October 13th, 2007

Anti-Family Arnold Schwarzenegger

photo credit: avalokist

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, believed by some to be a man of questionable morals and intent, has just demonstrated his true colors by signing into law, on a late Friday under the media’s radar, four bills that promote homosexuality and all manners of evil, immoral conduct.

The Campaign for Children and Families, who has been following this issue and recruiting opposition to fight it, describes one of the bills as follows:

SB 777 prohibits any “instruction” or school-sponsored “activity” that “promotes a discriminatory bias” against “gender” (the bill’s definition includes cross-dressing and sex changes) and “sexual orientation” (the bill’s definition includes bisexuality). Because no textbook or instruction in California public schools currently disparages transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality, the practical effect of SB 777 will be to require positive portrayals of these sexual lifestyles at every government-operated school. Otherwise, “discriminatory” schools will be subject to intimidation and lawsuits by the State Department of Education.

Under the guise of “anti-discrimination”, these bills essentially endorse and require the teaching and mention of “alternative” lifestyles such as homosexuality, bigender, transgender, etc. Textbooks all over the state will now be changed to comply with these laws, unless schools want to run the risk of fines and legal action for failing to comply.

What’s more interesting is that last year, Schwarzenegger vetoed nearly the same bills. The difference between last year and this year? Last year he was up for re-election. This year he’s comfortable in his fancy chair.

This is a dark day for California children, upon whom will be forced an exposure of immoral acts of all flavors.

7 Responses to “Anti-Family Arnold Schwarzenegger”

  1. Yin
    October 13, 2007 at 4:51 pm #

    Congrats on your 500th post. 🙂

  2. Josh Williams
    October 13, 2007 at 9:00 pm #

    Because no textbook or instruction in California public schools currently disparages transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality, the practical effect of SB 777 will be to require positive portrayals of these sexual lifestyles at every government-operated school.

    Pretty much hits the nail on the head.

    From what I have read online, it’s unclear to me what problems, exactly, SB 777 and it’s sister bills are designed to address.

    Is it merely to give lip service to Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender political activist groups?

    In any case, the CCF website makes no attempts to provide any real, informative, unbiased information about the subject. I can’t help but feel a little bit of skepticism about their motives, or about the analysis they give of the bill.

    Furthermore, among the many problems facing the public school system, I consider “systematic” discrimination against G/L/B/T’s to be rather small fry.

    If any sort of discrimination exists in pubic schools (e.g. sexual, racial, religious, or whatever) I think you’ll more likely find it in the persons of teachers and administrators, rather than in the curricula or the general school policies. (For example, it’s an open secret that, on average, teachers and admins regularly discriminate against blacks and other minorities, when it comes to taking disciplinary actions.) Changing the textbooks, or forcing public schools to “comply” with “the new policy” will change very little.

    I think that any kind of “systematic” sexual discrimination, or “sexual indoctrination” that a student is likely to receive, can hardly compare to the constant bullying, abuse, harassment, and “indoctrination” that they’re likely to get from their own classmates, rather than from the schools themselves.

  3. LDS Anarchist
    October 13, 2007 at 9:57 pm #

    Just another reason to homeschool.

  4. Parker (brother #3)
    October 15, 2007 at 11:18 am #

    Man I am glad I’m at BYU now… that’s ridiculous

  5. Josh Williams
    October 15, 2007 at 2:14 pm #

    The full text of SB 777 can be found here.

    While the letter to the governor, from the CCF can be found here.

    I must admit that the language used in the actual letter, is far more mundane, and far less inflammatory, than that which is to be found in the description of the the bill, on the CCF website. Comparing the comments of CCF president Randy Thomasson, to the actual text of the letter, he seems rather two faced.

    After more reading, I do not agree with the analysis by the CCF, that the language in the bill should be construed as “sexual indoctrination.”

    Nor do I believe that the bill should be considered an immediate threat to to children and families….

    I do agree that the bill is poorly worded, and at best, misguided. It should be defeated for these reasons, and for the fact that it is probably redundant and superfluous.

  6. Josh Williams
    October 15, 2007 at 3:02 pm #

    At the risk of sounding my own horn…..

    My main issue with political action groups, such as the CCF, is this.

    They claim to represent the voters, but in reality, they do not. The representatives, and the voters themselves represent the voters. They claim to be part of the solution, but in reality, they are a large part of the problem.

    Political action groups usually just represent the money. I resent the fact that small groups of well moneyed, private individuals, claim to represent my interests as a voter, and presume to tell a democratically elected government how things ought to be run.

    (Of course, in the real world………….I’m told that things aren’t quite that simple…..:-)

  7. Kim Siever
    October 17, 2007 at 1:10 pm #

    Gotta love arguments based on assumptions. Nothing more than an unsubstantiated slippery slope. I guess it’s not just politicians and marketing agencies who use FUD to promote their own agendas.

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.