Jill and Jill Ran Up The Hill

blog

Posted by Connor on August 21st, 2006

From the Campaign for Children and Families:

The Democrat-controlled California State Assembly today passed SB 1437, one of four bills that would sexually indoctrinate schoolchildren and college students. SB 1437 would alter K-12 public education textbooks, instructional materials, and school-sponsored activities to positively reference transsexuality, transvestitism, bisexuality, and homosexuality, including homosexual “marriage.” The Assembly floor vote was 46-31 (five more than needed to achieve a 41-vote majority). SB 1437 now goes to the state Senate for a concurrence vote.

Immediately before the debate, a Republican-offered amendment requiring schools to acquire parental permission before sexual curriculum was taught to their own children failed on a 26-48 vote. …

In his opening remarks, Democrat Fabian Nunez, the Assembly Speaker and the bill’s floor jockey, openly said the real purpose of SB 1437 is to outlaw traditional perspectives on marriage and family in the state school system. “The way that you correct a wrong is by outlawing. ‘Cause if you don’t outlaw it, then people’s biases tend to take over and dominate the perspective and the point of view,” Nunez said.

And, in his close, Nunez admitted that SB 1437 will promote lesbianism to young girls. “If somebody wants to teach kids in kindergarten that Jack and Jill ran up a hill, this bill doesn’t prohibit that. But it does say that if somebody wants to say that if Jill and Jill ran up the hill and somehow that’s wrong — then this bill says that that is not acceptable,” said Nunez.

Some form of homeschooling my (future) children is looking more and more enticing… When people ask why I don’t move back to CA, I cite two reasons: astronomical real estate prices, and a jacked up school system. I’ve heard countless stories of the things taught in sex-ed classes, “gay solidarity days”, and school assemblies. This is getting out of control, and there is no way I would let my child be subjected to and indoctrinated by a liberal school system such as this. California is going to hell in a handbasket.

Did you enjoy this article? Read Latter-day Liberty!

***************

6 comments so far. Care to chime in?

I read about this[1] the other day, and it seems pretty neutral to me:

“No instructional materials shall be adopted by any
governing board for use in the schools that, in its determination,
contains:

(a) Any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of their
race or ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual
orientation, or religion”

Notice how it says persons. I try to follow that myself, really. If schoolbooks explain the facts relating to different sexual orientations, that’s really all I think they should say. I don’t think it is really proper to “reflect adversely on persons” just because they do bad things. And its really not my job, nor the job of the school system to make these sort of judgements on people. :)

[1] http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1437_bill_20060807_amended_asm.html

#1 John | August 22nd, 2006 9:24 AM

At what point does this become ridiculous? Watering down all lessons and textbooks so as not to discriminate against or offend anybody? Neutralizing all content to make it politically correct and unoffensive is absurd.

I do not see fit to let my child be taught how to use condoms on cucumbers. I do not want my child being taught that homosexuality is acceptable, and just as normal as heterosexuality. I do not want my child to be given diagrams in class illustrating oral and anal sex. These things happen in schools in California.

The first step to condoning and/or promoting an issue is to prevent anybody from “reflecting adversely” upon it. Once that is outlawed, anything goes.

I don’t want that for my children. I want to have a say in what they are taught. I want them taught true and correct principles. That is not to say I will shield them from other opinions, beliefs, and circumstances; that would only shelter them and hinder growth and progression. But I will not let them be taught that such things are condoned, accepted, and natural.

#2 Connor | August 22nd, 2006 9:35 AM

Read the bill again: its not for anything, it’s against negative connotations placed on people “because of their race or ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion.”

That’s basically a secular way of saying “describe the sin and not the sinner.” It has nothing to do with being PC or non-offensive and everything with being positive about people in general. For example, I now have two cousins that are gay. I’ve known these two for years, and they are not bad, stupid people – but what they are doing sure is.

Now, these other sex-ed scenarios are pretty bad, and I agree with you there, but they don’t seem very related to this bill.

The first step to condoning and/or promoting an issue is to prevent anybody from “reflecting adversely” upon it.

This bill isn’t about creed or ethnicity or sexual orientation, it is about people. It doesn’t seem to be about reflecting adversely (or positively, as you seem to say) on orientation, its more about reflecting adversely on people who are a certain orientation.

I will not let them be taught that such things are condoned, accepted, and natural.

I totally agree, but this bill doesn’t seem to bring that across. It’s not condoning or promoting anything. The way I’m reading it, it prevents discrimination.

#3 John | August 22nd, 2006 1:02 PM

Read the bill again: its not for anything, it’s against negative connotations placed on people…

I feel that the two are inseparably intertwined. By being against something, you’re inherently for something, which usually is the opposite of that which you are against. If I’m against smoking in public places, that means I’m for not smoking in public places.

So following that line of thinking, being against “reflecting adversely upon persons” means this bill is for “reflecting positively upon persons”. As I see it, there is no middle ground.

This bill isn’t about creed or ethnicity or sexual orientation, it is about people. It doesn’t seem to be about reflecting adversely (or positively, as you seem to say) on orientation, its more about reflecting adversely on people who are a certain orientation.

As clichÃ© as it sounds, “hate the sin and love the sinner” is a good motto to follow, yet hard to enforce, as the government seems to want to do here.

The problem with all of this is society’s perception of the moral nature of homosexuality. The lesbian author of this bill wishes to push her views more into the mainstream. Since our republic has become a representative democracy, she can do that. America has lost the moral underpinnings with which it was founded, and for that reason (among others), it will begin to crumble.

Being against discrimination is a nice stance to take; it is not, however, one that should be enforced by the government. It should be a lifestyle, mindset, and personal characterstic cultivated by people voluntarily—not mandated and coerced by the government through textbook indoctrination.

I’m not saying that our textbooks should say “this person is bad because they were homosexual”. I’m saying that enforcing this through law opens a conduit for mandating positive references to such individuals, which leads to further indoctrination.

I will not allow my children to be taught that these acts and lifestyles are positive and natural. I’m glad that Senator Kuehl amended her bill to remove the mandate to positively reference and cite contributions of GLBT persons in our society. However, I am still opposed to the bill as it currently reads, because by outlawing negative references, positive ones are condoned and promoted.

#4 Connor | August 22nd, 2006 1:28 PM

I feel that the two are inseparably intertwined. By being against something, you’re inherently for something, which usually is the opposite of that which you are against.

This opposite in this case is never speaking bad about anyone. I don’t know that Christ did.

Being against discrimination is a nice stance to take; it is not, however, one that should be enforced by the government. It should be a lifestyle, mindset, and personal characterstic cultivated by people voluntarily—not mandated and coerced by the government through textbook indoctrination.

What exactly is being mandated, coerced or indoctrinated here?

Where exactly does it say that children will be taught that certain creeds, religions or sexual orientations are positive and natural?

This outlaws negative references to people, not certain practices.

#5 John | August 23rd, 2006 5:03 PM

So are you advocating that certain religious beliefs should be allowed to be advocated in public schools?

If not, then you are being a hypocrit because the notion that homosexuality is a sin is a religious belief.

If so, then how would you feel about a religious person advocating and teaching their beliefs about the sacredness of homosexual relationships?

#6 the narrator | August 23rd, 2006 10:40 PM