Homophobia-phobia

In 32 states the issue of gay marriage has come before the electorate and 32 times that electorate chose to protect marriage and define it as the union of one man and one woman. So it peeves me to no end when I read one of the cadre of supposedly conservative pundits advocating that we give up on protecting marriage, suggesting it is a battle we cannot possibly win.

Last week the President endorsed publicly a stance that everybody and his brother knew that he held privately for ages. It's like Richard Simmons announcing he likes shorty shorts. Yeah, we kinda already knew. But even the President is not advocating any specific legislation.

Shortly after President Obama's statement of the obvious, Rasmussen showed Romney surging in the polls (at one point with a 7 point lead.) A new poll by Gallup shows "twice as many Americans say President Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage will make them less likely to vote for him than say it will make them more likely."

Yeah. Now is the time to give up. They have us on the ropes.

Are we that afraid of being called names that we are willing to let traditional marriage die even when we are ahead?

If this is losing, we should be doing a lot more of it.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/homohobia-phobia#ixzz1uuT9cwvS

California Senate Bill Mandates Gay History in Schools

My comments in red.
Bolding is my emphasis
Blue - link or definition

Source: http://www.gopusa.com/news/2011/04/15/ca-senate-bill-mandates-gay-history-in-schools/

Gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people would be added to the lengthy list of social and ethnic groups that public schools must include in social studies lessons under a landmark bill passed Thursday by the California Senate.


If the bill is adopted by the state Assembly and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, California would become the first state to require the teaching of gay history.

Supporters say the move is needed to counter anti-gay stereotypes and beliefs that make children in those groups vulnerable to bullying and suicide.
What about fat kids, kids with a limp, short kids, tall kids, Christian kids, Jewish kids, mentally challenged kids, smart kids, foster kids --- do they all get social studies lessons to counter act stereotypes?

Opponents counter that such instruction would further burden an already crowded curriculum and expose students to a subject that some parents find objectionable.

To many it is not so much "objectionable" (as I read this to mean - offensive or wrong) but surely a subject that is

1) best dealt with at home because it does bring up the subject of sexuality -- who has the right to decide when children should be encouraged to contemplate that? Surely not K -6!! Talk about over sexualizing our kids!

2) Sexuality is tied to religious mores and values -- is California mandating that their teaching is correct of better than parents'?  Aren't the schools big on teaching tolerance? Tolerance does not mean condoning (or, worse yet, indoctrinating a population to regulate thought and opinion) 

Tolerate:

verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing.

1.

to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.

2.

to endure without repugnance; put up with

I understand that living in a society with people from all walks of life, religions, values that we need to be tolerant and non prejudicial in ours actions towards one another. But this legislation crosses into indoctrinating.

Indoctrinate:

–verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.

1.

to instruct in a doctrine,  principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.

2.

to teach or inculcate.

2) This seems to be a case of further segregating a group of people who need not be pointed out as "different."

The legislation, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Mark Leno of San Francisco, passed on a 23-14 party line vote. It also would add disabled people to the curriculum.

The bill gives school districts flexibility in deciding what to include in the lessons and at what grades students would receive them.
Once again. I have seen the village and I do not want it raising my children! This further emphasizes my reasons!


But starting in the 2013-14 school year, it would prohibit districts and the California Board of Education from using textbooks or other instructional materials that reflect adversely on gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.

Appealing to colleagues for support, Leno said gay children still struggle routinely with verbal and physical abuse at school, even though society is more accepting than when he was a gay youth in the 1960s.
Then it is the abuse that should be addressed. Bullying is wrong - period. The answer is not to spend classroom time and tax dollars teaching, "I'm OK; you're OK."  The bullying will find another outlet. They are targeting the wrong thing!

"We are second-class citizens and children are listening," he said. "When they see their teachers don't step up to the plate when their classmate is being harassed literally to death, they are listening and they get the message that there is something wrong with those people."
It is so glaringly obvious -- That a teacher would ever allow bullying is the problem.

Republican Sen. Doug La Malfa of Butte opposed the bill.
"I'm deeply troubled kids would have to contemplate at a very, very early age, when many of us are teaching abstinence ... what is sexuality," he said.
I agree completely.

California law already requires schools to cover the contributions to the state and nation of women, African Americans, Mexican Americans, entrepreneurs, Asian Americans, European Americans, American Indians and labor.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -