California Gay History Bill Headed To Governor

http://www.huffingtonpost.c...%7Csec3_lnk1%7C75653

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- California lawmakers on Tuesday sent the governor a bill that would make the state the first requiring public schools to include the contributions of gays and lesbians in social studies curriculum.

The bill, passed on a party-line vote, adds lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people as well as people with disabilities to the list of groups that schools must include in the lessons. It also would prohibit material that reflects adversely on gays.

Democratic Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco says SB48 is crucial because of the bullying that happens to gay students. Republicans called it a well-intentioned but ill-conceived bill and raised concerns that it would indoctrinate children to accept homosexuality.

"This bill will require California schools to present a more accurate and nuanced view of American history in our social science curriculum by recognizing the accomplishments of groups that are not often recognized," said Assembly Speaker John Perez, the first openly gay speaker of the California Assembly.

The bill now goes to Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, who has not said whether he would sign it. Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill in 2006.

Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, a Republican from Twin Peaks, said he was offended as a Christian that the bill was being used to promote a "homosexual agenda" in public schools.

"I think it's one thing to say that we should be tolerant," Donnelly said. "It is something else altogether to say that my children are going to be taught that this lifestyle is good."

California law already requires schools to teach about women, African Americans, Mexican Americans, entrepreneurs, Asian Americans, European Americans, American Indians and labor. The Legislature over the years also has prescribed specific lessons about the Irish potato famine and the Holocaust, among other topics.

SB48 would require, as soon as the 2013-2014 school year, the California Board of Education and local school districts to adopt textbooks and other teaching materials that cover the contributions and roles of sexual minorities.

The legislation leaves it to local school boards to decide how to implement the requirement. It does not specify a grade level for the instruction to begin.

Opponents argued that such instruction would further burden an already crowded curriculum and expose students to a subject that some parents find objectionable. Assemblyman Chris Norby, R-Fullerton, said the bill micromanages the classroom.

"Our founding fathers are turning over in their graves," Donnelly said.

The bill's author, Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, said he hopes Brown will sign his bill. He dismissed arguments that the bill promotes certain sexual behaviors and said it removes censorship in textbooks.

"Bottom line, it's only beneficial to share with students the broad diversity of the human experience and that our democracy protects everyone," he said.

Before the Assembly vote, Perez pointed to a few contributions of gay people, including Friedrich von Steuben, one of George Washington's military advisers who fled Prussia after he was hounded as a homosexual.

Von Steuben is credited with being one of the fathers of the Continental Army and teaching essential military drills.

He also cited Alan Turing, a mathematician who helped crack Nazi Germany's secret codes by creating the "Turing bombe," a forerunner of modern computers.

Some churches and conservative family groups warned the bill will drive more parents to take their children out of public schools.

"This sexual brainwashing bill would mandate that children as young as 6 years old be told falsehoods – that homosexuality is biological, when it isn't, or healthy, when it's not," said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com.

The Assembly passed the bill on a 49-25 vote.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

OK, this is not a gay bashing thread but, it is a thread intended to bash California Democratic politicians. What a crock of crap. Obviously, this is simply another way to entice some voters to go Dem. A person's contribution to culture and/or a society should stand alone and the sexual orientation of that individual has absolutely no place in the discussion. Doesn't matter whether it's sexual orientation, race or hairstyle. IMO, highlighting specifics like this only dilutes the contribution. All I can say is you folks out in CA need to start over.

------------------
Ron

quote Originally posted by blackrams: California law already requires schools to teach about women, African Americans, Mexican Americans, entrepreneurs, Asian Americans, European Americans, American Indians and labor. The Legislature over the years also has prescribed specific lessons about the Irish potato famine and the Holocaust, among other topics.

The problem with California's brand of liberalism, is that they like to put people into "containers." Besides the fact that they truly want to believe that they are the most accepting and open-minded society in the world... their logic is so far-fetched that it actually becomes bigotted and separtist in it's own right. It's like that "no fat people" television law they have in Australia... where they're not allowed to show fat people on television. The far-left mentality there created that concept because they don't want to insult fat people, but at the same time don't want people to think that being fat is ok. I mean... where do you go with that???

The fact that they have to pre-container everyone before you attach the label if "American" onto them is ridiculous. California has a lot of unique history, as does the United States as a whole. I see no problem with them teaching all of these different things, but it's the labels that really upset me... "Mexican American"... I mean, what the **** is that? "African American..." please... that's a phrase that Jesse Jackson created. You're either American... or you're not. You can talk about your heritage, but if you're an American... then you're an American. Unless all these people hold dual citizenships...

The term "Mexican American" is new to me... I wonder if the crazies over there even use it conceptually as they do African American. Do they consider a Mexican American to be anyone from central America? Like... are they now Mexican if they come from Guatemala, or Hondouras? Living here in South Florida, a large population of the black people are actually from the islands... either Jamaica, Haiti, etc... the radical leftists call them "African American" but they most certainly are not African. I have a good friend from Jamaica... and he's at the point now where he doesn't even say anything about it.. he just has the "yeah man..." attitude about it. Doesn't care anymore... he thinks the whole concept of "African American" is ridiculous.

Anyway... the study of homosexual people... I don't think anyone cares that they are gay... but unless they've actually done something spectacular in history, I don't see why it's necessary to study them. Sure, if a homosexual made huge strides in gay rights, you can teach that... but if they're just looking for any gay person that's done ANYTHING at all just so they can create some subject matter, then that's just ridiculous.


That said... I do support federalism... and if California wants to continue to do strange stuff... that's their perogative... as long as they don't come to the Federal government looking for a bail-out.

I have faith that Brown will be able to at least balance the budget...

When I taught in rural PA I had a unit about the social change in the US during the 20th century. This included a couple days on the gays and their impact and development in American Society. Other topics were The Black Civil Rights Movements, Women's Rights Movement, immigration trends, etc.

So, yes. I taught about gays, because they were gay.

~ Derek

quote Originally posted by blackrams: It also would prohibit material that reflects adversely on gays.

Seems a little wrong somehow.

quote "This sexual brainwashing bill would mandate that children as young as 6 years old be told falsehoods – that homosexuality is biological, when it isn't, or healthy, when it's not," said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com.

LOL I suppose that guy thinks its a "choice"?

Load of B.S.

If a person did something historically relevant, say, crossing the Delaware River to defeat the Redcoats on Christmas, why should sexual orientation be a factor in that at all? I don't recall history lessons saying crap like 'On July 2, 1776, heterosexual John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence'.

IMHO, If they really want to 'enlighten' people with history lessons on sexual orientation, then they should spell out the heterosexuals as well. Again, I don't see heterosexuality being 'proclaimed' in the lessons the way that is being demanded for homosexuals and bisexuals.

I'm all for equal rights, but this is going a bit far. I don't see 'Straight Pride Parades'.....no, a parade is just a parade, normally associated with celebrating an EVENT, say, like Thanksgiving, or a trip to the moon, or memorial day.

Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
Rom 1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
Rom 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Glad to see the lawmakers are tackling the really important things, and not silly crap like how to keep from going broke really fast.

They already include gays in history. They just leave out the fact that they were gay. As they should. Someone's sexual orientation is irrelevant, unless you have intent to "mate" with that someone. Othewise - it has ZERO impact. Where I put my dick matters not to you - unless it is you who is "getting it". And, where you put your dick is irrelevant to me - unless it is me "getting it". It doesnt even matter to God. No matter what "they" say. This is as flawed as "Affirmative Action".

But, I do fully understand that within a flawed system, you must use flawed policies.....tho - I would prefer to just make "the system" correct.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: Where I put my dick matters not to you - unless it is you who is "getting it".

Holy crap, this is good stuff. You don't see quotes like this every day!!!

quote Originally posted by 2.5: And therein lies the problem with their logic. They say are all equal, all the same, yet push separation, identifying the differences, putting the differences on a poster, trying to put on a pedestal the difference as being some reason for accomplishments. Trying to reverse what they see as prejudice by creating another prejudice.

You can't really teach or learn about social movements, development and change without pointing out why they happened... So it would seem that most of this thread would prefer that we teach The Black Civil Rights Movement without pointing out race differences... or The Women's Rights Movement without pointing out gender/sex differences... or immigration trends and their affects on society without identifying all the different races/backgrounds that came here, why they came here and when they came here... or gays pursuing their interests without pointing out sexual orientation... It just doesn't work. People are not going to understand why a bunch of folks marched from Alabama to Washington if everything/everyone is the same color and everything was equal.

For the record, I never said I was for or against this legislation, just throwing my experience in the ring.

~ Derek

quote Originally posted by Derek_85GT: I sure would hate to see what God would think about Sundays during football season when guys get together without their significant others and are consumed with fraternal passion as well as passion for a game played by really big guys in really tight pants. ~ Derek

Just 'cuz the Eagles didnt make the Superbowl last year.....

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Just 'cuz the Eagles didnt make the Superbowl last year.....

Harsh.

However, it's baseball season now...

~ Derek

Any guesses how much of history will be rewritten now that the real history can finally come out of the closet?

quote Originally posted by blackrams: OK, this is not a gay bashing thread but, it is a thread intended to bash California Democratic politicians. What a crock of crap. Obviously, this is simply another way to entice some voters to go Dem. A person's contribution to culture and/or a society should stand alone and the sexual orientation of that individual has absolutely no place in the discussion. Doesn't matter whether it's sexual orientation, race or hairstyle. IMO, highlighting specifics like this only dilutes the contribution. All I can say is you folks out in CA need to start over.

Just curious, what percentage of California residents would you say you're better than? 10%? 90%? Just trying to get a feel for that, since it seems that the proportion of CA-negative threads you start seems to be greater than 1:50.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: All the gay-bashers think it's a "lifestyle choice", not a hardware issue. It may be a lifestyle choice for a very, very tiny minority but given the torment, torture, murder, beatings, discrimination (both social and legal), etc, that gay humans are subjected to in this country I can't see anyone wanting to be gay. I think the main reason the homophobes can't acknowledge the biological aspect is because they believe that God created them (the bashers) in his image and they can't believe that God would therefor create a gay human, because it would mean somehow that God was gay. It's a load of cac to me, but that's just my opine...

X2.. I actually am friends with many gay men who have suffered enormously at the hands of violent homophobes and haters. Boy, if they could have just "made a choice" to be straight, they would not have been beaten within an inch of their life or kicked out of the Navy. I have to agree, this "choice" thing is BS. Just as a man does not choose what woman he is attracted to, a gay man or woman cannot choose who
(s)he finds attractive either. Its a feeling in the gut, just like when I fell in love with my wife. I did not choose to be straight, I am just naturally attracted to women.

You know what IS a choice? Being hateful and violent toward others who have done nothing more than look or act differently.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: ....... You know what IS a choice? Being hateful and violent toward others who have done nothing more than look or act differently.

unfortunately, I doubt that is a choice either

I think any historical figure that is purported to be gay is sketchy at best. Most historical information on people who lived in their time does not take special time to mention their sexual preference.

Von Steuben? I researched him for my Revolutionary War novel. He left the Prussian army for unknown reasons. Some have speculated WHY, but they don't actually KNOW. But the Gay community seems to be eager to snatch up any well known person they can get their hands on, as if Von Steuben being gay or straight has anything to do with his ability to train our soldiers at Valley Forge.

I have a friend who is gay and he can recite off the top of his head every historical figure that ever lived that was supposedly gay. He also knows every hollywood actor, singer, etc. but does he KNOW? No. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

The problem with teaching history by pointing out supposedly gay figures of note is that 1) the truth might be different than the textbook and teacher says it is, 2) their sexual preference most likely did not affect the outcome of whatever event they were a part of that made them noteworthy, and 3) sexuality should not be taught in school.

But go ahead, California! Only 4% of your population claims to be gay, but don't let that stop you from forcing the other 96% to learn about tolerance instead of history in a history class. It's not like you are facing crippling debt, illegal alien invasion, etc.

I always think of Dan Savage's logic when discussing the "choice" to become homosexual.

That is, simply: "choose it"

One hardcore conservative gets down on his knees and shows how easy it is to choose being gay.

It's so simple, it works.

quote Originally posted by Derek_85GT: You can't really teach or learn about social movements, development and change without pointing out why they happened... So it would seem that most of this thread would prefer that we teach The Black Civil Rights Movement without pointing out race differences... or The Women's Rights Movement without pointing out gender/sex differences... or immigration trends and their affects on society without identifying all the different races/backgrounds that came here, why they came here and when they came here... or gays pursuing their interests without pointing out sexual orientation... It just doesn't work. People are not going to understand why a bunch of folks marched from Alabama to Washington if everything/everyone is the same color and everything was equal. ~ Derek

That doesn't seem like what this is about. Its about saying "look at the good things gay people can do". Such as if for example Graham Bell was gay, would he not have done the same work on telephones gay or not?

I think maybe I was somewhat misunderstood, but I guess we could get into things like, since blacks have equal rights today, why does affirmative action still exist? Why are there quotas for diversity that employers meet, for race, gender, sexual orientation, etc qualifying as diverse. Does it create a new prejudice?

As for gays pursuing interests I don't think it is illegal to be gay in any state? You mean other interests, or being picked on by fellow students in school? It is illegal for both homosexuals and heterosexuals to "do it" in the city parks. Or are we getting into definition of Marriage territory?

quote Originally posted by 2.5: That doesn't seem like what this is about. Its about saying "look at the good things gay people can do". Such as if for example Graham Bell was gay, would he not have done the same work on telephones gay or not?

Well if he didn't have to go through the shame and guilt because of society, he probably would have invented the automobile..
History with an agenda, thought that was only the haters that do this.

I don't understand the leftist obsession with categorizing, identifying and dividing people. When the KKK does it, everyone is up in arms. But when some leftist labels a bunch of people as gay and writes legislation that will teach children that such people are gay, then it gets voted into law.


.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: I don't understand the leftist obsession with categorizing, identifying and dividing people. When the KKK does it, everyone is up in arms. But when some leftist labels a bunch of people as gay and writes legislation that will teach children that such people are gay, then it gets voted into law. .

Well, the KKK does do it in VIOLENT ways. Maybe thats what gets everyone up in arms. I dont think its a bad thing for people to be who they are if its not hurting somebody... but the KKK man? Really? You had to have abetter example in your head than THAT.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 07-06-2011).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Well, the KKK does do it in VIOLENT ways. Maybe thats what gets everyone up in arms. I dont think its a bad thing for people to be who they are if its not hurting somebody... but the KKK man? Really? You had to have abetter example in your head than THAT.

Black Panthers then?

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Well, the KKK does do it in VIOLENT ways. Maybe thats what gets everyone up in arms. I dont think its a bad thing for people to be who they are if its not hurting somebody... but the KKK man? Really? You had to have abetter example in your head than THAT.

Show me where in the last 20 years where the KKK has done anything "violently". A statement like that needs some sort of proof. From what I know of them lately, they clean the side of the road, raise money for causes etc.

Perhaps you have them confused with the Skinheads, or the Hells Angels.
Brad

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: Show me where in the last 20 years where the KKK has done anything "violently". A statement like that needs some sort of proof. From what I know of them lately, they clean the side of the road, raise money for causes etc. Perhaps you have them confused with the Skinheads, or the Hells Angels. Brad

They were founded on violent principles to win a war of attrition in the south and for over 100 years perpetuated a littany of violence based on race. I dont care what they have done lately, their foundation is based on the lowest traits in humanity. You cant polish a turd.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 07-06-2011).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: They were founded on violent principles to win a war of attrition in the south and for over 100 years perpetuated a littany of violence based on race. I dont care what they have done lately, their foundation is based on the lowest traits in humanity. You cant polish a turd.

A lot of things were founded in violence weren't they? I'm not saying that anyone is right or wrong. I'm not taking anyone's side here. All I am saying is that many things were created in violence, and have since dropped that part of life.

Brad

Gay History?

Wow.

How far back do they plan on going? The Greeks? The Sumerians? The Egyptians?

Silly.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Gay History? Wow. How far back do they plan on going? The Greeks? The Sumerians? The Egyptians? Silly.

Try further!
God created two males, Adam and Steve.
But that part of history has suppressed until now, it can finally see the light!

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Gay History? Wow. How far back do they plan on going? The Greeks? The Sumerians? The Egyptians? Silly.

quote Originally posted by twofatguys:

The guy on the right......RuPaul without drag makeup.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: You know what IS a choice? Being hateful and violent toward others who have done nothing more than look or act differently.

Actually, that's not really a choice either, at least not in the way you meant. Basic human animal instinct is to fear "other" and, because fear is the primary component of hate, to hate "other". Everything in our culture (both religious and civil) is built, whether we like it or not, on these basic animal instincts. Where the choice comes in is recognizing this, and consciously working hard to change our higher level intellectual experience to not include tribal/animal hate in our personal existence. It takes work, real work, hard work, non-stop never-ending work, to over-ride fear/hate of "other". Many people fail, IMHO most people (at least in this society) don't even bother to try.

Hate and violence are hardwired in to most, but the conscious decision to be different requires the mind.

Put another way, it's not that people decide to be violent and hateful to those that they perceive are different, it's that they don't choose not to be.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 07-06-2011).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Just curious, what percentage of California residents would you say you're better than? 10%? 90%? Just trying to get a feel for that, since it seems that the proportion of CA-negative threads you start seems to be greater than 1:50.

Let's see, how should I respond to James inflamatory crap? I think I'll just ignore him. That always seems to make him happy.

Back on topic: It really baffles me how this new law is going to do anything except further segregation of another minority. I do not agree with qualifying anyone with a title of anything prior to American. I also can not see any reason that one's sexuality needs to be discussed with respect to significant historical events unless that event specifically relates to one's sex, race or some other defining feature or role. I guess eventually, I'll have to claim that I'm a (hetero) Euro-American and that just sounds stupid but, if that is what has to happen, I surely want specific social, history and cultural training for everyone else.

------------------
Ron

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 07-06-2011).]

All you had to post was Tom Ammianos name and you knew this issues would hit the big time. He is the biggest queer with major stroke (no pun intended) in the government I have ever met.....and my wife and I have some very, very gay friends. This won't fly in the private school sector....only the public. I went to private schools all my life and my kids will do the same in a few years. The PARENT pays out the ass for an education and has meetings to decide what the school teaches.....and the school boards adjusts accordingly, even if it breaks the law.

I forgot to mention earlier that if the only reason is to make gays not get bullied (hint: it isn't) then why not also point out all of the nerds, dweebs, dorks, and geeks throughout history? Because I GUARANTEE YOU that there are numerous examples of nerds (Da Vinci anyone?) that made this world a better place - but STILL get bullied in school because they are different.

Here's a tip: Bullying, though horrible, is part of the social life of a school. There are cliques, subcultures, allies, enemies, hunters, and the hunted. I'm pretty sure that not every single case of bullying stemmed from the victim being gay, but I suppose I'd have to research that.

Seriously, why does sexual preference need to be mentioned at school? To me homosexuality is kind of like religion. You have a set of prescribed values that you believe in deeply (it's not a choice when you can't deny the TRUTH of who you are, right? That's what religions would tell you.) You socialize and gravitate towards others of like mind, and a subculture exists that carries its own protocols and vernacular. You get upset when another religion points out that they think you are wrong and going to hell.

Agree with me or not, I think sexual preference needs to be treated like judeo-christian religion for schools - in other words avoided at all costs. I have to keep my God out of your school, shouldn't you keep yours out of mine?