Read below for the latest idiocy to come out of California. What next?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California
Schwarzenegger signs law outlawing terms perceived as negative to 'gays'

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.

"We are shocked and appalled that the governor has blatantly attacked traditional family values in California," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

"With this decision, Gov. Schwarzenegger has told parents that their values are irrelevant. Many parents will have no choice but to pull their children out of the public schools that have now become sexualized indoctrination centers."

"Arnold Schwarzenegger has delivered young children into the hands of those who will introduce them to alternative sexual lifestyles," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, which worked to defeat the plans. "This means children as young as five years old will be mentally molested in school classrooms.

"Shame on Schwarzenegger and the Democrat politicians for ensuring that every California school becomes a homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination center," he said.

Analysts have warned that schools across the nation will be impacted by the decision, since textbook publishers must cater to their largest purchaser, which often is California, and they will be unlikely to go to the expense of having a separate edition for other states.

The bills signed by Schwarzenegger include SB777, which bans anything in public schools that could be interpreted as negative toward homosexuality, bisexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.

There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however.

"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values," said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. "These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured.

"Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic – not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation," she said.

Also signed was AB394, which targets parents and teachers for such indoctrination through "anti-harassment" training, CCF said.

Schwarzenegger had vetoed almost identical provisions a year ago, saying existing state law already provided for penalties for discrimination.

"We had hoped that the governor would once again veto this outrageous legislation but he obviously decided to side with the out-of-touch extremists that control the legislature. This law does not reflect the true values of the average Californian," said England. "True leadership means standing up for what is true and right."

Thomasson said SB777 prohibits any "instruction" or school-sponsored "activity" that "promotes a discriminatory bias" against "gender" – the bill's definition includes cross-dressing and sex changes – as well as "sexual orientation."

"Because no textbook or instruction in California public schools currently disparages transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality, the practical effect of SB777 will be to require positive portrayals of these sexual lifestyles at every government-operated school," CCF noted.

Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.

CCF noted that now on a banned list will be any text, reference or teaching aid that portrays marriage as only between a man and woman, materials that say people are born male or female (and not in between), sources that fail to include a variety of transsexual, bisexual and homosexual historical figures, and sex education materials that fail to offer the option of sex changes.

Further, homecoming kings now can be either male or female – as can homecoming queens, and students, whether male or female, must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room corresponding to the sex with which they choose to identify.

AB394 promotes the same issues through state-funded publications, postings, curricula and handouts to students, parents and teachers.

It also creates the circumstances where a parent who says marriage is only for a man and a woman in the presence of a lesbian teacher could be convicted of "harassment," and a student who believes people are born either male or female could be reported as a "harasser" by a male teacher who wears women's clothes, CCF said.

Thomasson said Schwarzenegger also signed AB14, which prohibits state funding for any program that does not support a range of alternative sexual practices, including state-funded social services run by churches.

Affected will be day cares, preschool or after-school programs, food and housing programs, senior services, anti-gang efforts, jobs programs and others.

Thomasson said it also forces every hospital in California – even private, religious hospitals – to adopt policies in support of transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality and opens up nonprofit organizations to lawsuits if they exclude members that engage in homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual conduct.

"It's the height of intolerance to punish individuals, organizations, businesses, and churches that have moral standards on sexual conduct and sexual lifestyles," said Thomasson, in response to the signing of AB14. "This is another insensitive law that violates people's moral boundaries."

The vitriol over the issue rose to new levels in its latest campaign.

As WND reported, a board member for the homosexual advocacy group Equality California verbally attacked and threatened CRI for its opposition to the bill earlier.

The board member sent an e-mail and video to CRI threatening the group would be buried if it continued efforts opposing the homosexual advocacy.

"The shocking hate mail we received shows that those behind this legislation do not promote true tolerance," said England. "Only politically correct speech will be tolerated. Those with religious or traditional moral beliefs will not be allowed to express their opinions in public schools."

She also cited an informational document published by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center that already is lobbying for special treatment in the school system.

"If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity … you should be allowed to do so," it advises. "Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible."

Further, the groups advise, "If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you." The advocacy group also warns schools against bringing parents into any such discussion with students.

WND has documented a number of earlier cases in which educators, including leaders in California, have taken it upon themselves to promote a homosexual lifestyle to children under their charge.

WND reported California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, under whose supervision hundreds of thousands of children are being educated, has used his state position and taxpayer-funded stationery to praise a "gay" pride event used in the past to expose children to sexually explicit activities.

That drew vehement objections from several educators, including Priscilla Schreiber, the president of the Grossmont Unified High School District governing board.

"I am outraged that a person in this high-ranking elected position would advocate an event where diversity is not just being celebrated but where pornography and indecent exposure is being perpetrated on the young and innocent children of our communities," she said. "

Wow, that's messed up.

Only in California...

Our country has become a complete joke. I am truly ashamed. I think revolution will be the only way to get us back on track.........

This is absolutely unbelievable.

It's beyond insanity.

Can we wrap Arnold up and ship him back to Austria, please?

WAAAAAAH!

The bill doesn't ban "Mom and Dad" nor "husband and wife."

Leave it to World Net Daily to lie.

For example:



Uh...yes there are. They were already there. In any case, the amended says "sexual orientation." Sexual orientation doesn't mean just gay or lesbian. It means ALL of them.

Basically, the amendments prevent any negative thing said about ANYONE based on the usual suspects - race, religion, ethnicity, etc. The conservatives are just up in arms because "sexual orientation" is in there - even though that INCLUDES heterosexual.

Maybe everyone (including World Net Daily, apparently) should READ the bill before bitching.

Oh, and "sex" is replaced by "gender" when it refers to a man or woman. Big fucking deal.

I've always said that Arnold was a fraud. He has never been a conservative and he is a phony Republican.

The entire state of California is governed by nothing but complete insanity.

Why don't you post links to the bills if you have read them Moby.

If you are disagreeing with the source given here, then surely you must have read the bills. Did you?

I can't believe anyone gives a shit. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

SB 777

AB 14

AB 394

Show me where it says ANY of what WND is claiming.

Section 212.6. of 777 states: "Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality,
or bisexuality.

Are these the actual bills signed into law by Arnold Shithead?

I don't see anywhere that says these copies are the ones that were signed.

Also, do the cross out marks represent his use of the line item veto?

After looking over the bills, I conclude that almost everything WND is saying will be true down the road based on these bills.

The wording of the bills don't contain the wording of the WND article, but that isn't the point. They don't have to contain that wording.

These bills will be the basis and blueprint for new policy going forward.

For example.... Someone will sue the school district because they think those terms such as "Mom and Dad" are discriminatory against gay couples. Based on this legislation, the CA courts will agree.

I don't see anything that WND claims that is not possible under the laws.

Here...updated versions:

AB 394

AB 14

SB 777

Again...show me where those things are mentioned. These are the versions that were sent to the Governor. I seriously doubt he (or ANYONE) is going to ad: "Man and Woman are banned. Husband and wife are banned!"

Yeah...right.

WND playing the fearmongering game. Seems to be a recurring theme.

The fact remains, Madman...that the WND flat out lies. In particular the line I highlighted before:

I already stated that the bans on such terms don't have to be mentioned in the bill. You know that.

The bill is a blueprint for policy and future lawsuits that will result in such bans in school textbooks.

All of these bills are nothing but complete insanity.

Actually that statement is very true.

These bills are very radical and provide a complete blueprint for the removal of any traditional value from public education.

It also seems like they pose ominous implications for any private business licensed by the state of California.

So which part of Section 212.6. do you and WND not understand?

Section 212.6 of 777: "Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.

regardless of the semantics over which the two of you are arguing, you're leaving one important element out.

We should not be exposing kids to this shit at such a young age. I can't be seen as anything but indoctrination, and in most cases, this will teach tolerance and acceptance of moral beliefs that I believe the majority of families still hold sacred.

It's hard enough to be a parent and instill values in kids. It's a helluva lot harder when the idiots in the public schools are contradicting what you're teaching them.

I shouldn't have to let my adolescent be taught how wonderful these 'alternative' lifestyles are and then think it's pefectly fine for boys to wear prom dresses and use the girls room. I also wouldn't want a daughter in the same restroom as some mentally ill boy who thinks he's a girl.

When was it that 'don't ask, don't tell' became a bad idea?

I get in huge arguments with my 17YO daughter over the crap they condone in schools even here in Arizona. Schools are becoming a moral wasteland.

=====
hyperbole - noun
exaggeration: deliberate and obvious exaggeration used for effect, e.g. "I could eat a million of these"
=====

They might as well call these "Madmanisms".

Wow, thank goodness we have you to interpret the State of California's "real" meaning for us. :rolleyes:

And BTW, you're a hypocrite. On the one hand you not only dismiss the AP story about al-Maliki's "U.S. can go home anytime" remarks, you claim they fabricated the whole thing. Then you put complete faith in the WorldNetDaily on this deal. Oh, right, it serves your agenda. I get it now.

Why do focus on this one tiny section?

These bills ban anything that can interpreted as negative or intolerant of homosexuality, bisexuality or any type of "perceived" gender or sexuality issue.

Or more correctly, they can, and will be used to ban numerous things in the CA educational system.

One section that will dictate policy and create a plethora of lawsuits by the homosexual activists to conform to their agenda is....

That statement right there will be the basis for a plethora of lawsuits designed to control the language and curriculum in CA schools to conform to these activist's agenda.

The words "perceive" and "perception" have no business being included in any law. The latitude for interpretation and judicial activism is almost unlimited.

Add the following section and any claim of discrimination can be made for any terms used in text and even any activities that may take place in a school.

Then take a look at the following section in the bill AB 394....

That is basically a blueprint for a complete overhaul and forced indoctrination.

There is also a most troubling aspect of this where a person being accused of discrimination does not have to face their accuser.

The law even sets up a Gestapo to oversee all of this across the state.

This is complete bullshit and the squashing of people's liberties all disguised as "tolerance" and non-discrimination.

There is so much that is wrong with these bills.

I never said I put complete faith in the WND article. I merely said they make some good points. Many of the points they made will most likely come true after new policies are set because of these laws and the future lawsuits that will be filed based on these laws that will set further policy.

So cut your bullshit Bluesky.

You are still whining like a little girl about a discussion from months ago. Grow the fuck up Bluesky.

Here we go again. See, when I said Cindy Sheehan "had some good points", the next thing I knew, according to you I was worshiping at a Cindy Sheehan shrine. But when YOU do the same thing, it's cool.

I promised to call you on your hypocritical BS every time I saw it, and I'm keeping my word. Get used to it.

You're just ridiculous.

Amusing, but ridiculous.

P.S. Glad I'm not annoying you or anything.

I've said absolutely nothing hypocritical here, so you are full of shit.

What's this with not letting go of past arguments? Are you sure you're not a woman?

Personal attacks are not productive, Madman. Sure is good to know I'm annoying you though.

Fuckin eh!!.

Oh did I mention? I Like Turtles