The Dreaded Gay Agenda - Part 1437

A friend directed my attention to SB 1437, a bill pending in the California legislature that is causing the Religious Wrong to froth at the mouth. She received an RW communication regarding this bill that came equipped with a warning that SB 1437 is “a bill that will harm our children in the classroom.” Without reading further, you know that it’s about either homosexuality or evolution. The genealogical link to primates is safe on this one.

This bill basically does two things. First, it adds sexual orientation to the list of things that school instruction, books and activities are prohibited from “reflecting adversely” upon (i.e., race, ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion). Second, it adds people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender to the list of people whose contributions to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States are to be included in age-appropriate social science instruction. The other groups of people singled out for such emphasis are men, women, Black Americans, American Indians, Mexicans, Asians, Pacific Islanders, “and other ethnic groups”. There is supposed to be a particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society. The first objective was the intention of the bill as originally introduced. The second objective was added by subsequent amendment.

I support the original objective that prohibits school instruction, books and activities from “reflecting adversely” upon the named groups, including gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. I also support the idea that such school materials should discuss the positive contributions made to the state and the nation by all groups and individuals without regard to who it may be. I would support a bill that says that no such school material shall exclude positive references because the contribution was made by a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender person. However, requiring these school materials to specifically address the positive contributions of gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people goes too far, not because of the sexual orientation of the contributors but because I don’t know where we would/could/should end this kind of requirement.

What’s next? Will we eventually have to include references to the positive contributions of police officers and firemen; the workers in certain industries; cancer survivors; foster parents; common-law couples; domestic partners; migrant workers or other immigrants; etc.; etc.; etc.? Why are we required to focus on the contributions of Mexicans but not Canadians; why on American Indians but not on New Delhi Indians; why on Pacific Islanders but not Icelanders? Oh, wait; these good folks are covered in the handy little catchall “other ethnic groups”. So, we’re okay on that point, right? But, if we’re going to include persons of varying sexual orientation on the list in the first objective, why aren’t we including religions and the disabled on the list in the second objective? This damn social engineering is so complicated!

If someone, if anyone, has made a noteworthy contribution to our state or nation, that’s great – point it out without regard to their gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc. But, mandating the discussion of such contributions is a winding, pothole-filled road with no destination.

The dire RW communication my friend received can’t resist the temptation to overshoot the mark, as their frantic “warnings” usually do. It purports to address what will be “mandated by each school district and textbook publisher at every grade level from K-12 in teaching about the homosexual / lesbian lifestyle and their positive influence in our history.” Wrong.

The bill says nothing about teaching anyone’s “lifestyle” to kids in the classroom. But, you can’t adequately stoke the fires in hell by simply opposing something that requires that positive contributions be noted. There’s no froth-inducing crusade in that. So, you have to go on to imply that the dreaded homosexual “lifestyle” (i.e., the manner of sexual expression and sexual relations) is going to be included in the mandated instruction even if it’s not going to be included. After all, truth can be sacrificed in the war to protect children from harm in the classroom. Truth is almost always a victim in war. And, heaven knows that the only harm that a kid has ever suffered at school is due to the so-called gay agenda. Well, at least the RW heaven knows that.

I’m a little embarrassed to say that sometimes I initially voice support for something only because I’m reacting to some hyperbolic, the-sky-is-falling opposition to the thing in question. Very few things push that button like a diatribe from the Religious Wrong. Only after standing back and cooling down can I sort through the thick froth that overlays the subject of their diatribe and determine what I support and don’t support.

As for SB 1437, I support the positive step forward in this bill as originally introduced and oppose the mistake in this bill as amended.