SB 777 & Governor Schwarzenegger

The reaction to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's passage of measure SB 777 in California has been strong from a few groups, but not nearly as strong overall as I thought it should have been, or at least would have been. Actually, the reaction seemed pretty apathetic. Sure, there have been a few family groups who are vocally opposed to this travesty, but there has been no conversation "around the water fountain," so to speak.

The family business I work in is one where many of the customers are known on a first-name basis, and they feel very free to speak their minds when they come in, and often raise the subject of current events. Nothing. Not a word. That in itself is kind of interesting, among the parents who come in especially. Something like this will be very hard to reverse. It isn't that it couldn't be reversed, but Governor Schwarzenegger isn't likely to admit that anything he ever did was ill-advised, and the very powerful alternative-lifestyles lobby isn't about to give up something they consider to, so far, be such a one-of-a-kind victory. This is just a beginning for them.

I remember watching coverage some dozen or so years ago of a gay march on Washington D.C.. The speeches were often less than eloquent and very charged with emotional content. A young woman roused the listening crowd by saying things like, "We aren't going away. We are going to become school-teachers and public servants, and we are going to be teaching your kids and helping them to know that it's okay to be gay. We need to get a lot of us into karate classes so that we can beat up the people that are trying to beat us up." It was all very adversarial. This wasn't a lobbyist group, by any means, but people learn what works.

It isn't surprising that homosexuals have a beef. Too many Christians (likely viewed en masse by gays as fundamentalists) have "cast the first stone" toward homosexuals. The Christians who reach out to gays in the love of the Lord get hammered by being associated with the unbiblical behavior of others. Their voices get drowned out in the headlines of beatings and discrimination of one kind or another. The trouble is, parents have the right to be discriminating about the rights and well-being of their own children, and Christians usually reach out to gays in the wrong way. Mentioning their homosexuality at all is likely to raise an instant brick wall.

The alternative-lifestyles lobbyists are very willing to spend their money, (lots of it) and many hundreds of thousands of hours in pursuit of what they want. Some will say that they are no more relentless in their pursuit of equal recognition of their perverse lifestyle than cigarette, pharmaceutical or other specialized groups have been. So what? Does that make what they are trying to achieve fair? After all, this is a free country, though now in California, not as free as it used to be, and that curtailment will likely spread out to the rest of the country.

The reason I say that response to this whole affair seems apathetic is that I don't believe people really realize just how far-reaching this issue will become. This is not just a matter of free speech, but one of personal rights, and protection of the innocent. It is a deeply moral issue. Just how much will liberty and morality regress under the implementation of this measure? It isn't as easy to say as some have, but I understand their passionate responses.

With this law enacted, it has been said that students and teachers will no longer be free to legally use the terms, "mom and dad" and similar references, because they "imply" that other parental designations are not the norm. The new law prohibits text references or verbiage by teachers or students, or any kind of activity that could be perceived as promoting a bias against gender, and that means what anybody deems a "gender." This does not mean masculine, feminine and neuter. This means cross-dressers, gays, lesbians, bisexuals or those who have undergone sex-change surgery.

In California schools, this law trumps the rights of parents who are paying taxes to support the schools. From as early as kindergarten age, children in the California public school system will be exposed to re-written textbooks with an all-inclusive sexual worldview. Perhaps the textbook publishers will decide that they can refer to parents as "parental units," and the kids won't know that something is up. What if the kids ask though, what a "parental unit" is? The expected upshot is that boys will be able to use the girls restrooms if they want to, because not to be allowed to would constitute a negative gender bias, and likewise, the girls could go into the boys locker room. I can't believe they would want to, but there it is. They simply have to say that they "identify" with that gender. What will be next? Yearly gender registration?

There is no way out of the fact that this is a very bad moral blow to this nation. It is just the beginning. Were those who called Arnold Schwarzenegger a "stealth" liberal correct? I never thought there was too much stealth involved in the matter. Jokes about the "governator" will no longer be funny except in liberal circles where this type of legislation is approved of. Those of us who believe in absolutes will see this law as absolutely immoral and wrong.

Teachers who disapprove of same-sex marriage, who do not believe that homosexuality is unnatural, or who disapprove of sex-change operations or cross-dressing could be legally taken to task for harassment or for using what is called "hate speech," and would be subject to disciplinary action, involving tolerance classes or summary dismissal or worse, possible prosecution. Offending students would likely be subjected to indoctrination classes too.

This smacks of life in a dictatorship, not the United States of America. There is less than a subtle difference here with the way things have worked in the past. When the constitution was written, this type of thing was not even conceived of, because everybody knew homosexuality was immoral. Not even most homosexuals were able to convince themselves that their sin was okay. The difference is, we were free to think that it was wrong, and express that opinion. Now, in a state of this union, that right is being taken away.

"The right to dissent is only being taken away in the school system, though, where kids are being educated," someone might say. Precisely. That is the problem.

Some reading this might think I am over-reacting. Think it through. Save this post. Read it again in two or three years if this law is still in effect. See if I am over-reacting then. If you're reading it in California, read it again before election day.