Yesterday, California’s Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law legislation that requires the state’s schools to teach the contributions of people who are lesbian, bisexual, “gay,” and transgender.
S.B. 48 makes California the first state in the union to pass such a law. It was authored by Senator Mark Leno of San Francisco, a homosexual. The law requires textbooks be re-written to include information about LBGT Americans and “present them in a positive light.”
Students as young as six will be affected. Parental notification is not required. Parents cannot opt their children out.
The governor says the bill prohibits “discrimination in education.” He stated that “history should be honest.”
For the sake of honesty:
- What is the driving force behind this law? What is the desired outcome? Who does it benefit?
- To whom are children entrusted: their parents or the school?
- If parents teach God’s Word to their children because it protects them from harm, why would the governor, teacher’s association, or school want to contradict parents?
- Why does the bill prohibit teachers and textbooks from telling students that homosexuality is a risky lifestyle? The practice of homosexuality carries with it the highest rate of HIV/AIDS and other STDs, high cancer rates, and earlier deaths.
It has always been a good thing to teach young people about the contributions of earlier Americans. But, honestly, where is the textbook describing the contributions of George Washington the heterosexual? Clara Barton the heterosexual? Martin Luther King, Jr. the heterosexual?
Apparently S.B. 48 is California’s eighth school sexual indoctrination law forcing itself on parents and children. What will this trend in sexual trail blazing leave behind?
Ezerwoman's Blog 
I’m afraid it’s come to the point in our society that we are forced to comply no matter our personal beliefs. People want a government nanny state that will provide for them monitarily and physically and are willing to forgo certain freedoms to get that caretaking. At work, you are no longer able to disagree with any lifestyle choice openly without fearing for loss of employment.
Other countries further down the permissive road than the US are not discouraging the steadfast proponents of these lifestyles of sin and promiscuity, but rather are held up as examples of tolerance and growth. They never point to the ugly realities of genderless child rearing, sexuality being defined by whatever partner m/f/animal/vegetable they wish to use.
These purveyors of madness know that to complete the change, they must instill in the minds of our young the acceptance of this “alternative lifestyle” (George Orwell would be proud). It sickens me to no end to see the path we are on and to know we are trying to be silenced, and in many cases successfully, in fighting against the swelling tide of sinful depravity otherwise known as sexual freedom.