Bill’s language contested

Opponents of State Senate Bill 777, which seeks to add language banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity into California’s education codes, began a referendum campaign this week to keep the law from taking effect Jan. 1.

The bill, which California State Senator Sheila Kuehl authored, was intended to put the antidiscrimination clauses that already exist in the penal code in the education code as well, she said.

Former Gov. Davis signed the original legislation banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in 1999.

At the time, it protected the LGBT community under the broader umbrella of hate crime legislation, Kuehl said, which also applied broadly to education codes.

The reason she decided to bring forth additional legislation, Kuehl said, was because she did not believe the antidiscrimination guidelines outlined were clearly and consistently stated in the educational code.

To this end, Kuehl authored this new bill, which Gov. Schwarzenegger signed last week, to move existing language from the California penal codes into the education codes.

But, while Kuehl said the new legislation has not changed California law in any way and has only served to include existing antidiscrimination language into the education codes, some groups have expressed concern that the bill will undermine traditional family values and force schools to radically change their curriculum to portray members of the LGBT community in a positive light.

The Campaign for Children and Families, a socially conservative political organization, is concerned that changes in specific language regarding discrimination against sexual orientation and gender identity will lead to changes in the types of teaching materials used in classrooms, according to a statement on its Web site.

They claim that this new language in the education codes, which would ban any behavior that “promotes a discriminatory bias” as opposed to behavior that would “reflect adversely” on the queer community, could mean teachers could no longer use textbooks that portray traditional ideas of marriage and gender, according to their Web site.

To stall the law from being put into effect, conservative groups are trying to file a referendum to have it repealed, Kuehl said.

Opponents of the bill have 90 days from the date of signing to get 433,971 Californians to sign a petition to put the question of repealing the bill on the next California ballot, Kuehl said.

Kuehl said if opponents are unable to have the referendum measure signed and approved by the attorney general by Jan. 1, the law will go into effect.

Kuehl added that she believes the controversy over the slight change in language is unfounded because SB 777 is not adding anything new to existing legislation.

Still, Mike Ries, a third-year political science student and member of Bruin Republicans, said he believes the bill is cause for concern.

Ries said he believes that discrimination in any way is wrong but the new legislation oversteps the state government’s jurisdiction.

He would be much more comfortable if local communities were left to decide matters of education for themselves, he said.

But Edgar Alvarez, a member of Queer Alliance and a third-year geography environmental studies student, said he believes the new legislation is a step in the right direction.

“(It) legitimizes sexual orientation, as it should. I believe that sexual orientation is as much a part of you as the color of your skin,” he said.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *