Torog
10-20-2007, 01:10 PM
Gay rights measure targeted
Referendum effort seeks to overturn governor's signature on education bill.
By Jim Sanders - Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, October 20, 2007
Opponents launched a referendum campaign this week to overturn Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature on legislation touted as an anti-discrimination measure for gay and lesbian students.
"Citizens are outraged," said Karen England, who launched the drive and directs Capitol Resource Institute, a conservative public policy group that focuses on family issues.
Geoff Kors, director of a gay rights group that sponsored the measure, Senate Bill 777, blasted the drive as nonsense.
"They claim to want to foster family values and education and what's best for children," he said. "Yet they oppose legislation to make schools safer for children."
England filed a referendum petition Monday against SB 777 with the state attorney general's office, the first step in a 90-day process that requires collection of 433,971 valid voter signatures to qualify for the June ballot.
State law prohibits SB 777 from taking effect Jan. 1, as scheduled, pending completion of the referendum campaign. Schwarzenegger signed the Republican-opposed bill Oct. 12.
Opponents argue the measure would, among other things, force schools to allow boys to use girls' restrooms or run for homecoming queen.
"What they're saying about the bill is crazy," countered Kors.
SB 777 was one of more than a half-dozen gay rights bills signed by Schwarzenegger, including measures to require monitoring of school anti-discrimination policies and to simplify the process for domestic partners to change their last name.
Schwarzenegger rejected legislation to allow same-sex partners to marry.
Supporters and opponents of SB 777 disagree on both the purpose and impact of the bill, proposed by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, a Santa Monica Democrat and one of five openly gay legislators.
"It breaks no new ground," said Kuehl, who said she carried the measure to consolidate anti-discrimination statutes within the state's education code.
But opponents argue SB 777 is stealth legislation hiding its true purpose, which they characterize as a push to promote homosexual, bisexual and transgender lifestyles among youths.
"SB 777 introduces new mandates that will sexually indoctrinate schoolchildren as young as kindergarten," Randy Thomasson of Campaign for Children and Families said in a September letter urging Schwarzenegger to veto the bill.
The state education code currently bans discrimination against students because of sex, race, religion or various other characteristics. It does not specifically mention gender or sexual orientation, but it promises protection to anyone covered by the state's hate crime law â?? thus, gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender Californians.
SB 777 removes any ambiguity by specifying that campus discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation is illegal.
Perhaps the most controversial portion of Kuehl's bill, however, replaces two words in the education code with four others.
Current state law bans classroom instruction or school-sponsored activities that "reflect adversely" on gays, lesbians or other protected classes.
Instead, SB 777 would focus the ban on teaching that "promotes a discriminatory bias."
Opponents say the four-word change will have massive repercussions, while Kuehl and others downplay the furor as much ado about nothing.
Thomasson contends that "discriminatory bias" could apply to history books that don't laud homosexual figures or textbooks that portray marriage as only between a man and woman.
"The purpose of California schools must be academics, not indoctrination," Thomasson wrote.
The Capitol Resource Institute Web site claims that "teaching about traditional families would be discriminatory."
"If I'm a teacher instructing kids about families and I only cover heterosexual (lifestyles), am I promoting a bias toward heterosexuality?" England said. "The answer would be yes."
"It's going to silence Christian teachers in the classroom," she said. "It's going to force them to violate their conscience or lose their job."
Added England: "It's going to overexpose our kids at an early age to things they don't even need to be dealing with. ... I absolutely consider it a slap at anyone with traditional values."
SB 777 will apply to public schools and any private schools that accept state funds.
Kuehl dismisses opponents' claims.
The Santa Monica Democrat said she sees no substantive difference between banning teaching that "reflects adversely" or that which "promotes a discriminatory bias."
"I don't think they have a leg to stand on," she said. "I don't see the difference. Both phrases would be interpreted by regulation. I don't see anything but a clarification there."
Superintendent of Public Schools Jack O'Connell does not support the referendum drive and feels scare tactics are being used to promote it, spokeswoman Hilary McLean said.
"We don't think it's going to have a substantive effect," she said of SB 777.
Referendum effort seeks to overturn governor's signature on education bill.
By Jim Sanders - Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, October 20, 2007
Opponents launched a referendum campaign this week to overturn Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature on legislation touted as an anti-discrimination measure for gay and lesbian students.
"Citizens are outraged," said Karen England, who launched the drive and directs Capitol Resource Institute, a conservative public policy group that focuses on family issues.
Geoff Kors, director of a gay rights group that sponsored the measure, Senate Bill 777, blasted the drive as nonsense.
"They claim to want to foster family values and education and what's best for children," he said. "Yet they oppose legislation to make schools safer for children."
England filed a referendum petition Monday against SB 777 with the state attorney general's office, the first step in a 90-day process that requires collection of 433,971 valid voter signatures to qualify for the June ballot.
State law prohibits SB 777 from taking effect Jan. 1, as scheduled, pending completion of the referendum campaign. Schwarzenegger signed the Republican-opposed bill Oct. 12.
Opponents argue the measure would, among other things, force schools to allow boys to use girls' restrooms or run for homecoming queen.
"What they're saying about the bill is crazy," countered Kors.
SB 777 was one of more than a half-dozen gay rights bills signed by Schwarzenegger, including measures to require monitoring of school anti-discrimination policies and to simplify the process for domestic partners to change their last name.
Schwarzenegger rejected legislation to allow same-sex partners to marry.
Supporters and opponents of SB 777 disagree on both the purpose and impact of the bill, proposed by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, a Santa Monica Democrat and one of five openly gay legislators.
"It breaks no new ground," said Kuehl, who said she carried the measure to consolidate anti-discrimination statutes within the state's education code.
But opponents argue SB 777 is stealth legislation hiding its true purpose, which they characterize as a push to promote homosexual, bisexual and transgender lifestyles among youths.
"SB 777 introduces new mandates that will sexually indoctrinate schoolchildren as young as kindergarten," Randy Thomasson of Campaign for Children and Families said in a September letter urging Schwarzenegger to veto the bill.
The state education code currently bans discrimination against students because of sex, race, religion or various other characteristics. It does not specifically mention gender or sexual orientation, but it promises protection to anyone covered by the state's hate crime law â?? thus, gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender Californians.
SB 777 removes any ambiguity by specifying that campus discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation is illegal.
Perhaps the most controversial portion of Kuehl's bill, however, replaces two words in the education code with four others.
Current state law bans classroom instruction or school-sponsored activities that "reflect adversely" on gays, lesbians or other protected classes.
Instead, SB 777 would focus the ban on teaching that "promotes a discriminatory bias."
Opponents say the four-word change will have massive repercussions, while Kuehl and others downplay the furor as much ado about nothing.
Thomasson contends that "discriminatory bias" could apply to history books that don't laud homosexual figures or textbooks that portray marriage as only between a man and woman.
"The purpose of California schools must be academics, not indoctrination," Thomasson wrote.
The Capitol Resource Institute Web site claims that "teaching about traditional families would be discriminatory."
"If I'm a teacher instructing kids about families and I only cover heterosexual (lifestyles), am I promoting a bias toward heterosexuality?" England said. "The answer would be yes."
"It's going to silence Christian teachers in the classroom," she said. "It's going to force them to violate their conscience or lose their job."
Added England: "It's going to overexpose our kids at an early age to things they don't even need to be dealing with. ... I absolutely consider it a slap at anyone with traditional values."
SB 777 will apply to public schools and any private schools that accept state funds.
Kuehl dismisses opponents' claims.
The Santa Monica Democrat said she sees no substantive difference between banning teaching that "reflects adversely" or that which "promotes a discriminatory bias."
"I don't think they have a leg to stand on," she said. "I don't see the difference. Both phrases would be interpreted by regulation. I don't see anything but a clarification there."
Superintendent of Public Schools Jack O'Connell does not support the referendum drive and feels scare tactics are being used to promote it, spokeswoman Hilary McLean said.
"We don't think it's going to have a substantive effect," she said of SB 777.