So what do we call em?

[85Sooner]

"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.

"We are shocked and appalled that the governor has blatantly attacked traditional family values in California," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

"With this decision, Gov. Schwarzenegger has told parents that their values are irrelevant. Many parents will have no choice but to pull their children out of the public schools that have now become sexualized indoctrination centers."

"Arnold Schwarzenegger has delivered young children into the hands of those who will introduce them to alternative sexual lifestyles," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, which worked to defeat the plans. "This means children as young as five years old will be mentally molested in school classrooms.

"Shame on Schwarzenegger and the Democrat politicians for ensuring that every California school becomes a homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination center.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130

THis is getting more and more stupid every day.

[StoopTroup]

Isn't Arnold a Republican?

[reevie]

Since we're talking about California, it'll probably be something like Co-habitational Partners and People of Child Raising Responsibilities.



Oh wait, forgot it is California so you can't be responsible for something. Primary Care-givers of private citizen and non-citizen minors.

[85Sooner]

Isn't Arnold a Republican?


Rhino IMHO

These folks don't think the nazi state can re-exist and from what they are showing us about learning from history is that they don't. Beware of the "guy that made the trains run on time. History can and more often than not does repeat itself.

[Soonrboy]

I'm going to need a different source before I believe this story.

[OCUDad]

SB1437 was a bill designed by its authors to prohibit discriminatory content in state textbooks. There isn't any place in the language of the bill that eliminates references to "mom" and "dad," but what is there has brought controversy.

What the bill would do is change the wording of the state education code. The current code says “No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school sponsor any activity which reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry." Please tell me there are people on this board with a conservative point of view who do more than randomly post clips from idiotic blogs and quote drivel from neo-con pundits as gospel. Inflammatory BS like this does not reflect well on the thinking conservative.

[Jerk]

What the bill would do is change the wording of the state education code. The current code says “No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school sponsor any activity which reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry."

Just curious, not trying to stir anything up, but what does it change the code to? I didn't get a masters in reading comprehension, but the code you pasted appears to be the old one that's going to be replaced.

[85Sooner]

Please tell me there are people on this board with a conservative point of view who do more than randomly post clips from idiotic blogs and quote drivel from neo-con pundits as gospel. Inflammatory BS like this does not reflect well on the thinking conservative.



It does not specify it but the language amounts to that action. There are some people on this board who can read and use thought to determine how these laws can be implemented.

remember a law about a decade ago promoting that state workers such as teachers should be able to moonlight as waiters and waitresses in places that serve alcohol. Sound fine right cause up until then there was a ban on state workers working in any area concerning the sale of alcohol. Gotta help the teachers and why not right?

If you wre involved you knew the wording of the bill. If you were involved, the whole reason for the bill was that it would allow gov employees (ie elected officials) to be involved with the alcohol distributung business.$$$$$$$$$$$

That was the real reason. Be careful and don't take things on face value. So don't be so quick to denounce the intent vs reality of some of these laws.

[OCUDad]

Be careful and don't take things on face value.Absolutely true. Also, be careful and don't read things into the bill that aren't there.

[StoopTroup]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/arnold_conan_republican.jpg

[85Sooner]

Absolutely true. Also, be careful and don't read things into the bill that aren't there.

The bill gives those who would want to do this full legal permission to do so. The way the gov in cali is don't be surprised. Remember when gays just wanted gov out of their bedroom? Now they want a hell of alot more. based on a behavior not to get off the subject.


If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity … you should be allowed to do so," it advises. "Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible."

[OCUDad]

There's just not enough tinfoil in the world...

[85Sooner]

Maybe just a view from the OCU point of view.

[Sooner_Bob]

Whether this really happens or not is one thing, but simply thinking about actually implementing it is crazy IMO.

[OCUDad]

Maybe just a view from the OCU point of view.Nice ad hominem argument. One more try, and then we can leave you to your fantasies. It might help if you have actually read the text of the bill (SB777), as I have. If you read the bill, you will discover it does NOT "advise" using any restroom you want. It does NOT "advise" joining whatever group you want to. Those words do not even appear in the bill.

The bill attempts to bring consistency to several sections of the California Education Code which prohibit ADVERSE portrayal of certain characteristics. It does so by defining these characteristics as those listed in the California Penal Code as "hate crime" characteristics.

"Mom" and "Dad" can still be used in the schools. "Husband" and "wife" can still be used in the schools. Horror of horrors, the gender-neutral term "parents" can still be used in the schools. Murder is still illegal.

This is a tempest in a teapot. This bill may be public grandstanding by the politician who introduced it, but it's not the end of the world that certain agenda-driven bigots make it out to be. Have a nice day.

[Ike]

Nice ad hominem argument. One more try, and then we can leave you to your fantasies. It might help if you have actually read the text of the bill (SB777), as I have. If you read the bill, you will discover it does NOT "advise" using any restroom you want. It does NOT "advise" joining whatever group you want to. Those words do not even appear in the bill.

The bill attempts to bring consistency to several sections of the California Education Code which prohibit ADVERSE portrayal of certain characteristics. It does so by defining these characteristics as those listed in the California Penal Code as "hate crime" characteristics.

"Mom" and "Dad" can still be used in the schools. "Husband" and "wife" can still be used in the schools. Horror of horrors, the gender-neutral term "parents" can still be used in the schools. Murder is still illegal.

This is a tempest in a teapot. This bill may be public grandstanding by the politician who introduced it, but it's not the end of the world that certain agenda-driven bigots make it out to be. Have a nice day.

If teachers can't slam certain types of people in the classroom, then the terrorists win. ;)

[King Crimson]

this is somehow about immigration or Al Gore i bet...