Tolerance Laws–The Next Fight

Tyranny of Tolerance

The Basics of SB 777

What does SB 777 say?
Senate Bill 777 (Senator Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica) states that “no teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias because of” homosexuality, transsexuality, bisexuality, or transgender status.

•This means teachers would be prohibited from any teaching that refers to traditional family values unless they also refer to homosexual lifestyles.

•School sponsored activity includes prom queen or king, sports teams and any other school-related activity that is traditionally gender specific.

Los Angeles Unified School District has already implemented these policies. The district allows boys who “perceive themselves as girls” to enter female locker rooms and rest rooms. These boys are also allowed to join female sports teams.

What do supporters say about SB 777?
Proponents claim that homosexual, bisexual, transsexual and transgender students are bullied, harassed and discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. They argue that SB 777 will help prevent this bullying by making students more tolerant and open.
Proponents also claim that SB 777 simply “streamlines” current law. However, the language is much more specific than previous laws that banned discrimination against homosexuals, etc. SB 777 specifically targets teaching and school activities.

What do opponents say about SB 777?
More than just “streamlining” the law, SB 777 actively promotes homosexual, bisexual, transsexual and transgender lifestyles in our schools. Students as young as five would be forced to grapple with complex sexual activities and lifestyles. Under SB 777, it would be considered discriminatory to not include homosexual “families” when discussing the family unit in class. Equal time for these controversial lifestyles will be required under SB 777. A transgender male student who asserts himself as a girl would be granted access to female locker rooms, restrooms and sports teams.

Why is SB 777 unnecessary?
The legislature passed AB 537 (Kuehl) in 2000 that prohibits discrimination against homosexuals, transsexuals, bisexuals or transgender status. This law is sufficient. No child should be harassed for any reason, whether homosexual or over weight. Enabling teachers to restore discipline in the classroom will solve most of the bullying problems. Instead of preventing bullying, SB 777 advocates for lifestyles that most parents do not want discussed in school. (See Just the Facts on SB 777 for more information.)

What harm would SB 777 cause?
SB 777 usurps local school’s control of curriculum and the general welfare of their students. Parents—not bureaucrats in Sacramento—should determine the best teaching for their children. Each school should have the freedom to adopt student safety policies that meet the specific needs of their pupils.

SB 777 affects public schools and charter schools. It also affects private schools that take state funding. Charter schools were designed to be free from the bureaucratic control of government. SB 777 removes that independence and inserts a political agenda into the classroom.

SB 777 also robs children of their innocence. Kindergarteners would be forced to learn about controversial sexual lifestyles. Older students would be forced to deal with sexually confused peers entering their locker rooms and restrooms. These policies counter the traditional values that most children are taught at home. The least public schools can do is guarantee parents their values will not be attacked and undermined while their children are in school.

To Join this fight see these websites:


  1. lahona said,

    November 6, 2008 at 5:55 am

    wow, and this is california state law? Talk about over the top. This is rediculous. So what can we do about this? How do we get this off the books?

  2. beetlebabee said,

    November 6, 2008 at 8:02 pm

    I’ve been looking into it, I added two links at the bottom of the post that address the legislative issues our state and nation face for families. I can’t endorse the links since I just found them and there is a lot of meaty stuff there to digest, but it’s a place to start.

  3. Nicole Neroulias said,

    November 11, 2008 at 1:58 pm

    I’m writing a story for Religion News Service about the Prop. 8 donations and voter turnout faith group breakdowns, including the resulting argument over whether LDS should have a tax-exempt status. Carlos Morgan, author of a Facebook page that links members to this site, suggested I contact you for a comment. Please e-mail me if you’re interested. Thanks.

  4. debbie said,

    November 11, 2008 at 2:19 pm

    Love your blog. It is great to have so much info in one place. Love your writing. Don’t stop, and let us know how we can help. Thanks for the info on SB777. I had just started to work on that again when Prop 8 came. Let’s not forget the battle is still ongoing, the line is being drawn.

  5. beetlebabee said,

    November 11, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    not only that but for those outside of California, this is perhaps the first time they’ve heard the gay marriage rhetoric that is so appealing. I have been monitoring the news and it’s completely one sided, the major news outlets are really focused on the emotional rather than the factual consequences of gay marriage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: