Skip to content

And so it continues!

October 16, 2007


This is exactly what I was talking about in my post on “His, Hers and the Other?”

Check THIS out!

What are your thoughts?

31 Comments leave one →
  1. October 16, 2007 1:12 pm

    Wow, that is surprising come from a “republican” governor. It just goes to show that the longer we are exposed to sin the less sinful it appears. It’s like putting a frog in boiling water…it will jump right out. If you put that same frog in cold water and slowly heat up the water, the frog will stay and die in the water. America has been taught to be “tolerant” of other people as to not offend alternative lifestyles, and now there is this ever widening gray line of morality.
    What’s especially infuriating is that even Christian schools who receive any government funding would have to change their curriculum to include the positive view of these alternative lifestyles….or lose their government funding.

  2. October 16, 2007 1:24 pm

    I know Kristen…It’s truly baffling to me! I can’t believe this…

    I love your frog analogy. It’s right on! We have to stay on guard and on top if things. It’s only a matter of time before the gov’t steps into our homes. And that scares me a great deal!

  3. October 16, 2007 2:10 pm

    I think he has lost his mind after using so mnay steroids in his life. Really, tho, what is he thinking?!

  4. October 16, 2007 3:14 pm

    I did a google search for Bill SB 777 and found the following:

    I don’t see anything in this bill that prohibits, banish, or even refers to, the words “mom or dad” from California textbooks.

    My interpretation of the bill is that textbooks can’t use negative language regarding a persons “disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation”.

    This is a bill I think I would vote for.

    From Bill SB 777:

    200. It is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender,
    nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate
    crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state. The
    purpose of this chapter is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies therefor.

    220. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion,
    sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the
    Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial
    assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.

  5. October 16, 2007 3:23 pm

    Kristen, Article 221 of the bill would seem to me to exclude Chrisitian schools from compliance:

    221. This article shall not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that

  6. Heidi permalink
    October 16, 2007 3:29 pm

    Ed, I am in agreement with you. I’m not for same sex relationships and don’t want my son to be showering with girls and vise versa with my daughter. But, I believe there has to be some “control”, that’s probably too strong of a word.
    in letting “society” use gender, nationality, and sexual orientation bashing. I live in CA proudly and I did vote for Arnold. He runs one of the toughest states. I think this bill is a little controversial but it some valid points.

  7. Heidi permalink
    October 16, 2007 3:30 pm

    it has some valid points

  8. October 16, 2007 4:04 pm

    Thanks Ed for the Link!

    What they’ve done here is redefined a few things and added some. In Sect.200 everything remained the same, they just ADDED “sexual orientation” (which means ones sexual “position”) it now reads as this…

    200. It is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, mental or physical disability, or regardless of any actual or perceived disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity,religion, sexual orientation,

    Sect 212 was repealed to take out the definition of the word “sex”…where it used to read this…

    “Sex” means the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being.”

    That has all been crossed out, literally, and replaced with…

    66260.7. “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.

    I understand hate crimes are on the rise and they should always be addressed for what they are. But we do not need terms like “sex”, referring to “male or female” redefined for us by the government. You’re either male or female…period!

    I read through the whole bill – it’s sole purpose was to redefine sexual orientation to take away the terms male or female.

    So if a young boy chooses to deny his “true” sex and walks into the girls locker room because that’s where he feels more comfy in, and my daughter is caught off guard and says “Hey, you can’t be in here!” She can get slapped with discrimination.

    I’m sorry, that just doesn’t settle well with me.

  9. October 16, 2007 4:08 pm

    Heidi, it has some valid points in terms of protecting people from attacks…I agree. We ALL should be protected always. I shouldn’t have to have my “person” redefined by the gov’t to be protected. I’m a human – protection should be a given at all times.

  10. October 16, 2007 4:31 pm

    “So if a young boy chooses to deny his “true” sex and walks into the girls locker room because that’s where he feels more comfy in, and my daughter is caught off guard and says “Hey, you can’t be in here!” She can get slapped with discrimination.”

    Tam, I am not going to say you have no grounds for concern because I am clue less when it comes to knowing how this bill, or any law, will play out in the courts.

    I agree with your interpretation that the bill redefines “sexual orientation to take away the terms male or female”. My guess is some public school textbooks will need to be rewritten. Teachers will have to be more careful when they discuss some topics in the classroom. I think this as a good thing.

    I don’t see how this leads to a gay boy being allowed to us the girls locker room. It wouldn’t surprised me to see a lawsuit filed to allow this. I just don’t think such a lawsuit would succeed, but I am not a lawyer.

    It will be an interesting story to follow. The hard thing is to find a sources that doesn’t have too much of a bias.

  11. October 16, 2007 4:38 pm

    “But we do not need terms like “sex”, referring to “male or female” redefined for us by the government. You’re either male or female…period!”

    Tam, we are talking about texbooks and activities in public schools. It’s the governments role to define what rules will be followed. What will, or won’t, go into the textbooks.

  12. Heather permalink
    October 16, 2007 4:53 pm

    Wow, I am so shocked and disgusted by the whole thing! I agree with you Tam! I just read the article to my Husband and we are sitting here is sheer amazement at the depth of depravity in our world! I agree that no matter what your orientation or religion or sex … you should be protected because you are human there for you have worth and value! However, to have to redefine self is just ridiculous!!

  13. October 16, 2007 4:53 pm

    But Ed, Sex, meaning male or female, is not a “rule” to be followed. It is what it is – boy or girl. And if the textbooks in school are teaching something other than this then the gov’t IS redefining the term for us – the future generation. I see this all as ridiculously pointless.

    I think it’s sad that teachers will now have to be careful as to how they refer to male, female, or sex as that definition. It is baffling me.

  14. October 16, 2007 5:02 pm

    I see what both you and Ed are saying Tam.

    Where I probably see the greatest issue over this is the “trans Gender” issues. Ed, I don’t see it an issue about a “gay” boy going into a girls room. I see it about a boy wanting to be a girl and going into the girls room. It is about the right to be something they feel they want to be. I understand that there are true trans gender people that have chosen to surgically and medically change their sex for various reasons including reasons of orientation. But, how do the schools and courts determine this? Your right Ed, we don’t know how this is going to be played out in courts. But, let’s say that their was an issue and a lawsuit was filed and the courts decided that a “Boy” wanting to be a “Girl” can use the girl’s facilities. Then the school has to allow (for fear of lawsuits, cause they will happen) any boy wanting to be a girl to use the girls facilities. It is a concerning process for me.

  15. godsgalchild permalink
    October 16, 2007 7:33 pm

    Tammers….I can’t even get into this, I’m brain dead, but the picture does resemble me tonight as I got our living room back in order….

    I’m having fun tho thinking up bizzare names for those who no longer would like to be gender specific…unfortunately it has to get much worse before it gets better….Glad we know what’s comin’, it really helps see the truth behind the obsene lies that are happening right now.


  16. kim permalink
    October 16, 2007 7:55 pm

    Not sure how to process this. This out-darks (you know, the opposite of ‘out-shines’?) the Joel Osteen 60 Minutes clip I watched today.

    Thanks for your comments on my ‘shameless plugging for musicians I know’ entry. I’m glad you enjoyed listening to them! 🙂

  17. October 16, 2007 8:08 pm

    GG – I am totally with you. I am completely brain dead tonight!

    Kim – I haven’t seen the Olsteen interview yet. How was it?

    As far as the bands…Loved Them!!! Your brother has a cool voice for sure!

    Everyone else needs to go check out that post Kim is talking about too!

  18. godsgalchild permalink
    October 16, 2007 8:43 pm

    OK, Jer & I watched the Olsteen interview, and quite frankly we’re confused. B, feel free to opinionate! We have heard so many conflicting comments about him,to the point where Jer & I look for things wrong with the guy. That’s sad to me. He comes out front saying that he is not a Theologian, tells about his gifting from God which is encouraging, uses scripture in his messages and thousands of lives are changed. He is also one of the few who never asks for money in his broadcasts…am I missing something??????

    God is using him in a powerful way, with a simple message….I am confused as to the controversy…

  19. October 16, 2007 8:48 pm

    Oh Boy! (sorry – Oh non-specific gender choice!)

    Don’t want your blog to face any potential law suits in Ca Tam ! 🙂

    Thanks Ed for bringing a little more clarity and sanity to the original Article.

    Laws are subject to interpretation and some just love to make theirs as controversial as possible.

    This is going to pose a lot of us some real challenges to reassess what we actually believe in.

    What would Jesus Do?

    Tam – you know I love you but it truly isn’t as clear as ‘Boy or Girl’ as your experiences show it to be to you.

    Unbelievable as it can seem God does actually make ‘others’ – they do live amongst us – do we force them to live according to our own ‘limits’ – or widen ours to accept them?

    He is challenging Us, people – can we Rise to meet His Challenge? or follow the sins other believers made in the past?

    See with your heart as well as your eyes. 🙂

    Be wary of the Fear – it deceives and lies to you!

    Follow what is True and reject that which can be shown to be false.

  20. October 16, 2007 8:56 pm

    As for the boy-girl locker room thing – I pointed out that we already have a ‘problem’ there. Boys are sharing change rooms with those who find boys sexually desirable – ditto for Girls.

    I think there is a horrible area being opened up for some with evil intent to take advantage of this ‘freedom’ of ‘choice’ – who can say if someone freely chooses to ‘change’ then soon afterwards ‘change back’? – The legal situation is going to be a minefield and I am sure that as usual – the Lawyers will come off best.

    Whther or not the horror for the majority is going to be as bad as the horror the minority currently gets to experience through no fault of theirs because of our present prejudices – only God can say for sure.

  21. October 16, 2007 9:00 pm

    Thinker, B was mentioning this tonight about those who are actually born with a non-specific gender. That would certainly be a different matter all together. But this bill does not elude to that being a case at all in its mention and revision.

    I am not opposed to humans and will extend love and grace to anyone – I think you know that by now – My beef is with the redefining of “sex” as it refers to male or female…and in its place using “Gender” to mean sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.

    Aagin, there are few at birth that have a real physical ailment or problem that prevents doctors from immediately identifying there “sex”, but that is not what this bill is protecting.

    And…I love you too!

  22. October 16, 2007 9:25 pm

    The verses about the Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and the one about the fear of man will prove to be a snare are what come to my mind here. Seriously! And that is all I am going to say before I could get off on a serious tangent!

  23. October 16, 2007 10:42 pm

    GG – maybe this isn’t the place to start this discussion, BUT, the thing that concerns me the most about the Osteen interview was this statement…

    To become a better you, you must be positive towards yourself, develop better relationships, embrace the place where you are. Not one mention of God in that. Not one mention of Jesus Christ in that,” Pitts remarks.

    “That’s just my message. There is scripture in there that backs it all up. But I feel like, I’m called to help people…how do we walk out the Christian life? How do we live it? And these are principles that can help you. I mean, there’s a lot better people qualified to say, ‘Here’s a book that’s going to explain the scriptures to you.’ I don’t think that’s my gifting” Osteen says

    I think that speaks volumes. He doesn’t find himself qualified to teach the Bible so he shooses not to.

  24. godsgal1 permalink
    October 17, 2007 8:17 am

    Your right B, this probably isn’t the place….see ya thursday! LOL

  25. Heidi permalink
    October 17, 2007 8:28 am

    Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like the fact that this bill is facing us Californians. Expecially labeling one sex. Discrimnation is a delicate and difficult subject, my kids are half mexican and half white, they are known in their schools and even by a set of their own grandparents (my parents) half breeds. Because they are “half breeds” they lose out on the scholarships of the Calif state schools, they have a meican name, their birth certificates are hispanic, but they are blonde and blue eyed. They are mixed. So thousands and thousands of dollars get spent on other children and mine? Well Ill spend it on them.
    I’m sorry for the rant, I’m so sensitive about this.

    Im not a “sexual orientation supporter”, I’m just a person who has kids who are getting discrimanated against.

  26. October 17, 2007 8:57 am

    Heidi, I think we agree on this then. I would be offended if I were you too.

    The bill already, before its “revision”, was suppose to be protecting your children in their situation. So it’s something it seems you can definitely make an argument on still. Protection from race/nationality didn’t change after the bill was revised. So I would certainly call the board on this scholarship issue 🙂

  27. October 17, 2007 9:01 am

    If the state wanted to protect children more in schools from bullies then they should be addressing the bullies. Make punishments more harsh. Punishments that have a longer lasting effect, into their college years or future employment.

    Discrimination is wrong…period! Not dealing with the real issue, the offender, correctly is even more wrong IMO.

    Discrimination is discrimination. Why is the gov’t defining it. Next thing we know there’ll another revision on this bill to include “any child who believes they’re a cabbage patch doll”

    I mean look, the only change in the bill had to do with sex vs gender – so everything else already existed that our children were suppose to be protected from…and they haven’t been. So why is it gonna work now. What’s the point.

  28. October 17, 2007 7:20 pm

    I accept your clarification Tam I better understand where you are coming from now 🙂

    I’ll probably have to consider this sort of thing in my own personal life soon (NO! i am NOT going to be changing ‘gender’ – I’m Fine with the way things are ‘down there’ lol) I mean that Aus seems to follow slavishly pretty much everything the US does so our laws will most likely change this way soon.

    Anyone in Ca able to write to their elected representative and find out why the Law is changing in this regard for Tam?

    I know Tam doesn’t live in Ca and this is just a state dealy thing at the moment, isn’t it?

    If the answer is not satisfactory, then it is up to Californians to SAY something and change it Back? Isn’t that what Democracy means? The people (who can be bothered) get a say in what goes down? (Yeah! I know – we don’t get what we want here either! 70% of Aussies want a Republic – that is why Queen Elizabeth 11 remains our Head of State and we are a Constitutional Monarchy with Liz as the Queen of Australia – how democratic is THAT?)

    If it is instigated in your own state or Federally then you get to participate actively for/agin – True?

  29. October 17, 2007 7:48 pm

    You ask an interesting question lwbut. Does the state of California(the people) get to vote on this? Is there a Californian that can answer that? I don’t think they get to on this one.

    I know in Oregon, there is no law or tax hike that can be passed without a vote. i really appreciate that.

  30. October 17, 2007 7:56 pm

    Thinker, in the state I live in participating in bills like this would be interesting. We’re a pretty liberal state and there is so much red tape you could decorate every light pole in our region with it!

    Glad we understand each other more…I was losing sleep over that 😉

  31. October 19, 2007 6:14 am

    Wait, you’re boiling frogs now?

    On the locker rooms issue I have one thing to say. They are school children and should do as they are told. Boys get changed with boys and girls get changed with girls. They lack the maturity to make informed decisions about sexual orientation or gender reassignment. Let them be kids first and make up their minds later.

    If it takes so long to get changed that they start fantasising about people they are getting changed with then they need to get changed faster…and run some laps.

    It seems fairly sensible to allow people to live their own lives as they see fit as long as it does no harm to others. This bill seems to be saying that a lack of tolerance should be discouraged. It also seems that the popular press has jumped on an extreme example of how it could be interpreted to engage in a bit of bashing of their own.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: