When California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed two bills on Oct. 12 that essentially turn the state's public schools over to homosexual and transgender activists, there was virtually no media coverage outside California. There still isn't.
Beginning in January 2008, California public schools must teach children as young as 3 to 5 years old that homosexuality is a normal, healthy lifestyle and that kids can choose their "gender." This means banning the terms "husband" and "wife" for the more progressively inclusive term "partner." "Moms" and "dads" will morph into sexually neutral "parents." Textbooks will be rewritten to blot out any reminder of married-couple-led families as a social norm. Gender-confused kids will get to use the restrooms of their choice. Any expression of negativity toward deviant sexuality will be punished as "bigotry." The coming changes are so radical that they produce gasps or professions of disbelief from people who hear about it from sources outside the mainstream media.
Bruce Shortt, an advocate of private schooling who writes a periodic report called "the Continuing Collapse" about problems in government schools, provides this analysis:
So far, the media have maintained a near total news blackout on this development.
A recent article [at Medill Reports online] on homosexual gains in the schools reflects how the advocates of legislation to mainstream deviant lifestyles plan to respond to queries from naive or fellow travelling reporters:
With the October signing of Senate Bill 777, California is the most recent state to have seen a battle between the two sides. Its sponsor, state Rep. Sheila Kuehl of Los Angeles, said the bill did little more than make language in the education code consistent with language in the state's other anti-discrimination laws. Discrimination based on sexual identity, she said, had been illegal in California for eight years.
So, the official story line is that SB 777 just makes technical changes that bring the Education Code into conformity with other laws that have been on the books for a long time. In other words, "nothing to see here folks, just move along."
Of course, Kuehl is right in a sense. After all, we could pass legislation requiring Jack Daniel's to be served in school cafeterias, and then claim that we are just making the Education Code consistent with other laws that have been on the books for years (the Volkstead Amendment was repealed over 70 years ago, and drinking alcohol is legal in California).
Leaving aside the question of any prior California legislation regarding deviant lifestyles and ADULTS, the relevant question is whether Zelda's "advanced thoughts" on this subject should be inflicted on children. The reporter, as you will note, didn't really get to this, and she entirely missed the importance of California's brave new definition of "gender."
To get up to date on the rest of the country, visit Linda Harvey's site: http://www.truthatsc....
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Kids in Drag
November 15, 2007 - 11:56 ET by JimboI’m sure Nancy Pelosi is oh so proud of her home State for advancing the far left liberal platform to this point.
I don’t know about other parts of the country, but where I live, California airs a tourism commercial. It has what you would expect to see in it….. The Golden Gate bridge, wine country, picturesque scenes of Hollywood, celebrities, etc.
Given this new law, I think they should add pictures of kindergarteners walking to school dressed in drag after having “chosen their gender”.
I’ve always said that if we weren’t careful, the country as we know it would be lost forever. I am really starting to believe that it is already gone.
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
Yup
November 15, 2007 - 12:01 ET by well99Parents should sue the school and state for child abuse.Children should not suffer indoctrination by politicians.They have the right to be children.This violates that right.
Where is that right defined?
November 15, 2007 - 13:16 ET by BruzillaWhere is that right defined?
Do we only have rights if
November 15, 2007 - 13:27 ET by motherbeltDo we only have rights if they are "defined" by the government? Do we really have to enshrine in the Constitution that "children have the right to be children?"
Exactly motherbelt, the
November 15, 2007 - 13:37 ET by dscottExactly motherbelt, the various unlisted rights of individuals exist as the understood, unspoken qualities of humanity that we "CHOSE NOT" to submit to government. All power (freedom) flows from the people, the governed, not from the government. The government does not and is not allowed to decide what rights we have, their job is to police the rights we chose not to have in order to maintain a civil society. This is precisely why liberals want a "living document" interpretation of the Constitution, they get to decide arbitrarily what our rights are and then we are supposed to grovel at their feet for giving us freedom.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
The 9th Amendment:The
November 15, 2007 - 13:58 ET by dscottThe 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The 9th Amendment is the right of individuals not to have their rights usurpted by the State or Federal government, that includes raising children. Our silence to any government advance of power is de facto condoning of said usurptation. The 10th Amendment means the federal government has no right to usurpt individual rights reserved to the people.
For a thorough understanding: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/
Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those. 1 Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' 2 It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement. 3 Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
thanks, dscott. And that
November 15, 2007 - 14:38 ET by motherbeltthanks, dscott. And that looks a lot plainer to me than the "penumbra" that SCOTUS found that implies a right to abortion on demand.
yes and no, A strict
November 15, 2007 - 15:08 ET by dscottyes and no, A strict constructionist might say since abortion is not listed either specifically or implied, that right does not exist. The 9th amendment says essentially a right does exist unless it is specifically prohibited. Hence the States have the right via the 10th Amendment to regulate an activity if they usurpt/limit it via legislation by the lawfully elected respresentatives of the people. The thinking being, that the people directly elected the lawmakers and therefore should be directly accountable to the people thus limited borishness on legislator's part, whereas the federal government at the time of creation 200+ years ago the President (Electorial College) and Senators (State legislators, this was changed by the 17th amendment) were not chosen directly. Even with the House of Representatives being directly elected by the People, everything they could pass had to be agreed to by the Senate and then the President.
17th : http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment17/
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
From an individual's civil
November 15, 2007 - 15:18 ET by dscottFrom an individual's civil rights perspective, what should have happened in the SCOTUS decision was the acknowledgement that an unborn child has equal rights to the mother. A child (unborn) is not an apendage of a woman, a child is a human being. Passing between someone's legs does not alter the outcome of being human. That said rights guaranteed under the Constitution could only be pre-empted if and only if the life of the mother was threatened which would deny her basic human right to life. IMO, the right to be frivolous with ones own lifestyle does not trump the right of another person's life. Being an inconvenience or embarrassment does not constitute the right to terminate another person's life. If that were the case, I would be within my rights to mow down every lib I see because they are annoying. Being the generous person I am, I'll let the Libertarians live, they amuse me at times.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
It might not be a "right",
November 15, 2007 - 14:09 ET by vrwc13It might not be a "right", but it is certainly wrong:
It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. Luke 17:2
v
Dont know dont care
November 15, 2007 - 23:15 ET by well99Childen are not suppose to be political pawns.They are not tools to be used to push someones agenda.When the goverment Cali's in this case trys to manipulate these children to serve their purpose it ticks me off.They do not have that right.
Meanwhile, in Maryland
November 15, 2007 - 11:59 ET by FastEd"Coed locker rooms given green light" WorldNetDaily
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Ed, Can we get the pink
November 15, 2007 - 12:12 ET by Hunter12Ed, Can we get the pink shirt and red bandana concession at the local high schools as the bulk our healthy adolescents take advantage of these wacko laws? What's next, age discrimation laws that allow child molestors to repeat 1st grade?
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Actually, I'm waiting for
November 15, 2007 - 13:14 ET by FastEdthe final of a "girls" baskeball game, and ALL the guys "visit" the locker room, and "help" with the showers, or vice-versa - but what happens where remarks are made that are considered "non-PC"? I thought that saying "hurtful" words was 'not a nice thing to do'.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
i can see alot of
November 15, 2007 - 14:51 ET by TruthMongeri can see alot of california guys being "unsure of their gender" pretty soon:)...
first the new celebration of the degrading porn industry, attempts to legalized prostitution, and N.O.W. this - feminism is winning left and right...:)!
How many guys do you think
November 15, 2007 - 14:58 ET by motherbeltHow many guys do you think are suddenly going to decide they might be girls, and go into the female locker room?
Nah...that wouldn't happen, would it????
Can you be a girl only when
November 15, 2007 - 15:07 ET by MightyMouthCan you be a girl only when in close "proximity" to the female locker room? I could live with that lifestyle. :-0
Within a 100 foot radius I am a girl... outside of that I am guy again! I may just turn liberal if this is the kind of stuff I can get away with!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
History of the World: Part 1
November 15, 2007 - 15:13 ET by MassConservOnly so long as you submit to the same test Gregory Hines took in the movie. ;-)
Red dot in a blue state
Already got that one
November 15, 2007 - 15:33 ET by MightyMouthAlready got that one figured out: It'll just always be "that time of the month". You know, like the constant state Hillary is in :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Parents need to push back
November 15, 2007 - 12:06 ET by ConservativeRexParents need to push back with their agenda..push back hard. These Neo-Stalinist count on the average American not protesting anything that comes down the pike.
It's time that way of thinking comes to an end, but fast. If you have to take vacation days, take an excused day, or call in sick from your job for crissakes, get out there and push back against these knuckleheads.
If it's one thing these politicians understand is voter unrest. When is enough enough? Now they are teaching deviant behavior to little one's. There is no other way to describe it. Mental illness. Push back California..before it's too late!
Where is the outrage over
November 15, 2007 - 12:10 ET by vrwc13Where is the outrage over this? Is CA overtaken by girly-men and manly-gals?
v
Yes. "An appeaser is one who
November 15, 2007 - 12:13 ET by Hunter12Yes.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Blackboard Jungle Blackout
November 15, 2007 - 12:24 ET by Robert KnightThe short answer is: Yes.
Education
November 15, 2007 - 12:22 ET by iveseenitallThe public school system, on so many levels, is one of our nation's biggest problems. Unfortunately, it is a problem virtually ignored by the media and politicians from both sides of the aisle. There are many reasons for this ignorance and this issue has slipped under the radar far too long. Apathy and a "we can do nothing" attitude are prevalent throughout our nation. But we do this to our own detriment. Anyone who closely follows this issue knows that American "educators" are ruining our kids through propaganda and lower standards. It's in the classrrooms and it's in the textbooks. Even Hitler knew that all he had to do was get to the kids and many things would go his way.This is a money issue. This is an academic issue. This is a political issue. This is a major issue of our time. It's a shame that the response to this from many conservatives is nothing but ridicule at the failures of American education. Do you really believe the left would be silent if conservative values were being puhed down your kids throats? Wake up America! As you sleep through this one, your house is falling down around you.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
You are right. This is
November 15, 2007 - 20:22 ET by deerjerkydaveYou are right. This is the slippery slope of monopoly controlled government education, only now we're getting to the bottom of that slope. I think this country is doomed. California is just the beginning, I'm sure this indoctrination is coming to a school near you. The Utah voucher program went down in flames last week. If Utah can't install vouchers who will? As long as Americans drink the cool aid that politicians can do a better job of choosing a school for our children than parents, we are doomed.
It is completely unAmerican that parents cannot choose which school to send their children. School choice will hurt our children? Hogwash! People have school choice at for profit universities and colleges across this country and they get excellent educations every day!
Sorry when it comes to this...
November 15, 2007 - 12:15 ET by taterby definition I am a bigot (and proud of it). I prefer to have a heterosexual marriage, live my life as a male because that's the gender I was born, and as far as tolerating homosexual and transgender acts can't do it. That's the way it has always been, because that's how God determines it. How tolerant do they think God will be once judgement comes (if they don't change)? I think the concept of God is pretty much out of California.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
Tater, your preference to
November 15, 2007 - 12:54 ET by JasonCTater, your preference to have a heterosexual marriage and live according to the social constructions that dictate the behavior of your biological gender does not make you a bigot.
Nor does your belief in God and the literality of certain Biblical passages.
I am curious what you mean about no "tolerating" gay and transgender acts. Do you mean simply that you will never be convinced that they can be conceived of as normal?
Also, can someone post a link to a primary site that explains these new educational laws? I would like to see how they are described by those who advocated them. Thanks.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Bigot as in..
November 15, 2007 - 13:09 ET by tater...the definition by the people peddling these laws. I'm intolerant of their views on what should be taught in schools.
In answer to your question yes you could never convince me that those acts are normal.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
Here is the bill: It's a
November 15, 2007 - 15:06 ET by motherbeltHere is the bill: It's a PDF file
Bill 23-07
we're are all God's children
November 15, 2007 - 14:31 ET by katleewe're are all God's children - God loves us all AND made us who we are
And here I thought God only
November 15, 2007 - 14:41 ET by JasonCAnd here I thought God only loved those who conform to the hegemonic social constructions, perpetuated by the dominant classes, that have kept homosexual, transgendered, and intersexed people oppressed for the last millenia. Yeah, the last decade of "equal rights" rhetoric has more than made up for that, enough with those homos rubbing it in our faces already, right?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
all in the same Book...
November 15, 2007 - 15:02 ET by vrwc13in other words, He loves the sinner, hates the sin...
v
homosexuality is not a sin
November 15, 2007 - 19:12 ET by katleehomosexuality is not a sin
katlee... You are wrong
November 15, 2007 - 19:15 ET by Clear thinkerkatlee...
You are wrong and you know it!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
libtards and Jesus Christ
November 15, 2007 - 19:32 ET by LionKingSheesh....
It is simple...Love the sinner, Hate the sin.
Sin is sin. Only one sin is unforgiveable.
The problem is that the libtards confuse the message with the messenger...granted, some so-called Christians do not adequately distinguish between the sin and the sinner. That does not change the fact that the overarching message of Christ is love.
Perversion is not love, it is sin. Homosexuality is a sin.
Maybe "libtards" are
November 16, 2007 - 09:42 ET by JasonCMaybe "libtards" are unwilling to judge people who make up a major part of modern culture according to a text that is problematic at best, and has a history of being misused for insidious ends. I humbly invoke my tagline.
I appreciate the beauty and even the potential for comfort that the Bible offers, but I am unwilling to make important decisions regarding real issues based on it. To me, that is as silly as basing one's cultural views on the Harry Potter canon or Tom Clancy novels. Faith and fiction do not necessarily translate into logical real-world ethos. So I'll agree with you that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin, but I'll also say "so what?"
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Bible, Harry Potter, Tom Clancy are Equal?
November 16, 2007 - 09:51 ET by vrwc13...consider the authors...
"unwilling to judge people who make up a major part of modern culture according to a text (the Bible) that is problematic at best"
Oh boy, here goes...SHOW me where it is problematic, other than your belief in it.
v
...consider also someday every knee will bow , and every tongue confess (you included)...
(the Bible) is problematic
November 16, 2007 - 10:17 ET by dscott(the Bible) is problematic at best.
Same old angle on religious intolerance in the name of diversity. We must all sink to the lowest common denominator of the Johnny Come Lately Fashion, acting on our passions without descretion or forethought. And people wonder why liberals gloss over child predators? Here's a thought, why not emigrate elsewhere where people have your common culture? Our culture was here first, so go somewhere else, you're not entitled to tell us what to believe or what we have to accept or approve of. We don't appreciate having your values shoved down our throats. The world is at your feet, yet liberals insist on wiping their dirty feet on our living room carpet and then proclaim the freedom to tell you "Live with it", in the venacular "You will eat %^#$% and like it."
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
"homosexuality is not a sin"
November 16, 2007 - 09:23 ET by vrwc13"…you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." -the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
...in other words, you can believe it is not wrong, you can believe it is not illegal, you can even believe it is not sin. But God defines sin and He says it is.
v
I could careless
November 15, 2007 - 23:36 ET by well99If your gay.trans,or whatever.That is your buisness(General statement).Nobody has a right to play these games with kids.If you want to push a agenda then you try it with adults.Not children!This backdoor bs is a pathetic political ploy.It is sick.Let kids be kids!
...kumbaya... v
November 15, 2007 - 14:43 ET by vrwc13...kumbaya...
v
This is the sort of thing
November 15, 2007 - 12:16 ET by rx4musicThis is the sort of thing that makes me embarassed to be from California. I wrote a really long post/rant about this, but, after reading it back, I just can't bring myself to post it. It's just PC madness gone crazy. "Gender-Confused kids"? If they think this won't confuse kids even more, they're stupid. The gay activists are gonna push people to the limit and when they push back I'm afraid of what may happen... Sad, it's just really, really sad.
Yep
November 15, 2007 - 12:57 ET by mbs6Rational people from other states are shocked when they meet someone from California who isn't a Fruit or Nut. We live in California (aka Occupied Territory) and years ago my sister got married to a man from another state. Apparently his family was apprehensive about what these Crazy Californians would be like and were relieved when they met us and found out not everyone in CA is a morally depraved socialist.
Watch it, mbs6, that could
November 15, 2007 - 15:46 ET by motherbeltWatch it, mbs6, that could be considered...well I don't know what to call it. Bill O'Reilly said that in Sylvia's restaurant in Harlem the people were having a good time just like everywhere else; people weren't talking rap crap like mo'fo etc. And he was accused of racism. So if you say a lot of people in CA are just like everyone else, not everyone is a fruit or a nut... that might be....I don't know....Californianism????
cal dreamin' becoming a reality
November 15, 2007 - 14:06 ET by acumen....jungle love, it's makin' me craaaazy.
When I first heard about these laws
November 15, 2007 - 12:20 ET by Bess2728I didn't believe it. It took looking it up on my own to see. I am so glad I did not live in CA right now.
It will be interesting to see if there's a large increase in parents taking their children out of the public school system and finding an alternative educational option for them.
Majority rule has been transformed into majority cruel.
November 15, 2007 - 12:25 ET by Hunter12We are being told by a vocal minority that scream for their "rights" that our desire to see normalacy and morality enforced suppresses their rights and we are cruel to expect them to conform. The "bleeding hearts" that support this notion of cruelty generally isolate them and theirs in gated communities or behind a wall of bodyguards and tell us we need to accept gender nuetral notions, etc. Meanwhile they send their children to private schools that are probably exempt from following these rules.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
our desire to see
November 15, 2007 - 15:48 ET by motherbeltour desire to see normalacy and morality enforced suppresses their rights -Hunter12
Ah, but Hunter, you want to define what "normalcy and morality" are....therein, as Shakespeare said, "lies the rub....."
<sarc off>
our desire to see
November 15, 2007 - 15:48 ET by motherbeltour desire to see normalacy and morality enforced suppresses their rights -Hunter12
Ah, but Hunter, you want to define what "normalcy and morality" are....therein, as Shakespeare said, "lies the rub....."
<sarc off>
One more reason to build a
November 15, 2007 - 12:26 ET by Dan The Man 2One more reason to build a wall...between California and the rest of the nation.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Virtue, Morality, Liberty
November 15, 2007 - 12:46 ET by Ten7s"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles." ~George Washington
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." ~Benjamin Franklin
"No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and . . . . their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice . . . . These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government." ~Thomas Jefferson
". . . Virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed . . . so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger." ~Patrick Henry
"Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other." ~John Adams
"The diminuition of public virtue is usually attended with that of public happiness, and the public liberty will not long survive the total extinction of morals." ~Samuel Adams
Amen to That
November 15, 2007 - 13:06 ET by mbs6Honestly, I get emotional when I read these words of the Founding Fathers and consider how far we have fallen. It is tragic.
I think we can make it
November 15, 2007 - 13:15 ET by dscottI think we can make it official, Schwarzenegger is not a Conservative nor a Republican. I vote we boot him from the Party. All inclusive my eye, that just means you enable people who have no principles. Just to make the point, whenever you refer to Party affliation in regards to Schwarzenegger, he is a Democrat.
Did the voters of CA elect Maria Shriver or Arnold Schwarzenegger? What is this nonsense, since when is Co-governorship a legally recognized position? This is the same lunacy of the Clintons, having Hillary elected POTUS this time around means also having Bill for 8 more years, a clever sidestep of the Law. There needs to be some truth in advertising here, but according to the Courts, politicians are legally allowed to lie to the public and misrepresent their positions. This is not Democracy, this is salesmenship.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
I'm Grateful...
November 15, 2007 - 13:19 ET by mbs6I wasn't dumb enough to vote for Arnold. He's not even a moderate; he's just a run-of-the-mill liberal. I think the steroids and the Kennedy family dinners have done this boy wrong.
The two youth bills the
November 15, 2007 - 14:25 ET by katleeThe two youth bills the governor signed include the Student Civil Rights Act and the Safe Place to Learn Act. The Student Civil Rights Act (SB 777), authored by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, protects students from harassment and bullying in public schools by making sure teachers and school administrators fully understand their responsibilities to protect youth. The Safe Place to Learn Act (AB 394), authored by Assemblymember Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, further strengthens youth protections by ensuring that the state's nondiscrimination policies are rigorously enforced.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as usual these bills are getting twisted way out of proportion by the media - trying to prevent more Matthew Shepards is not a bad thing
God's Revenge
November 15, 2007 - 14:31 ET by NoMoreClintons"I think the concept of God is pretty much out of California."
I think I feel a big ol' earthhquake warming up in the bullpen.
Just another reason
November 15, 2007 - 15:15 ET by Airforce_5_OJust another reason I don't live in Pink-o-fornia.
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
Privatize Now!
November 15, 2007 - 15:22 ET by mattmPrivatize Now!
Once more I must ask: Why
November 15, 2007 - 15:55 ET by Sonny LykosOnce more I must ask: Why are you all so surprised?
Items from the list of Communist Goals as given to Congress in 1963:
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
As I've stated before, while they are disasembling the US and reassembling it as they want, we watch Oprah, Friends, and any sports game on TV. Americans deserve what is happening. And the far left knows it. And as CA goes, so goes the country.
Folks, it's too late!
Shhh! You're giving away the
November 15, 2007 - 19:06 ET by balboaShhh! You're giving away the special surprise ending we have planned!
Sorry. I'll go watch the
November 15, 2007 - 20:13 ET by Sonny LykosSorry. I'll go watch the North Texas at Arkansas State game.