Anti-gay Hysteria in California

I have posted in the past about the Christianists’ unhinged reaction to California SB777 which was signed into law and is aimed at making non-discrimination laws applicable in California public schools. Now they seem to be outdoing themselves in terms of hysteria and the dissemination of wild untruths based on this article from World Net Daily (not an exactly balanced news source to start with) that makes all kinds of wild and untrue allegations about the law’s effect. Note the comments of Randy Thomasson who has made a career out of frightening the sheeple so that they will give money to his organization and make it so Randy doesn’t need to ever get a real job. Likewise, Phyllis Schlafly, the mother of a gay child (I guess as a result of her poor parenting skills if you believe the reparative therapy propaganda) cannot pass up the opportunity to chime in. Here are some highlights (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=55808):

Only months after a new state law effectively banned "mom" and "dad" from California schools, 600,000 students soon could be following them out the door because of what has been described as the "repudiation" of 2,000 years of Christian morality, according to leaders of a new campaign assembling education alternatives.

The campaign is called California Exodus and is being headed by Ron Gleason, pastor of Grace Presbyterian Church in Yorba Linda, who said while the country excels in social, economic, scientific and political accomplishments, it "gets low grades on the education of its children."

"First, the law allowed public schools to voluntarily promote homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality. Then, the law required public schools to accept homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual teachers as role models for impressionable children. Now, the law has been changed to effectively require the positive portrayal of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality to six million children in California government-controlled schools," said Randy Thomasson, chief of the Campaign for Children and Families and one of those who originally called for an abandonment of public schools.

Members of the coalition include the Exodus Mandate, which advocates Christian education for children, as well as Eagle Forum, whose president, Phyllis Schlafly, said there has been a great campaign to reform public schools, but it's been unsuccessful.

"Second, the open collaboration between homosexual activists and many school districts, together with the overall level of crime and violence in the public schools, makes the public schools an unsafe place for our children," he said.

Petition Drive To Repeal California Anti-Bully Law Fails

Thankfully, the effort by Christianists in California to initiate a vote to overturn SB 777 which will beef up the laws governing public schools and bullying and anti-gay discrimination. I have previously discussed this topic. While the haters of tolerance and equal treatment for all citizens have filed a law suit as well, at least this phase of their effort to impose their goal of allowing continued, open abuse of LGBT students has failed. Here are some highlights from 365gay.com's coverage (http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/01/011208school.htm):

(Sacramento, California) A conservative Christian group has failed to collect enough signatures to force a vote to repeal a California law protecting students from discrimination, harassment and bullying in publicly-funded schools. Save Our Kids, the organization that spearheaded the referendum effort says it collected over 350,000 signatures to overturn the law - far short of the required 434,000 signatures that had to be turned in on Friday.

The Student Civil Rights Act, passed and signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last year, mandates that teachers and school administrators fully understand their responsibilities to protect LGBT youth. Opponents of the law have claimed it will force schools to "promote homosexuality" and to "persecute Christians who oppose homosexuality".

"Opponents of SB 777 have been spreading misinformation and outright lies for months, and whether they actually collected 350,000 signatures, we will never know," said Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors. "What is clear is that they failed. Despite their vicious attack, Californians stood with us and said 'no' to turning back the clock on civil rights and protecting all youth from discrimination in our schools."

Christianists Seek to Block California Anti-Bias Bill

I have previously done posts on California's recent passage of legislation that would bar discrimination in educational instruction in California public schools bias against groups of people identified in the state's hate crime statute. These protections would extend to the LGBT students. As is all too typical, the Christianists are acting as if the law is requiring they put their mothers to work as prostitutes or something similar given the hysterical manner in which they are reacting. Now, as the New York Times is reporting (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/us/30calif.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=us&adxnnlx=1199042173-VEy7DymxQrebaS2mtR+iow), the Christianist Groups are seeking to subvert the duly enacted law. God forbid that gay students not be subject to abuse and discrimination due to their sexual orientation.

These people disgust me. Note in the highlights below how one of the leading groups hypocritically has the word "freedom" in its name. Its website also promotes the "Christian Nation" myth that I have debunked in prior posts. Their idea of freedom is that they can do whatever they want to whoever they want regardless of how harmful it may be and everyone else has no rights whatsoever. Obviously, they want a free hand to demonize gays and see how many teens they can drive to suicide. So very Christian - NOT. Karen England, one of the Christianist ring leaders is posted above left. Here are some story highlights:

LOS ANGELES — Conservative groups in California are gathering signatures to try to block an anti-discrimination bill because it includes language that would extend protection to public-school students based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, signed the bill in October, but it does not become law until Jan. 1. Opponents have until Jan. 10 to gather 500,000 signatures to put a referendum on the next ballot.

Lawyers for two groups, the Alliance Defense Fund and Advocates for Faith and Freedom, sued the state in a federal court in San Diego soon after the bill was signed to oppose the definition of “gender” and the inclusion of “sexual orientation” in the education code. California defines gender — along with other protected classes like race, nationality, disability and religion — as “actual or perceived.” The groups opposing the bill say that definition could lead to false accusations of discrimination. “This lawsuit argues that the redefinition of gender should be declared unconstitutional because it is too vague,” said Jennifer Monk, a lawyer for Advocates for Faith and Freedom.

“The same concocted concerns could theoretically apply to any of the categories,” said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who filed the motion to intervene on behalf of the two groups. “A student could identify as African-American or Muslim or Jewish, even if others do not perceive that student as such.” Mr. Minter said the complaint by the conservative groups sought to erase protections for only lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youths. “They are simply attacking L.G.B.T. students in California,” he said.

Until now, the definitions of categories like race, nationality, gender and sexual orientation existed only in the hate-crimes statute of the penal code. Educators had to consult education statutes and then cross-reference them with the penal code to navigate anti-discrimination laws. “What this bill did was clean up the code,” Mr. Minter said. “It was not a substantive change to the law.” California legislators amended the hate crimes statute in 1994 to define each of the protected classes as actual or perceived characteristics of identity.