If there were any doubt left that the #DontSayGay bill's goals are to punish gay kids and legalize homophobic abuse, listen to the bill's sponsor, right now, on the Senate floor. It's pure bigoted garbage. pic.twitter.com/deWQnOAL0X

— Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog) March 8, 2022

This thread has the potential of being the most unifying thread in Off Topic history as everyone basically agrees.

What does the bill actually say?

20 Republican Politicians Brought Down By Big Gay Sex Scandals | NewNowNext


http://www.newnownext.com/19-republican-politicians-gay-sex/12/2016/

bearister said:

---

20 Republican Politicians Brought Down By Big Gay Sex Scandals | NewNowNext


http://www.newnownext.com/19-republican-politicians-gay-sex/12/2016/

---

Thanks for sharing.

I am still wondering if you know, what does the bill actually say?

BearGoggles said:

---

bearister said:

---

20 Republican Politicians Brought Down By Big Gay Sex Scandals | NewNowNext


http://www.newnownext.com/19-republican-politicians-gay-sex/12/2016/

---

Thanks for sharing.

I am still wondering if you know, what does the bill actually say?

---

Why don't you just google it up yourself instead of asking us to do it for you?

An act relating to parental rights in education; amending s. 1001.42, F.S.; requiring district school boards to adopt procedures that comport with certain provisions of law for notifying a student's parent of specified information; requiring such procedures to reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children in a specified manner; prohibiting the procedures from prohibiting a parent from accessing certain records; providing construction; prohibiting a school district from adopting procedures or student support forms that prohibit school district personnel from notifying a parent about specified information or that encourage or have the effect of encouraging a student to withhold from a parent such information; prohibiting school district personnel from discouraging or prohibiting parental notification and involvement in critical decisions affecting a student's mental, emotional, or physical well-being; providing construction; prohibiting classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in a specified manner; requiring certain training developed or provided by a school district to adhere to standards established by the Department of Education; requiring school districts to notify parents of healthcare services and provide parents the opportunity to consent or decline such services; providing that a specified parental consent does not wave certain parental rights; requiring school districts to provide parents with certain questionnaires or health screening forms and obtain parental permission before administering such questionnaires and forms; requiring school districts 35 to adopt certain procedures for resolving specified parental concerns; requiring resolution within a specified timeframe; requiring the Commissioner of Education to appoint a special magistrate for unresolved concerns; providing requirements for the special magistrate; requiring the State Board of Education to approve or reject the special magistrate's recommendation within specified timeframe; requiring school districts to bear the costs of the special magistrate; requiring the State Board of Education to adopt rules; providing requirements for such rules; authorizing a parent to bring an action against a school district to obtain a declaratory judgment that a school district procedure or practice violates certain provisions of law; providing for the additional award of injunctive relief, damages, and reasonable attorney fees and court costs to certain parents; requiring school district to adopt policies to notify parents of certain rights; providing construction; requiring the 55 department to review and update, as necessary, specified materials by a certain date; providing an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: 60 61 Section 1. Paragraph (c) is added to subsection (8) of 62 section 1001.42, Florida Statutes, to read: 63 1001.42 Powers and duties of district school board.The 64 district school board, acting as a board, shall exercise all 65 powers and perform all duties listed below: 66 (8) STUDENT WELFARE. 67 (c)1. In accordance with the rights of parents enumerated 68 in ss. 1002.20 and 1014.04, adopt procedures for notifying a 69 student's parent if there is a change in the student's services 70 or monitoring related to the student's mental, emotional, or 71 physical health or well-being and the school's ability to 72 provide a safe and supportive learning environment for the 73 student. The procedures must reinforce the fundamental right of 74 parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control 75 of their children by requiring school district personnel to encourage a student to discuss issues relating to his or her 77 well-being with his or her parent or to facilitate discussion of 78 the issue with the parent. The procedures may not prohibit 79 parents from accessing any of their student's education and 80 health records created, maintained, or used by the school 81 district, as required by s. 1002.22(2). 82 2. A school district may not adopt procedures or student 83 support forms that prohibit school district personnel from 84 notifying a parent about his or her student's mental, emotional, 85 or physical health or well-being, or a change in related 86 services or monitoring, or that encourage or have the effect of 87 encouraging a student to withhold from a parent such 88 information. School district personnel may not discourage or 89 prohibit parental notification of and involvement in critical 90 decisions affecting a student's mental, emotional, or physical 91 health or well-being. This subparagraph does not prohibit a 92 school district from adopting procedures that permit school 93 personnel to withhold such information from a parent if a 94 reasonably prudent person would believe that disclosure would 95 result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect, as those terms are 96 defined in s. 39.01. 97 3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third 98 parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur 99 in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age100 appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards. 102 4. Student support services training developed or provided 103 by a school district to school district personnel must adhere to 104 student services guidelines, standards, and frameworks 105 established by the Department of Education. 106 5. At the beginning of the school year, each school 107 district shall notify parents of each healthcare service offered 108 at their student's school and the option to withhold consent or 109 decline any specific service. Parental consent to a health care 110 service does not waive the parent's right to access his or her 111 student's educational or health records or to be notified about 112 a change in his or her student's services or monitoring as 113 provided by this paragraph. 114 6. Before administering a student well-being questionnaire 115 or health screening form to a student in kindergarten through 116 grade 3, the school district must provide the questionnaire or 117 health screening form to the parent and obtain the permission of 118 the parent. 119 7. Each school district shall adopt procedures for a 120 parent to notify the principal, or his or her designee, 121 regarding concerns under this paragraph at his or her student's 122 school and the process for resolving those concerns within 7 123 calendar days after notification by the parent. 124 a. At a minimum, the procedures must require that within 125 30 days after notification by the parent that the concern remains unresolved, the school district must either resolve the 127 concern or provide a statement of the reasons for not resolving 128 the concern. 129 b. If a concern is not resolved by the school district, a 130 parent may: 131 (I) Request the Commissioner of Education to appoint a 132 special magistrate who is a member of The Florida Bar in good 133 standing and who has at least 5 years' experience in 134 administrative law. The special magistrate shall determine facts 135 relating to the dispute over the school district procedure or 136 practice, consider information provided by the school district, 137 and render a recommended decision for resolution to the State 138 Board of Education within 30 days after receipt of the request 139 by the parent. The State Board of Education must approve or 140 reject the recommended decision at its next regularly scheduled 141 meeting that is more than 7 calendar days and no more than 30 142 days after the date the recommended decision is transmitted. The 143 costs of the special magistrate shall be borne by the school 144 district. The State Board of Education shall adopt rules, 145 including forms, necessary to implement this subparagraph. 146 (II) Bring an action against the school district to obtain 147 a declaratory judgment that the school district procedure or 148 practice violates this paragraph and seek injunctive relief. A 149 court may award damages and shall award reasonable attorney fees 150 and court costs to a parent who receives declaratory or injunctive relief. 152 c. Each school district shall adopt policies to notify 153 parents of the procedures required under this subparagraph. 154 d. Nothing contained in this subparagraph shall be 155 construed to abridge or alter rights of action or remedies in 156 equity already existing under the common law or general law. 157 Section 2. By June 30, 2023, the Department of Education 158 shall review and update, as necessary, school counseling 159 frameworks and standards; educator practices and professional 160 conduct principles; and any other student services personnel 161 guidelines, standards, or frameworks in accordance with the 162 requirements of this act. 163 Section 3. This act shall take effect July 1, 2022.

There's a pretty comprehensive history of LGBT rights in the U.S. at Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_the_United_States

In the early 1990s, there was a backlash against the Reagan administration's "open borders" immigration policy, where laws against hiring undocumented workers from Mexico & Central America were no longer enforced. A Nativist wing of the GOP developed, led by former Nixon speechwriter Pat Buchanan. This nativist faction was cultural, bemoaning the "loss of American culture." It was virulently anti-immigrant and anti-LGBT, and aligned with Evangelical Christians, while the George H.W. Bush/corporate/pro-NAFTA faction of the GOP was much more in favor of immigration, since it lowered wages for U.S. workers, and destroyed organized labor.

One part that seems to be overlooked in this summary is the political affiliation between Evangelical Christians (especially in the South) and Republican politicians. This proved to be a "recipe for success" for George W. Bush and his political strategist, Karl Rove, starting in the 1990s. When Bush narrowly defeated Democrat Ann Richards in 1994 for TX governor, she was accused (maybe by Rove) of hiring "homosexual activists" in her administration.

Throughout the late 1990s and 2000s, the GOP enjoyed success with its "God, Guns, & Gays" strategy, combined with Voter Caging (i.e., deleting probable Democratic voters from voter registration databases).

okaydo said:

---

If there were any doubt left that the #DontSayGay bill's goals are to punish gay kids and legalize homophobic abuse, listen to the bill's sponsor, right now, on the Senate floor. It's pure bigoted garbage. pic.twitter.com/deWQnOAL0X

— Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog) March 8, 2022

---

I'm not so sure it's bigoted as it is ignorant.
I mean, clearly the guy has never had an earnest conversation with a gay friend about being gay.

It's actually comical to hear him armchair it:

"No, I'm not sexual orientation expert.
But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!"

I think that this writer expresses what many of us feel.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/03/01/its-the-culture-stupid/

okaydo said:

---

If there were any doubt left that the #DontSayGay bill's goals are to punish gay kids and legalize homophobic abuse, listen to the bill's sponsor, right now, on the Senate floor. It's pure bigoted garbage. pic.twitter.com/deWQnOAL0X

— Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog) March 8, 2022

---

I think there is a combination of hate and fear that is driving this movement. You listen to the guy speak and he doesn't sound to me to be coming from it out of hatred or anger but out of bewilderment and confusion. The core constituency for Republicans has always been old white men who are uncomfortable with change. This isn't the world they grew up in and they want to keep things as close to the way it used to be as they can. It's possible that the sponsor is truly hateful and that he's just not expressing it here, but I don't know that it matters.

I think the main failing of this bill is the belief that educating children about things will inappropriately encourage them to do those things. If that were the case, we should also probably stop teaching history because impressionable kids may start wars.

I grew up in the bay area around a lot of gay people. My parents worked with a number of them and they were family friends. It was all quite normal for us and it never encouraged us to become gay because that's not how sexuality works. I do think had we been gay, our exposure to gay people in a normalized fashion would have made it easier to live our lives. I think back to some of the gay kids I went to school with and they faced relentless abuse (mental and sometimes physical) that no kid should have to deal with. I'm heartened by the fact that the school my kids are at discourages that type of behavior. I'm saddened that LGBTQ kids around the country are under attack by conservatives who are afraid that the world is changing and don't understand why their attempts will only lead to unhappiness.

A gay legislator in Florida introduced an amendment to limit the bill in a way that he thought was reasonable but of course it got no traction among the terrified people supporting this bill.

Quote:

---

In a tearful address to the Senate on Monday, Democrat Shevrin Jones, the first openly gay Florida state senator, urged his colleagues to narrow the bill's language to say instruction should not be "intended to change a student's sexual orientation or gender identity."

"I ask that you open up your hearts just a tad bit," he said, noting the name-calling and shunning he had faced as a gay man. "Please, do no harm."

Jones' proposed amendment failed.

---

Unfortunately DeSantis is doing everything in his power to energize the republican base of deplorables for his presidential run in 2024 and we are going to continue to see stunts like this to burnish his bona fides.

kelly09 said:

---

I think that this writer expresses what many of us feel.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/03/01/its-the-culture-stupid/

---

For GOP election strategists, this is the dream. Focusing on Culture Wars puts everything on the Republicans' home turf, where their media/messaging superiority gives them a huge advantage.

What's absent from the GOP "platform" (or absence thereof) is the delivery of any economic benefit to American Workers. How will working American families be better off if Republicans take back the House & Senate?

**crickets**

Will the Democrats take advantage of this huge gap in the GOP messaging? NO. They ran on a pro-Worker economic platform in 2020, promising voters $2000 checks, $15/hr minimum wage, paid family leave, free pre-K & community college, student loan forgiveness, etc. They failed to deliver. So the Democrats could promise economic benefits in 2022, but no one would believe them.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

This thread has the potential of being the most unifying thread in Off Topic history as everyone basically agrees.

---

I'll wait until The Usual Suspects chime in first.
(And of course with a thread title like that they are going to read, so a no-response = dissent.)

bearister said:

---

20 Republican Politicians Brought Down By Big Gay Sex Scandals | NewNowNext


http://www.newnownext.com/19-republican-politicians-gay-sex/12/2016/

---

What's the all-time D vs R gay scandal tally???

BearGoggles said:

---

bearister said:

---

20 Republican Politicians Brought Down By Big Gay Sex Scandals | NewNowNext


http://www.newnownext.com/19-republican-politicians-gay-sex/12/2016/

---

Thanks for sharing.

I am still wondering if you know, what does the bill actually say?

---

It says,

"Deposit fundraising checks here.
Vote for me there.
Look at my face on TV everywhere.
(Bigots secretly unite.)"

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

bearister said:

---

20 Republican Politicians Brought Down By Big Gay Sex Scandals | NewNowNext


http://www.newnownext.com/19-republican-politicians-gay-sex/12/2016/

---

Thanks for sharing.

I am still wondering if you know, what does the bill actually say?

---

Why don't you just google it up yourself instead of asking us to do it for you?

---

Because then there would be no opportunity punchlines.
See above.

These anti-gay pieces of legislation always have a strong streak of "Well if we don't outlaw it then everyone will do it" in them. This guy from Florida is a classic case in point. Lol.

You know which men want to have sex with other men? Gay men. You know who doesn't? Not gay men. These guys (and they are alway guys) who think that all that stands between them and joining a Village People tribute band is a piece of legislation may want to look in the mirror.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

bearister said:

---

20 Republican Politicians Brought Down By Big Gay Sex Scandals | NewNowNext


http://www.newnownext.com/19-republican-politicians-gay-sex/12/2016/

---

Thanks for sharing.

I am still wondering if you know, what does the bill actually say?

---

Why don't you just google it up yourself instead of asking us to do it for you?

---

I know what the bills says. Its pretty clear from the posts in this thread that most people don't.

As I read it - as opposed to how it has been portrayed - the law is mostly a statement of parental rights and a restriction on curriculum (and teacher's going off the curriculum).

Section 2 - Basically says that the schools can't provide guidance or counseling in decisions affecting a student's mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being without parental involvement - with a pretty broad carve out for situations that might result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect.

The fact that this is even controversial is absurd. A parent's rights - and preferences - in these areas absolutely trump those of the teachers/schools (absent abuse, etc.). The fact that many teachers feel it is their role to be involved in this part of a student's life - without parent involvement - is outrageous.

And for those of you who would claim that doesn't happen, read here.

https://abigailshrier.substack.com/p/how-activist-teachers-recruit-kids?s=r

Section 3 "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students"

Again- how is this controversial? Do we need sex ed for students under 8? Above that age, it should be age appropriate - ABSOULETLY SHOCKING. Age appropriate means that gender and sexual preference issues will be discussed - most likely in high school. Why is that a problem?

Big picture: : "The procedures must reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children by requiring school district personnel to encourage a student to discuss issues relating to his or her well-being with his or her parent or to facilitate discussion of the issue with the parent."

It is not the job of public schools and educators to undermine parents - even if we would agree the parents' views are homophobic (or whatever). Maybe the teachers should just teach math, english, history and science and leave the social issues to parents/churches/outside groups?

BearGoggles said:

---

Section 3 "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students"

Again- how is this controversial? Do we need sex ed for students under 8? Above that age, it should be age appropriate - ABSOULETLY SHOCKING. Age appropriate means that gender and sexual preference issues will be discussed - most likely in high school. Why is that a problem?

---

Who decides what is "age appropriate?"

What if a student has gay parents and the class is talking about their mommies and daddies and what they do? Or has a day when parents are to visit the classroom?

Is the school required to shield K-3 students from the discussion that would inevitably follow from seeing the kid with gay parents? Could they be opening themselves up to a lawsuit if they don't?

The language seems pretty vague here. That's the problem.

BG is purposefully ignoring the private right of action which has been widely adopted the last few years to chill behavior. Just like in the Texas anti choice bill and Florida's anti woke act, whatever that is supposed to be about. How long before some parent sues a school because his kid's kindergarten teacher is gay?

It's completely on brand for BG to take a reductionist view of the language and ignore why it's happening. No one was teaching sex ed in Kindergarten in Florida. If the entire purpose of the bill was to prevent 5 year olds from being exposed to sex ed, the bill is completely unnecessary. So why would it have been proposed and passed?

Maybe we should pass a bill to prevent elementary school kids from being radicalized by the NRA and taught how to operate machine guns? After that we can focus on preventing them from being taught how to abuse their spouses. I mean who would oppose that?

This bill didn't happen by accident. BG's view is intentionally ignoring the purpose behind the bill, which is of course the very reason this thread was started.

BearGoggles said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

bearister said:

---

20 Republican Politicians Brought Down By Big Gay Sex Scandals | NewNowNext


http://www.newnownext.com/19-republican-politicians-gay-sex/12/2016/

---

Thanks for sharing.

I am still wondering if you know, what does the bill actually say?

---

Why don't you just google it up yourself instead of asking us to do it for you?

---

I know what the bills says. Its pretty clear from the posts in this thread that most people don't.

As I read it - as opposed to how it has been portrayed - the law is mostly a statement of parental rights and a restriction on curriculum (and teacher's going off the curriculum).

Section 2 - Basically says that the schools can't provide guidance or counseling in decisions affecting a student's mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being without parental involvement - with a pretty broad carve out for situations that might result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect.

The fact that this is even controversial is absurd. A parent's rights - and preferences - in these areas absolutely trump those of the teachers/schools (absent abuse, etc.). The fact that many teachers feel it is their role to be involved in this part of a student's life - without parent involvement - is outrageous.

And for those of you who would claim that doesn't happen, read here.

https://abigailshrier.substack.com/p/how-activist-teachers-recruit-kids?s=r

Section 3 "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students"

Again- how is this controversial? Do we need sex ed for students under 8? Above that age, it should be age appropriate - ABSOULETLY SHOCKING. Age appropriate means that gender and sexual preference issues will be discussed - most likely in high school. Why is that a problem?

Big picture: : "The procedures must reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children by requiring school district personnel to encourage a student to discuss issues relating to his or her well-being with his or her parent or to facilitate discussion of the issue with the parent."

It is not the job of public schools and educators to undermine parents - even if we would agree the parents' views are homophobic (or whatever). Maybe the teachers should just teach math, english, history and science and leave the social issues to parents/churches/outside groups?

---

The reality is that not all parents are perfect, or even capable of parenting.

You might remember, many years ago, a dramatic increase in the rates of teen suicide. In many cases, the victims were gay children of homophobic parents. They felt rejected and alone, with no one to talk to. No one who would accept them and love them for who they are.

This led to a cultural movement of gay people "coming out" to friends & family. Across the nation, and even in the NFL, people who had been homophobic now had a family member or friend who was gay. Even Dick Cheney.

A cottage industry of cruel, anti-gay, pseudo-science "conversion therapy" camps started up. "Conversion Therapy" was subsequently banned by many states & municipalities, beginning with California in 2012.

The culmination of this was SCOTUS's Obergefell v Hodges decision (2015) that legalized Marriage Equality, citing the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Without the public schools, gay children of homophobic parents have no institution with a policy of accepting who they are.

The promotion of tolerance and acceptance by schools, public and private, led to widespread acceptance and tolerance of gays (and other races) among young people, and a rejection of homophobes, racists, and Republicans.

The GOP is trying to "put the genie back in the bottle." They're attempting another round of de-funding for Public Education, perceiving it as an anti-American / anti-Republican institution. This is driving U.S. Public Education even further back to the Stone Age.

concordtom said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

This thread has the potential of being the most unifying thread in Off Topic history as everyone basically agrees.

---

I'll wait until The Usual Suspects chime in first.
(And of course with a thread title like that they are going to read, so a no-response = dissent.)

---

Tom, you are The Usual Suspect.

Here is the so-called “don’t say gay” bill. All it requires is that teachers don’t discuss sexual orientation and gender identity with children in third grade and younger. The Left is so determined to sexually indoctrinate your kids that they’re treating this like the apocalypse. pic.twitter.com/GKZpfGAGXB

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) March 7, 2022

Quote:

---

There is no bill in Florida forbidding students or teachers from saying the word "gay." That doesn't exist. Nothing like it exists. Not at all. Not remotely. What does exist is legislation preventing teachers from sexually indoctrinating pre-schoolers.

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

This thread has the potential of being the most unifying thread in Off Topic history as everyone basically agrees.

---

We’ve got one thing to say to our GOP colleagues — GAY! pic.twitter.com/AiXzW0chUq

— Florida Senate Democrats (@FLSenateDems) March 7, 2022

We can all agree the theater is amusing.

BearForce2 said:

---

Here is the so-called “don’t say gay” bill. All it requires is that teachers don’t discuss sexual orientation and gender identity with children in third grade and younger. The Left is so determined to sexually indoctrinate your kids that they’re treating this like the apocalypse. pic.twitter.com/GKZpfGAGXB

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) March 7, 2022

Quote:

---

There is no bill in Florida forbidding students or teachers from saying the word "gay." That doesn't exist. Nothing like it exists. Not at all. Not remotely. What does exist is legislation preventing teachers from sexually indoctrinating pre-schoolers.

---

---

Are there actually any cases of teachers sexually indoctrinating pre-schoolers? Sounds like a law in search of a problem.

BearGoggles said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

bearister said:

---

20 Republican Politicians Brought Down By Big Gay Sex Scandals | NewNowNext


http://www.newnownext.com/19-republican-politicians-gay-sex/12/2016/

---

Thanks for sharing.

I am still wondering if you know, what does the bill actually say?

---

Why don't you just google it up yourself instead of asking us to do it for you?

---

I know what the bills says. Its pretty clear from the posts in this thread that most people don't.

As I read it - as opposed to how it has been portrayed - the law is mostly a statement of parental rights and a restriction on curriculum (and teacher's going off the curriculum).

Section 2 - Basically says that the schools can't provide guidance or counseling in decisions affecting a student's mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being without parental involvement - with a pretty broad carve out for situations that might result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect.

The fact that this is even controversial is absurd. A parent's rights - and preferences - in these areas absolutely trump those of the teachers/schools (absent abuse, etc.). The fact that many teachers feel it is their role to be involved in this part of a student's life - without parent involvement - is outrageous.

And for those of you who would claim that doesn't happen, read here.

https://abigailshrier.substack.com/p/how-activist-teachers-recruit-kids?s=r

Section 3 "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students"

Again- how is this controversial? Do we need sex ed for students under 8? Above that age, it should be age appropriate - ABSOULETLY SHOCKING. Age appropriate means that gender and sexual preference issues will be discussed - most likely in high school. Why is that a problem?

Big picture: : "The procedures must reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children by requiring school district personnel to encourage a student to discuss issues relating to his or her well-being with his or her parent or to facilitate discussion of the issue with the parent."

It is not the job of public schools and educators to undermine parents - even if we would agree the parents' views are homophobic (or whatever). Maybe the teachers should just teach math, english, history and science and leave the social issues to parents/churches/outside groups?

---

Sorry, didn't realize you had an agenda and were too passive aggressive to openly state it.

BearForce2 said:

---

Here is the so-called “don’t say gay” bill. All it requires is that teachers don’t discuss sexual orientation and gender identity with children in third grade and younger. The Left is so determined to sexually indoctrinate your kids that they’re treating this like the apocalypse. pic.twitter.com/GKZpfGAGXB

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) March 7, 2022

Quote:

---

There is no bill in Florida forbidding students or teachers from saying the word "gay." That doesn't exist. Nothing like it exists. Not at all. Not remotely. What does exist is legislation preventing teachers from sexually indoctrinating pre-schoolers.

---

---

Can you point me to 5 articles where this has been a problem? Thanks. Also, why is this a Florida-only thing?

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Section 3 "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students"

Again- how is this controversial? Do we need sex ed for students under 8? Above that age, it should be age appropriate - ABSOULETLY SHOCKING. Age appropriate means that gender and sexual preference issues will be discussed - most likely in high school. Why is that a problem?

---

Who decides what is "age appropriate?"

What if a student has gay parents and the class is talking about their mommies and daddies and what they do? Or has a day when parents are to visit the classroom?

Is the school required to shield K-3 students from the discussion that would inevitably follow from seeing the kid with gay parents? Could they be opening themselves up to a lawsuit if they don't?

The language seems pretty vague here. That's the problem.

---

It is vague - just like every other curriculum standard. It seems the legislature is saying that under grade 3, not appropriate. After that, subject to local school boards to determine curriculum.

I think a significant issue is when individual teachers have an agenda to incorporate woke politics and social justice in to curriculum. There is really no question that is happening - many teachers are open in their agenda to do so.

Regarding a students discussion of their gay parents, the law doesn't apply. It applies to classroom instruction - not comments from students.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BG is purposefully ignoring the private right of action which has been widely adopted the last few years to chill behavior. Just like in the Texas anti choice bill and Florida's anti woke act, whatever that is supposed to be about. How long before some parent sues a school because his kid's kindergarten teacher is gay?

It's completely on brand for BG to take a reductionist view of the language and ignore why it's happening. No one was teaching sex ed in Kindergarten in Florida. If the entire purpose of the bill was to prevent 5 year olds from being exposed to sex ed, the bill is completely unnecessary. So why would it have been proposed and passed?

Maybe we should pass a bill to prevent elementary school kids from being radicalized by the NRA and taught how to operate machine guns? After that we can focus on preventing them from being taught how to abuse their spouses. I mean who would oppose that?

This bill didn't happen by accident. BG's view is intentionally ignoring the purpose behind the bill, which is of course the very reason this thread was started.

---

LOL at the comparison to Texas. The Texas law created a private right of action against individuals to impose anti-abortion rules that a state could not lawfully adopt. I think that is wrong and unconstitutional and have posted as such.

The Florida law gives parents the right to sue the school district - not individuals - if the school district is not following the law. That is not only materially different than the Texas law, it is common place. People sue all the time to enforce laws and/or rights - the gay marriage litigation was exactly that. Pretty much every civil rights action was exactly that.

There is no chance a parent is going to successfully sue under this law for having a gay teacher. Just stop. If the teachers follow the curriculum, there won't be an issue.

I'm not intentionally ignoring the purpose behind the law - it is to prevent woke teachers from imposing their views on students in derogation of parental rights.

If you agree that republicans hate gays, I guess I'll ask why democrats/liberals hate babies?

And you accuse me of being reductionist.

cbbass1 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

bearister said:

---

20 Republican Politicians Brought Down By Big Gay Sex Scandals | NewNowNext


http://www.newnownext.com/19-republican-politicians-gay-sex/12/2016/

---

Thanks for sharing.

I am still wondering if you know, what does the bill actually say?

---

Why don't you just google it up yourself instead of asking us to do it for you?

---

I know what the bills says. Its pretty clear from the posts in this thread that most people don't.

As I read it - as opposed to how it has been portrayed - the law is mostly a statement of parental rights and a restriction on curriculum (and teacher's going off the curriculum).

Section 2 - Basically says that the schools can't provide guidance or counseling in decisions affecting a student's mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being without parental involvement - with a pretty broad carve out for situations that might result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect.

The fact that this is even controversial is absurd. A parent's rights - and preferences - in these areas absolutely trump those of the teachers/schools (absent abuse, etc.). The fact that many teachers feel it is their role to be involved in this part of a student's life - without parent involvement - is outrageous.

And for those of you who would claim that doesn't happen, read here.

https://abigailshrier.substack.com/p/how-activist-teachers-recruit-kids?s=r

Section 3 "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students"

Again- how is this controversial? Do we need sex ed for students under 8? Above that age, it should be age appropriate - ABSOULETLY SHOCKING. Age appropriate means that gender and sexual preference issues will be discussed - most likely in high school. Why is that a problem?

Big picture: : "The procedures must reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children by requiring school district personnel to encourage a student to discuss issues relating to his or her well-being with his or her parent or to facilitate discussion of the issue with the parent."

It is not the job of public schools and educators to undermine parents - even if we would agree the parents' views are homophobic (or whatever). Maybe the teachers should just teach math, english, history and science and leave the social issues to parents/churches/outside groups?

---

The reality is that not all parents are perfect, or even capable of parenting.

You might remember, many years ago, a dramatic increase in the rates of teen suicide. In many cases, the victims were gay children of homophobic parents. They felt rejected and alone, with no one to talk to. No one who would accept them and love them for who they are.

This led to a cultural movement of gay people "coming out" to friends & family. Across the nation, and even in the NFL, people who had been homophobic now had a family member or friend who was gay. Even Dick Cheney.

A cottage industry of cruel, anti-gay, pseudo-science "conversion therapy" camps started up. "Conversion Therapy" was subsequently banned by many states & municipalities, beginning with California in 2012.

The culmination of this was SCOTUS's Obergefell v Hodges decision (2015) that legalized Marriage Equality, citing the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Without the public schools, gay children of homophobic parents have no institution with a policy of accepting who they are.

The promotion of tolerance and acceptance by schools, public and private, led to widespread acceptance and tolerance of gays (and other races) among young people, and a rejection of homophobes, racists, and Republicans.

The GOP is trying to "put the genie back in the bottle." They're attempting another round of de-funding for Public Education, perceiving it as an anti-American / anti-Republican institution. This is driving U.S. Public Education even further back to the Stone Age.

---

I don't think its the role of teachers or school administrators to decide who are "good parents" and "bad parents". They are not trained to provide counseling and we have social services to do that in cases of abuse, etc. And they certainly should not be circumventing or undermining parents, even if the we might agree the parents' views are repugnant (at least until the intolerance reaches a level of abuse).

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

bearister said:

---

20 Republican Politicians Brought Down By Big Gay Sex Scandals | NewNowNext


http://www.newnownext.com/19-republican-politicians-gay-sex/12/2016/

---

Thanks for sharing.

I am still wondering if you know, what does the bill actually say?

---

Why don't you just google it up yourself instead of asking us to do it for you?

---

I know what the bills says. Its pretty clear from the posts in this thread that most people don't.

As I read it - as opposed to how it has been portrayed - the law is mostly a statement of parental rights and a restriction on curriculum (and teacher's going off the curriculum).

Section 2 - Basically says that the schools can't provide guidance or counseling in decisions affecting a student's mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being without parental involvement - with a pretty broad carve out for situations that might result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect.

The fact that this is even controversial is absurd. A parent's rights - and preferences - in these areas absolutely trump those of the teachers/schools (absent abuse, etc.). The fact that many teachers feel it is their role to be involved in this part of a student's life - without parent involvement - is outrageous.

And for those of you who would claim that doesn't happen, read here.

https://abigailshrier.substack.com/p/how-activist-teachers-recruit-kids?s=r

Section 3 "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students"

Again- how is this controversial? Do we need sex ed for students under 8? Above that age, it should be age appropriate - ABSOULETLY SHOCKING. Age appropriate means that gender and sexual preference issues will be discussed - most likely in high school. Why is that a problem?

Big picture: : "The procedures must reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children by requiring school district personnel to encourage a student to discuss issues relating to his or her well-being with his or her parent or to facilitate discussion of the issue with the parent."

It is not the job of public schools and educators to undermine parents - even if we would agree the parents' views are homophobic (or whatever). Maybe the teachers should just teach math, english, history and science and leave the social issues to parents/churches/outside groups?

---

Sorry, didn't realize you had an agenda and were too passive aggressive to openly state it.

---

Sorry - I didn't realize you were too lazy to think for yourself and provide an explanation for your thinking. You're right, given your limitations, including the lack of reading comprehension, I should have been more direct.

okaydo said:

---

Can you point me to 5 articles where this has been a problem? Thanks. Also, why is this a Florida-only thing?

---

Shouldn't you be providing 5 articles to support the title of your own post instead?

BearForce2 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Can you point me to 5 articles where this has been a problem? Thanks. Also, why is this a Florida-only thing?

---

Shouldn't you be providing 5 articles to support the title of your own post instead?

---

Thanks for proving me right.