California's governor outrages religious families

[cmotherofpirl]

Calif. Governor Signs Pro-Homosexual Bill, Outrages Family Advocates
CCF, Others See Schwarzenegger's Signing of SB 1441 as Betrayal
By Fred Jackson and Jenni Parker
August 29, 2006

(AgapePress) - Shock and dismay -- that's how pro-family groups in California are reacting to news this morning that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill that gives homosexuals new and far-reaching powers.

The bill, SB 1441, adds sexual orientation to already existing provisions in the state's law that prohibit discrimination on the basis of, among other things, race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, color, or disability. The measure was promoted by a lesbian member of the California legislature and is now the law in that state, a fact that has filled many family advocates with outrage.

Karen England, executive director of the Capitol Resource Institute (CRI), described the measure as not "even a veiled attempt at subtly advancing the radical homosexual agenda," but "an outright, blatant assault on religious freedom." She calls the bill "yet another attempt to prevent citizens with moral and religious principles from expressing their beliefs and educating their children according to those beliefs."

This legislation, a CRI press release points out, could potentially prevent parochial schools such as private, Christian, Catholic, Mormon, or other faith-based educational institutions from receiving student financial assistance if they also maintain a code of conduct that prohibits homosexual behavior as immoral based on their religious beliefs.

It is CRI's position that forcing acceptance of students engaged in behavior offensive to a religious school's moral code is a serious infringement of the institution's constitutional rights to freedom of assembly and free speech. Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for CRI, feels it is bad public policy to add sexual behavior to the state code's list of protected classes. As a California citizen and a person of faith, she says, "I am terribly disappointed in Governor Schwarzenegger."

As some pro-family opponents are interpreting the newly signed legislation, it requires any program or activity that receives any financial assistance from the state to support homosexuality, bisexuality, and trans-sexuality in effect or else lose that funding. The law allows no exemptions for faith-based colleges, university, or child-care centers that receive any amount of state money.

Activist Calls Governator Traitor to California Families
California activist Randy Thomasson, head of the group Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), charges Arnold Schwarzenegger with betraying the state's pro-family citizens.

In signing SB 1441 into law, the governor has "trampled religious freedom to satisfy hyperactive sexual activists," Thomasson contends. He says Schwarzenegger apparently "has two faces. He speaks at churches and says he believes in religious freedom and family values, yet he's stabbing pro-family Californians in the back."

Thomasson and CCF alerted thousands of the state's voters to SB 1441, which resulted in the governor's office being bombarded with thousands of phone calls, faxes, and e-mails voicing opposition to the measure. Multitudes of pro-family citizens, as well as representatives from several of the state's religious schools, sent urgent messages pleading with Governor Schwarzenegger to veto the legislation.

In ignoring those appeals, Thomasson asserts, the current governor is doing just as his predecessor, the recalled Governor Gray Davis, did -- that is, "trample religious freedom at the bidding of liberal activists from San Francisco and West Hollywood."

The president of CCF says members of California's religious community "are suffering under Arnold Schwarzenegger." And now that he has signed SB 1441, which the activist calls "an intolerant bill" that rides roughshod over the religious values of Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and other religious institutions, the religious community will undoubtedly suffer more.

"By importing these controversial sexual lifestyle definitions" into state law, Thomasson contends, this newly enacted legislation could easily harm the religious freedom of dozens of the state's faith-based institutions that accept financial aid for their students. "People of conscience are appalled," he says, at the governor's decision to sign this anti-family legislation.

Thomasson says this new state law will, among its other ill effects, force religious schools to either abandon their religious standards on sexuality or reject students who have been awarded state financial aid. Other kinds of faith-based organizations will be affected as well, he notes, including non-profits and community service organizations that contract with the state or receive any kind of state funding of their programs or activities.

More Sexual Indoctrination Bills to Come from California Legislature
And unfortunately for California families, a CCF action alert points out, a number of other radical, pro-homosexual bills are heading toward Governor Schwarzenegger's desk. One of these, a bill known as SB 1437, prohibits textbooks, instructional materials, and school-sponsored activities from "reflecting adversely" on homosexuality, trans-sexuality, or bisexuality.

Another bill, AB 606, authorizes the California Superintendent of Public Instruction to withhold state funds arbitrarily from any district deemed to be inadequately promoting homosexuality, trans-sexuality, and bisexuality in its school policies. This measure, CCF asserts, clears the way for curricula promoting these "alternative" sexual lifestyles to be forced on all the state's public schools.

And then, CCF notes, there is AB 1056. This bill, now on the California Senate floor, would spend $250,000 in taxpayer dollars to promote trans-sexual, bisexual, and homosexual lifestyles under the banner of "tolerance training" in ten school districts, thereby creating a model "pilot program" for the rest of the state.

[Didacus]

[quote]One of these, a bill known as SB 1437, prohibits textbooks, instructional materials, and school-sponsored activities from "reflecting adversely" on homosexuality, trans-sexuality, or bisexuality.[/quote]

Will that include the bible?

[zwergel88]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1053518' date='Aug 30 2006, 07:37 AM']

The bill, SB 1441, adds sexual orientation to already existing provisions in the state's law that prohibit discrimination on the basis of, among other things, race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, color, or disability. The measure was promoted by a lesbian member of the California legislature and is now the law in that state, a fact that has filled many family advocates with outrage.



activities.

[/quote]


I thought that sexual orientation was[i] already[/i] on that list of things not to discriminate based on. Shouldn't we seek an end to discrimination of all types?

[thessalonian]

No, we do not wish to remove all discrimination from society. What you are proposing is ludicrous. Let's say parents don't believe in living together and their kids come home with a girlfriend and want to share a bedroom. YOU MUST DISCRIMINATE in the kind of discrimination that sexual orientation is talking about. If society forces small businesses to recognize same sex marriages and provide benefits for the partner YOU MUST DISCRIMINATE. We do discriminate in society. We don't allow skinheads to pump their biggotry in to schools. We don't allow biggots to do as they want in their restraunts because they hate blacks. That is in fact discrimination. They have beliefs and behaviors and we don't give those beliefs and behaviors quarter. Nor should we. Homosexual activiity is a moral abomination and I will give it no quarter in my life. Now I must uphold the dignity of the one practicing this behavior but it does not mean that I condone or do not in some way discriminate. If homosexual marriage is allowed and God forbid one of my kids is gay, I will show them love but if they come over they will not be sleeping with their "partner". NO CHANCE! And the Bible will not be banned in my house when they show up.

[curtins]

Thats a great parrallele (sp?)--> we wouldn't let some nazi come in and change laws to make it ok to kill Jews- a moral abomination

Similarly- we shouldnt let some militant homosexual come in and change laws to make it ok for them to destroy marriage and indoctrinate our kids etc etc.

No one would ever say you're discriminating against the nazi-- thats the absurdity but towards the homosexual its deffinite discrimination

[Tindomiel]

I think it's completely wrong to discriminate people based on their sexual orientation. We should never deny people basic human rights based on something like that... [i]that[/i] is the true definition of discrimination, imo: devaluing another person, ignoring that God loves them as much ashe loves anyone. But I do agree otherwise with what you're saying, Thess. The thing that everyone in the media and the secular world in general is purposely ingoring, is that what they're calling "discrimination" isn't discrimination at all.... just the right of a person to, for example, choose what type they'll allow to rent their home, or something. I mean, people would be all outraged if an alcoholic or drug addict was allowed to spread their addiction at schools, calling it "diversity", or if they weren't allowed to refuse such addicts a rental space in their home....

sorry this is so grammatically confused... I'm being rushed...

is good lalala...

Edited August 30, 2006 by Tindomiel

[thessalonian]

"devaluing another person, ignoring that God loves them as much ashe loves anyone."

This is exactly my point. We do not love them if we do not in some sense "discriminate" against their behavior. Society is trying to change the meaning of the word "discriminate". I would not deny them a job unless their orientation and it's promotion was made an issue by them. I would not deny them benefits because I knew of their living situation. I do think that those who rent should have a rite to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Morality is an issue regarding renting.

[zwergel88]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1053545' date='Aug 30 2006, 08:57 AM']
No, we do not wish to remove all discrimination from society. What you are proposing is ludicrous. Let's say parents don't believe in living together and their kids come home with a girlfriend and want to share a bedroom. YOU MUST DISCRIMINATE in the kind of discrimination that sexual orientation is talking about. If society forces small businesses to recognize same sex marriages and provide benefits for the partner YOU MUST DISCRIMINATE. We do discriminate in society. We don't allow skinheads to pump their biggotry in to schools. We don't allow biggots to do as they want in their restraunts because they hate blacks. That is in fact discrimination. They have beliefs and behaviors and we don't give those beliefs and behaviors quarter. Nor should we. Homosexual activiity is a moral abomination and I will give it no quarter in my life. Now I must uphold the dignity of the one practicing this behavior but it does not mean that I condone or do not in some way discriminate. If homosexual marriage is allowed and God forbid one of my kids is gay, I will show them love but if they come over they will not be sleeping with their "partner". NO CHANCE! And the Bible will not be banned in my house when they show up.
[/quote]


The thing is that we can't discriminate against biggots or anyone else you mentioned either. We recongnize their right to exist and practice their particular philosophy. Adding sexual orientation to the list of things not to be discriminiate based on, only means that gay people have the right not to be descriminated against when it comes to jobs, housing, and all other types of services. I see nothing wrong with that. Also, who said anything about banning the Bible. I think it's safe to say that the Bible will never be banned in this country.

[cmotherofpirl]

You are missing the point:

[color="#3366FF"]"This legislation, a CRI press release points out, could potentially [b]prevent parochial schools such as private, Christian, Catholic, Mormon, or other faith-based educational institutions from receiving student financial assistance[/b] if they also maintain a code of conduct that prohibits homosexual behavior as immoral based on their religious beliefs....

As some pro-family opponents are interpreting the newly signed legislation, it requires any program or activity that receives any financial assistance from the state to support homosexuality, bisexuality, and trans-sexuality in effect or else lose that funding. The law allows no exemptions for faith-based colleges, university, or child-care centers that receive any amount of state money.
[b]
Thomasson says this new state law will, among its other ill effects, force religious schools to either abandon their religious standards on sexuality [/b] or reject students who have been awarded state financial aid. Other kinds of faith-based organizations will be affected as well, he notes, including non-profits and community service organizations that contract with the state or receive any kind of state funding of their programs or activities.
"[/color]


What about the rights of tax-paying christians to conduct their lives according to their religious beliefs?

[avemaria40]

I have no problem with gay people getting jobs, being respected or anything. I have gay friends myself.

However, I would not want the government telling me what I can and can't believe. I don't believe in or accept gay "marriage" and I would raise my kids (if/when i get married and have kids) to believe the same way. I think it is wrong for the state to cut off assistance from a school, day care center, university, etc. who could not in good conscience teach that gay marriage is acceptable. They also mentioned the possibillity of forbidding textbooks that spoke out against homosexual behavior which could include the Bible.

[thessalonian]

[quote]I think it's safe to say that the Bible will never be banned in this country."[/quote]

You are very nieve. How many people thought abortion would never be legalized? And no I do not think I should have to let openly gay people live in an apartement complex I own. Pay attention to canada and other places. Bishop Henry has been harrased by their tax department because of his stand on gay marriage. Others have had charges brought for their biblical expressions. It can and will happen here if all of this stuff is legalized.

Are you in favor of gay adoptions. The Catholic Church has had to close down a couple of adoption agencies over this issue.


[quote]We recongnize their right to exist and practice their particular philosophy[/quote]

The point is we do in fact limit it. One making racists comments where I work will not last long. Homosexuality is behavioral and should be limited as well. To some that is discrimination and they are trying to shift the lines.

Edited August 30, 2006 by thessalonian

[Tindomiel]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1053557' date='Aug 30 2006, 11:22 AM']
"devaluing another person, ignoring that God loves them as much ashe loves anyone."

This is exactly my point. We do not love them if we do not in some sense "discriminate" against their behavior. Society is trying to change the meaning of the word "discriminate". I would not deny them a job unless their orientation and it's promotion was made an issue by them. I would not deny them benefits because I knew of their living situation. I do think that those who rent should have a rite to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Morality is an issue regarding renting.
[/quote]
Exactly. It is always wrong to discriminate, but secular society has broadened the definition of the word to include almost any action (by white, Christian males especially) that even so much as bothers a person who is "different." It's extraordinarily maddening, and highly unjust.

[track2004]

I'm glad he passed it. We have that law in my county and it didn't lead to gay marriage and the banning of the Bible and rampant chaos. Calm down and let it be. You're treating this like some kid had a sip of wine and now he's going to become and alcoholic.

[Socrates]

[quote name='zwergel88' post='1053563' date='Aug 30 2006, 09:50 AM']
The thing is that we can't discriminate against biggots or anyone else you mentioned either. We recongnize their right to exist and practice their particular philosophy. Adding sexual orientation to the list of things not to be discriminiate based on, only means that gay people have the right not to be descriminated against when it comes to jobs, housing, and all other types of services. I see nothing wrong with that. Also, who said anything about banning the Bible. I think it's safe to say that the Bible will never be banned in this country.
[/quote]
Freedom of association is a freedom which is coming under increasing attack these days from the government.
It is not the business of the government to be telling all private businesses, organizations, and schools who they must hire, rent to, or otherwise do business with.

Forcing schools and businesses to accept and promote the homosexual agenda is a travesty, and is nothing short of tyranny.
Schools should not be forced to promote homosexuality as good and normal, any more than they should be forced to have neo-nazis come in and teach children their racist ideas.
Businesses should not be forced to give homosexuals benefits for their homosexual "partnerships," nor should people be forced to hire people who promote an agenda at odds with their moral beliefs, nor rent to people who insist on homosexual cohabitation on their property.

This is not the same as racial discrimination, but concerns a form of behavior. The government is in essence forcing people to give public approval to sexual deviancy.

And it's not as though homosexuals would be unemployed and starving without lots of laws condoning their behavior. Studies show that "gays" are on average better off financially than the country as a whole. This is about demanding privileges, and enforcing an agenda, not about human rights.

[quote]I think it's safe to say that the Bible will never be banned in this country.[/quote]Less than 50 years ago, most normal people would have thought it safe to say that homosexuality would never be given legal benefits, declared a "right" or promoted in schools in this country.

And Zwergel, since Ah-nold's a [i]Republican,[/i] I thought you'd be jumping all over him for this, not defending him!

Edited August 31, 2006 by Socrates

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='track2004' post='1053771' date='Aug 30 2006, 06:37 PM']
I'm glad he passed it. We have that law in my county and it didn't lead to gay marriage and the banning of the Bible and rampant chaos. Calm down and let it be. You're treating this like some kid had a sip of wine and now he's going to become and alcoholic.
[/quote]

It will lead to it here. There is a definite agenda out to destroy any religious expression of values that opposes homosexuality in any form. Just look at Canada.