California SB 777- a Stealthy Attack on the Family

Public funding used to promote discrimination against faith and reason

California SB 777 is a bill that would hijack public funding to effectively promote bigotry and discrimination against people subscribing to the Judeo-Christian understanding of human sexuality, marriage, and the family and would mandate solutions at schools turning children against their parents. The bill also deletes the current definition of "sex" as a biological reality and replaces it with a concept of "gender" as preferred by the student.

See ACTION and Talking Points

On the surface, SB 777 merely prohibits any instruction or school activities that would "promote a discriminatory bias" against homosexual, transgender, or bisexual persons. This might sound innocuous, until consideration is given to what homosexual, transgender, and bisexual interest groups perceive as discriminatory and biased: marriage between a man and a woman; marriage with a mother and father as the foundation of the family --the first unit of society; the complementarity of men and women; views on human sexuality and sexual ethics that differ from their own.

Respect regardless of behavior

"The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. . . . every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life. . . .  #16

The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law." #10

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith  On Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons and Non-discrimination Against Homosexual Persons

Indeed, Francisco Valdes, J.D., J.S.D., an influential law professor from the University of Miami, built a case in a past issue of California Law Review stating that Christianity itself is the cause of the oppression of gays, lesbians, transgender persons, and women.

At the annual conference of Britain's University and College Union, a resolution strikingly similar to SB 777 was passed: "All negative characterizations by teachers of lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender people, identity and lifestyle should be outlawed and classified as an act of discrimination and an incitement to hatred based on sexual orientation." The resolution was further explicated by one of its advocates, as reported in the local press: "Any time a teacher says that heterosexuality is in any way desirable, that is an act of homophobia. To teach in favor of the family is to abuse those who have traditionally not been able to participate in it."

The language of SB 777 is so ambiguous - -perhaps deliberately so- that the threat of lawsuits under this bill would force school boards and teachers to present only one point of view and could even lead to the censoring of books in school libraries.

 A new form of discrimination

One of the problems with SB 777 is that it would actually promote another kind of discrimination - - against people who understand marriage to be the foundation of family, the first and foremost unit of society. It would subject children to discrimination if they held differing views based on rational arguments, sometimes informed by faith. Similarly, parents holding those views could be subjected to ridicule, discrimination, and social ostracism. Finally, inculcating children with beliefs contrary to their parents' beliefs on the nature and value of marriage and stigmatizing those beliefs as discriminatory may result in actually turning children against their own parents.

"Mom" and "Dad" could be out

If accepting heterosexuality as normal is perceived as discrimination, then anything based on heterosexuality as the norm will inevitably have to be changed. One of the first on the long list of things to go might be any mention of "mom" and "dad", along with references to "wife", "husband", or "marriage". Keeping this in mind, textbooks would have to be rewritten, and even teaching Romeo and Juliet would be in jeopardy, as theirs was a clearly heterosexual relationship which could be perceived as promoting a discriminatory bias against homosexual, bisexual, or transgender persons.

Children choose their preferred gender

With SB 777, the current definition of sex defined as "the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being" would be discarded altogether, and replaced by a definition from the Penal Code: "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."

The change in terminology presents more than a theoretical problem. Divorcing sex from biological fact and making gender a matter of a student's subjective perception would result in a number of practical difficulties. What bathroom accommodations will the schools be required to make? Will a boy who feels he is a girl be allowed to use the girls' bathroom? It would not be hard to imagine many complicated situations arising from this provision which would divert time and financial resources from educating students in the classroom.

SB 777 must be stopped

SB 777 is an attempt to use taxpayer funds to force schools to promote a minority agenda and stifle any dissent from it. It must be stopped, because it will result in new forms of discrimination, turn children against parents and cause chaos in schools in dealing with accommodations for a wide range of gender preference.


Copyright © 2004–2012 Catholics for the Common Good®
Permission granted for use of content with attribution to