discrimination laws” are such a bad thing.

But many informed parents are taking action, whether as part of a collective group making a statement, or in silent protest to the direction in which public schools are heading under the auspices of state and federal government.

This action has been called a “homosexodus” by World Net Daily, a clever play on words indicating the potential mass exodus of students because of the homosexual issue.

While larger in scale, this action is not new to California. Many students across the nation participate in “gay day”, or “day of silence”, in which students refrain from talking and pass out promotional materials to rally others to their cause.

In the high school I attended, teachers have participated as well, passing out buttons and ribbons, and even remaining silent themselves.

And thus our public educational institutions have, under federal regulation and NEA oversight, become social indoctrination centers. Wise parents have removed their children from such environments; “Gay day” at my alma mater has also become a Mormon holiday of sorts, with many LDS parents removing their children from school that day.

The next few months will prove quite telling. Will there be an increased public uproar over SB 777? Will there be enough support to overturn the law? Will there indeed by a sizable “homosexodus” from public schools?

Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph. (Haile Selassie, via Quoty)

24 Responses to “California’s Upcoming Homosexodus”

  1. Allie
    December 5, 2007 at 8:31 pm #

    The quote from President HInckley should remind us why it is essential we teach our values to our children at home. That way, no matter what they hear, or don’t hear at school, they’re learning good values.

  2. jasonthe
    December 5, 2007 at 8:38 pm #

    This is the first I’ve read about the law, so I appreciate your bringing bringing it to light. But it doesn’t sound like they are promoting a “neutrality of values” (referring to your Hinckley quote) but rather a set of values different from your own, which you are choosing to judge. I believe Hinckley has also addressed that sort of behavior.

    If you had to, could you sum up in one sentence why this issue upsets you so personally? I’ve picked through the bill a bit, and I don’t see where it “outlaws” the discussion of family, nor where it decalres you the arbiter of what is or isn’t a “family.”

  3. Connor
    December 5, 2007 at 9:09 pm #


    The quote from President HInckley should remind us why it is essential we teach our values to our children at home. That way, no matter what they hear, or don’t hear at school, they’re learning good values.

    This doesn’t satisfy me. I fully agree that we can and should instruct our children with proper principles and values at home. But we should also be in control (or approvingly cognizant) of what they’re taught in external environments.

    As an example: while you can assure that your children are only drinking milk and water when at home, that does not mean it’s okay to send them to the local tavern and let them drink whatever they want. You, as a parent, what to know what they’re drinking when they’re away from home, and exert control over such.

    Similarly, though it is important to teach correct things at home, it is likewise necessary to have influence in and control over what they’re subjected to in their classrooms.


    But it doesn’t sound like they are promoting a “neutrality of values”… but rather a set of values different from your own, which you are choosing to judge.

    Semantics. Enforcing anti-discrimination of a set of values, as I said, either means promoting all of those values, or not mentioning any of them. So they’re not promoting a neutrality, they’re either promoting each of them, or are maintaining neutrality through self-censorship.

    If you had to, could you sum up in one sentence why this issue upsets you so personally?

    One sentence? Hmmm. Here’s a try: This bill is one more arrow in the quiver of the forces that are seeking—whether explicitly or otherwise—to break apart the family, promote values inconsistent with God’s commandments, blur the definitions of gender identity, and indoctrinate children to their agenda.

  4. Allie
    December 5, 2007 at 9:21 pm #

    Maybe it isn’t enough Conner, it just seems to me that too often parents expect schools to take over parental responsibilities.

    I’m not totally sure how I feel about this bill. The first time I heard about it was through an email forward warning me about it (and of course, making it sound EVEN MORE HORRIBLE than it actually is. Email forwards always irritate me, so it wasn’t a good introduction. From what I have read of the bill, it’s not that teachers can’t talk about moms and dads, it’s just text books that have to have equal representation. Maybe I missed something.

    It’s a public school, and if this is what is going to be taught in the public schools, I’d start looking for alternatives. Low admissions would speak louder than any other type of protest.

  5. kory
    December 6, 2007 at 7:32 am #

    It would be nice if schools didn’t talk about social issues- period. If schools could be purely secular and strictly neutral.

    I don’t think Hinckley’s quote is intended to be applied to public educators. Public educators should not be educating our children on social issues- period.

    I attended a christian private school in southern california, and the greatest thing I gained from my private education was just that- education not religion. I remember a 2nd grade teacher talking about Easter in a way I didn’t believe. Her teaching me things I did not believe did not change the teachings I had learned at home. I merely challenged the teacher in class on her beliefs and what she was teaching us.
    That being said, I got a superior education to that which was being offered by the state.

    I agree with Allie, taking kids out of the public educational system, putting them in private education is the best form of protest. Not only that- you’re actually in controll of what your children now learn, as private school teachers don’t have tenure, the principal is more open to parent input as they are directly paying his paycheck.

    Knowing a number public educators in California, many will use this as their oportunity to indoctrinate young minds with their homosexual philosphies, not an opportunity to stop talking about social issues and start teaching our kids how to do basic math.

  6. brother #3
    December 6, 2007 at 9:09 am #

    I’m just glad I got out of there when I did..

  7. L. Brown
    December 7, 2007 at 2:50 pm #

    That’s why I’m going to home school my kids.

  8. Jared
    December 8, 2007 at 7:51 pm #

    I enjoyed this post. Learned about a problem that I am not well acquainted with. It is interesting how laws can become the source of our problems instead of the remedy.

  9. jasonthe
    December 9, 2007 at 1:43 am #

    Just for clarification, Connor, which of God’s commandments does this law “promote inconsistency” with?

  10. Connor
    December 9, 2007 at 8:29 am #


    You will note that I said that this bill is one thing among many that, in combination, promote that inconsistency. Which commandments do such things stand in opposition with? Pretty much any and all that deal with marriage, family, procreation, morality, and virtue.

  11. Carissa
    December 10, 2007 at 12:08 pm #

    I don’t think Hinckley’s quote is intended to be applied to public educators.

    Actually, it is intended to apply to schools. Here is the quote in context…

    You are all too familiar with this litany of urban troubles… You might put more policemen on the beat. You might build more jails. But the problems will largely continue until you get at the root. That root, I believe, lies in two places–in our schools and in our homes. Unless there can be some reformation here, it is not likely to occur anywhere. It will not happen in a day or a year, but it could happen in a generation… What has happened to our schools? There are still many that are excellent, but there are very many that are failing. What has become of the teaching of values? We are told that educators must be neutral in these matters. Neutrality in the teaching of values can only lead to an absence of values. Is it less important to learn something of honesty than to learn something of computer science? What has happened to the discipline we knew? Not the sometimes absurd punishment arbitrarily meted out to a child for a frivolous offense, but the self-discipline which is born of respect for others and an accountability for one’s actions. Discipline is not just a matter of punishment for wrongdoing, but of teaching our youth not to do wrong in the first place.

    (Speech given at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Salt Lake City, Utah, September 25, 1998)

  12. Liberty_or_Death
    December 13, 2007 at 8:17 pm #

    Hmm…that explains why some parents are passing anti-gay Christmas cards regarding SB 777!

    See here.

  13. Martin
    December 15, 2007 at 2:30 am #

    Yeah. This will heat up and already is, such as these parents Christmas caroling last week, while wearing “No Gay Schools” t-shirts in Sacramento to protest SB 777.

  14. Traci Barker-Ball
    December 17, 2007 at 11:27 am #

    As one of the advisors of the Gay-Straight Alliance at your alma mater (and mother to a Mormon daughter), I was very interested to learn more about SB777. At our high school we haven’t been given any directives to change the way we approach teaching. In fact, we haven’t been any directives period. As far as I can tell from reading the bill myself, the bill is intended to keep ALL kids safe in school.

  15. Connor
    December 17, 2007 at 11:56 am #


    There was existing legislation in place in California to “keep kids safe”. This legislation is not about safety. Anti-discrimination movements are, as I argued in the post, quite often indoctrination movements. Instead of seeking to ensure safety for those who might be discriminated against, the fight becomes one of “tolerance” and “acceptance”, encouraging (if not forcing) others (and their children) to embrace and condone a lifestyle with which they disagree.

    Make no mistake – if the referendum is not successful, changes will occur and PHS and every other public school institution. It’s only a matter of time, really.

    If this were truly about discrimination, the legislation would stop right there. Instead, it covers differentiation, mandating that there be no difference (or preference) between lifestyles, sexuality, etc. This, then, is really about indoctrination, for state legislators seek to impose upon public schools what children are to be taught is normal. Values are being transmitted to our children, and under this legislation, those values would take a drastic shift from the traditional, conservative values that many families wish for their children.

  16. Connor
    December 18, 2007 at 10:36 am #

    WND provides a snapshot of what materials will be provided to teachers and encouraged for use:

    A list of school resources, sponsored by a homosexual-advocacy group called Safe Schools Coalition, suggests that for those who are only two years old, there’s “Felicia’s Favorite Story,” which tells how she was “adopted by her two mothers.”

    The list also promotes a book called “Are You a Girl or a Boy?” by Karleen Jiminez, a resource for children ages 4-8 when advocating homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and other alternative lifestyle choices.

    Another “resource” is about “A 10-year-old [who] asks her lesbian grandmother a heartwarming question,” “What’s a lesbian?”

    Others feature stories about a boy who makes a card for his mother “and her partner” for Mother’s Day, and another for “pre-kindergarten” is a coloring book called “Beach Party with Alexis” which is described as “a super story with people of color and gay/lesbian parents.”

    For older children, such as those in fifth grade, there’s a book called “Coping With … Your Sexual Orientation” and it is “especially designed for the public school system.”

    For those as young as age 3, there’s “The Different Dr

  17. joe
    December 27, 2007 at 12:53 am #

    That is so paranoid, do you all intend to keep your children sheltered from the world their entire lives? It reminds me of Fundementalist christians who object to the Wizard of OZ because it mentions a ‘good witch’.

    If your children have any homosexual inclinations at all they will discover it or invent it on their own, even with your protection and teaching you currently provide.

    The LDS church, and many other churches distort information reguarding homosexuality. Many in utah were all behind some anti-homosexual films until they discovered that these were also produced by the same people that produced “The God makers”. I have seen a number of these anti-gay propoganda, and it actually looks more like an advertisement and an invitation than anything else. I also saw the God-makers. In the film it mentions the suicide of a young gay mormon for simply having homosexual attractions. From what I remember he died a virgin.

    On the topic of neutrality, the church is officially neutral.

    ““In light of articles appearing in the media, we reaffirm the position of neutrality taken by the Church, and affirm the long-standing policy that no member occupying an official position in any organization of the Church is authorized to speak in behalf of the Church concerning the Church’s stand on political issues.”

    There is Cognitive dissonance with the statement:

    “Neutrality in the teaching of values can only lead to an absence of values. (Gordon B. Hinckley, via Quoty)”

  18. Connor
    December 27, 2007 at 8:34 am #

    That is so paranoid, do you all intend to keep your children sheltered from the world their entire lives?

    You discuss shelter as if it were a negative thing. I wonder, how do you define shelter? Do you provide a roof for your children to sleep under? How dare you protect them like that! Surely they should fend for themselves from a young age and learn to live on the street and find their own home!

    Sheltering in a psychological sense is very much a key ingredient in parenting (to a certain extent and age), and the lack of protection by parents (i.e. exposing their children to things they shouldn’t) is the sign of a weak parent, not a “liberating” one.

    There is Cognitive dissonance with the statement:

    There is no cognitive dissonance; you are taking the first quote out of context. The affirmed neutrality is in response to supporting politicians and their platforms. The Church very much does get involved and speak out on moral issues of import, thus contradicting your assertion that it remains neutral regarding the teaching of values.

  19. joe
    December 27, 2007 at 12:36 pm #

    I am talking about book banning. Something as innocent as the wizard of OZ has been an object of offensive for some. Evolution is another topic of hot debate. Secular people have strong feelings about alot of topics as well. For instance prayer in school, or moments of silence. Psychological shelter is quite different from trying to shelter students by restricting information. Peoples attempts to try and restrict information usually made me more curious about obtaining information and a variety of opinion. To some degree my parents discouraged this, but at a certain point they valued me for seeking a more varied education, often appreciating what I found.

    The general statement was the the Church REAFFIRMS its LONGSTANDING policy…on political issues. On political issues, not candidates but that would be covered in this statement. So apparently, there is a general policy stated in a variety of context.

    Its double speak. Officals in the church do make statements reguarding political positions. For instance the ERA, the church very widely published statements on this issue. And then told members to “vote their conscience” on the isue. Its subtle, but its not neutral and it is political activism.

  20. Joe
    December 27, 2007 at 8:38 pm #

    I’m sorry, I can see now what I miscommunicated. I did say it was neutral. what I meant to say was neutral about political activities, not about what it teaches internally. yes, thats obvious that it teaches what it teaches.

    I totally missed a larger issue. It sort of sounds like the church expects the public educational system to do part of its job.

    “That sanitizing of values and principles leads to the neutrality many lobby for in public education. But as President Hinckley has observed, the result is detrimental to one’s education and the society as a whole:

    Neutrality in the teaching of values can only lead to an absence of values. (Gordon B. Hinckley, via Quoty)”

    I don’t know that this is detrimental to ones education, what is the evidence?

    I am also curious about the age of accountability. Isn’t that generally considered to be the age of 8? Isn’t this the time when children start making choices for themselves, and form their identity? Is the idea that children have enough reasoning skills to determine for themselves whats right and wrong? How does this balance with exposure to ideas which are outside of the lds faith? Its not good for children to live in a vacuum. Actually, I hope that the lds people don’t attempt to do this.

    How does political activity balance with the 11th article of faith? “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

    I imagine this extends to all philosophical thought

  21. Janet
    December 28, 2007 at 7:55 pm #

    You rock! The discussion here is in theory. Let me tell you about for real… One of the most disgusting assignments that any of my 6 children and 7 step-children ever brought home was a test on the proper names for the sexual positions that gay men use to copulate. The teacher told the class not to tell their parents about the assignment. Well the kids told.

    I tried to rally support to discipline the teacher. Some of the LDS parents didn’t want to make waves and said that I needed to be a little more cavalier about the topic… That was about eight years ago. Now I see some of their children on facebook – some of them are gay. Their parents are grieving; their not cavalier anymore.

    I don’t recall ever being taught about sexual positions for straight couples. What gives? Why is any of this taught in school? What happened to math, science, reading and history? No wonder we are falling behind the rest of the world in our education. There isn’t any time left to teach anything that is of value because we are too busy teaching crap.

    No matter how you feel about this issue, all I can say is that you had better keep a watchful eye on any, no all people who teach and influence your children. Appropriate sheltering can pay big dividends

  22. joe
    December 28, 2007 at 10:34 pm #

    I find that story difficult to believe. Are you sure that you, your children or the other parents aren’t using selective attention on this topic? Was this part of some sexual education program? That doesn’t sound like anything appropriate to me, as you present it. When I received the public schools sex education it was really dry technical information, like the chemistry of the hormones involved in ovulation.

    Yes, what did happen to math, science, reading and history? Hopefully those can be taught in a manner informs and does not violated anyones right to free inquiry. Some want evolution to be removed from textbooks, or at least have ‘intelligent design’ included along side. There is potential bias on any topic, historical accounts certainly can have a bias.

  23. Connor
    March 10, 2008 at 2:40 pm #

    I just ran across this list showing the schools that will allegedly take place in this year’s “day of silence”. The list is loooong.

    Page two has the second half of the alphabet. Utah, it should be noted, only has a handful of schools participating.

  24. Mark N.
    October 14, 2008 at 11:29 am #

    It’s been a year now since the Governor of CA signed this into law. I can’t recall hearing anything horrendous having taken place since that time as a result of this. Just wondering if I’m out of the loop or what.

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.