So to clarify: Jack & Jill will still go up hill, but 'Jill & Jill are going to hell' won't be tolerated
"The Democrat Assembly speaker actually got up and said, 'This means "Jill and Jill" can go up the hill in the textbooks, and you can't say anything bad about that,'" ... "He said that you've got to outlaw bias because perspective and point-of-view should not be against anything that is the homosexual or bisexual or trans-sexual agenda." Such statements are "scary," he adds, because "he's talking about outlawing values."
"`If somebody wants to teach kids in kindergarten that Jack and Jill ran up a hill, this bill doesn't prohibit that,'' ... But ``if somebody wants to say that if Jill and Jill ran up the hill and somehow that's wrong, then this bill says that that is not acceptable.''
So he was actually saying that nobody's gonna trip up the popular childhood hill-climbers as they entertain yet another generation with their epic tale of water-fetching. However, the bill WILL disallow a teacher of the 'pro-family' persuasion from telling her own version of the story wherein "Jill & Jill go up a hill to fetch a pail of abominable sin." So while Mr. Thomasson is correct in his assertion that the bill won't allow the school to teach that "Jill & Jill" are wrong, Mr. Núñez didn't say that same-sex couples are gonna all of a sudden replace the cast of storybook characters with whom we all grew up. Although if the bill does allow for a modern-day Jack & Jill sequel in which the duo meets Joe & Joe, a couple of nice guys who just so happen to love in ways different than themselves, then that is a positive step for which nobody should be apologizing.
Not to mention, Núñez only made his statements because he was responding to Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy (R-Monrovia), who claimed that if the bill becomes law, ``We'll no longer have prom kings and queens. Jack and Jill can no longer walk up the hill." And it's quite obvious why those on the anti-gay rights side of the argument take this line of attack -- because once again they are trying to paint this acceptance-encouraging action as if gays and progressives are once-again destroying some sort of hallowed institutions. They claim we're going to take things away (i.e. hetero storybook characters, hetero prom royalty), not merely level the playing field so that the next generation of gay kids can know a life without bias. It's yet another play pulled right from their "Gays want special rights; not equal rights" playbook. Since SB 1437 would target THEIR rhetoric and THEIR campaigns of marginalization, they have to work overtime to portray it as if it would lead to some sort of scary, moral-less world. Fortunately, those of us who don't see the value in hurting the souls of a worthwhile sect of the population know that this measure would only help to free our schools of the pain that all-too-many of us gay adults experienced in our own educational days of yore.
Earlier in the Agape article, they quote Thomasson as saying that this progressive, gay-friendly bill is "the real face of the California Democratic Party." We reply: "Well if that's the case, we hope Dem lawmakers nationwide will unapologetically use California as their muse when they go to have their next face lift."
Calif. Lawmakers Advance Another 'Sexual Indoctrination' Bill [Agape]
Gay-bias ban in schools OK'd [MediaNews via SJ Mercury News]
***Also, Thomasson's organization yesterday said in a press release that Núñez's comments were an admission "that SB 1437 will promote lesbianism to young girls." Because seriously -- the only thing keeping the billions of heterosexual girls on this planet from going lez is a lack of Sapphic storybook characters. ::writer rolled his eyes... and his head came tumbling after::
comments powered by Disqus