"Mom and Dad" now banned in Kahleefohneeya

[fossten]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130

'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California
Schwarzenegger signs law outlawing terms perceived as negative to 'gays'

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" effectively have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.

"We are shocked and appalled that the governor has blatantly attacked traditional family values in California," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

"With this decision, Gov. Schwarzenegger has told parents that their values are irrelevant. Many parents will have no choice but to pull their children out of the public schools that have now become sexualized indoctrination centers."

"Arnold Schwarzenegger has delivered young children into the hands of those who will introduce them to alternative sexual lifestyles," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, which worked to defeat the plans. "This means children as young as five years old will be mentally molested in school classrooms.

"Shame on Schwarzenegger and the Democrat politicians for ensuring that every California school becomes a homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination center," he said.

[snip]

 

[Aquabrit]

Huh? Arnie had always been anti gay before. Wasn't he quoted as saying that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman? Lol. Something seems fishy here...

 

[n8bachelor]

WOW. I have always believed society sucks and that is why I do not want to have children. But damn, this is just too far.

 

[MonsterMark]

Dad - Sperm Donor
Mom - Sperm Recipient

 

[bufordtpisser]

Co-ed bathrooms, isn't that what we all dreamed of when we were young boys??

 

[taylor414ce2003]

Hollywood actors should not be allowed to hold public office above town meeting member, its a good thing he is not a natural born citizen or he would be president,can you imagine the American public being stupid enough to elect an actor as president...........doh, Bonzos already been in office. hey we might as well let the terminator in.,hey lets elect Bruce Willis he always catches the bad guy......we are truly screwed and willl be facing some hard times in this country !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Calabrio]

I don't remember Schwartzenegger ever having been politically "anti-Gay." And saying that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman is not anti-Gay, but pro-traditional marriage.

Hollywood actors should not be allowed to hold public office above town meeting member, its a good thing he is not a natural born citizen or he would be president,can you imagine the American public being stupid enough to elect an actor as president...........doh, Bonzos already been in office. hey we might as well let the terminator in.,hey lets elect Bruce Willis he always catches the bad guy......we are truly screwed and willl be facing some hard times in this country !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bonzo was the chimp in a movie. He never ran for office.

Reagan was a great President. Even if the constitution were changed, Arnold wouldn't receive the nomination based on his center-left policies.

You say we are screwed and facing hard times- I'd like to know more specifically what you're worried about.

 

[fossten]

I'd also like to add that I'd LOVE to see Bruce Willis as president.

I can picture him now, talking to the Democrat Minority Leader:

"Yippee Ki-Yay, motherfcker."

 

[Iszi]

OMG, I think I'm seriously going to vomit.

Yet another reason (even though I'm not in Kali) I'm going to be doing my damndest in the near future to make sure my daughter gets into - and stays in - a Christian private school. Then again, it almost seems as if those won't even be "safe havens" from this type of legislation.

I think I can seriously say I've never been so disgusted in my life.

 

[MonsterMark]

Yet another reason (even though I'm not in Kali) I'm going to be doing my damndest in the near future to make sure my daughter gets into - and stays in - a Christian private school.

4 kids in private Catholic school here.:hump:

Certainly not perfect here either but way better than having your kids run with the wacko leftist nutcases that what to give your kids a condom when they are 11.

 

[taylor414ce2003]

.As far as hard times, what worries me is the decline of the U.S $,Large Us co. are getting bought up by non American investors.
What worries me about this post is it comes down to the feminization of the American male.soon enough it will be a law that all toilet seats will be permanatly locked in the down position and you have to piss sitting down

 

[Iszi]

Can someone show me where in the legislation does it say that the restrooms/locker rooms have to (effectively) be made unisex? I've done a search through online copies of the text, and can't find any specific mention of those things.

Still - and sadly so - it wouldn't surprise me if it was there.

 

[Marcus]

Can someone show me where in the legislation does it say that the restrooms/locker rooms have to (effectively) be made unisex? I've done a search through online copies of the text, and can't find any specific mention of those things.

Still - and sadly so - it wouldn't surprise me if it was there.

It doesn't. Nor does it say anything about the words "mom and dad" being outlawed, or "indoctrinating" kids into the f*g lifestyle (damn filter). Just more fear mongering from the crazies who would like to return to a mythical golden age where homos stayed in the closet where they belong.

 

[fossten]

It doesn't. Nor does it say anything about the words "mom and dad" being outlawed, or "indoctrinating" kids into the f*g lifestyle (damn filter). Just more fear mongering from the crazies who would like to return to a mythical golden age where homos stayed in the closet where they belong.

You need to read the whole article. As you've been shown before, Tommy, in the case of the stem cell bill in Missouri, everything doesn't have to be spelled out. By outlawing hate speech or offensive terminology, and by being vague about the definition of such offensive terminology, the door is wide open for anybody who "feels" discriminated against to require the school to ban certain "offensive terminology." Same sex marriages will be offended by the terms "Mom and Dad" and they will get them banned. This happens all the time in other cities and in other instances, not necessarily of the "Mom and Dad" variety. Speaking on a public street about their religion got Christians thrown in jail in Philadelphia.

This entire bill is political correctness run amok, whether you realize it or not.

 

[psungee]

I'm a big, fat, liberal ... even I find this a bit more than bizarre! I do remember some discussion about allowing naturalized citizens to be president ... relatively recently. In fact, that discussion was related to, as I remember, Schwarzenegger's potential (and, as I understood, "desired") rise to the position of president.

.As far as hard times, what worries me is the decline of the U.S $,Large Us co. are getting bought up by non American investors.

While this concerns Americans, the same phenomenon concerns some Canadians. We see many of our traditionally Canadian businesses being bought up by non-Canadian investors. Notably, The Bay (owns Zellers, a traditional Canadian discounter) which is Canada's oldest retailer - grown out of Canada's oldest fur traders, is owned by US's GE Capital (a recent acquisition). Canadians are buying American businesses. Americans are buying Canadian businesses. Non-North Americans are investing, en-mass, in North American businesses. Here's one for you:
Our current Canadian government believes government shouldn't own business (notably, oil). They seem to have little issue with the Chinese government buying Canadian oil fields. Stupid? We think so. Not good enough for us but okay for a foreign government? Hmmm...

 

[Iszi]

Okay, I'm going to raise the BS flag right here.

:bsflag:

A few reasons:

1.) I have yet to find any mention of this bill on any major news media outlet. (CNN, FOX, USA Today, New York Times, etc.) The only places I'm finding mention are extremely biased. (Not that the aforementioned aren't at all - just that these are much more so.)

2.) All of the quotes in the article are from members of support groups vehemently opposed to the legislation, who are at best only speculating as to what the bill's effect is going to be. Nowhere do I see any input from the legislators who wrote the bill - or any legislator for that matter, regardless of which side of the fence they're on.

3.) Further, I don't see any quotes in the article from anyone of particular prominence in association with the bill, which address the extreme allegations of the bill's effect. "Well, why would they want to address - meaning, supposedly admit to - such allegations," you may ask? Well, why would someone not mention that they declined to comment when asked about it? Oh wait, they probably weren't.

4.) The extreme consequences that the article claims this bill will have are in no way specifically outlined in the bill. Sure, there are likely a good many ways the bill can be mis-interpreted to such extremes, but that's what we've got Supreme Courts for.

Is Political Correctness blown way out of proportion in today's world? Most definitely yes. Will it be the downfall of family values, and a primary catalyst towards the overall denigration of our society? Quite likely, I do agree. But is the end quite so near as this article would lead us to believe? I doubt it. While this article reports that some bills were signed which are definitely a step in that direction, it's more like a marching step than the giant leap that we are being led to believe.

P.S.: Thanks go to TommyB, and another good friend of mine, for getting my head straight on this.

 

[Iszi]

Speaking on a public street about their religion got Christians thrown in jail in Philadelphia.

Care to link an article? (Preferably from a more reputable source than the one that started this thread.) Granted I don't know Philly at all, but I would expect those people were doing a little bit more than just roadside preaching.

 

[Iszi]

At this point, I'm trying to decide what I'm more disgusted over: The fact that society is heading in such a direction that laws are being passed, which could conceivably be translated in such ways as were suggested in WND's article here. Or, that the same people who are standing for the family values which are becoming offended by this bill, would generate and publish such propaganda as is in that article without a shred of actual evidence given (or existing) to support the extreme claims made in it.

Further, I must say I'm becoming a little disgusted of myself for having initially believed all of this crap, and sharing it with some close friends without actually doing my own research to validate it. I should know better.

You need to read the whole article...

Fossten, Given TommyB's response to my inquiry here, I would venture to imagine that he has read the entire article. Even if not, the article itself is worthless without any legitimate proof to support its allegations. The only truth that is really in the article are the following quotes, and really nothing more:

The bills signed by Schwarzenegger include SB777

Also signed was AB394,

Aside from that, WND's article makes it appear as if the bills signed are specifically altering laws in ways that are not at all specifically outlined in the bills. While the bills could conceivably be translated to mean all of those things, there is nothing written in them that directly or intentionally targets those items, and it would take a great leap - not only of logic, but also due process - for those bills to actually be implemented to the effect claimed by WND.

 

[fossten]

Care to link an article? (Preferably from a more reputable source than the one that started this thread.) Granted I don't know Philly at all, but I would expect those people were doing a little bit more than just roadside preaching.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_christians_arrested.htm

There are differing accounts, but there is no dispute that they were arrested and charged with hate crimes. That in and of itself is the real problem, violating the first amendment.

And WorldNetDaily is a much more reputable source than the Mainstream Media, which sees fit to ignore stories like this and print/broadcast biased baloney all the time. Don't even try to get me started on that. If you doubt the bias, go to newsbusters.org every day for one week and you will be convinced.

 

[fossten]

At this point, I'm trying to decide what I'm more disgusted over: The fact that society is heading in such a direction that laws are being passed, which could conceivably be translated in such ways as were suggested in WND's article here. Or, that the same people who are standing for the family values which are becoming offended by this bill, would generate and publish such propaganda as is in that article without a shred of actual evidence given (or existing) to support the extreme claims made in it.

Further, I must say I'm becoming a little disgusted of myself for having initially believed all of this crap, and sharing it with some close friends without actually doing my own research to validate it. I should know better.



Fossten, Given TommyB's response to my inquiry here, I would venture to imagine that he has read the entire article. Even if not, the article itself is worthless without any legitimate proof to support its allegations. The only truth that is really in the article are the following quotes, and really nothing more:




Aside from that, WND's article makes it appear as if the bills signed are specifically altering laws in ways that are not at all specifically outlined in the bills. While the bills could conceivably be translated to mean all of those things, there is nothing written in them that directly or intentionally targets those items, and it would take a great leap - not only of logic, but also due process - for those bills to actually be implemented to the effect claimed by WND.

The proof will follow as court cases pop up surrounding this bill.

Have you been to law school? Have much experience reading the law? Have you ever heard, for example, of Roe v. Wade, where five unelected justices suddenly "discovered" a right to an abortion found directly in the Constitution, despite there being zero references to abortion therein? What about "separation of church and state?" Clearly NOT found in the Constitution, yet liberals scream about this being a pillar of our beloved document.

Don't assume that because the law isn't specific that it isn't exclusionary. Laws are written deliberately to be confusing so that laypersons will not be aware of the language.

If the bill says that gays may not be portrayed in a negative light, a la no discrimination, then some kid who has gay parents might be offended if some other kid starts talking about his own mom and dad. He goes home and complains that some kid was teasing him for having gay parents, and the school bans certain kinds of speech and bans textbooks that could offend the kid. And bammo, I'm right again.

 

[Iszi]

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_christians_arrested.htm

There are differing accounts, but there is no dispute that they were arrested and charged with hate crimes. That in and of itself is the real problem, violating the first amendment.

Last paragraph from your link:

Pending a full airing of the evidence from both sides in court, it is difficult to say whose First Amendment rights — if anyone's — were actually violated in the fracas.

Also, one of the lines from the e-mail example there claim that one of the charges pressed against them was related to the use of a deadly weapon. Hardly peaceable protest, there.

Being that the event occurred in 2004, and was supposedly (according to the e-mail) highlighted in a show on FOX News, I would think you should have been able to give us some more compelling information on the topic.

Maybe try this link, from Snopes. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/inpublic.asp

It's probably not quite as un-biased as the About article, but does give a bit more in the way of details. Particularly noteworthy is that all charges were thrown out within 4 months of the incident.

And WorldNetDaily is a much more reputable source than the Mainstream Media, which sees fit to ignore stories like this and print/broadcast biased baloney all the time. Don't even try to get me started on that. If you doubt the bias, go to newsbusters.org every day for one week and you will be convinced.

Interesting. You're saying that I have to submit myself to brainwashing by visiting one particular site daily for a week, in order to be convinced of another's credibility? Right.

If WND wants to prove themselves to be a reputable source, then they should be backing up their stories with verifiable facts, commentary from prominent figures directly associated with the story, and opinions and analysis conducted by more than just activist groups from the extreme far sides of the debate.

 

[fossten]

Last paragraph from your link:



Also, one of the lines from the e-mail example there claim that one of the charges pressed against them was related to the use of a deadly weapon. Hardly peaceable protest, there.

Being that the event occurred in 2004, and was supposedly (according to the e-mail) highlighted in a show on FOX News, I would think you should have been able to give us some more compelling information on the topic.

Maybe try this link, from Snopes. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/inpublic.asp

It's probably not quite as un-biased as the About article, but does give a bit more in the way of details. Particularly noteworthy is that all charges were thrown out within 4 months of the incident.



Interesting. You're saying that I have to submit myself to brainwashing by visiting one particular site daily for a week, in order to be convinced of another's credibility? Right.

If WND wants to prove themselves to be a reputable source, then they should be backing up their stories with verifiable facts, commentary from prominent figures directly associated with the story, and opinions and analysis conducted by more than just activist groups from the extreme far sides of the debate.

All charges may have been thrown out in the PA case, but does that mean no harm was done? No! Many thousands of dollars were wasted by the Christians in the case, who had to hire lawyers to keep from going to jail. They subsequently sued the department/city for violating their rights, and they lost. So thanks to hate crime legislation, Christians are targets and can be damaged.

As far as going to newsbusters.org, I don't really care whether or not you want to be educated as to the bias of the media. Go ahead and keep on being a sheep if you want to. It was nothing more than a challenge, not an attempt at brainwashing. What, are you paranoid or something? Or are you afraid of the truth? If I posted articles exposing media bias here on this forum, would you read them? Or would you skim past, grumbling to yourself, "...not gonna brainwash me, by golly..."

 

[Iszi]

Interesting: You complain about the major news outlets being biased, calling us (more directly, me) sheep for supposedly being reliant on them and taking their word at face value. And yet, you want us to bow to the all-knowing, pure and impartial World Net Daily, and accept their gossip as gospel.

I give up, here. There's just no fighting such un-logic.

 

[fossten]

Interesting: You complain about the major news outlets being biased, calling us (more directly, me) sheep for supposedly being reliant on them and taking their word at face value. And yet, you want us to bow to the all-knowing, pure and impartial World Net Daily, and accept their gossip as gospel.

I give up, here. There's just no fighting such un-logic.

I didn't just accept the story from WND, although I do trust it as a news source. I went and read the text from the law - did you do that? - and determined that they were correct in their assessment. What they said was not gossip, it's proven by the text of the law. It's not my fault if you can't read legal text. But don't feel bad; most people can't.

Of course you are casting aspersions on WND because you don't agree with their assessment, yet you either haven't read or don't understand the text yourself. Instead, you're taking TOMMYB's word for it. Oh yeah, he's not biased at all, right? How's that for logic?

 

[Iszi]

Quite frankly, I don't have the hours of time it would take to read into the law as deeply as you obviously have. And really, law isn't all that hard to understand. You just have to pay attention to what you're reading. I have however taken a quick skim through it, and also run some basic but thorough text searches through it to come to the conclusions that I have. TommyB just verified it for me.

Here's the basic (and quoted) claim made by WDN:

"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" effectively have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.

From what I see in the law, nothing is written to directly address the "Mom and Dad"/"Husband and Wife" issue, and even less addressed in the law are the issues of bathroom/locker room usage. Or maybe perhaps you can quote the parts of the law itself which we are obviously overlooking?

As best as I can tell, all the law effectively does on its own is to order a little more Political Correctness into the school and government. Taken to extremes in actual usage and implementation, (as I have conceded earlier) yes, it could possibly have the extreme results suggested by WorldNetDaily. But again, (and again, already stated) that would require a rather giant leap in both logic and due process for it to happen. The law as it is written now cannot and will not have such a dramatic effect on its own.

If all of WNDs claims are "proven by the text of the law" - which apparently (according to you) no one here is capable of rubbing two brain cells together quickly enough to read - then why don't you quote the relevant parts of the law (again, something WND could/should have done themselves, to add support to their story) and show us how exactly those claims can be validated?