Lawmakers in California are about to consider some controversial legislation that involve the promotion of homosexuality in the schools, same-sex "marriage" and mandatory vaccinations.
Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public policy at Focus on the Family Action, hosts a special online version of the Focus on the Family broadcast with his guests Mr. Ron Prentice, executive director of the California Family Council, and Karen Holgate, legislative director of the California Family Council.
Click here to listen to the broadcast.
Click here to download the broadcast.
California Bills Fact Sheet
SB 777 – Homosexuality Protected/Promoted in Schools
This bill was introduced by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, and it is so bizarre that it deserves a fuller explanation. The bill would turn the public schools into a fantasy world of smiley faces only, by prohibiting any teaching or any activity at all that would "reflect adversely" on any person because of disability, gender, race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. Please note: that's any person at all. So, can we expect to see lessons on:
-- the gentle side of Adolph Hitler?
-- why Osama Bin Laden is really a nice guy once you get to know him?
-- how the Visigoths overran the Roman Empire by killing them with kindness?
Textbooks will have to be scoured for potential offenses to sexual orientation, including reference to such things as the benefit of a two-parent, mother-and-father home. Also, the bill's wording makes no allowances for discrimination against people or movements that are usually considered to be evil.
The final meaning of the bill, should it become law, will be settled only by the courts, and in California the courts can be crazy. It was a federal court in California – the 9th Circuit – that found the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional because it mentioned God.
AB 43 – Gay Marriage
One of San Francisco's representatives is openly gay legislator Mark Leno. He has introduced a bill to legalize same-sex "marriage". This bill is like the one that Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed in 2005. The bill is expected to pass the Legislature and Schwarzenegger has already vowed publicly to veto this bill again.
AB 43 flies in the face of California voters who approved Prop 22 in 2000. Proposition 22, which says that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," passed with over 61 percent of the vote.
SB 11 – Change in Domestic-Partnership Laws
This bill would change domestic-partnership laws by removing same-sex and age requirements from current domestic-partnership laws. It opens domestic partnerships to unmarried heterosexual couples regardless of their age.
This is one more step in destroying the foundation of the traditional family in California. If they are going to pass this bill, why not pass a reciprocal benefits bill? That way it would be a fair law – based on need, not sexual relationships. Reciprocal benefits would be beneficial in various family relationships, such as two elderly siblings living together, or a parent caring for an adult disabled child. But SB 11 is not about benefits; it's about redefining the family.
AB 102 – Change in Domestic-Partnership Laws
In the ongoing, multifaceted efforts to redefine marriage, California lawmakers are also seeking to allow homosexuals who have domestic partnerships to more easily share a last name. Such a change is possible now through the legal system, but AB 102 would make the process like that of married couples – a simple checking of a box.
The bill would also allow a married couple to adopt a totally new last name. This bill and other deliberate attempts by the Legislature to broaden the meaning of marriage will ultimately leave marriage with no meaning at all.
AB 14 – Adding Even More Special Protection for Homosexuals
Called the Civil Rights Act of 2007, the major goal of this bill is to further cement special rights for homosexuals into state law. According to the Senate Judiciary Committee bill analysis, this bill would create a protected class for sexual orientation in 51 anti-discrimination provisions found in 12 state codes.
If passed, AB 14 will not allow Christian organizations that ascribe to biblical truth on homosexuality to utilize public school or government facilities. This would mean that churches that are seen to "discriminate" against homosexuals by preaching God's Word would not be allowed to rent schools for church services.
Another way this could affect churches and parachurch organizations is that they could lose the use of public facilities and funds. This could mean that Christian soup kitchens or homeless shelters would no longer be allowed to serve the public.
SB 443 – Allowing HIV Positive Sperm Donors
This bill, introduced by openly lesbian Senate Democrat Carol Midgen, would permit men to donate sperm even if they are infected by syphilis, hepatitis or HIV, and there is no guarantee that a resulting child would be free of any of these infections.
Those backing the bill say it's discriminatory to not allow an HIV positive male to donate. The argument is that he should be allowed to be a father, as long as the mother consents.
The comparable analogy here is the recent concern over a tuberculosis (TB) patient on an airplane. Transmission of TB from one person to another on a plane is almost non-existent. But, even though it was negligible, the risk for the transmission of a fatal disease did exist. And just like people on the plane did not have an opportunity to give informed consent to be on a plane with a TB patient, the baby created by an HIV positive sperm donor has no say either.
AB 16 – Vaccinations for School-Aged Children
As originally drafted, AB 16 required all girls entering the seventh grade to receive a series of shots that would partially protect them against the human papillomavirus (HPV).
But the bi-partisan Assembly Health Committee had concerns about maintaining parental rights and the risk associated with mandating a drug that has been on the market under a year for pre-teen girls. AB 16 has now been significantly amended, due to pressure from thousands of parents statewide. The bill is no longer specific to the HPV vaccine, but now relates to all vaccines "mandated" by the state of California.
If AB 16 passes, schools must distribute information to parents, clearly stating that parents have the right to opt their child out of vaccines based on beliefs. And physicians must provide information regarding the risks and benefits of all vaccines.
Another good change made to the bill is that no vaccine will be considered for use until it has been available on the market for five years or more. So it would be at least another four years before the HPV vaccination could even be considered as mandatory.
Focus on the Family Action supports the current version of AB 16, but we are against mandatory HPV vaccinations for school-aged children.
For more information on these and other bills working their way through the Legislature, go to the California Family Council's website at www.californiafamily.org.
(Paid for by Focus on the Family Action)
