California gay history bill gutted to avoid veto

They had to water it down in order to save it. Out state senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Los Angeles) authored a bill that would have mandated the inclusion of instruction of gay history, but it was clear that it was going to be vetoed by the Governator if passed, so Kuehl requested a language change that dilutes its impact.

The Assembly voted 56-2 to remove sections mandating the inclusion of gays in history courses and now says only that school material should not be discriminatory toward gays.

...California already requires that African Americans, native peoples, Mexicans, Asians and Pacific Islanders be included in textbook descriptions of "the economic, political and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society."

Kuehl's bill would have added gays and lesbians to the list.

Now the bill, rather than being proactive, would simply prohibit any negative portrayal of gays in textbooks and other instructional material.

The Freepi, of course, had much to say about this development -- they are, naturally, unhappy with the watered-down version as well.

Actual Freeper Quotes™

H It is still unacceptable. For example, in texas it is required that homosexuality be taught as a negative lifestyle from a health and scienctific point of view. Which dead people will the homosexuals protect as a "homo".

If it is shown Hitler was a homosexual, does that mean Calif. Schools will have to portray hitler positivly? How about hitler's browshirts who were lead by homosexuals?

Good decision. This would have meant giving special treatment based on sexual orientation and there is no justification for that. Also, how would you know who was gay? - historically most gays have been in the closet... and probably still are.

I'm writing the Governor tonight. This has to be stopped - not because it's evil personified, or because it's extreme; but because it's the first step on a slippery slope that even the most depraved among us do not want to go down - they only THINK they do. And as usual, it's up to us to protect them from themselves, just like teenagers. How very, very tiresome.

In the long run, this will encourage more California parents to switch to private schools and homeschooling.

Her bill instead would prohibit any negative portrayal of homosexuals in textbooks and other instructional material

Because, you know, we have a problem in California right now with the textbooks just being full of negative portrayals of homosexuals. Someone needs to fix that.

I agree that it makes no sense to label historical figures as homosexual--especially in light of the fact that Michel Foucault gives 1870 as the "invention" of the modern concept of homosexuality. Before then, so Foucault opines, individuals were not thought of as being homosexual, but rather they were people who sometimes engaged in deviant behavior. In that vein, it is unlikely that Michelangelo or Socrates or whoever else somebody might want to label as homosexual would have actually thought of themselves as homosexual.

A big controversy amongst Willa Cather scholars is whether to label her as a lesbian. She certainly never identified herself as a lesbian, though she usually adopted a masculine appearance, never married, and from time to time lived with a woman.

It's not as simple as just slapping a lable on somebody and then somehow trying to make that label be an integral part in whatever contribution the person made. I do think it is better to just leave the issue alone, at least in high school textbooks.

Maybe graduate students can discuss the possibility of Michelangelo's attraction to men (if it can indeed be historically verified, I've heard about it but I haven't seen the evidence so I don't know) somehow impacting his artwork--but is that really something that pre-college children need to be worrying about?

As long as opinions are being altered in textooks... tapeworms and pinworms have received much bad press. Textbooks should include a statement advocating non-discrimination toward these life forms when mentioning the gay lifestyle.

Apparently, some of these lawmakers have never been in a middle/high school classroom. The mere mention of the word(s) sex, sexuality, etc. can throw a group of immature students into a hysteria. Sexual orientation of any type needs to be left out of core academic textbooks.

I'm skeptical because I received virtually no sex-ed back when I was in High School in Texas (graduated in '00). It just seems crazy that in these few short years, Texas could have progressed from a state that thinks "sex is a topic best left to parents" to a state that openly discusses homosexuality in school (even if the discussion is about the negatives of the homo lifestyle).

Are you sure it is not a local ordinance, or do all schools in TX have to teach about the destructive nature of the homo lifestyle? It just seems like the liberals would never let something like that pass without making a big stink about it, and I have trouble believing it could be true having never heard about it until now