If you mean catching up with this thread, yes I have pretty much caught up, though I have had such a peaceful week end, don't know why the heck I wanted to come back to this forum. Maybe hoping the world had changed over night.. grin! It hasn't of course.

I also do not agree with explicate sexuality being taught to young children, and frankly don't believe that the GLBT is promoting that.

Well that is always nice to know, thank you Rose.

I am not really into anything particularly ritualistic, so I haven't paid much attention to the wiccan thing but yes there seems to be all kinds of covens.

Ya I have gotten caught up.

As for Willing and the goat? Ah well this topic has gone in a few different directions....

There was a post earlier about crossdressers being allowed into the girls locker room regardless of age.This is not a lie.California bill 777 allows men or women to change their sexual status at will and be allowed to use either locker room.There is a few other states that has also passed smililar absurd laws such as this one.I don't have the time to get to technical on California house bill 777 but it is easily accessed on the internet and you can read it for yourself.



Just the facts on SB 777
By: ROBERT TYLER - Commentary | Saturday, December 29, 2007 8:32 PM PST ∞

Enter first comment. Increase Font Decrease Font email this story print this story Robert Tyler is general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a national nonprofit religious liberty and pro-family law firm located in Murrieta. Its Web site is www.faith-freedom.com Forget everything you learned in kindergarten about the difference between boys and girls. According to Gov. Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature, schoolchildren can now choose their own sex. I'm not talking about choosing "sexual behavior or sexual preferences." Kids are going to be taught that they have the right to completely ignore their physical anatomy and choose the status of being "male" or "female."

Ignore your common sense, ignore your chromosomes and ignore your anatomy. This is what your politicians want to teach your kids in school. After all, California's kids have mastered reading, writing and arithmetic, haven't they? In October, California Senate Bill 777 was signed into law. Senate Bill 777 eliminates Education Code 212, which currently defines "sex" as "the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being." And worse yet, SB 777 redefines the term "gender" for all schoolchildren by adding Education Code 210.7, which will read: "'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." In short, this redefinition of gender states that you are what you choose to be regardless of your anatomical make-up.

SB 777 also uses this redefinition of gender to forbid educators from discriminating against any individual employee, student or other person based upon that individual's unspoken claim of being male or female, regardless of his or her actual sex.

Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a nonprofit law firm dedicated to pro-family issues, filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court, San Diego, on behalf of the California Education Committee LLC, a project of California Family Council. Members of the California Education Committee include school board trustees, educators, parents and students.

The lawsuit argues that the redefinition of gender should be declared unconstitutionally vague as no school administrator or teacher would ever know whether they are unlawfully discriminating against a person based on their chosen sex. For example, how is it possible for an educator to segregate the boys from the girls if each individual has the ability to randomly self-define their sex regardless of their anatomy? Should educators really have to face the possibility of being sued for discrimination every time they segregate boys and girls or should they just be responsible for asking every child what sex they choose to be that day?

The lawsuit also argues that SB 777 is vague because Education Code section 51500 prohibits any teacher or school district from giving instruction or sponsoring any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias against persons based upon their gender or sexual orientation. Is a "discriminatory bias" being promoted when a high school chooses a homecoming king and queen or when a teacher discusses the role of a mother and father after reading a classic English novel?

Education Code section 220 prohibits discrimination based upon a person's self-defined gender in "any program or activity conducted by an educational institution." And Education Code section 200 requires "equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state."

If the school must treat a biological male as a self-defined "female" in "any program or activity" and in the "educational institutions of the state," does this require schools to allow the self-defined "female" to access female facilities? If persons can legally self-define their sex, shouldn't they be entitled to be treated that way regarding access to all public facilities? Sound outlandish? Not really.

The Los Angeles Unified School District has already adopted policies allowing boys to use girls' restrooms and locker rooms ---- and vice versa! You can read LAUSD's Reference Guide 1557 on the district's Web site.

It even tells teachers they need to refer to students using the student's preferred pronoun. And of course, it prohibits the teachers from disclosing a student's chosen gender to the student's parents. Since LAUSD has such a strong academic record, don't you think all school districts should duplicate this program?

Our schools should not be used as incubators for social experiments and our kids should not have to be subjected to the radical agenda of Sacramento politicians. It's time for our schools to get back to the basics and fend off these ridiculous efforts to brainwash our kids.

Robert Tyler is general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a national nonprofit religious liberty and pro-family law firm located in Murrieta. Its Web site is www.faith-freedom.com.

http://www.edgeptown.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc3=&id=90367&pf=1


LGBT advocates fight back against ’bathroom bill’ rhetoric


To hear opponents of the transgender rights bill describe the legislation, one might think it would unleash full-scale anarchy on the Commonwealth. House Bill 1728 makes the state’s hate crimes law trans-inclusive and bans discrimination based on gender identity or expression in the areas of employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and public education; opponents have attempted to narrow the debate on the bill by focusing almost exclusively on the issue of bathrooms, locker rooms and women’s gyms.

For instance, at an April 8 lobby day sponsored by the anti-gay Massachusetts Family Institute at the State House, former Fall River school superintendent Joseph Martins addressed attendees and painted a nightmarish scenario in which school officials would be powerless to stop hordes of teenage boys from charging into the girls’ locker rooms to get a peek at their female classmates.

"It is difficult enough to control student behavior, prevent discrimination of all students, and ensure the safety of all students without having to distinguish between truth and a lie of some student claiming, at will, a gender-related identity, appearance, expression or behavior other than that assigned sex at birth, simply to gain access to the opposite-at-birth-sex locker-rooms, showers, or lavatory facilities," Martins told the crowd.

"Nothing in House Bill 1728 protects students using their birth-sex locker-rooms, showers, and lavatory facilities that may be in various stages of undress from unwanted eyeing or so-called, on purpose ’unintended’ body touching by students of the opposite sex."

Another speaker at the lobby day rally, a 16-year-old girl named Katie Grayton, also argued that the bill would be exploited by boys to get access to the women’s room.

"I cannot imagine what would happen if boys could freely go into girls’ bathrooms for pranks. This is especially significant in schools or places where many teens hang out. This bill would create embarrassing, annoying and dangerous situations," said Grayton.

MFI added a sinister twist to the argument in a one-page brief the group prepared for legislators, claiming that the bill would allow sexual predators to pose as transgender women to gain access to women’s bathrooms and locker rooms.

"Due to this wording, any man can legally gain access to facilities reserved for women and girls simply by indicating, verbally or non-verbally, that he inwardly feels female at the moment. There is no way to distinguish between someone suffering from ’Gender Identity Disorder’ and a sexual predator looking to exploit this law. This is the dangerous reality of this bill," wrote MFI.

Last week trans rights advocates fought back. Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC) and other members of the coalition working to pass the bill released a fact-sheet, "The Truth About H. 1728/S. 1687," (the second number refers to the House bill’s identical Senate counterpart) to refute some of the misconceptions about the bill and to put to rest the claim that the bill would usher in chaos in the bathrooms.

Jennifer Levi, director of GLAD’s Transgender Rights Project, disputed MFI’s claim that the trans rights bill would make it impossible to maintain separate men’s and women’s bathroom and locker room facilities. The state’s public accommodations laws currently allow facilities to operate gender-segregated "rest room[s], bathhouse[s], [and] seashore facilit[ies]," as well as single-sex gyms. H.B. 1728 says those facilities will continue to be exempt from sex discrimination laws "to the extent such places of public accommodation, resort or amusement allow persons the full enjoyment of the accommodations consistent with an individual’s gender identity or expression." In practice, Levi said that means operators of facilities have to allow trans women to use the women’s facilities and trans men to use the men’s facilities.

As for the argument by MFI and Martins that there will be no way to distinguish between a legitimate trans person and a male trying to enter a women’s locker room under false pretenses, Levi said that non-discrimination legislation puts the burden of proof on transgender people.

"The person pursuing protections under the law ultimately has to prove the legitimacy of their claim. ... The burden is ultimately on me to show that I legitimately sought to use the bathroom that’s consistent with my gender identity or expression," said Levi. She said in the case of single-sex gyms, owners of the gyms would be well within their legal rights to ask to see the driver’s license of any applicant to check the gender designation. This year the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles instituted a policy to make it easier for transgender people to change the gender marker on their license.

"You could also use the same policy that is currently in place at the DMV, which is ask for a letter from a healthcare provider that confirms the person’s gender identity or expression," said Levi.

Columbia Law School professor Suzanne Goldberg said that based on her reading of the law, H.B. 1728 would give no protections to men posing as women for the purpose of entering women’s locker and bathroom facilities. Goldberg, a former attorney for Lambda Legal and co-director of

Columbia’s Gender and Sexuality Law Program, said that if the bill passes, the operator of a public accommodation would still have the right to keep men out of the women’s bathroom or deny membership at a women’s gym to a man.

"If a gym owner thought that a man was trying to use the women’s locker room, the owner could exclude that man. If the man brings a discrimination lawsuit, the judge or jury would have to decide who to believe, the gym owner or the patron," said Goldberg. A trans woman could show the court documentation from medical providers of her transition process and her efforts to change her name and the gender designation on her driver’s license.

Goldberg said opponents of anti-discrimination laws often raise the specter of people with bad intentions exploiting the law, but in practice that has rarely occurred.

"Fraud is one of the perennial objections to anti-discrimination laws, but there simply is not documentation of identity fraud being a significant problem," said Goldberg.

The bill makes no changes to any of the laws about criminal conduct in public facilities, said Levi.

"This is a civil rights bill," said Levi. "It doesn’t change any of the laws available to the prosecutors to ensure that no one is using the restroom for any improper purpose."

Levi said transgender people might have to pay a high personal cost in order to defend their rights under the law to access gender-appropriate facilities. She said transgender people who are illegally blocked from restrooms or other facilities may have to go to court and reveal deeply personal aspects of their lives to a judge, a jury and the public. They may have to reveal details of their transition process to make the case that they were accessing gender-appropriate facilities.

"Laws are not magic bullets in terms of doing away with discrimination. ... Absolutely there may be people who have to pursue claims and make the case about the legitimacy of their lives, and that’s a hard process to go through. Getting the law passed is just the starting point," said Levi.

Opponents of transgender non-discrimination legislation in other states have used similar tactics as MFI, but increasingly the "bathroom bill" argument has failed to derail trans rights bills. Last year Focus on the Family, the Colorado Springs-based Christian right powerhouse, failed to stop a transgender non-discrimination bill in Colorado from becoming law, despite running a radio ad campaign attacking it as a "bathroom bill." Earlier this year opponents of a transgender non-discrimination ordinance in Gainesville, Florida, ran a commercial featuring a menacing man in sunglasses following a young girl into a public bathroom, but they were unsuccessful in overturning the ordinance. MFI has used that same video on its website.

Supporters of a transgender non-discrimination bill in New Hampshire, House Bill 415, have also had to counter efforts by opponents to label their legislation as a "bathroom bill," and thus far have been successful. In March the bill failed in the New Hampshire House after lawmakers voted 181-149 to kill it, but when it came up for a second vote April 8 it passed by one vote. The Senate has not yet voted on the bill.

Openly gay state Rep. Ed Butler (D-Hart’s Location), the bill’s sponsor, said the difference between the first and second vote was largely a matter of timing. When the March vote was taken many members were not present in the chamber, but in April Butler said they took a vote right at the start of the session, when most lawmakers were in attendance. But Butler said he and other supporters of the bill also had to convince colleagues that H.B. 415 was more than just a "bathroom bill" and that the apocalyptic scenarios laid out by opponents were unrealistic. He said their most effective argument in refuting the "bathroom bill" rhetoric was "to point out that there are 13 states that already have these protections and no reported incidents of problems in public accommodations, lockers rooms, places like that. ... And getting people comfortable with the fact that we’re protecting a vulnerable population, we’re not putting something in place that’s going to threaten the majority of the population," said Butler. "It’s just being forthright about it as opposed to defensive."

This is why I hate liberals so much! they always want to change things to make a difference and wind up confusing things more. What is worst is this smacks of elitist social engineering. This is a classic example of a minority group imposing their lifestyle upon a majority under the Aegis of "civil rights." There is only one way to fight this but we need new politicians to clean up this mess from within. Something we could also do if we had teh capacity to organize properly to actually demand a vote of confidence in all of the representatives in California that is flat ballot and no gerrymandering.


If they loose they are fired and all state operations suspended until a new cabinet can be installed! Oh, but the lefts and rights are too scared of change and need to help all the world's homeless poor with OUR money whole we should be helping our own FIRST!

How much is this measure actually costing tax payers behind the rhetoric? Bet you it is millions to prop up yet another excuse to make kids miserable in schools and to try and make them all have a taste of gayness in their lives.


How is it that 543 people can Fuqu this nation up so thoroughly? Is America truly that sheep like? Why are Californians in general so out in teh clouds some times? If you say Pot I would LOVE to get some of what our political leaders are smoking. That has to be the SH*T!

Just the name "Bathroom Bill" makes me think of some Ed Geil style killer movie! Do you still hear the lambs Clarisse? Then again, who was that republican senator (or was he a congressman???) who was soliciting men in bathrooms for sex?

Also what prevents a teacher from using this bill to access a girls locker room? Is he there to hand out lollipops?

I love the "Liberals want to change"!!!!! Personally I am neither but....Thomas stating like it is happening in the schools! I can personally say it is not happening in mine!!!! That is nothing but trying to use fear and lies to advance a cause. Public schools is just that!!!! Governed by a "Local" school board.. If you are afarid of your schools quit *****ing about ones that are in other comunities and fix "YOUR" own!!!! If its happening "Where you shower" then quit showering there and go somewhere else...or stay if you want

Actually I do have to agree with you. The thing is what teh hell are PTA meetings for as well as the days parents are supposed to have their meetings with the school faculty? I agree, if the school is pushing those values pull your kid and sue the damn school!

Hypocrisy. Just think about this word "tolerance" and think about how much they show for anyone else as they try to shove their lack of control over their sexual conduct down everyone's throat. They are more interested in being hysterical, intolerance drama queens than being "married". The whole thing is all about money anyways, not anything about loving, monogamous, LTDs, you can have all of that without any paperwork. Just a flaming show of intolerant bullies trying to get everyone to accept whatever they want to do. Next I suppose that not wanting a gay person to make unwanted advances will be labeled a hate crime or some stupid thing. Whole issue revolves around the idea that everyone cow tow to them to the point where they are the only ones with the right to chose how they live. Just makes me laugh to think that just because they have this birth/mental defect that the rest of us should conform to the same dysfunction, as though it were the norm LOL

Because marriage was intended for the rearing and raising of children. Back in the day, one partner stayed home with kids, and the other supported the family, but that goes back to tradition, which seems to be a dirty word to gays. Point being, the breaks were created to help those raising kids, no other reason. Gays to not have kids, outside of medical intervention of some sort.

I have a child in school. There still are PTA meetings but they have different names now. There are still parent/teacher meetings. Many school also have websites now where we can email with the teachers and principal.

Many gay couples have families. They adopt.

Again I must be the odd gay man out because tradition is not a dirty word to me. I am looking for a guy to settle down with and spend the rest of my life with. I can't stand people that sleep around (straight people do it too don't try to say they don't). Gay people can adopt, goodness knows there are enough children out there to adopt, they can also hire a surrogate mother. Many gay marriages do last for a long time.

Since marriage is about the raising of children, I guess my mom did it all wrong. She raised 3 kids and has never been married, she never wants to get married. My grandmother must have done it wrong too, raising her 3 kids without being married.

I thought marriage was about love but I guess thats wrong too. I could never marry someone if it wasn't because I loved them. That just seems wrong to me.

Does that mean that people who are married but don't want kids should get divorced? I mean since its all about raising children they shouldn't be married, right?

''This is why I hate liberals so much! they always want to change things to make a difference and wind up confusing things more.''

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh heaven forbid things change, after all we can't let our kids deal with real life, Let's just be sure humans stay as stupid as we need them to so we dont' have to deal with reality.. that's amuzing...

''can't think of any straights that try to force their dysfunction into mainstream ''

~~~

You can't think of any straights that try to force their dysfunction into the main stream..???? I can't even believe you said that, considering there's no need for force, it's already out there in the main stream on the Tv, the internet, every where you can think of straight dysfunction is there for all to see daily.

Since gays come from staights, they are also taught by the straight dysfunction... Geez, where ya been?

You really are way to uneducated on gays to even bother with. You obviously haven't met many gays judging by your words. I would much prefer to be menatally defective than to be as uneducated as your comments suggest.

Again more uneducated nonsense. Gays have kids the same way everyone else does.

Back in the day! LMAO

Gays having children is a contradiction to the life choice they made.
It trivializes parenthood!

Maybe they just want an additional tax-break?

or maybe they just wanted children, OMG no way, a human being wanting children, that can't happen.