I am posting the following for the benefit of those readers who may think my views, or, rather, the presentation of my views, on the captioned subject immoderate. It has to do with a certain anti-discrimination law that was recently minted in California. I agree with the writers in principle, but would differ with them in their presentation.

From Gerald’s Blog:

From National Review comes further evidence of the niceness-fascism so rampant among “liberals”. Our ever-more-sensitive little egos need more and more protection. Minute groups are being catered to in absurd ways. Who needs a law for every possible insult ? That the government must not discriminate is arrangeable without speech codes. Of course, even the government discriminates at times – one cannot marry one’s sibling, or marry two women, and so forth. Of course, the latter case is already being lobbied for.

The hyper-active gay-rights establishment in California has finally succeeded in getting Governor Schwarzenegger to sign the California Student Civil Rights Act. State Senator Sheila Kuehl’s new bill adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of groups protected from educational discrimination. Teachers and school districts have been prohibited from “giving instruction… [and] sponsoring any activity that reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin or ancestry” and more recently, sexual orientation and gender identity have been added to the list.

Three things are troubling about this new law. First, we don’t know exactly what qualifies as instruction that “reflects adversely upon persons because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.” Such a law could feasibly prohibit lessons or stories that treat the terms “mother” and “father” as normative; the terms “husband” and “wife” could be forcibly abandoned in favor of the generic, gender neutral “partner.”

Additionally, the law prohibits school districts from “sponsoring any activity that reflects adversely upon persons because of their gender identity.” A number of consequences could be entailed by this; it could mean that having a homecoming queen is prohibited. It could also mean that locker rooms and bathrooms have to be opened to students on the basis of the gender they perceive themselves to be. In truth we don’t know for sure how this legislation will be interpreted, and not knowing what a law will actually do is always a good reason not to pass it.

Also troubling, is the underlying assumption that the state needs new authority to protect gay children from teasing or harassment — an assumption based on no evidence. Discrimination and bullying are already illegal. The state of California is one of the most gay-friendly places on the planet. Why does the GLBT caucus think they need additional authority, unless they plan to use it in new areas? We know that the Los Angeles Unified School District is already allowing students who claim to be transsexual to use the locker rooms of their choice. We know that the Ninth Circuit court held that city of Oakland recently could lawfully prohibit the words “marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values” as hate speech. I’m somehow not reassured by the gay lobby’s claim that they won’t ban the words, “mother,” “father,” “husband,” and “wife.”

Ample evidence exists to suggest that men and women react different to everything from cohabitation, to infertility, to child-bearing. The path on which we travail with such laws leaves children to discover these critical differences in unfortunate, and often very painful, ways. Such a law limits the fruitful discussion that would benefit the majority of children in order to protect the feelings of the handful of children who might have same sex attractions.

I seriously doubt that the psyches of California gays and lesbians are so fragile that their well-being depends on protecting school children from hearing the words “mother and father.” I don’t believe the vast majority of sensible gay people in California think they need this policy. Moreover, any children who are actually suffering can be helped through the far less intrusive means that are already available.

One can’t even say that people “need to grow a pair” – since that is exactly what is being done in many a hospital. Got penis envy ? We’ll make you one. Obviously, someone who wants to have a sex change, err, “gender reassignment”, is a deeply troubled, pitiable individual. But, in this brave new world, we have to pretend that it’s just as “valid”. Heck, I’ve read articles from Europe where teachers, shrinks and doctors encourage sex changes in little kids at the drop of a hat.

In this day and age, all these special victim groups ought to be abolished, along with “hate crimes”. Regular criminal law should suffice to persecute a thief, burglar, murderer and so forth. What started out as partly legitimate has turned into a travesty, and a threat to free speech. Oh, the road to hell and those good intentions.

This

prohibited from “giving instruction… [and] sponsoring any activity that reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin or ancestry” and more recently, sexual orientation and gender identity have been added to the list.

basically gives free reign to any kind of madness, since, in our wimp culture, there’ll always be some ninny who’s offended. It’s a wild world, hard to get by just upon a smile….

Next, they won’t keep score at games in school. Oh, wait.

Combox closed.  Anybody that has a problem with this can take it up with the authors.

WAC

Advertisements