| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
My recent post on this subject is generating a lot of interest. To recap, Gov. Schwartzennegger has just signed bill SB 1441, that ties funding to a repression of free speech in all schools, public and private:
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has tossed out all sexual moral conduct codes at colleges, private and Christian schools, daycare centers and other facilities throughout his state, if the institutions have any students who get state assistance.
The governor yesterday signed a bill that would require all businesses and groups receiving state funding -- even if it's a state grant for a student -- to condone homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.
One of the responses to the post was sheer disbelief. From comments posted on Digg:
Inaccurate as hell. Please pass it on.
...and:
There is a bill out there, waiting for his signature. I hope this is inaccurate or it will be headed for the Supreme Court.
(A quick trip to Google news turns up numerous confirming articles.)
Another response has been well-considered. One of my favorite bloggers, Rob Port at Say Anything, has posted a discussion of the article. An excerpt:
A Violation Of The Establishment Clause?
I don't think this [links to my post] probably is.
Here is the establishment clause of the 1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...If these schools/religious organizations fail to condone homosexuality, etc. the state of California won't close them down, they'll simply withhold funding. These schools and religious organizations would be free to continue to exist, but they wouldn't get government funding.
In the comments, Rob adds:
The government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Nothing says they have to fund it.
Rob appears to agree with me in principal on the issue, but just questions whether the bill is unconstitutional:
Personally, I don't exactly like the idea of government bullying private schools and organizations in this manner, but this is the situation we have left ourselves in by becoming so dependent upon money from the government.
I agree with Rob on almost everything, and as always he's making great points here.
The argument, of course, turns on the meaning of the word "prohibit," and says, the government isn't prohibiting something by defunding it. A reasonable argument.
But I would respond that it needs to be remembered that the the subject of sexuality is only one of hundreds or thousands that is taught in schools. By legislating that all funding for the school as a whole will be removed if the school does not teach the view demanded by the state on one specific subject, the bill leverages the full financial power of the state against one single issue. The school must lose all its state funding, and all its students who receive loans from the state, or teach a view that the state demands. This overwhelming leverage may be considered prohibitive.
Now, let's turn to the freedom of speech issue, which Rob did not address, and which cannot be denied. When the subject comes up in class, schools are ordered to say something the state demands, even if the teachers themselves do not believe it, or lose state funding. This is not equivalent to saying that public schools may not say anything good about religion, as has previously been demanded under the false interpretation of the establishment clause of the Constitution. This goes far beyond that, by suppressing all discussion within a school on one side of the subject, and permitting only views approved by the state to be spoken aloud. Under this bill, the expression of a view on this subject that is not permitted by the state, will have dire consequences. And this is on a subject about which reasonable people in this country disagree. This is a massive and insupportable attack on freedom of speech, and it must not stand.
In practice, it will inevitably lead to schools being forced, not only not to say a view that contradicts that of the state, but to actively say things that the teachers do not believe. This is because, under the bill, only those supporting the state-approved view on this subject, will be able to speak their minds. All others would not be permitted to speak their minds. If they do they will meet massive, overwhelming punishment in the form of defunding by the state. Yet the subject will come up in class. It is inevitable that in practice the institutions would be forced to demand that all professors "profess" to believe as the state demands, whether they do or not. It's completely unsupportable under the freedom of speech guarantees of our Constitution.
Finally, lets turn to the so-called discrimination issue. Proponents of the bill argue that it's a matter of eliminating discrimination against homosexuals.
Here's how Randy Thomasson, President of the Campaign for Children and Families, put it in a debate yesterday carried on Fox TV:
It's a deception to say this is about quote unquote discrimination. Look who's being victimized: Christian colleges, day care centers, even after school programs. If they take a dime of state money, and we're talking about state scholarships for students, we're talking about child care vouchers for single moms, those institutions, those colleges, those schools, will no longer be able to say or uphold the standards that they support for marriage, family, and sexuality. Mr. Kors' bill is basically gonna force Christian colleges to hire men dressed up as women as professors, and this is a gigantic clash between church and state, and the religious values are being swept asunder by the gay activists' agenda. It's absolutely intolerant.
Video of Debate between Randy Thomasson and Geoffrey Kors.
The bill itself is discriminating against people based on their beliefs. It's discriminating against people based on their religion. It's discriminating against all who don't believe as the state demands. It discriminates against all who want to teach their children that being homosexual isn't appropriate for them. As an audience member shown in the above video puts it, to applause:
Well you know, I feel sexual orientation is nothing like the color of your skin, or nationality, and I get sick of it getting shoved down my throat.
So the discrimination argument is full of holes because the bill itself is discriminating against millions of people.
This bill has got to be challenged on freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and establishment clause grounds.
#1
#2Ruth, it seems to me that the statement is accurate, as shown extensively in the post. Please present your reasons for saying that the statement you quoted from the post isn't true.
#3Your post is extensive, but it offers absolutely no support for that claim.
The text of SB 1441 is available online. Please cite the passage which orders schools to say something the state demands.
There is no such passage. You made it up.
#4Ruth, I read the bill prior to posting. I see where you're coming from; you just don't realize what the ramifications of the bill can be. The bill applies to any "activities" that "discriminate." That means that people who believe that homosexuality is not appropriate for their students, aren't allowed to say so, and aren't allowed to make policy that says so. From the Washington Times:
The new law will "force religious colleges to either abandon their biblical standards on sexuality or reject students with state financial aid," said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families.
Numerous Christian colleges, such as Westmont College, Shasta Bible College, Trinity Law School and William Jessup University, asked Mr. Schwarzenegger to veto the bill, he said.
Day care centers, businesses and nonprofits that contract with the state or take state vouchers will be forced to choose between promoting homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality within their operations and work forces, including hiring practices, or forfeiting state funding, said Ron Prentice, chief executive of the California Family Council.
#5That means that people who believe that homosexuality is not appropriate for their students, aren’t allowed to say so, and aren’t allowed to make policy that says so.
You claimed that schools will be "forced, not only not to say a view that contradicts that of the state, but to actively say things that the teachers do not believe."
These are two separate claims:
1. "forced... not to say a view that contradicts that of the state"
2. "forced... to actively say things that the teachers do not believe"
Your response only addresses claim #1. I asked about claim #2.
You have yet to offer any evidence to support claim #2. You have only repeated it.
#6Ruth
You can lick the carpet with your partner, in the comfort and privacy of your own home all you want. You can also recruit CONSENTING ADULTS all you want. You are welcome to derride in the Convertible in the San Diego Gay Pride Parade advertising, "Rent-a-boy" ... Free country, do what you want, .... but not with my kids.
When the State of California GAY LESBIAN activist lobby and Causcus in the STATE LEGISLATURE has systematically erected a contrived apparatus to forcibly teach children (required by law to be in those state supported schools) with propaganda and details about the wonderfulness of the homosexual lifestyle starting in Kindergarden, it's indoctrination & oppression of the non wealthy classes who disagree. Companion bills are:
"SB 1437, which requires editing textbooks and other materials to give only positive references to homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality and transvestitism, was approved on a nearly party-line vote of 47-31 (46 Democrats and one Republican for; 30 Republicans and one Democrat against) after a Republican-sponsored amendment to require parental permission failed 26-48. The bill was sponsored by lesbian activist state Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), a former actress who is the driving force behind the legislative homosexual agenda. Earlier this month, in the face of a promised veto by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), Kuehl removed a portion of the bill that would have forced all California public schools to teach the "history and achievements" of homosexuals in America.
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles), who floor-managed SB 1437, said in his floor statement that the bill was about the "safety" of "sexual minority kids." He said that the schools had an obligation to prohibit anything that, as the bill puts it, "reflects adversely" on homosexuality. "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.
Other bills on the way to the Governor:
AB 606, sponsored by Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys), would give the state superintendent of schools the power to withhold funds to schools that do not establish and publicize antidiscrimination policies based on "gender identity" and "sexual orientation." It also authorizes the creation of new curricula to promote acceptance of all manner of sexual activity to schoolchildren. As of Tuesday, the bill was on the Senate floor.
AB 1056, sponsored by Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park), would authorize $250,000 for a "tolerance education" voluntary pilot program at several schools that would effectively outlaw any expression of traditional values, including a preference for marriage. As of Tuesday, the bill was on the Senate floor. "What's voluntary today becomes mandatory tomorrow," said Cindy Moles, CWA California state director.
Ruth, Explain to everyone, in detail, the prognosis of what happens when a Bisexual male who's male partner has a common condition the medical community calls "Gay Bowel Syndrom" meets him for "breakfast" then licks your carpet for lunch ... just for the fun of it, prognosis in detail. Then there's the prevalence of Gay Domestic Violence, Gay divorce in the Netherlands (avg. gay marriage 2 years), prevalence of rampant promiscuity and the lovely odds of STD's, emotional problems related to promiscuity etc. etc.
Perhaps "Honesty in advertising laws" should require describing THAT in detail in the public schools also, don't you think ?
Just Maybe, based on the outcome odds for a successful happy life, a parent wants an alternative to "the gay lifestyle" for their child, and away from recruiting propaganda.
The wealthy parents, (either send their kids to private school), OR, semi-control their elementary and secondary districts with large 501(c)3 Educational Foundations with the power of the purse to withold millions if the local district adminstration or curriculum gets too overboard in curriculum for gay recruiting.
The middle class and lower middle class, - just getting by - , have few options on where to send their kids, if those kids parents who do all the child rearing, working and paying and dying, want a gay free curriculum in a system that is failing to teach basic academic skills NOW, it should be fought in court, on multiple levels.
#7Ruth: ... (continued)
Before 1985 you almost never heard about the Gay Lifestyle in Schools or in politics, ... now it's all you hear about.
I think an adequate legal case can be made that the public schools in California, through an enormously wastelful and unnaccountable state educational beauracracy in Sacramento, is guilty of Malfeasance, political graft, corruption, criminal neglect and derelict in providing an adequate basic education to students, ( From First to Worst ) and should be dismantled giving curriculum funding and taxing authority to support the schools back to the districts ... you know the way it used to be when California Schools were first in the nation.
Here's an ananlysis from one of those "Private Schools" for the wealthy and the gifted, Stanford University's Hoover Institute "The Whole Enchilada"
I really don't expect an open and honest discussion of the issue from you Ruth, but I was with pleasure to answer, in detail, your disingenuous demand for detail.
Troll on Ruth
#8When the State of California GAY LESBIAN activist lobby and Causcus in the STATE LEGISLATURE has systematically erected a contrived apparatus to forcibly teach children
Whoa, slow down. Dr. Freud is still meeting with the guy who's sick of having sexual orientation shoved down his throat.
I really don’t expect an open and honest discussion of the issue from you Ruth, but I was with pleasure to answer, in detail, your disingenuous demand for detail.
I must have missed that part. Where did you offer evidence to support Vik's claim #2?
#9Ruth:
You must have been raised in the California public schools,
so apparrently you can't read.
#10And just who is this "Driving Force" in the California Gay/Lesbian Caucus that sponsors all this legislation ?
Sheila Kuehl - actress , (what else), and Lesbian Activist, of Sanata Monica, of 1960 Dobby Gilles fame and sometime extra on "the Beverly Hillbillies"
#11Carpetmuncher Ruth:
Vic already answered your question. "This is because, under the bill, only those supporting the state-approved view on this subject, will be able to speak their minds. All others would not be permitted to speak their minds. If they do they will meet massive, overwhelming punishment in the form of defunding by the state."
Will you shut up now?
#12That's an example of Vik repeating claim #1. It is not evidence to support claim #2.
#13Ruth:
Troll,
Your intellectual dishonesty is only surpassed by your disingenous "Stakeout" of a strawman proposition.
Ten years of Trolls like you on the "net" and their is nothing new under the sun to see or hear from you.
This part isn't for Ruth's benefit, it's for the rest of you. Don't expect an honest discussion from her.
It's well established in California as part of the Gay/Lesbian alliance that this is just one piece in the fabric to set the stage to
-- Bring lawsuits (which bankrupt by sheer process not verdict, defendants) -- mainly against Church sponsored groups that oppose the gay/lesbian "moral equivalency" propaganda machine,
-- it's about punishing your opponents
-- There's no choice in paying taxes, once this revenue is controlled by the Gang of 46, the state Senate Dem.'s now your schools are really screwed.
-- SB 1411 is part and parcel of the Companion Bills, which sets the stage for the punitive phase clearly printed above, but primarily SB 1437 outlawing any speech not "positive" to gay lesbian issues
-- AB 606 making it cause for with-holding funds if you are say Westmont College that prohibits hiring active Gay Lesbian and Transgender staff and professors based on their religous convictions.
Therefore want to go to Berkeley about $10,000 in State fund scholarships, Want to go to Westmont $0,
It's part of an effort to attempt to extinguish these institutions by death of a thousand cuts.
It's pernicious, calculated and has been going on for a long time in California, Until Grey Davis, California always had an adult in the room as governor to veto all the crap passed on party line vote. Ahhhhnold is just a fiscally grown-up version of Grey.
Rock on Troll Ruth.
When the subject comes up in class, schools are ordered to say something the state demands, even if the teachers themselves do not believe it, or lose state funding.
Repeating a false statement does not make it true. When you are unable to make your case without misrepresenting the facts, it suggests you realize the facts are not on your side.
Well you know, I feel sexual orientation is nothing like the color of your skin, or nationality, and I get sick of it getting shoved down my throat.
Uh huh. Paging Dr. Freud. Sometimes the anti-gay brigade is simply beyond parody.