« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
12/06/2007
And by 'facts' they mean 'not at all'
After much research, we've come to an conclusion. That is: The "pro-family" Californians who are working day and night to have SB 777 repealed have absolutely no problem lying through their teeth.
Why do we say this? Well, just look at this "fact sheet" that they are distributing in order to dupe folks into protesting against the recently-passed measure:
Only problem? The "fact sheet" is simply not factual. The above is far-right spin coming from the same sets who are hellbent on seeing gays unmarried, unprotected, and generally unequal. The ACTUAL facts are these:
*While AB 537 does offer some protections, it contains many inconsistencies. SB 777 would simply update all of the defined categories of discrimination so that sexual orientation is clearly listed (in the same way that things like race, disability, national origin, religion, etc. already are). Despite what the 'mo foes are telling you in the first bullet point, AB 537 DOES NOT clearly establish "equal protection for every California public school student." Because of the lack of clarity, there have been numerous lawsuits in the state involving LGBT harassment. SB 777 would help to explicate the protections.
*The idea that SB777 would REQUIRE any sort of inclusion is a complete red herring. In actuality, there is a HUGE difference between requiring nondiscrimination and requiring that every textbook include a certain quota of gay people. However, by using the sort of short-sighted talking points in which the measure's opponents shroud their campaigns, its quite easy to muddy the waters between these two concepts. And this is exactly what they are trying to do in bullet point #2.
*The third bullet point is less a lie and more of an offensive revelation of their motives. For they are making it sound as if unlike the other protected classes (race, religion, etc), sexual orientation is one towards which the Education code should allow leeway. But WHY? Why should a gay student in Encino enjoy different protections from their friends in San Francisco, simply because they happened to have been born into a different portion of the state? And it's also offensive when you consider that even if such matters WERE left to local districts, it would be the exact same people who wrote the above "fact sheet" that would be going to their local school board to protest the protections on an individual level. So it's not like they're fine with gay protections, just not on a state-wide level. The truth is that they are opposed to these protections at ANY level (and would protest them at any level), with the idea of local control simply serving as a tactic.
The crux of our opposition's arguments on this and similar gay rights measures is that they would "take away" from parents and local officials. And they like to act as if these measures would mandate certain things. Below are two claims that the 'mo foes make on a companion website they've launched in support of a repeal:
Both claims? TOTAL BULLSH*T! Our opposition always presents a self-absorbed argument, wherein they address the push for gay acceptance from a perspective that directly involves them (and the sad-looking children they always use to illustrate their points). But in what sort of a bizarro could anyone actually believe that preventing bias for LGBT people also prevents instructors to teach about hetero-headed families or prom kings and queens? That's like saying that protections on the basis of race or disability prevent schools from teaching about "traditionally-bodied families" or electing a white homecoming queen. And f such lines of thought were used against these sorts of protections (race, disability, etc.), they would not be given even the first bit of credence. Yet since queer bias is still widely accepted in this world, and since the talking points of the well-financed, well-connected, church-supported far-right have been so exhaustively recited, otherwise reasoned adults have swallowed the false anti-gay claims as readily as oxygen.
We have fantastic gay rights organizations in California who are fighting against the lies. However, the other side has a network of individuals from various walks of life who will automatically support their efforts because they think their faith, political affiliation, friends, or sense of morality would want it that way. We on the pro-gay side have GOT to rally our potential allies in order to combat that vast network of churches and conservative groups. We have to show those who might not have all much concern for gay rights, but who have great concern for intellectually sound logic and human decency, just how bold and unscrupulous these folks are in carrying out their anti-gay endeavors!
WE DO NOT HAVE TO BE VICTIMIZED BY MINDLESS AND BASELESS CLAIMS! WE DO NOT HAVE TO LOWER OUR INTELLIGENCE TO EVEN DIGNIFY THESE CHILDISH ATTACKS! THERE ARE ACTUAL, TANGIBLE YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL FACING AN EXTREMELY REAL PROBLEM OF BULLYING AND HARASSMENT! WE HAVE GOT TO RAISE OUR VOICES!!
*Here is the offensively named "Save Our Children" campaign's latest press release: Save Our Kids Campaign Circulating Enough Petitions to Qualify Referendum [Christian News Wire]
**ALSO: For an ACTUAL fact sheet on SB 777, head over to Equality California's site.
**ALSO: Why this is all so important:
Your thoughts
I read a report that 300,000 petitions are in circulation where a maximum of 3 million possible signatures can be submitted from these.
Problem is its difficultly hard for an average Joe or Jill to contact Equality California to ask what will be the strategy against a future campaign to nix the repeal effort.
Maybe we need an education campaign to show to the average Californian that lives in Fresno and Riverside the reason for the legislation so they could understand.
Yes, the bill is somewhat flawed, but maybe the author of the legislation needs to revise it during the next session of the California State Senate. Maybe close the loophole that caused the controversy where straight males who do not identify as trans could just say oh, i feel like a girl and i want to visit the girls locker room. To make it where you need a medical justification from a psychologist and or a doctor. Thats one of the big reasons why the far right in California is working to repeal the law.
Posted by: Matt from California | Dec 6, 2007 12:33:33 PM
This is the least well-written, least tactful and least factual commentary I have ever read.
In reference to your first argument, how is "all persons" an ambiguous statement that might omitt homosexuals? It seems obvious that the phrase, "all persons" is as wide as the spectrum gets.
I could argue many of your statements, but instead let me say this: At the front of every cause stand a few extremests. These extremists do NOT represent everyone who shares their morals. I am genuinely and wholeheartedly sorry if you or people you know have been hated or hurt by conservative extremists.
But this is the thing, we are fighting for what we believe in, just like you are. Your statement that you are being victimized by mindless claims and childish attacks is simply disrespectful. You see a problem in society. (People don't always approve of gay lifestyles.) I don't think gays should be discriminated against, but I don't want their lifestyles perpetuated, either. That's a problem that I see. And yes, there is some logic behind it. I am not afraid of gay people. I don't hate them. I just know that thier lifestyles have negative consequences. They have proven destructive to themselves and the societies they live in. I am going to respect their choices, but I am not going to support children being indoctrinated to believe it's a healthy lifestyle. Not as long as the suicide rates are up umpteen percent compared to the average person...and you can find that on their own website.
So let's be respectful, Okay? We both have our sides to this.
Posted by: Fayelle | Mar 8, 2008 10:48:39 AM
Fayelle: It's fine that you support discrimination for gay people. But it's just ridiculous for you to refer to our words as "the least well-written, least tactful and least factual commentary [you] have ever read." You have every right to disagree with us as you work to create the sort of heterosexist world that views gays as unnatural. But you're not going to misrepresent our words, our intentions, or ability to turn a phrase.
As for your disingenuous questioning of why AB 537, even with its "all persons language, still needs improving? Well considering we already addressed that in the post, we will simply reprint that again here:
"While AB 537 does offer some protections, it contains many inconsistencies. SB 777 would simply update all of the defined categories of discrimination so that sexual orientation is clearly listed (in the same way that things like race, disability, national origin, religion, etc. already are). Despite what the 'mo foes are telling you in the first bullet point, AB 537 DOES NOT clearly establish "equal protection for every California public school student." Because of the lack of clarity, there have been numerous lawsuits in the state involving LGBT harassment. SB 777 would help to explicate the protections."
As for disrespect? Well, Fayelle, this is the wrong site to be accusing of "disrespect." We never attack the people, but rather the message they are conveying. We don;t use words like bigots or hate mongers, instead focusing on the discriminatory words and campaigns being waged against us. But your side, by referring to our lives as "lifestyles", our love as "unnatural", and our basic protections as "special", are waging unnecessary attacks that cut right to the core of our beings! It's a wonder gay people are able to EVER respond to these hurtful notions with even a modicum of respect. But we truly do!
As for who could prevent things like teen suicide? It is quite offensive for you to tell gay people what most readily leads to their mental struggles. Those of us who have lived the gay experience no the soul-numbing pain that can stem from living in an anti-gay world!
Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 8, 2008 11:48:43 AM
comments powered by Disqus
