Opponents of Calif gay history law seek referendum Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/07/26/1986454/opponents-of-calif-gay-history.html#ixzz1THWjiMn4

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://www.adn.com/2011/07/26/1986454/opponents-of-calif-gay-history.html

By JUDY LIN / Associated Press

Published: July 26th, 2011 04:57 PM

Last Modified: July 26th, 2011 06:03 PM

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - California's secretary of state on Tuesday cleared a group to begin collecting signatures for a ballot referendum to overturn a first-in-the-nation law requiring public schools to teach the contributions of gays and lesbians in social studies lessons

Gov. Jerry Brown signed SB48 earlier this month, making California the first state to mandate such lessons in public school curriculum. The requirement is set to take effect in the 2013-14 school year.

It took opponents less than two weeks to draft the referendum challenging the move.

At a time of budget cuts, California schools should be focused on improving student performance and lowering the high school dropout rate, said Paulo Sibaja, a spokesman for the group Stop SB48.

"Politicians have no business writing textbooks. It should be left to the historians and academic experts," he said.

Backers of the referendum will need to gather 504,760 signatures from registered voters by Oct. 12 to qualify for the next statewide ballot. Sibaja said paid and volunteer signature-gatherers will be used to try to meet the requirement.

Supporters of SB48 said it will teach students to be more accepting and perhaps help end bullying of gay students. It also ensures that students are taught about the contributions of people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender.

"It's important for us right now to educate Californians about what the bill does and does not do," said Rebekah Orr, a spokeswoman for Equality California, a leading lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights advocacy group in California. "We want to be clear that this bill is about teaching historical figures and not just LGBT people."

The new law also requires California public schools to teach the contributions of disabled people.

Orr said Equality California and its partners are prepared to fight the referendum if it qualifies for the ballot.

Many conservatives opposed the law, saying it would teach children to accept homosexuality. The law has drawn criticism from some churches and conservative groups that argue such instruction would expose students to a subject that some parents find objectionable.

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 new law requires the California Board of Education and school districts to use 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.

A telephone message left for the bill's author, Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, wasn't immediately returned. His office said the senator was out of town for the Legislature's summer recess.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, who carried the bill in the Assembly, also was out of town.

[^_^ 5,021]

URL in the title bar? Noob move...

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

URL in the title bar? Noob move...

Fck...I just noticed that. How do I fix it ?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bigots being bigoted. Nothing new.

[^_^ 5,021]

Fck...I just noticed that. How do I fix it ?

You had to edit it within 5 minutes. It's too late now (obviously) so evidence of your noobage will live on forever (or as long as this VJ db is up).

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Bigots being bigoted. Nothing new.

the bigoted thing was passing the law in the first place mandating 'gay history' be taught in schools.

It's the same way that "African American History" is bigoted as well.

The last time I checked, all 'groups' are a part of AMERICAN history.

Anything else is blatant racism.

[Zero Sum 305]

the bigoted thing was passing the law in the first place mandating 'gay history' be taught in schools.

It's the same way that "African American History" is bigoted as well.

The last time I checked, all 'groups' are a part of AMERICAN history.

Anything else is blatant racism.

Its not really the same way nor is it mandated that AA History be taught, but highlighted, as with other groups. This whole anger over what is mandated or not is stemming from a homophobic reaction to making awareness an option. That said, if the CA gay history law makes teaching of the subject mandated, perhaps don't you think it may have more to do with abolishing purposeful ignorance of the subject rather than inclusion within the curriculum?

If it really was mandated, that Jr have to sit in class being force-fed a gay promotion curriculum, with no option to sit out of said curricular activity, then perhaps there is something structurally wrong in the way the law is executed. Is that the case? Because otherwise this is nothing more than mere shock reaction by known homophobes.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Its not really the same way nor is it mandated that AA History be taught, but highlighted, as with other groups. This whole anger over what is mandated or not is stemming from a homophobic reaction to making awareness an option. That said, if the CA gay history law makes teaching of the subject mandated, perhaps don't you think it may have more to do with abolishing purposeful ignorance of the subject rather than inclusion within the curriculum?

If it really was mandated, that Jr have to sit in class being force-fed a gay promotion curriculum, with no option to sit out of said curricular activity, then perhaps there is something structurally wrong in the way the law is executed. Is that the case? Because otherwise this is nothing more than mere shock reaction by known homophobes.

You know the saying "the path to hell is paved with good intentions?"

Think of things like this that way. I don't care who's who and what is what, but when you create a situation when you are singling people out, be it for good or bad, you create a scenario in which many in society grow resently of that certain group of people.

I've stated this before, but the current young generation who's been immersed in this 'diversity' BS, is one of the most racist generations in history. There's a resentment towards groups because of the attention that is played to them.

When everyone is put on equal footing and never treated differently, then you're more likely to have harmony. However when you purposefully point out, "John Smith - An African-American man" or "Bob Smith - A Gay Man" did this or that, then you're treating them as inferior by pointing out their difference. You don't see textbooks pointing out "George Washington - A white male." Why? Because it's understood and treated as the 'norm' for our history of this society. When you have something that is considered to be the normal/understood subject and you point out another that is somehwat different, you are unintentionally treating them as inferior.

As I said, it's not intentional and that's why they have the saying "the path to hell is paved with good intentions."

It's those good intentions that place you in hell, because you didn't stop to think about the long term psychological effects of the actions/laws put into place.

[Zero Sum 305]

You know the saying "the path to hell is paved with good intentions?"

Think of things like this that way. I don't care who's who and what is what, but when you create a situation when you are singling people out, be it for good or bad, you create a scenario in which many in society grow resently of that certain group of people.

I've stated this before, but the current young generation who's been immersed in this 'diversity' BS, is one of the most racist generations in history. There's a resentment towards groups because of the attention that is played to them.

When everyone is put on equal footing and never treated differently, then you're more likely to have harmony. However when you purposefully point out, "John Smith - An African-American man" or "Bob Smith - A Gay Man" did this or that, then you're treating them as inferior by pointing out their difference. You don't see textbooks pointing out "George Washington - A white male." Why? Because it's understood and treated as the 'norm' for our history of this society. When you have something that is considered to be the normal/understood subject and you point out another that is somehwat different, you are unintentionally treating them as inferior.

As I said, it's not intentional and that's why they have the saying "the path to hell is paved with good intentions."

It's those good intentions that place you in hell, because you didn't stop to think about the long term psychological effects of the actions/laws put into place.

Its a path to hell for those bigoted against a society established in equal footing, equal knowledge of history, and equal rationalization of the results of history as something not plastered in the past, but as a part of something living in today's reality. Hence, those long term psychological effects are disturbing on those most opposed to having that egalitarian AMERICAN society they 'claim' they favor. Does this mean all in favor of one society, and only one society? Of course not. I am sure though that detail will be ignored unfortunately.

Society is diverse, as homogenous you may think it is or should be. Within the human society as a whole, there will always be bits and pieces very different from one another, and its time people realize to quit hanging themselves on details that ignore past and present as a way of dealing with their own inadequacies.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The proof will be in the content of the proposed curriculums and not on the knee jerk reactions bigots who rant and rave when they hear the word "gay"

Edited July 27, 2011 by fishdude

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

The proof will be in the content of the proposed curriculums and not on the knee jerk reactions bigots who rant and rave when they hear the word "gay"

Why should kids have to learn about a some of sick and demented people?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Its a path to hell for those bigoted against a society established in equal footing, equal knowledge of history, and equal rationalization of the results of history as something not plastered in the past, but as a part of something living in today's reality. Hence, those long term psychological effects are disturbing on those most opposed to having that egalitarian AMERICAN society they 'claim' they favor. Does this mean all in favor of one society, and only one society? Of course not. I am sure though that detail will be ignored unfortunately.

Society is diverse, as homogenous you may think it is or should be. Within the human society as a whole, there will always be bits and pieces very different from one another, and its time people realize to quit hanging themselves on details that ignore past and present as a way of dealing with their own inadequacies.

You're missing the point. You create bigots out of people who would not normally be 'bigoted' towards one group or another. This is a natural human reaction to something that's treated differently.

If you take a group of people of mixed race for example and keep them together for a year, treat them as normal "John, Tracy, Eli, Beth, and Jane." You never talk about the color of their skin, you never bring race up in an instance, then those people will most likely get along and when they part there will be no animosity.

If you do the same thing however with the same group and point out, "Eli is black, Jane is hispanic, John is gay" and you make this a focal point of the group in praising their accomplishments, then you are creating a scenario in which these individuals are no longer looked at as a part of the whole, but as their own instances who are treated as not equal to the ones who are not mentioned based on their race. This time when the group parts, you're leaving a situation of resentment towards those who were focused on based on how they looked.

For a society to have harmony, they don't need to be of the same skin color. However they do need to be treated as equals. You cannot treat someone as an equal on one hand however and point out their inequality on another. You have to treat them all as human beings, as Americans, and not some sub-set of that.

[Zero Sum 305]

Why should kids have to learn about a some of sick and demented people?

Can you share the actual law or are you going to continue ranting as a homophobe? I'd support an effort against the law if it was shown that it was merely a gay promotion effort trying to turn heterosexual kids into gays.

Tolerance is not part of that agenda.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Can you share the actual law or are you going to continue ranting as a homophobe? I'd support an effort against the law if it was shown that it was merely a gay promotion effort trying to turn heterosexual kids into gays.

Tolerance is not part of that agenda.

Screw tolerance. It's a sickness that shouldn't be promoted.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Screw tolerance. It's a sickness that shouldn't be promoted.

Why are you worried about it? How does it affect your day to day life if someone is a homosexual?