California Bill Is ‘Sexual-Agenda Bomb,’ Group Says Randy Hall April 7, 2006

Legislation approved Wednesday by the California Senate Judiciary Committee is “a sexual-agenda bomb dressed up as a child-caring Easter egg,” a conservative group charged.

SB 1437, which would amend the state’s education code by adding the words “gender” and “sexual orientation” to its anti-discrimination policy, would force school districts to “teach school children as young as kindergarten to accept and embrace transsexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality in all its forms,” according to Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families (CCF).

. . . more


27 thoughts on “California Bill Is ‘Sexual-Agenda Bomb,’ Group Says”

  1. There are problems with the existing laws anyhow. What exactly are the requirements when it comes to national origin or ancestry? Simply stating facts can sometimes be labeled “bias” if the facts don’t portray a particular group in a favorable light, and this can be done with just about any population. Even if words denoting value judgments are not used (such as “oppressive” or “aberrant”), a heavy emphasis (or one-sided emphasis) on factual information can be misleading (think about a focus on Catholicism in the Middle Ages or the use of violence by some black civil rights activists in the 60s). Who determines what is “adverse” material? I’m not sure anything is learned by watering down history for fear of giving offense, although I appreciate what they’re trying to do.

  2. “a sexual-agenda bomb dressed up as a child-caring Easter egg”

    Huh? What is a “child-caring Easter egg”?

  3. JBL: There are two issues here, facts and how those facts are presented.

    Should texts use language in as objective and neutral of terms as possible, or should they be free and quick to make moral assessments? For example, when talking about the history of this nation, should textbook writers avoid such words as “abusive” or “oppressive” or “immoral” regarding Americans who kept slaves in the colonial period? You can’t have it both ways by insisting that such language be used in one instance (as long as it applies to people you don’t like) but not another (when it involves people you DO like). Personally, I think such language should be left out. In the example I mentioned, it would paint a portrait of our early forefathers that isn’t whole or accurate because of the nature of the language itself.

    The hazy area comes in terms of what facts are being presented at all. Would it be “discrimination” to even mention some of the negative aspects and statistics of what is termed “gay culture”? I would hope not. Again, facts are facts. However, if the only types of African-Americans mentioned in the section on the civil rights movement, for example, are the Black Panthers, I could see where some might view the text as a lopsided view of history. How do you balance this? I don’t have a hard and fast rule, but I think reasonable see an effort in providing a neutral record.

    I think that this “neutrality” is what they’re looking for in the California bill. You can’t reserve the use of moral language to only condemn gays and forbid its use elsewhere.

    However, if this is merely an attempt to distort the facts, the bill should be rejected.

  4. There is a major difference between teaching children not to be hateful towards certain groups of people, and teaching them to embrace the lifestyle of certain groups of people. While the intent of the law is clearly the former, the Campaign for Children and Families wants to depict it as the later. It is dishonest propaganda to say that the intent of the proposed California legislation is to teach children to “embrace transsexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality in all its forms”.

    The most controversial language in the bill reads:

    Instruction in social sciences shall include the early history of California and a study of the role and contributions of both men and women, black Americans, American Indians, Mexicans, Asians, Pacific Island people, and other ethnic groups , and people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society.

    Teaching students that gay people have made positive contibutions to society is a far cry from teaching them to “embrace” their lifestyle, “in all its forms”. For example, one of the heroes of Flight 93 who prevented that airlines from used as a weapon, was a gay man, Mark Bingham. Gay people have also made positive contibutions to society in countless ways – what reason should there be to deny it?

    Police departments around the country continue to compile statistics on violent hate crimes directed against homosexuals. Currently about one in three teen aged suicides is by a gay or lesbian. Since homosexuals represent only about 5% of the population, gays and lesbians are greatly over-represented. Employment and housing discrimination based on sexual orientation can result in profound hardship for those who are objects of that discrimination as adults. Clearly there is an important social need to include gay people who must not be made the objects of hate, violence and discrimination.

    As Christians we have been called upon by the founder of our faith to be loving and compassionate to all human beings. We defy Him when we look for loopholes and exceptions, and compound the sin when we write it into law.

  5. JamesK –

    Who determines what is “adverse” material? I’m not sure anything is learned by watering down history for fear of giving offense, although I appreciate what they’re trying to do.

    Well me. I decide that. Along with my wife, because we homeschool. The problem with public education is that the decisions over curriculum have been removed from parents and have been posited at ever remote levels from the families of the children. We have gone from one-room school houses where the parents hired the teacher directly to massive education collectives that make decisions almost in a vacuum.

    Conservatives need to stop carping about these things, and focus on divesting the state of its educational power. Then we will get somewhere.

  6. Jim when you argue from the prespective that somehow homosexuality is on par with discussions about the Black Panthers in history you’re arguing that homosexuality is an ethnicity.

    The fact is, homosexuality is not an ethnicty. It is an action. It is what people do. It is not something that you can visibly see and recognize without being told. Thus there is no “ethnic” homosexual history. There is only a sociological/anthropological understanding of homosexual activity in history.

    The argument of “neutral langauge” toward gender, etc. is a semantic argument to change the dynamics of the discussion. Neutral langauge is a sympton of postmodernist relativistic attidudes toward morals. To use neutral language toward homosexuality is to suggest acceptance.

    Historical neutrality in interpretation is a goal of scholarship, but to insist that a certain perception be placed upon scholarship stifles the search for truth.

  7. Dean,
    Contributions to our culture from other cultures are worthy of study and appreciation precisely because they come from a unique entity that has attributes different than Western Europe that actually influenced our culture and history. Such cultural influence can also be correlated with ethnicity in some cases, though not all. However, as JBL says, homosexuality is not such an entity. Homosexuality is trans-cultural, that is to say, it is a human trait–period. We might as well study nose picking as culturally significant. I know of no positive contribution to our society from homosexuality per se. Certainly, there are many people who happen to be homosexual who made positive contributions, just as there are many nose pickers who have. Problem is the contributions to not flow from the fact of homosexuality.

    Dean, you also miss represent the Christian message. Christians are not called upon to love everybody in such a way as to ignore sinfulness. In fact, just the opposite. Christianity is not Buddhism or some other cult that looks at God as an amorphous gas. We have a personal God who takes a personal interest in what we do, even what we think. True, we are not supposed to conflate the sin with the sinner, but to blithely ignore the sin is just as bad.

    Only by assuming some of the most insulting stereotypes about homosexuals can one even posit a cultural significance for the trait. I do wonder, however, if Richard the Lionheart’s brutality will now be re-examined and recast as part of a homosexual sadism rather than fighting for the Cross? Somehow, I doubt it. It is rather more likely to be seen as a natural and normal reaction to the suppression of his normal drives by the repressive Christian dogma.

    The entire movement to normalize homosexuality is a revolt against Christian anthropology; since Christian anthropology is integral to a full understanding of the nature of salvation we make a grave error by supporting such moves.

    That does not mean that we cannot and should not treat homosexuals with the dignity and respect and yes Chrisitian love even though they deny it to themselves.

  8. Note 10, Substitute Adulterers and see how it reads

    Imagine learning that many great political leaders, military leaders, artists and scientists were adulterers. Imagine being taught that Eisenhower lead the Allies to victory on D-Day and that his contribution should go to the credit of adulterers. (Many people think he was having an affair with his beautiful English driver, Kay Summersby). Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy are revered leaders who were also adulterers. Don’t you think children should learn of the contributions these adulterers made?

    I think children should learn of the contributions these leaders made to America and when they are older they should learn that they were also human beings subject to failings and sin and they were also adulterers.

  9. Cultural Insanity

    Don’t forget the 60’s when a larger percentage of the educational and cultural elite decided that the “new teaching” was that drug usage could assist a person’s psychological development. This was contrary to the conventional wisdom that recreational drug use is a sign of psychological weakness and illness and did not contribute to psychological maturation.

    We, America, went on a 30 year roller coaster ride until the sad truth of recreational drug usage couldn’t be ignored anymore. The culture returned to sanity.

    Please spare me the sophmoric arguments about the hypocrisy of legal alcohol and illegal marijuana. We don’t live in a Platonically ideal world, we live with imperfect humans and imperfect systems. I would welcome closer restriction of alcohol usage also.

    So it is now. Cultural elites have nothing to do unless there is a “new issue.” The “new issue” is the supposed normality and benign nature of homosexual conduct. We have discovered something unknown to all culture prior to us.

    Except that we can see the cultures that tolerate and even honor homosexual conduct eventually lose the will to procreate and they die out. The new term in use in “indigenous Europeans.” Within 50 years “indigenous Europeans” will be the minority in Europe and something tells me that their Muslim masters will not treat them kindly.

    This is why every successful culture that has left a mark on world history has described homosexul conduct as “degenerate.” It degrades people, it degrades society, it rejects the propagation of life and trades it in for nascissistic gratifications. Enough people descend to this conduct and society comes to a halt.

  10. Note 5. Dean, the only reason to highlight a person’s homosexuality in a high school textbook is to promote homosexuality.

    In cases like Oscar Wilde, who trumpeted his homosexuality (although he came back to the Catholic Church before he died), the fact has historical significance but not in a high school textbook. In the cases like Mark Bingham, there is no relevance whatsoever.

    Check out some data on the gay youth suicide apologetic as well. It is not as black and white as you think. Gay Teens and Attempted Suicide

    You understand I hope that if the gay lobby forces local government to retool public school curriculum to treat homosexuality on equal moral footing with heterosexuality, then the next step is to force sex education curriculum to teach safe sodomy. Kids will be watching movies of men coupling. Will you be there to assure us that this, too, is desirable when it happens?

    Time to dispense with the fantasy that homosexuals are discriminated against, Dean. Wake up. The gay lobby is one of the most astute and well funded around. They have people like you in the palm of their hand.

    And please, do not bring Christian morality into your deeply felt but woefully uncritical acceptance of the discrimination claims. Your moral exhortation lends a patina of “Christian” credibility to the lobbyists’ claims, but, if you really understood the Gospel, you would see how reckless invoking any reference to God in service to the gay agenda really is.

  11. Note 13 Legitimization of Homosexual Conduct Means the Triumph of Sterility over Fertility and Life–Truly a Culture of Death

    Honoring homosexual conduct as equal in worth to heterosexual conduct requires a massive denial of the narcissistic and sterile nature of homosexual conduct.

    When a couple joined in holy matrimony is blessed with a child, a new human being comes into the world. The world is created anew in that child. The parents are now joined with a bond stronger than the bond that existed prior to the birth of their child. The parents have participated with God in the creation of something completely new and full of Life. Parental love is probably the most self-sacrificial love experienced by ordinary humans (as opposed to great Saints).

    Parents invest themselves unreservedly in their children. As a consequence, parents care a great deal about the communities they live in . Parents want a safe environment for their children. Parents want good schools for their children. All of these parental concerns and desires are PRO-SOCIAL.

    Homosexual couples cannot have children without denying that child a parent he or she deserves. Homosexual parenthood is NOT self-sacrificing. It is an exercise in the narcissistic reduction of a human child to the status of a pet.The desire of a homosexual “couple” for pretense of normality takes the form of denying a human child, what every human child deserves: a mother and a father.

    The fact that a Christian would express sympathy for the agenda of the “gay rights” groups is appalling.

  12. Fr Hans notes: “Time to dispense with the fantasy that homosexuals are discriminated against, Dean”

    I know two people personally who were let go from their positions for just that reason. No, they were not “out”, they were “found out”, mostly through gossip. Their were otherwise fine employees. I’m not speculating but know from having spoken to someone close to the managerial persons responsible for these decisions. This is in a relatively liberal city, too.

    How widespread is this? Can’t say. It’s hardly a “fantasy”, however. I don’t mean to sound sarcastic, but how is this “justice”, exactly, and how is keeping one’s job part of a “radical agenda”?


    Missourian notes: “Parents invest themselves unreservedly in their children. As a consequence, parents care a great deal about the communities they live in.”

    Some do, at least the “good ones”. I know some lousy parents, though. How many deadbeat dads are you familiar with? I’ll bet more than a few. You make such blanket statements sometimes, which I really don’t think you honestly believe yourself. Most physical and sexual abuse occurs from … you guessed it … parents. Most neglect comes from … parents. So I’m not sure how you can say that all parents who happen to be of dissimilar genders are necessarily the most saintly and sacrificial of people. They ain’t.

    Before you go off the rails, I’m not suggesting that children being placed with two men or two women or a single man or a single woman is ideal. It’s not. The ideal is for them to be with their birth parents who are ideally loving and responsible people. That’s the problem. In too many situations, they’re not.

  13. JamesK wrote:

    I know two people personally who were let go from their positions for just that reason. No, they were not “out”, they were “found out”, mostly through gossip. Their were otherwise fine employees. I’m not speculating but know from having spoken to someone close to the managerial persons responsible for these decisions. This is in a relatively liberal city, too.

    How widespread is this? Can’t say. It’s hardly a “fantasy”, however. I don’t mean to sound sarcastic, but how is this “justice”, exactly, and how is keeping one’s job part of a “radical agenda”?

    Anecdotal evidence isn’t proof of a widespread problem. And it’s not inclusive of all the other possibilities that could have caused their firing, such as their inability to do the job.

    You should do some research into the buying power and education levels of homosexuals compared to other groups. Then come back and cry discrimination. It would be a hollow cry.

  14. James. Sorry the guys were let go, but straight people get fired all the time too, sometimes deservedly, sometimes not. Nevertheless, jumping from a firing into a retooling of public school curriculum to mention the (alledged) homosexuality of this or that person is a radical step. Sympathy serves ideology here and, as I mentioned to Dean, short-circuits the thinking of otherwise fine people like yourself. When safe-sodomy becomes part of the elementary age sex-education curriculum, will you be joining Dean in assuring us that this development is good for children?

    One other point. Most child abuse (about 60+ percent) is perpetrated by the live-in boyfriends of single mothers. Married parents rarely abuse their children. Marriage: Still the Safest Place For Women and Children

  15. James K, Every “gay parent” withholds something from a child in order to fulfill his own emotional needs

    Each and every “gay parent” who seeks custody of a child in a gay relationship has decided that the desires and emotional needs of the “gay parent” are more important than the need of the child to have a mother and a father.

    Repeat, by definition and by operation of logic, every “gay parent” who seeks custody of a child in a gay relationship has put his emotional needs above that of the child.

    It is the mark of a true parent, whether natural or adoptive, to put the needs of the child first. As I noted, parental love is the most self-sacrificial love found in ordinary human society exhibited by ordinary humans.

    Pointing out that in some cases, biological parents are not ideal, is a trivial response. It is is response that refuses to acknowledge the plainest facts which are apparent to anyone thinking about the situation, that is, a gay parent is more strongly motivated by his own emotional needs than the need of a child to have a mother and father.

    Contrast a responsible biological parent who might choose to put a child up for adoption to a good home based on her assessment that she was unable to provide a good home for the child. This is a decision which puts the needs of the child first and the emotional needs of the biological parent second. I have provided legal services in infant adoptions and I can tell you that it is the most wrenching thing in the world to see a nurse take a child from a biological mother and walk out the door forever leaving the biological mother childless after nine months of pregnancy. The pain experienced by that biological mother is truly intense. The self-sacrifice of that biological mother is tremendous

  16. Creating a New Protected Class

    In the U.K. homosexual status has become a new protected class and the absurdity is painful. In order to monitor enforcement of the equal employment clause of the law, employers must ask and obtain information about sexual orientation from all employees. Since “sexual orientation” is in fact a bogus concept it is subject to manipulation for gain. Cases have arisen where the claim of homosexual orientation has been challenged by third parties precisely because belonging to a protected class carried with it legal benefits.

  17. What if you are the only person who was not part of a special “protected class.”

    JamesK, What if you worked at a company with 10 employees and you were the only employee who was not a member of a protected class? What would you call your status now? I would call it legally disadvantaged based on your unalterable characteristics and not your conduct. I would call it discrimination.

    James K. I can provide you a benefit by choosing to write you a check for $1,000. I have made you a special gift. But what if I write a check for $1,000 to everybody else, except you? What if I tell you that you are not a member of a protected class and therefore have no right to complain? What if a large majority of people belong to protected classes and only a minority do not belong to a protected class. How is this system different from saying that the non-protected minority group is a group of second-class citizens as they lack benefits and privileges of the protected classes.

  18. RE: 12: Aren’t we on firmer moral ground identifying opposing behavior that is morally objectionable, rather than people who may or may not engage in that behavior.

    I certainly would not want sodomy discussed in the classroom, but conversely, would support the teaching of abstinence to young people, as well as the risks and dangers of promiscuity and irresponsible sexual behavior. A young person contemplating a promiscuous gay life style should be told in no uncertain terms that they may find it physically and emotionally exploitative, abusive and dangerous, accompanied by a high risk of exposure to HIV and STDs.

    The Church, likewise, has a moral duty to instruct its flock that sexual behavior that is unloving, exploitative, irresponsible, selfish and outside the bounds a caring, committed relationship (strictly speaking: marriage) is sinful.

    Demonizing groups of people however is another matter. The young person struggling with his or her sexual identity should not be made to feel hated and worthless, because that might be what drives them to self destructive behavior and suicide. My fear is that society sends this message when it tacitly condones the marginalization of groups of people and allows them to be made the objects of hate, abuse and discrimination.

    That’s my concern

  19. Note 20. I’d worry more about the kids drawn into homosexuality as the culture gets increasingly homosexualized. Sexual identity can be fluid in early adolescence, especially for males, and the increasing attempts to normalize homosexuality will result in more kids choosing it.

    And move past this idea that the social condemnation of homosexuality is what drives young “gay” kids to suicide. A kid might be troubled with homosexual longings, but its not the social disapproval that is the source of his distress, its the longings. In a more male confident environment he would have the space and time to work through this. Now the kid automatically thinks he is homosexual. The kind of uncritical liberalism you champion actually robs him of the clear moral boundaries he needs to work out his conflict.

    Frankly, while I don’t tolerate the “demonizing” of anyone, the idea that homosexuals as a class are demonized in American society is nonsense. It’s an easy pose, a mere proclamation of self-virtue, because it carries no social penalty.

  20. Missourian writes: “Each and every “gay parent” who seeks custody of a child in a gay relationship has decided that the desires and emotional needs of the “gay parent” are more important than the need of the child to have a mother and a father.”

    Not the case at all. Some time ago you asked for research to that effect. Now that the spam seems to have abated, perhaps this post will go through.

    The web site of the American Psychological Association lists around 40 empirical research studies that have been done on the topic of gay and lesbian parenting:

    Here is a sample of the conclusions:

    “The authors conclude that the available evidence fails to provide empirical grounds for denying child custody to lesbian and gay parents because of concern about the effect on the child’s sexual orientation.” 1995

    “Compares a group of 15 White lesbian couples living together with their 3-9 year old children born to them through artificial insemination with a matched sample of heterosexual parents and their children. A variety of assessment measures including the Child Behavior Checklist, Teacher’s Report Form, the Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale, the Parent Awareness Skills Survey and either the WPPSI-R or WISC-R were used to measure the children’s cognitive functioning and behavioral adjustment as well as the parents’ relationship and parenting skills. Results revealed no significant differences between the two groups of children.” 1995

    “Compares aspects of child development in 27 lesbian households with a total of 37 children (aged 5-17 years) and 27 heterosexual single-parent households with a total of 38 children (aged 15-17 years). . . . Psychiatric problems among the children were infrequent in both groups but proportionately higher in the heterosexual single-parent group. Limitations of the study were that the follow-up period was short, and the children were not old enough for sexual orientation to be documented behaviorally.” 1983

    “Thirty-seven subjects aged 3-20 years were either raised by lesbian women (21) or by transsexuals (16). Subjects had lived in these households from 1-16 years, with a mean time of 4.9 years. All but one subject indicated that toys, games, clothing, and gender of peers were typical for their gender. Thirteen older subjects indicated erotic fantasies or sexual behaviors, and all these subjects were heterosexual in orientation.” 1978

    ” . . . Concludes that concerns that gay fathers will have a negative impact on their children’s development are unfounded.” 1979

    “In a 30 year follow-up of 55 boys with effeminate behavior aged 6-16 at the onset of the study, study found that the majority (73-94%) were homosexual as adults. Incidence of homosexuality among the parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, and cousins of these boys essentially did not differ from that of the general heterosexual population. Speculates that there may be biologic origins to homosexuality based upon the apparent increased susceptibility to pyloric stenosis in nongay males when compared to their gay monozygotic twin.” 1989

    If you’re looking for the Big Kahoona Smoking Gun double-blind cross-generational study that covers every significant variable, well, it doesn’t exist, nor would it even be possible. What we do have are a number of smaller studies dealing with one to several variables whose results all point to the same general conclusion.

    Here’s the conclusion of the APA on the subject:

    ” In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.

    It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children is still very new and relatively scarce. Less is known about children of gay fathers than about children of lesbian mothers. Little is known about development of the offspring of gay or lesbian parents during adolescence or adulthood. Sources of heterogeneity have yet to be systematically investigated. Longitudinal studies that follow lesbian and gay families over time are badly needed.”

  21. Missourian asks “What if you are the only person who was not part of a special ‘protected class.'”

    Job discrimination happens all the time for reasons that have little to do with performance. We know that appearance sometimes plays a role in who gets hired, just as age does. I have a relative looking for a position at the age of 62, and he’s getting very few bites, unfortunately. Despite his excellent credentials, few employers want to take on someone at that age. There’s also the role of those intangible qualities that make someone a “fit” into any work environment.

    Is all of this “fair”? Well, probably not. We should strive towards justice in hiring practices, and the Church can probably encourage to a greater degree than it has. To suggest there should be a legal remedy for all of these cases is agreeably a recipe for disaster, though, and my libertarian side tends to think that employers should be free to fill their slots with whomever they please, anyhow. Forcing people to associate with each other via legal methods never seems to work very well.

    So, yes, I see your point, but I think we can be a little more vocal in encouraging fairness and justice in hiring. Perhaps it would give activists less reason to mandate it via things like this bill.

  22. Note 22, Authoritative status of the APA

    Tone is disturbing
    The entire tone of your post reveals the utter uncaring attitude towards the welfare of children. You are so ready to dispose of millenia of human experience, you are so ready to risk the live and psychological well-being of innocent children all for the psychological/social cause of the day.

    APA’s credibility as a scientific body has been discredited, remember Freudianism?
    Jim, please note that the APA once heartily endorsed Freudianism as a scientific theory. They have quietly retired that position. The APA wouldn’t know science if they stumbled over it in broad daylight. Between 1945 and 1975, they had to do a complete turn around because of the mountain of real scientific evidence developed by neurologists.

    Been there done that
    You have forgotten but we already had this debate. When the “studies” referred to are investigated they turn out to have very weak foundations.
    There does not exist any well-designed longitudinal studies.

    Ethical status of longitudinal studies on children
    Longitudinal studies are what are required to determine the issue. However, there are substantial

  23. Note 24, JamesK, age discrimination and society’s response

    JamesK, you do understand that we will never achieve a perfect society here on earth do you not? Do you understand that past a certain point, efforts to achieve perfection in on area of life tend to destroy things of value in other areas of life?

    What can we realistically expect society to do to combat unfair job discrimination?

    Well, we have:

    1. a federal constitution that guarantee equal protection under the law.
    2. fifty state constitutions that guarantee equal protection under the law
    3. we have a federal Equal Pay Act that provides for attorney’s fees for private enforcement
    4. we have a federal EEOC, one massive federal bureaucracy which devotes
      itself exclusively to promulgating rules and enforcing anti-discrimination laws
    5. we have fifty state EEOC’s do the same thing on the state level
    6. we have virtually every Fortunate 500 company with a division inside its Human Resources department devoted to combating and eliminating illegal job discrimation

    What more can a society be expected to do? Should every human on the planet be fitted with monitoring devices to ensure that no single instance of “unfair” conduct be permitted? Maybe that will satisfy you?

    Why don’t you turn your attention to the injustice existing in societies where there is no federal or state constitution, no federal and state laws, no federal and state agencies. Why not agitate for justice in Darfur, China, North Korea?

Comments are closed.