ProudParenting.com - Sen. Sheila Kuehl - Comments

Read your laws

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:50:53 -0700

This bill does nothing but to state the need and inclusion, legally of the LGBT community in those protections you claim are already in existence. This inclusion does not exist as you state. It can be seen in the original wording of the law that sexual orientation is not included in the protection of students. This does not necessarily mean that someone will get away with telling a child they will go to hell because they identify as gay or transgendered, but it does allow them to say it without being held accountable. A good example of this is that the law includes race and therefore a teacher can not refer to a student as a niger if they are african american in decent. However, becuase sexual orientation is not included a student could theoretically be called a fairy, or worse a fagot. These are extreme examples, I do realize. But they are examples to prove to you that the law is what restricts us from reaching these extremes. If they are not restricted then extremes can be met. The second point that you raise about teaching your children what you wish is great. I want to be able to teach my children the value of a person not that persons beliefs. The one question I propose to you though is that do you believe it is right for me to teach my children that whites marrying blacks is immoral or wrong, while society accepts this now as normal. Do you not think that you teaching your children to think of homosexuality as immoral is your responsibility not the teachers. The bill only wants to make this a non-issue it only would be invoked if a teacher was trying to pursuade a child to believe one way or another just as you want to prevent. Why are you against this bill then? Finnally, despite your odd view of this bill I am pleased to hear that you teach your children to respect all people, the homosexual community included. This is a big step for society as a whole and I want to thank you for helping to bring us closer to equality.

Info on Anti-SB777 Leader

Thu, 29 May 2008 21:01:54 -0700

There is a blog about Mike Spence, President of the California Republican Assembly and a leader of the SB777 repeal movement. This site gives information about the person, comments, and tactics. He hates the site as it tells the truth about him - something he does not want people to know. Please go to http://thetruthwcusd.wordpress.com for all the details.

Link to Fact Sheet on SB 777

Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:29:01 -0800

Here is a link to a fact sheet on SB 777:

Information from the sponsoring agency, EQCA:
http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=9oINKWMCF&b=2292609&ct=3...

The number of this bill is interesting: three 7's, a very biblical number. No one has mentioned that yet, and I don't think it is something that could have been planned. It just might mean something, like look twice before starting to scream about this, or follow someone else's summary of SB 777 so that they can get your signature on a petition you may not really agree with if you did your own homework.

always atacking on a

Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:35:40 -0800

always atacking on a personal level, never on subject.

you must be kidding. why

Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:49:16 -0800

you must be kidding. why dont you go back to church and get some more "directions" from your pastor. your just a complete fool. read the law and dont think you know what your talking about.

trators

Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:54:09 -0800

You are so right there are many laws that are unconstitutional and no one seemsto care

Oh that's an well educated reply!

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:49:23 -0800

The truth hurts! Doesn't it?

I am all for fairness

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:03:06 -0800

But what about fairness for traditional family types? As a hard core democrat I want justice for all but I can't in good conscience overlook those who wish to shelter their children from aleternative life styles. Why should their children be subjected to ideas that the parent is not comfortable with? Also what does the LGBT commnity gain from this?

Some Clarity...

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:54:13 -0800

I think the bathroom thing is being derived from the bills definition of Gender.

210.7 "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.

In other bills, bathrooms are “Gender” specific, so even though my “sex” is male, if I consider my “gender” to be female, I can therefore enter a woman’s bathroom. It’s not what the bill intends, but it can be used that way if someone wants to take it to an extreme. It will boil down to whom ever has the best lawyer.

The same thing can be derived from what the bill says about textbooks not discriminating against someone’s sexual orientation. Therefore the textbook should include information about various LGBT lifestyles. But if information is added to textbooks about LGBT lifestyles, isn’t that discriminating against religious beliefs that such lifestyles are unacceptable? Information about religious beliefs would have to be added to textbooks as well so not to discriminate against them. Now we get into separation of church and state. What a mess. So it gets down to whom ever has the best lawyer again.

This bill is silly and typical of politicians who just muddy up the water allowing people from both extremes to manipulate the law. The State should teach about culture and cultural diversity and against discrimination and biases, but it should not get into the details of such issues. Textbooks should not focus on one type of behavior (LGBT lifestyles, Christian lifestyles, etc.) over another. If one lifestyle is mentioned, then the opposite lifestyle must also be mentioned with equal fervor otherwise there is discrimination. Just teach the subject and keep God and sexual preference out of it.

I agree

Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:50:22 -0800

Haha, you're so right, it's always the conservative anti-gay senators like R-Larry Craig...

What's the point

Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:17:09 -0800

I can solve the whole thing for everyone. Ask yourself why are we spending billions on brick and mortar school houses, administrators and teachers just to baby sit and coddle a bunch of miscreants anyway? Very few kids actually learn anything past the fourth grade. Let's abolish the whole damn system and run on-line education centers with a police officer overseeing behavior. One teacher on-line can instruct a great many more students than they can in a classroom. Home school fans could just stay home and log on, and folk who need the baby sitting could drop off their little bundles with a cop. No more bullying and behavior problems, we save buckets of money, and the little darlings might learn something.

Nope - Just drama queens

Momsinthetub — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:51:02 -0800

The bill doesn't say anything about unisex bathrooms. It's rhetoric from frightened conservatives, who also think that gay marriage will lead to marrying donkeys and dogs.

Just more signs that "end of days" is near. Silly, scared, and senseless.

I am a little confused. Does

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:04:39 -0800

I am a little confused. Does this bill promote unisex bathrooms in school? That would be ridiculous.

why would you think

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:52:52 -0800

why would you think conservatives, who favor family values, would enact such a bill?
This isn't a conservative bill... nor a liberal one. It's an extreme politically correct bill

I hear that a petition of a million signatures can nullify the bill if sent before Jan 1, when the bill will be put into place.
This is just awkward

i think you are a total

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:38:07 -0800

i think you are a total idiot.