by Jack
The following State Senators approved changing California text books to include historical references identifying gay, lesbian and transgendered persons in the same way we would minority contributions. This will mandate the State to purchase new text books that will make special note of a subject’s sexual habits as being relevant and something we should all want our students to know, just as we want them to know the work or contributions by said persons. The bill was passed by the following Senators, Alquist, Calderon, Corbett, De Len, DeSaulnier, Evans, Hancock, Hernandez, Kehoe, Leno, Lieu, Liu,
Lowenthal, Negrete, McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Rubio, Simitian, Steinberg, Vargas, Wright, and Yee, all democrats of course.
“This will mandate the State to purchase new text books that will make special note of a subject’s sexual habits as being relevant and something we should all want our students to know,”
That is completely false, Jack. The bill makes absolutely no mention of sexual “habits.” It’s about sexual orientation. You do know the difference, right?
Why is it that any mention of gay people sends conservatives’ minds straight into the gutter?
Chris: “Why is it that any mention of gay people sends conservatives’ minds straight into the gutter?”
“Sexual habits” is gutter talk? News to me!
Whether you call it orientation or habits it is still very personal information that is usually not included in any profile…and as Jack said, the information is irrelevant.
What will this cost? What is the point? How will it be presented? Who has the say as to who in history was or was not gay? Why does it matter? What I can tell you is who is going to get stuck paying for it.
We have a President who puts guns in the hands of drug dealers that have killed at least one American and countless Mexicans. Lets ignore that and focus on who in history was smoking the old salami or bumping uglies.
Jerry Brown also signed into law AB 144. Open Carry
will be illegal in CA effective Jan 1, 2012.
That’s too bad because any encroachment on the 2nd is too much, but in practical terms it won’t impact us much. My guess is that less than .01% of us open carry any way. Still, I hate to see it lost.
“… all democrats of course.”
Well, of course they are. Repugs will only embrace the likes of Mr. Cain, who have abandoned their origins, and espoused the tenets of the ruling class.
We get all the rabble, and some of whom are astoundingly productive … though not in any way furthering of the tenets of the ruling class.
Hee. Hee.
Re: “Well, of course they are. Repugs will only embrace the likes of Mr. Cain, who have abandoned their origins, and espoused the tenets of the ruling class.
We get all the rabble, and some of whom are astoundingly productive … though not in any way furthering of the tenets of the ruling class.
Hee. Hee.”
What a dope. Hee, hee.
This is one of those rare issues that goes against the principals of my inner republican (come on libs, we all have one). Gays should be offended by having their sexual orientation singled out in connection to anything that a gay person may or may not have done historically. It’s like black people (or any minority) who just want to be accepted on the same level as everyone else except when they want special treatment like easier access to student loans or affirmative action for getting a job, then they want us all to recognize that they are different. On the other hand, my inner liberal understands that as long as conservatives try to keep gay people from enjoying the same rights that straight people have, gays will have to struggle to be accepted and the very nature of the struggle sets them apart. In a perfect world there would not be such thing as minorities, we would all just be people, and the only thing that would set us apart from each other would be the nature of our accomplishments.
Libby and Quentin raising the bar of discussion as usual. Doesn’t it just make you proud to know them?
Joe, we must be running out of things for the legislature to do, oh and we must have a surplus of money too when they think of things like this to force us to pay for. Its just absurd. Whats it suppose to accomplish and at what cost?
Re: “Whats it suppose to accomplish and at what cost?”
It is supposed to accomplish state directed instillation of gay pride in K-12.
At what cost? Good question. Likely at any cost. Multiple costs. Perennially.
At the cost of rewriting and publishing new textbooks and discarding the old.
At the cost of teachers spending time on gay sensitivity discussions instead of math, history, reading, writing, and composition.
At the cost of more time spent on social engineering and less time on academics.
(Anyone else care to add to the list?)
Wow, Joe sure is conflicted. I sort of feel sorry for him. Good points though.
And then he goes and ruins it with the “as long as conservatives try to keep gay people from enjoying the same rights that straight people have” nonsense.
Of course Mr. Shaw must be talking marriage here. Marriage is not a right. It is an institution.
Check the Bill Of Rights if you have any questions about what meets the criteria and high standard of a right. Except for the Tenth Amendment which states there are powers (including, presumably, the power to define a right) which “are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” there is no mention of a true right that even comes close to marriage.
To repeat, marriage is an institution, not a right. A social and religious institution. An institution that gays wish to fundamentally change. Some conservatives object to that change and do not wish the state to sanction gay “marriage”.
As a conservative I have no problem with anyone marrying anyone or anything under the auspices of a religion or cult. As long as it not under state sanction where the state specifically uses the word marriage to define the union I am perfectly happy. In this case I prefer the state reserve the word “marriage” to sanction the union of one man and one woman only. That is if the state is going sanction marriage at all … or should.
It is as simple as that. Use another word or words, like “Civil Union” for legal bonding other than that between one man and one woman.
It is my considered opinion that the state should not sanction gay “marriage” any more than it should sanction polyandrist or polygamist unions, or unions between humans and inanimate objects or humans and other species as “marriage”.
In fact, maybe the state should get out of the business of sanctioning marriage completely.
Let religious organizations handle the marriage bit and just have legally recognized partnerships (not using the word marriage) of any sort — man-woman, polyamorist, polyandrist, polygamist, inter-species, inanimate objects, compound, multifaceted, whatever. When it comes to human beings, anything is possible.
Just don’t call it marriage.
And don’t call it a right.
Then people who think (as do I) that the word “marriage” means something specific, and specifically means the union of one man and one woman, can simply join a religious group that feels the same way and adheres to that particular preference in sanctioning unions.
Why not just get the state out of the business of redefining marriage and bending to the will of diverse social groups with narrow agendas whenever they seek to change its meaning?
Joe: “…my inner liberal understands that as long as conservatives try to keep gay people from enjoying the same rights that straight people have, gays will have to struggle to be accepted and the very nature of the struggle sets them apart.”
Pie addressed the rights issue so I will not repeat.
Activist gays have been pushing for equality since the sixties when they decided it was time to wear their sexuality instead of keeping it in their bedrooms. Their efforts saw minimal resistance until they decided marriage was a right. There are legal avenues available to them that solve many of the problems they encounter. In California we have gone a long way to accomodate their needs, including creating civil unions…and still they aren’t satisfied.
There are bigots in both parties. That is why Californians have rejected gay marriage several times. Still, the majority of Americans hold no animosity against gay people in general. Making conservatives the big bad oppressive entity is purely political. I consider the demand for marriage an open assault on an age old institution that is the bedrock of civil society. I feel strongly that marriage laws are too lax for the same reason. My concern is that children should be raised by both of their biological parents. If anyone’s rights have been trampled on over the past 40 years it’s the kids that have been denied original family ties through losse sexual practices and broken marriages. Our society reflects the damage.
Many of them refuse to hear this very reasonable and unbigoted position…they prefer to carry a bigoted attitude toward conservatives.
Such is life.
Pie: “Why not just get the state out of the business of redefining marriage and bending to the will of diverse social groups with narrow agendas whenever they seek to change its meaning?”
Great idea! Has any government ever gotten rid of a revenue source before?
http://clerk-recorder.buttecounty.net/clerk/marriage.html
(Good for 90 days only so if you get one don’t blow it and schedule 91 days out.)
Tina: “”Sexual habits” is gutter talk?”
It is when it has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. My point is that whenever a discussion of gay people comes up, many conservatives immediately try to make the conversation about actual sex acts. As if that this the only or even most defining part of being gay.
The truth is we don’t know how this will play out yet. Many people have argued that sexual identity is irrelevant to historical figures, but in many cases it’s not. I imagine most of the people that will be taught because of this new requirement will be those in the gay rights movement. This would be consistent with how other minority groups are taught in school. Others throughout history can only be properly understood by acknowledging their sexuality, such as the Greek poet Sappho. The fact is that homosexuality has been driven underground throughout much of human history. This is an important political point, therefore it is also an important historical one.
Pie, what you have to realize is that marriage has been fundamentally changed many times throughout history, often to very positive ends. Polygamy was standard practice for many cultures throughout history and is condoned by the holy books of almost every religion; the idea of monogamy was at one time a fundamental change in each of these cultures. So was the fairly recent idea that wives are not the legal property of their husbands. These were both positives changes, and making marriage gender neutral is yet another. The marriage contract is already largely gender neutral–the rights and responsibilities of each partner are pretty much the same. There is no legitimate reason for the state to discriminate based on gender when it comes to this institution.
Re: “Fee is $83.00 for a regular and $94.00 for a confidential license, payable by cash, check or money order.”
Now there is a great reason for just shacking up. Just out of principle. Have the religious ceremony, pay the preacher, rent the church, have a great time and to heck with the state. In a few years it becomes common law anyway, right?
No wonder the government is keen on gay “marriage”, they could make a killing.
I wonder how the IRS and the state handles taxes for people who go through the marriage ceremony but tell the state to get lost with their certification? Do you have to have it? Heck, do people get a tax break anymore for being married or is it still a penalty?
Personally, I don’t get why marriage is such a big deal to gay people. I tried it (marriage) once in the seventies and that was enough for me. Maybe it’s important to them because without the right to marry the person they love, like straight people can, they somehow feel like second class citizens. I don’t know, and in reality, the issue is not that important to me. What is important to me is that as Americans we ALL enjoy the same rights. I get your points (Tina and Pie) that you do not feel like you are being prejudice, you just feel that marriage is and supposed to be between a man and a woman. Here’s why I disagree….
First of all we have to recognize that homosexuality is not a choice or an acquired behavior. People are born gay and that’s a fact weather you believe it or not. If any of you have watched a younger gay nephew or brother grow up, you know what I’m talking about. If you don’t believe that, then we can’t really discuss this issue because if being gay is an acquired behavior, then one could make the point that since they are making the choice to act gay (and I say “act gay” not “be gay” because being gay really wouldn’t exist if people were choosing to act that way), they would not deserve the same rights as everybody else because they are deciding not to be like everybody else. So assuming they ARE gay and not just acting gay, they might want to get married so that their children would be able to say that their Mommies or their Daddies are married (And yes, I believe that being gay does not make you a better or worse prospect for raising kids, but they do have that right….as they should). Or maybe since they have grown up in a culture where getting married is what people do who want to love and commit to another person for life, they might want to be able to do that too.
I know the popular response to anybody who defends gay marriage is….then why not allow humans to marry animals or brothers to marry sisters or several people to marry each other? First of all, being gay is not a perversion, it’s a condition, just like being straight is a condition. And like the point Chris makes, everything is evolving and changing. Maybe one day group marriage will be socially acceptable.
All this being said, do I do believe the gay movement has hurt their own image by exaggerating and flaunting their culture. I also believe it is a small minority of the gay culture who have done this. You have to remember that within the gay community there is as wide a variety of behavior as there is within the straight culture. I don’t really pretend, nor do I want to be the voice for the gay movement. They speak for themselves just fine. I wish we could just get past all of these divisions in our society.
Pie, you re-posted my comment! Thank you.
Did you say something?
I know what you mean. A person’s preferences, sexual or otherwise, ought to be of no societal concern whatsoever.
Us Janeites are mortified.
All this is unseemly legislation in in reaction to those damnable fundamentalists who insist on making people’s sexuality a public issue, and fomenting against them on those grounds.
Pie is partly right. This is a boon to textbook publishers, and not much else.
Alas, Pie also represents those hysterical hoohahs who provoked the legislation … and he wants to think, from now on, about those unintended consequences.