Girls in Boys’ Locker Rooms? Yes By Law!

locker_room

Photo by Jenny Downing

Gender Agenda Moves Forward

A young man in a northern CA district is suing because a girl was in his locker room while he changed. Whose harassing whom? The following excerpt is from a website for the San Francisco School District.

How are schools expected to implement the SFUSD Board Policy which Prohibits Gender-Based Harassment?

* Names/Pronouns
Students shall have the right to be addressed by a name and pronoun corresponding to their gender identity that is exclusively and consistently asserted at school.
* Official Records
The District shall change a student’s official records to reflect a change in legal name or gender upon receipt of documentation that such legal name and/or gender have been changed pursuant to California legal requirements.
* Restroom Accessibility
Students shall have access to the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity exclusively and consistently at school.
* Locker Room Accessibility
Transgender students shall not be forced to use the locker room corresponding to their gender assigned at birth.
* Sports and Gym Class
Transgender students shall not be denied the opportunity to participate in sports and gym.
* Dress Codes
Students shall have the right to dress in accordance with their gender identity that is exclusively and consistently asserted at school, within the constraints of the dress codes adopted at their school site.
* Gender Segregation in Other Areas
As a general rule, in any other circumstances where students are separated by gender in school activities, students shall be permitted to participate in accordance with their gender identity exclusively and consistently asserted at school.

Read SFUSD advise on AB 537

This school policy reads like something eerie out of a sci-fi novel.  I read a quote by Joseph Stalin recently that touched on public education.  It said:

‘Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.’ —Joseph Stalin

Those with an agenda are using our schools to push social change.  It isn’t the time or the place, yet there it is.  We’ve got to be aware that this does happen, and can happen in our local schools.  It’s not just San Francisco anymore.

—Beetle Blogger

Warning from the UK–Don’t follow our lead

Enough! No More Ground!

The more I’m involved in this campaign, the more I see the face of the other side, the more I realize, these are not your average happy go lucky people with merely a different opinion.  There are elements of the Gay movement that are out for blood.  It’s these activist groups that persuade us to hand over more and more of our rights.  I’m realizing that even if we win this thing in California….this issue isn’t beaten.  It’s only the beginning.  We’ve got to fight for a constitutional amendment at the federal level.  Winning California will give us the momentum we need to launch a national campaign.  We need to do it.

I think the groundwork has been laid in the California fight for a huge nationwide backlash against the gay rights movement. We are feeling the tide turning out here in the trenches.  We are going to win this thing.  We’ve been out in the streets, in our neighborhoods and I can feel the wind shifting in our favor.  The support is growing, the tide is changing.  It’s incredible.

We’ve got to do more of what we’ve been doing….but get it going at a national level.  Talk about it to our neighbors, write about it to the editors of our newspapers. The gay lobby has incredible amounts of money, but we have numbers on our side. The vast majority of the US wants no part of gay marriage in their state. If proposition 8 passes in California, we will have a mandate that could help turn the tide in our favor. We should use that momentum to get a constitutional amendment to the US Constitution. If we leave the decision up to the Supreme Court, there is a chance that it would lose and the price is too high to risk that. We’d see all fifty states fall at once if the Supreme Court went left on us.

The only way to protect this nation is to specify the obvious—marriage is between a man and a woman— only on a national level. The voters will support it, the question is if our legislators will support it. The longer we wait on the issue though, the slimmer our chances get. Awareness is growing now. Now is the time to move on it.

Come Stand With Us!

The Activist’s Agenda

policecar_jumped

The Homosexual Agenda

Author: Alan Sears, Craig Osten

Q. Craig, with the recent Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, and an expected decision from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that could create gay “marriage” on American shores, the whole idea of same-sex marriage has come front-and-center in American life. But isn’t same-sex “marriage” just one part of the homosexual agenda?

A. Yes it is. The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior.

It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called “After the Ball,” where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior — in a decade-long time frame.

Q. Now, wait a minute. We hear all the time from gay activists that “there is no such thing” as a gay agenda. They snicker at the very idea.

A. But there is an agenda. They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly. In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda. The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit:

1. “Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.” That was aimed at making people so tired of the issue they would want to give them anything they want to make them shut up.

2. “Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.” That’s why they exploited things like the tragic murder of Matthew Shepard. It was a tragic murder, yet they have used that and spun that to demonize people like Dr. James Dobson and other Christian leaders who have taken a biblical stand on homosexual behavior — people who have love and compassion for those trapped in that behavior.

3. “Give homosexual protectors a just cause.” That was designed to tap into and exploit the almost innate sense of fairness that Americans have; to the sympathy that we have — especially liberals have — for those who seem to be disenfranchised.

4. “Make gays look good.” That’s what they’ve done through media campaigns, through television programs, like “Will and Grace” and others, where homosexuals are portrayed as the most normal, stable people in America.

5. “Make the victimizers look bad.” They portray people of faith — people who have legitimate and biblical reasons to oppose homosexual behavior — as homophobes and bigots. They also try to “muddy the moral waters” by getting liberal churches, many of which have thrown out a great deal of the Bible, to say that homosexual behavior is just fine from a theological perspective.

6. “Get funds from corporate America.” In fact, they have. They have gotten corporate America to sign on to their agenda, and it is very interesting how they have done that. It’s based on fudging the truth — and outright lies.

By the way, the authors of “After the Ball” admit that the use of lies is perfectly fine in their struggle. Their main thing is to get people to believe them. That is all that is important.

What’s interesting is that gay activists go to corporations and say, “We are an aggrieved class; we are discriminated against.” Then, on the other hand, they go to corporate America and say, “Look how much money we have. We make double what a traditional family makes. We are a market that you want to advertise to and cater to.”

Corporate America signs on — whether for domestic partner benefits, or whatever — because they don’t want to alienate that market.

Q. You mentioned lies. Isn’t one of the lies that homosexuals really want marriage?

A. That’s one of the biggest lies. Actually, what they have said at conferences — including one international conference in London in 1999 — is that they really don’t want marriage, they want the destruction of marriage. Basically, once they get marriage, they want to redefine it — they call the concept “monogamy without fidelity.” In other words, marriage would mean that you could be with a person but say, “I can go ahead and have sex with anybody else I want, but my spouse and I live together.”

One homosexual activist said, “We can now dethrone the (traditional) family based on blood relationships, in favor of the families that we choose.”

This article can be found in entirety here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.