SB777

ABOUT US STORE DONATIONS FREE NEWSLETTER BLOG PRESS ROOM CONTACT US
New to our Site

     
SB 777 - An Explanation

by Bruce Shortt



To all: The note below was written to help someone in the media understand the new pro-sexual deviant California school legislation that Schwartzenegger just signed. You may find it of some interest.


 

Dear XXXX,

 

Ray suggested that I send you some information on SB 777.

 

As you probably know, State Senator Sheila Kuehl (formerly "Zelda" of The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis) is the main sponsor of the bill and has been pushing this bill for 3 years or so. You probably also know that she is a radical lesbian.

 

In general, the general public has no real awareness of the legislation because there has been a lack of reporting by the MSM. Internet sources such as WND have published what seem to be exaggerated accounts of the consequences of SB 777 (after all, who would believe that our legislators and Governor would sign on to what WND describes). I have seen homosexual activists and liberals claiming that the "rightwing" furor is just much ado about nothing: the words "mom" and "dad" appear nowhere in the bill, and it is clear that the purpose of SB 777 is just to make California schools safe for "gay and bisexual" children.

 

The problem is that once one thinks carefully about SB 777 soporific legislative prose, it is obvious that SB 777 is indeed quite radical.

 

While SB 777 and related enactments really require extensive analysis in order to understand their full ramifications, there are a few sections that can give you a feel for just how far SB 777 goes.

 

Let's start with two operative provisions, Section 220 and Section 51500. First, Section 220 reads as follows:

 

220.  No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.

 

Here is Section 51500:

 

51500.  No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.

 

While it is clear that these provisions both prohibit discrimination based on a laundry list of factors, the definition of "gender" is important for understanding the significance of what Schwartzenegger signed.

 

210.7.  "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.

 

Despite beginning with the common understanding of "gender", the definition actually enshrines in law the most extreme post-modern view of "gender". Here are three currently discussed models of sex and gender. 

 

1.    The idea that both sex and gender are biological givens - you are born either male or female, and your gender is the same as your biological sex;

 

2.    The idea that sex is a biological given, but gender is socially constructed - so  it is natural to divide humans into male and female, but how your gender role is played out depends on upbringing, culture and social environment.

 

3.    Both sex and gender are socially constructed - the importance accorded to the category of sex (and some of its physical aspects) are socially constructed, and gender is a performance (Judith Butler and Queer Theory).

 

SB 777 treats "gender" as if it is entirely socially constructed. Thus, if you have adopted a gender identity as a woman the fact that your birth sex is male cannot be used in any way to "discriminate" against you. I could elaborate on this, but I am sure you can see that there are virtually endless scenarios like this. Leaving aside the false message this legislation is designed to indoctrinate children with, once the kids figure SB 777 out, it is hard to see how the result could be anything but chaos.

 

A second key definition is "sexual orientation":

 

SEC. 9.  Section 212.6 is added to the Education Code, to read:

 

212.6.  "Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.

 

When Sections 212.6 and 210.7 are understood in the context of 220 and 51500, it is absolutely clear that activists for all kinds of "sexual minorities" will be able to make all kinds of claims about discrimination and promotion of discriminatory bias (bear in mind that "gays" and "lesbians" are now just a subset of the total class of perverts protected, mainly because of Section 210.7).

 

I know you are aware of how the kind of "anti-discrimination" language in Section 220 lends itself to extravagant legal theories that courts are quite willing to entertain (especially in California). But the operative phrase in Section 51500 - "promotes a discriminatory bias" - merits scrutiny, too.

 

In an earlier version of SB 777 the phrase was "reflects adversely". For some reason this was changed prior to signing. In any event, Section 51500 takes SB 777 beyond banning so-called "discrimination" and outlaws "any activity" that someone might construe as promoting a discriminatory bias, even if it is not itself discriminatory. The possibilities here are endless - Bible clubs, any activity, text, or teaching that portrays traditional families in a positive light, etc. could easily be argued to be either discriminatory because they "privilege heteronormativity" or tend to foster a discriminatory bias against any group included in the definitions of "sexual orientation" or "gender".

 

But, as they say in the late night Ginsu Knife commercials, there's more. The protected classes extend far beyond those just discussed. The protected classes include people "perceived" to have the listed characteristics or who associate with someone who has, or is perceived to have, those characteristics:

 

SEC. 10.  Section 219 is added to the Education Code, to read:

 

219.  Disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code includes a perception that the person has any of those characteristics or that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics.

 

The potential for litigation is absolutely endless, and I am sure that the homosexuals and other "sexual minorities" will use litigation and, especially, the threat of litigation to get whatever they want.

 

Now, here are a few more provisions that may be of some interest.

 

"Educational institution" is defined in Section 210.3 as follows:

 

210.3. "Educational institution" means a public or private preschool, elementary, or secondary school or institution; the governing board of a school district; or any combination of school districts or counties recognized as the administrative agency for public elementary or secondary schools. [emphasis added]

 

Section 235 explicitly includes alternative and charter schools within the nondiscrimination requirements of the bill:

 

235.  There shall be no discrimination on the basis of the characteristics listed in Section 220 in any aspect of the operation of alternative schools or charter schools.

 

Section 221 provides an exception for some religious schools:

 

221.  This article shall not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.

 

Interestingly:

 

SEC. 8.  Section 212.3 is added to the Education Code, to read:

 

212.3.  "Religion" includes all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice and includes agnosticism and atheism.

 

Some harassing litigation is likely to result regarding what is and is not consistent with the tenets of a religious organization. There is, for example, always some liberal group that claims that it has the true interpretation of some creed or other. Thus, Section 221 opens the door to litigation against various religious organizations regarding what their "tenets" are.  Even if such lawsuits would lose on the merits, as long as they can be filed they can be used to intimidate Christian and other organizations into complying with the demands of the "sexual minorities". The potential for mischief here is very significant.

 

I should also mention that "training" regarding Section 220 is mandated now for teacher certification. For example:

 

SEC. 24.5.  Section 44253.3 of the Education Code is amended to read:

 

44253.3.  (a) The commission shall issue a certificate that authorizes the holder to provide all of the following services to limited-English-proficient pupils:...

 

c)    Completion of coursework in human relations in accordance with the commission's standards of program quality and effectiveness that includes, at a minimum, instruction in the following:

 

1)    The nature and content of culture.

2)    Crosscultural contact and interactions.

3)    Cultural diversity in the United States and California.

4)    Providing instruction responsive to the diversity of the pupil population.

5)    Recognizing and responding to behavior related to bias based on the characteristics listed in Section 220.

 

SB 777 also expressly applies to postsecondary education:

 

66270.  No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any characteristic listed or defined in Section 11135 of the Government Code or any other characteristic that is contained in the prohibition of hate crimes set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 422.6 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by any postsecondary educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls students who receive state student financial aid.

 

SEC. 45.  Section 66270.5 of the Education Code is amended and renumbered to read:

 

Finally, Section 51004 makes clear that Section 220 is intended to apply to job fairs.

 

What this provision actually does isn't clear, but I suspect employers may not like it.

 

SEC. 28.  Section 51004 of the Education Code is amended to read:

 

51004.  The Legislature hereby recognizes that it is the policy of the people of the State of California to provide an educational opportunity to the end that every pupil leaving school shall have the opportunity to be prepared to enter the world of work; that every pupil who graduates from any state-supported educational institution should have sufficient marketable skills for legitimate remunerative employment; that every qualified and eligible adult citizen shall be afforded an educational opportunity to become suitably employed in

some remunerative field of employment; and that these opportunities are a right to be enjoyed without regard to economic status or the characteristics listed in Section 220.

 

The Legislature further recognizes that all pupils need to be provided with opportunities to explore and make career choices and to seek appropriate instruction and training to support those choices. The Legislature therefore finds that fairs as community resource and youth leadership activities are integral to assisting and guiding pupils in making choices and therefore encourage the further expansion of cooperative activities between schools, youth leadership activities, and community resources. Among community resources of particular significance in providing information on various career opportunities are vocational and occupational exhibits, demonstrations and activities conducted at fairs.

 

Although this is just a cursory look at just some of the provisions of SB 777, it should be plain that SB 777 represents a complete victory for sexual deviants. Did WND exaggerate? Probably not, but without education most people will not understand the changes that SB 777 will engender through new regulations, new school policies, and litigation over the next few years.

 

Bottom line - if this doesn't motivate parents who have any way at all out of the California schools to leave, they really don't care much for their children. The same could be said for our churches who fail to assist the parents who genuinely need help getting their children out.

 

The link below is to the enrolled text of SB 777.

 

God's peace be with you, Bruce

 

http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20071012_chaptered.html




Return to Knowledge Base

Return to Home

Return to Top


Knowledge Base
Last updated October 26, 2007

Some of the more
well-known signers of our proclamation:

Ed Crane
President, Cato Institute

John Taylor Gatto
1991 New York State Teacher of the Year

Fr. John A Hardon
SJ
RIP
The Catholic Catechism

Don Hodel
Former Secretary of Interior

D. James Kennedy
Coral Ridge Ministries

Rev. Tim LaHaye
Left Behind

Rabbi Daniel Lapin
President, Toward Tradition

Tom Monaghan
Founder, Domino’s Pizza

Ron Paul
US Congressman, Texas

John K Rosemond
Parenting Author, Columnist, Speaker


They and 29,000  others have signed Our Proclamation
:

"I favor ending government involvement in education."