Homosexodus! Students flee forced 'gay' agenda
California parents start reacting to new 'education' requirements
December 4, 2007
By Bob Unruh
Parents in California have started reacting to the state's newly mandated homosexual indoctrination program by pulling their children out of classes, and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell is warning districts they'll lose money if that happens.
A spokeswoman for a ministry called Considering Homeschooling said she already has seen an overwhelming increase in requests for information about homeschooling.
As a result, spokeswoman Denise Kanter told WND that her group is sending out 5,000 DVD packages to churches around the state that include basic "how-to" information to provide parents a direction to turn when they choose to protect their children from the new school agenda.
The new law demands, "No teacher shall give instruction nor shall any school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias because of a characteristic [including perceived gender.]"
"With the passing of SB 777, a Christian parent cannot, in good conscience, send their child to a public school where their child will be taught or coerced into a lifestyle or belief system that is contrary to the faith they hold dear," Kanter told WND.
"Fortunately, SB 777 has caught the attention of many churches and pastors here in California, and as they should, they are calling on their congregants to take their children out. To help in this endeavor, our ministry has sent and will continue to send out free packages directly to churches containing information on how they can encourage their congregants to homeschool their children, as well as how to create in-church parent led schools," she said.
"We hope our resources will encourage Christians to focus on the importance of not leaving Christ out of a child's education," she said.
WND columnist Olivia St. John reported California's "raging ideological" battle prompted students to pack up their backpacks and stage a two-day boycott to protest the plan that has the state "force-feeding children perverse material and videos vile enough to garner an R-rating in the local multiplex."
"Evidently, some are beginning to wake up to the fact that their children are no longer receiving true education, but are being clandestinely recruited into sick social movements threatening to tear families apart at the seams," she wrote.
"When it comes to actively promoting sin to public school children, the homosexuals are light years ahead of adulterers, fornicators and substance abusers, who haven't yet implemented student-run organizations to convince children that such lifestyle choices are normal," she continued.
In California, parents told the Inland Valley Press Enterprise they were pulling their children from public school classrooms in protest of the law.
Donna Myers, whose three daughters were attending Norte Vista High in Riverside, said the new law has no application to reading, writing and arithmetic.
"We have rights, too. Enough is enough," she told the newspaper.
And Betty Voltz also told the newspaper her son and daughter were boycotting the public district.
"They don't allow religion in school but they're going to allow homosexuality in schools. That makes no sense," she said.
Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, said there is reason for alarm. He said the new law effectively requires school instruction and school activities to portray homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality to the six million children in public schools in a positive light.
He said he's gotten hundreds of contacts from concerned parents, and is encouraging families to leave the public school system entirely.
All of this has O'Connell alarmed.
"We must encourage students to stay in school and resist calls for a protest and walkout over SB 777," he wrote in a notice to all "county and district superintendents."
"What I find most troubling is that possible student absences may lead to missed opportunities for them to learn and that this lost time may not be recaptured," he said.
"Additionally, there may be fiscal consequences to school districts for funds lost due to student absences," he threatened.
His also said the bill "simplifies and clarifies existing civil rights protections for California students."
Meredith Turney, the legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute, reacted to that in a column.
"Mr. O'Connell, the bill's author Sen. Sheila Kuehl and Gov. Schwarzenegger have all maintained the party line that SB 777 merely 'streamlines' existing anti-discrimination laws. However, these attempts to discredit the public outcry against SB 777's policies are disingenuous and misleading. In fact, SB 777 goes far beyond implementing anti-discrimination and harassment policies for public schools."
Turney said that already was accomplished by a 2000 plan by the same lawmaker.
"The new law states that 'No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias because of' … (homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexual or transgender status). Including instruction and activities in the anti-discrimination law goes much further than 'streamlining.' This incremental and deceitful approach to achieving their goals is a favorite and effective tactic of liberals. Expanding the law is not 'streamlining' the law," Turney wrote.
"Mr. O'Connell's doublespeak reveals his – and his peers' – arrogant attitude toward their 'gullible' constituents. In fact, parents are not stupid and they recognize that their authority is being undermined by such subversive school policies. This is nothing less than an attempt to confuse the public about the true intention of SB 777," she said.
"The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured," said Turney.
"Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic – not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB 777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation," she said.
Karen England, chief of the CRI, which has set up a separate website to organize opposition to SB 777, has told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias and the effect will be to ban such terminology.
"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."
Kuehl told the Inland newspaper such opposition from "right-wing groups' are publicity stunts. "They are essentially whipping up a phony crisis," the Santa Monica Democrat, who lives an openly homosexual lifestyle, said.
As WND has reported, the non-profit Advocates for Faith and Freedom has filed a lawsuit challenging a SB 777.
Robert Tyler, the general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, said the lawsuit his organization has filed challenges the law on the basis it is unconstitutionally vague and violates the privacy of all students, teachers and other people on school campuses.
SB 777 changed in state law the definition of gender to make it now mean "sex," including a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not associated with the person's "assigned' sex at birth.
"In short, you are what you think you are regardless of your anatomical makeup," the advocacy group said.
"This is such a free-flowing idea that every morning you might wake up and choose a gender," Tyler told WND. "What if a football player starts the game as a male, gets hit, walks off the field and says, 'I think I'm a female.'"
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the California Education Committee, a project of California Family Council, by the Advocates for Faith and Freedom as well as lawyers for the Alliance Defense Fund.
It names Schwarzenegger, state Attorney General Edmund Brown Jr., O'Connell and others as defendants.
The plan, which is set to take effect on Jan. 11, 2008, "recklessly abandons the traditional understanding of biological sex in favor of an elusive definition that is unconstitutionally vague," the lawsuit said.
"This lawsuit facially challenges the redefinition of the term 'gender' as it will be impossible for school administrators and educators to know whether they themselves are violating the nondiscrimination provisions of the Education Code or the Penal Code," it said.
Thomasson endorses the idea of pulling children out of public schools, and believes a constitutional amendment is the best solution. CRI is working on a referendum.