California has passed SB 48, called the Fair Education Act. It has been signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. Essentially, what it does is mandate schools to set aside time and resources for teaching the role of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and trans-gendered people to the history of California and the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAIR_Education_Act
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_48&sess=CUR&house=B&author=leno
While this may be good news for textbook manufacturers, it is bad news for California tax-payers. Never mind that the state is broke. Never mind that our school kids are not being educated in the first place. Now our schools are going to have to come up with new texts and new teaching materials to comply with this law. Who is going to pay for it?
In addition, something will have to be set aside. What will it be, math, science, foreign language?
This may also open the door to a whole new field of research necessary to dig into the sex lives of historical Americans and Californians in order to find some that fit into those categories, and explain why said sexual orientation had anything to do with their accomplishments. Well, we can just make it up, I guess. Many teachers already are in other areas. What's the harm in making it look like Ronald Reagan was trans- gendered?
I know this will cause more readers to attack me as being "homophobic", but this is insanity. If you want to further the cause of gays, how about raising public awareness of what is happening to them in places like Iran, where they are hanged for being gay? How about speaking out on certain other ideologies that call for gays to be executed?
But we can't do that, now, can we?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Well, that is California, and right in character for ol' Moonbeam. Say what you want, one thing he cannot, in my view, be accused of is hypocrisy, at least on issues such as this.
Not so, however, for Mr. Obama. I cannot quote him exactly, but a few days ago, relative to SCOTUS hearing arguments on "Obamacare", he said something very close to, if not identical with, maintaining that a court comprised of unelected judges should not overturn a law duly passed by a "strong majority" of a democratically elected legislature, apparently without regard to whether that law is or is not constitutional.
Hmmmmm. As I recall it, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), was passed in 1996 or thereabouts by a Republican-controlled Congress (both houses, I believe) and signed into law by a Democrat, Pres. Clinton.
DOMA would therefore appear to fit Obama's above definition, except that DOMA passed with a MUCH stronger majority (without looking it up, about 340 in the House and maybe 80-something in the Senate, I believe) than did Obamacare.
Point is, again as I recall, that Obama announced in 2011 he/his Administration would no longer defend DOMA.
Further, in actuality, simultaneous with (or maybe at the same time as)making the above comments regarding Obamacare, not only had Obama previously declined to defend DOMA, his Justice Dept. was then engaged in the process of attempting to persuade (attacking DOMA) before the First Circuit Court of Appeals (Boston) in an effort to overturn the law.
In that regard, I believe the 1996 Congress was a democratically elected legislature which, as noted previously, voted by a VERY strong majority to pass the law.
So what's the difference?? I can explain it only by hypocrisy and dishonesty. Maybe Siarlys or someone can help me out here.
I want a law mandating that schools teach about the specific contributions of people of mixed Dutch, Jewish, Welsh English and Cherokee descent, particularly those of the Presbyterian faith and/or the Church of Christ.
Hah!
(I wouldn't mind a policy that when a person who accomplished something worth mentioning happens to be gay, this should be mentioned in passing also. But until recently, gay people were not an identifiable demography anyway).
DOMA elwood? DOMA was both unnecessary and an unconstitutional over-reach by Congress, intruding into a matter that has constitutionally been retained under state jurisdiction. The president didn't overturn it -- just couldn't find a good argument to present in court to defend it, so he didn't try.
Siarlys--read again what I said. The point was that Obama said nothing about the constitutionality/unconstitutionality or necessity/lack of necessity of “Obamacare”.
The crux and gist of his statement were essentially that a court comprised of unelected judges should not overturn a law duly passed by a "strong majority" of a democratically elected legislature. Period.
Logic dictates that if this position applies to Obamacare, it must also must, or at least should, hold true for DOMA (probably even more so, given DOMA’s significantly greater vote majority in both houses AND the fact that the Congress and the Presidency were held by different parties). Apparently it does not. This should further indicate that DOMA is in fact more legitimate than Obamacare. Again, apparently it does not. And there, of course, is the disconnect and/or the discrepancy and/or the hypocrisy and/or the dishonesty and/or the political pandering (take your pick, any or all) at the expense of the country.
The President is a lawyer. He has a DOJ and a Solicitor General’s Office completely full of lawyers. One job of any lawyer is to be able to find an argument for or against any issue, depending on the wishes of the “client”, whether he/she actually agrees with the position, or even when they know the client is in the wrong. Happens all the time and is, in my view, one of the very dubious qualities/virtues of the breed.
The president could not overturn DOMA, although he and the Democratic Congress in his first two years in office could easily have repealed it, which, quite interestingly under the circumstances, they did not. In addition, not only did Obama fail to defend the law, as is his constitutional duty; he, or at least his surrogates, have actively attacked it. Not the same thing at all.
While it may be your opinion that DOMA is/was “both unnecessary and an unconstitutional over-reach by Congress“, I would remind you that, as with Obamacare, SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality, and neither of these laws have yet been adjudicated by that body.
Finally, I would further remind you that opinions are somewhat like armpits and the bodily orifices at either end of our alimentary canals. We all have them, and while our own usually are at least odorless if not downright fragrant, the other guy’s usually stink.
Since DOMA and the health reform act were both passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president, how could you claim that either one is MORE valid constitutionally???
President Obama didn't OVERTURN DOMA. He merely stopped defending it in court. There is a difference. Romney hasn't promised to REPEAL the health care reform law. He merely promised to grant all 50 states waivers from implementing it.
As long as you understand the value of your own opinions, we need not indulge in an exchange of opinions with each other.
Siarlys--get your act together, and don’t misquote me. I did not claim that DOMA was more valid constitutionally than Obamacare. The context was Obama’s statement relative to judges overturning legislation, which did not, as stated in my original post, contain any mention of constitutionality (“---apparently without regard to whether that law is or is not constitutional---”).
My point, which you obviously missed, was that if Obamacare is legitimate legislation in the sense of Obama‘s statement, DOMA must logically be more legitimate for the two reasons cited (very significantly larger majority in Congress, bi-partisan as to party affiliation of Congress/President).
I know Obama did not overturn DOMA. You said so in your original post. I agreed with you in my second post, only in the slightly different context that he was unable (for those in Milwaukee, meaning that he did not have the authority) to overturn any legislation. I further understand that he refused to defend it in court, as I stated in my original post (“---Obama announced in 2011 he/his Administration would no longer defend DOMA---”, “---not only had Obama previously declined to defend DOMA---”).
And finally Siarlys, here’s a news flash for you. If you should deem my posts/opinions as irredeemably worthless as you apparently do, take your own advice. Whether they are in response to you or not, just ignore them (in other words, keep your mouth shut), and we will thereby not be indulging in an exchange of opinions with each other. See how easy it is?? Would that not solve your problem??
elwood, you are downright unamerican. If there was still a house committee, they ought to be investigating you. Have you no respect for the free market place of ideas? For what do you post in the first place, if not for people to read? Why would people read what you write, if not to comment upon it?
Some people can dish it out, but they can't take it.
Siarlys--my apologies, I somehow interpreted your post as indicating that you no longer desired to have an exchange of opinions ("---we need not indulge in an exchange of opinions with each other").
Since such activity requires both exchanger(s) and exchangee(s), alternately, sort of, I was merely offering one possible solution to you.
I will have you know though, that as a very sensitive person, my feelings are again very hurt that you have now not only dubbed me a snide misanthrope, but an un-American one at that.
I've been calling Miggie a misanthrope even since he began whining about people accusing him of racism because he doesn't like our current president. I freely conceded he is not a racist. He's not that discriminating.
As for whether we should continue to exchange viewpoints, I was responding to a rather pungent analogy you had offered. I gave you credit for being balanced and critiquing your own first.
Post a Comment