California Senate passes groundbreaking legislation SB 777

[LG]

This might be worth making into a 'sticky'.

The California State Senate voted yesterday in favour of legislation that would require schools to portray homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality as positive choices to children.

SB 777 would affect all grades from kindergarten to grade 12, requiring that textbooks, instructional materials and school-sponsored activities refrain from any “discrimination bias” on homosexual issues.

The bill states: “No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias against any person because of a characteristic listed in Section 220. [Section 220 of the Education Code includes “sexual orientation”.] No textbook or other instructional materials shall be adopted by the state board or by any governing board for use in the public schools that reflects or promotes a discriminatory bias against any person because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.”

The measure has been called “sexual indoctrination” by parents and pro-family groups who have expressed outrage that the state government would force blanket pro-homosexual instruction on children without parental permission.

SB 777, authored by lesbian Senator Sheila Kuehl, is similar to legislation vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last session after it passed the legislature. Additional changes to the Education Code put forward by the bill include a definition of gender that is based on “appearance and behavior” instead of a person’s physical characteristics.

Sadly, all the coverage I've found on this has been negative. Parenting groups and conservative organisations have gone into major hissy fits.

Pro-family groups have accused the Republicans of not speaking out, but the latter did vote against the bill, which was passed by a majority strictly split along party lines.

I think it's a step forward. I don't think that people can be "indoctrinated" into becoming gay or TG, but that it is innate, inside them.

Let's hope the Governator doesn't fuck things up for everyone again.

What do you all think? I'm interested in hearing from the California residents especially. Hara?

[Hara_Juku Tgirl]

Thanks for the heads up LG. I do believe that "educating" people about these matters with the introduction of such a bill like this one is a very positive step for the GLBT community againts discrimination. When very young kids are taught and educated to be respectful and understanding of "special people"..Any GLTB kid (provided they already figured out their own sexuality at such a young age) would certainly feel more at ease going to (finishing) school rather than dropping out cos they are being harrassed, beat up etc.

I hope other states could also adopt such bill. ;)

~Kisses.

HTG

[Fox]

I think it's rather strange if they're going to present it as a "positive choice" instead of basically saying "it's not good or bad, it is what it is." I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "indoctrination" though.

I think it's pretty cool and definitely a step in the right direction. When I hear about things like this my faith in humanity rises a little bit; however I'm sure I'll see a YouTube video of someone sticking their head in crocodile's mouth or something.

[LG]

I think it's rather strange if they're going to present it as a "positive choice" instead of basically saying "it's not good or bad, it is what it is." I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "indoctrination" though.

I think it's pretty cool and definitely a step in the right direction. When I hear about things like this my faith in humanity rises a little bit; however I'm sure I'll see a YouTube video of someone sticking their head in crocodile's mouth or something.
What, like this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3sFBBX4Cpk
:lol:

But seriously, thanks to both you and Hara_Juku for the input. I'm just hoping that Conan the Republican doesn't mess things up.

What does everyone else think?

[Fox]

I think it's rather strange if they're going to present it as a "positive choice" instead of basically saying "it's not good or bad, it is what it is." I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "indoctrination" though.

I think it's pretty cool and definitely a step in the right direction. When I hear about things like this my faith in humanity rises a little bit; however I'm sure I'll see a YouTube video of someone sticking their head in crocodile's mouth or something.
What, like this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3sFBBX4Cpk
:lol:

Oh dear, and I just made that up. :lol:

[LG]

I think it's rather strange if they're going to present it as a "positive choice" instead of basically saying "it's not good or bad, it is what it is." I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "indoctrination" though.

I think it's pretty cool and definitely a step in the right direction. When I hear about things like this my faith in humanity rises a little bit; however I'm sure I'll see a YouTube video of someone sticking their head in crocodile's mouth or something.
What, like this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3sFBBX4Cpk
:lol:

Oh dear, and I just made that up. :lol:

I thought you did, but as Einstein said "only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former". :)

Anyway, to everyone: Can we have some more input please?

[muhmuh]

im a little confused here
the first sentence sounds like the bill states that schools should teach that sexuality is a choice which i believe most here will agree is utter bs
the entire rest of it reads like it just says that all passages that present anything else then heterosexuality as something bad should be deleted from textbooks
so what does the bill actually say?
btw whatever it says im not the least bit surprised about the response

[LG]

muhmuh wrote:

im a little confused here
the first sentence sounds like the bill states that schools should teach that sexuality is a choice which i believe most here will agree is utter bs
the entire rest of it reads like it just says that all passages that present anything else then heterosexuality as something bad should be deleted from textbooks
so what does the bill actually say?
btw whatever it says im not the least bit surprised about the response


Don't know what it says excatly. I haven't read it yet, but I will. Most of the news stories are on right-wing and Christian sites that are categorically against it. The news story I quoted is from one such site, although the criticism there was a little more lenient, and I just quoted the first few paragraphs which more or less report the facts rather than give an opinion.

The bill is here:
http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_777&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20070510_amended_sen_v97.pdf

[LG]

Some salient parts of the legislation:

Section 2:
"Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender
identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not
stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.

Section 11:
Section 220 of the Education Code is amended to read:
220.No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis
of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion,
sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in
the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the
Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational
institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial
assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.


Section 37:
Section 66251 of the Education Code is amended to read:
-66251. It is the policy of the State of California to afford all
persons, regardless of disability, gender, nationality, race or
ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other basis that is
contained in the prohibition of hate crimes set forth in subdivision
(a) of Section 422.6 of the Penal Code, equal rights and
opportunities in the postsecondary institutions of the state. The
purpose of this chapter is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that
policy and to provide remedies therefor.

[shotgun]

Like so many other bills, this one seems like another irrelevant attempt at vote-getting. Until I really know what the whole thing says, though, I’ll withhold judgement. We already have non-discriminatory laws on the books, they just need to be enforced.

I don’t think sexual a preference of any kind should be taught as positive or negative, (if it is then it is, indeed, indoctrination) or that it should really be taught at all outside of sex-ed where it belongs. And, it does belong there. When I was is school, sex ed was very basic - nuts and bolts. There was no mention of homosexuality or transexuality and I think that should change. You don’t need to tell school kids whether or not it’s a good choice, just so long as you make them aware of it, and by doing so help lift the stigma.

[LTR_Seeker]

i think anythign to deal with sexual idnetity or anything like that shouldne be taught to little kids in elementaery school in junior high yes & hs but let the kids be kids dont bombard them with stuff they dont even understand & wont understand till their mind matures

[LG]

Like so many other bills, this one seems like another irrelevant attempt at vote-getting. Until I really know what the whole thing says, though, I’ll withhold judgement. We already have non-discriminatory laws on the books, they just need to be enforced.


You may be right. I don't think the bill is as that ambitious but it's a great step forward. And I do think the various news stories had gone a little overboard with their reports.

The bills is here in full:
http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_777&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20070510_amended_sen_v97.pdf

[muhmuh]

so if i caught the drift from those paragraphs you chose its really just about non discriminatory behaviour?
i fail to see how anyone remotely in their right frame of mind could oppose to that

[LG]

so if i caught the drift from those paragraphs you chose its really just about non discriminatory behaviour?
i fail to see how anyone remotely in their right frame of mind could oppose to that

I agree. I looked at it pretty well and did a search, and even though I'm not a lawyer I don't think there is much more to it than what I quoted. The key part for me is:

"Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.

But then again, the rightwingers have gone into hissy fits about it. I'm not sure why.

[Felicia Katt]

so if i caught the drift from those paragraphs you chose its really just about non discriminatory behaviour?
i fail to see how anyone remotely in their right frame of mind could oppose to that

its generally only people in a "right" frame of mind who do. The right wing has been extremely strident in their opposition to any laws that might end the marginalization of the LGBT community. One local school district here in Calfornia was willing to give up 10 million in State Funds, rather than adopt the State's transgender anti-discrimination language into the district's policies.

Sad but true

FK

[LG]

Bump....

Does anyone know what is happening with this? Has Arnie approved the legislation?