Is California's state motto, "The Land of Fruits and Nuts", or is that just the moniker adopted by every other state in the Union that can reason somewhat on a normal level, for California?
Governor Ahhhnold "The Terminator" Schwarzenegger has done it again with the newest bill he has signed into law. I will give you the headline of the article I read about it in and you can decide if you need to know more...
'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California
Schwarzenegger signs law outlawing terms perceived as negative to 'gays'
I guess it is good that the governor's own children attend Brentwood School, an exclusive private school, so they can at least still refer to the governor as "Dad" during their school day. **
Hold your children tightly folks, home schooled or not.
HT: Princess Ruby
**Apparently I am wrong about this and I would have simply deleted it, but a comment has been posted about it and it would not make sense if I took this part out, so I will leave it here although it seems to be incorrect.
5 comments:
Ok so no Mom and Dad, But the bathroom thing? Having boys and girls going into either restroom?? Thats just asking for trouble.
I'm not really sure what all the hubbub is about. (I have no idea if that is how you spell hubbub. Just wanted to throw that out there.)
This bill basically just changes definitions of some words in a law that already exists. I suppose what people are upset about is this:
"Gender" means s*x, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned s*x at birth.
(I edited it to get around blocking software, btw.)
I'm sorry, but that definition just doesn't make any sense to me. "'Gender' means s*x" Okay, I get that, but then it goes on to say that it has nothing to do with the individual's "assigned s*x at birth". There are two problems with this: 1) Back in the day, we were taught to never use a word in its own definition, but they are using the word s*x in the definition of the word s*x (which they stated was analogous to "gender", and 2)it defines gender so broadly that no one would ever be able to be defined as any particular gender. They're saying that someone can be defined as being nothing. What?!
I'm not sure where someone draws the conclusions set forth in the WND article from the bill. (You can read the amended bill at http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20070409_amended_sen_v98.html but have a lot of coffee available since reading anything written by politicians is a cure for insomnia!)
I do find it rather funny that after their convoluted definition of "gender", the bill uses the words "he" and "she". (Sec 15, 14058, a) If gender is relative, there is no "he" or "she", right?
BTW, the law applies to private schools as well as public schools, so the Governor's kids will be affected. I am not very familiar with California homeschool law, but aren't homeschools considered private schools in CA? How does this law affect homeschoolers in CA? Any CA homeschoolers want to clarify that?
Thanks for letting me borrow your soapbox, Sweetie! You may have it back now. LOL!
Love ya!
I have to agree Anon. Call yourself whatever you want s*x wise, but when you start allowing a student to choose the gender they feel more associated with and the bathroom they prefer (as well as a name; how absurd is this?) without allowing consultation with parents, that deserves a bit of hubbub.
I am aware of the various amendments and other legalities tied to this debate, I simply thought the first article outlines the absurdity of it all.
Scary, just plain scary. Aren't there any Christians in California?Isn't anyone fighting against this stuff?
I'm glad I'm Canadian, but then, we have same sex marriages...
Post a Comment