School Days, School Days,
Dear old Golden Rule days,
Readin’ and ’ritin’, and ’rithmetic,
Taught to the tune of a hickory stick.

This old song, once popular in the “gay 90’s,” has taken on new meaning in California. Today, this sentimental song about children being taught the Golden Rule, reading, writing, and arithmetic would have to be rewritten to include instruction in thought control, homosexuality, and transgenderism (cross-dressing).

In 1999, the homosexual-dominated state legislature passed, and Governor Gray Davis signed into law, Assembly Bill 537 sponsored by lesbian Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl. AB 537 is a “hate crimes” bill that prohibits any person in public school from discriminating against, intimidating, interfering with, or oppressing any homosexual or someone perceived to be a homosexual.

Then, in the fall of 2000, the state legislature passed two more laws (AB 1931 and AB 1785) that promote homosexuality as a normal sexual behavior in the public schools. In addition, one of these laws turns teachers and students into Thought Police, who are encouraged to report any student or teacher who makes derogatory comments against homosexuals.

Under AB 1931, students will be taught “tolerance” of all forms of sexual behaviors. Two million dollars is set aside for teachers to take their students on “tolerance” field trips. This may include trips to homosexual centers and to homosexual teacher/training conferences sponsored by Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).

The most dangerous and far-reaching legislation, however, is AB 1785, sponsored by Antonio Villaragiosa. Under AB 1785, the state Board of Education is ordered to rewrite all of its curriculum guidelines — including moral and civic educational materials — to promote homosexuality as a positive alternative lifestyle. This law also specifically targets minority children. Any instructor who teaches “limited-English-proficient” students must take a “human relations” course that emphasizes pro-homosexual themes. In addition, AB 1785 creates a new category of crime in the public schools. This new crime is termed a “hate motivated incident,” which is defined as “an act or attempted act which constitutes an expression of hostility against a person or property or institution because of … sexual orientation.”

This expansive definition of a “hate motivated incident” criminalizes any comment that a student or teacher might make against homosexuals or even against pro-homosexual organizations that may be targeting children on campus. These transgressions are to be reported to the school district and to the state. No penalties have been outlined in the law, but analysts believe that penalties could range from reprimands to expulsion from school for speaking out against homosexuality.

A Third Sex?

In late 2000, Delaine Eastin, the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, formed a 36-member Assembly Bill 537 Advisory Task Force to develop a list of guidelines for schools to follow in implementing Sheila Kuehl’s “hate crimes” bill. Eastin issued her report in April of this year after having kept it secret from the public. The report is essentially a blueprint for stifling free speech, targeting children and teachers who may object to homosexuality, and creating new policies for dealing with cross-dressing students.

The task force report contains 12 recommendations. For example, recommendation 11 specifies that schools develop new policies on dealing with locker room, restroom, and dress codes involving transgenders (cross-dressers, transvestites, and transsexuals). In helping to promote the normalization of transgenderism, the Board has adopted a new definition of “sex” in its school regulations. The traditional definition of “sex” (meaning male and female) has been changed to include “gender.”

The new guidelines use the following definitions:

• “Sex means the biological condition or quality of being a female or male human being. Sex includes the concept of ‘gender’ set forth above by subdivision (i).”
• “Gender means a person’s actual sex or perceived sex and includes a person’s perceived identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that identity, appearance, or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with a person’s sex at birth.”

This redefinition of sex includes protecting someone from discrimination if his “actual” or “perceived” sex is different from his “birth” sex. In other words, this Board of Education guideline provides legal protection for a third sex: transgenders, a coalition of sexually confused cross-dressers, transvestites, and transsexuals (including those who are so uncomfortable with their sex that they undergo sex-change operations).

This bizarre Third Sex Movement will benefit from the school board’s redefinition of sex because it will enable them to actively recruit on school campuses under the protection of California law. Transgenders believe that “male” and “female” are simply cultural inventions of an oppressive, patriarchal society. They teach that a person’s sexual identity is in his mind, not his anatomy. If a man believes he is really a woman, he should be free to dress like a woman and even change his sex if he wishes — and his sexual desires should be protected by law.

In Eastin’s recommendation 10, school officials are encouraged to gather data on the attitudes of children toward homosexuality. These surveys will be used to change the worldview of children who have negative opinions about homosexuality.

Recommendation 7 specifies that school officials set up a grievance system for responding to homosexuals who have been discriminated against in school and to establish a system designed to “rehabilitate” the “perpetrators” of the discrimination. In short, those who are critical of homosexuality will be required to undergo retraining to change their attitudes. Recommendation 7 urges schools to hire a full-time compliance officer who will enforce the pro-homosexual agenda of AB 537. Every school will have a pro-homosexual Thought Policeman who will locate and punish anyone who criticizes homosexuality. One can only wonder what kind of “rehabilitation” a child will undergo to change his anti-homosexual attitudes. Will he be forced to attend a retraining camp until he confesses his politically incorrect views? Will he be denied graduation unless he recants his belief that homosexuality is a sin? Only time will tell. These recommendations are only now being implemented in California schools.

With the passage of such pro-homosexual laws as AB 1785, AB 1931, and AB 537, the homosexual lobby is restricting the freedom of parents to raise children to believe that homosexuality is both an inappropriate and sinful lifestyle. Freedom of religion is also under attack through these laws. A Christian student who opposes homosexuality on religious grounds will be silenced. If he openly expresses his views, he will face the wrath of a compliance officer who will report his opposition to homosexuality as a “hate motivated incident” to school and state officials.

The Backlash Is Coming

Pro-family forces are vastly outnumbered in the California Assembly and Senate. The homosexual lobby exercises tremendous influence over both houses and is now attempting to pass even more radical legislation. Pro-family groups are, however, attempting to rally opposition to last fall’s homosexual legislative victories. Among those are: Campaign for California Families (CCF), Capitol Resource Institute (CRI), Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), and Pacific Justice Institute (PJI).

Traditional Values Coalition spokeswoman Beverly Sheldon is troubled by the public apathy over the homosexual recruitment of children in the public schools. “The reason we’re getting these laws is because people are electing representatives who support the homosexual agenda,” said Sheldon.

TVC has been fighting the “gay rights” agenda in the public schools since the mid-1980s when the group began trying to rally opposition to Project 10, a pro-homosexual student group headed by (now retired) lesbian school teacher Virginia Uribe. Project 10 began in a Los Angeles high school and has chapters all over the United States.

Sheldon points out that both AB 1785 and AB 1931 have exemptions in the laws that allow school districts to opt out of teaching pro-homosexual materials. “The Department of Education is not going tell the school district this, so it’s important that parents know.” According to Sheldon, parents must convince their local school districts to opt out of any pro-homosexual curricula that may be under consideration. (The law does not require school districts to promote homosexuality.)

If a school district has already adopted a pro-homosexual curriculum, says Sheldon, then parents can use a Student Exemption Form developed by a coalition of pro-family groups. The form allows parents to legally remove their children from any classroom instruction involving homosexuality, sex education, or other objectionable materials. Brad Dacus of the Sacramento-based Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) notes that “we’re having an incredible response to this Opt Out Form” — which is designed for use not only in California but elsewhere. (A copy of the Student Exemption Form can be downloaded from the PJI website.)

Of course, many parents have responded to the developing moral anarchy in the public school system by sending their children to private schools or teaching them at home, oftentimes at great personal sacrifice.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

delicious | digg | newsvine | technorati