In Case you Missed it: Assembly Debate on HR 5 (Video)

Here is the Assembly Debate on HR 5, which expressed the Legislature's desire to have the California Supreme Court overturn Prop. 8.

The debate begins at about 2:14.30 on the video:

Action Alert! Tomorrow, the Sacramento City Council will be voting on a proposed Amicus Brief Opposing Prop 8.

How is it that a city that is millions of dollars in debt and laying off workers finds the time and resources to overstep it’s authority and file a “Friend of the Court” brief asking the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, the Marriage Protection Act? Well that is exactly what the members of the Sacramento City Council will be voting on TOMORROW February 3, 2009. (Click Here to see the Report)

Sacramento would not be the only city to file a brief in this case. Berkeley, Davis, West Hollywood, Palm Springs and several other liberal cities have also gotten involved. This is in spite of the fact that state initiatives are really out of their jurisdiction.

Well it is important to let them know that there are more appropriate uses of our tax dollars that getting involved in this fight. Please call members of the council and let them know how you feel.

Kevin Johnson
Mayor
Mayor's Office
916-808-5300

Ray Tretheway
District 1
916-808-7001

Sandy Sheedy
District 2
916-808-7002

Steve Cohn
Vice Mayor
District 3
916-808-7003

Robert King Fong
District 4
916-808-7004

Lauren Hammond
District 5
916-808-7005

Kevin McCarty
District 6
916-808-7006

Robbie Waters
District 7
916-808-7007

Bonnie Pannell
District 8
916-808-7008


The FAX number for all Council Members is 916-264-7680

Speaker Bass decries racist comments by LGTB community

During an interview with the Sacramento Bee editorial staff, California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass commented on the “hostility” that the LGTB community has shown towards blacks after the passage of Prop 8, which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

During a videotaped interview, Bass told of how blacks who actually voted against the measure were confronted with “racial epithets” when they showed up to protest the vote. She went on to point out that some were so fearful they even left because “…they were threatened.”

The Speaker went on to say, “I was appalled at how quickly some members of the LGTB leadership went there…”

Well Madam Speaker, they did. But I understand your confusion. I too thought they were No on H8?

(I stand corrected!!!! In an earlier version of this post, I stated that the quote from the article was not the same as the one in the video. I was wrong the video is quoted correctly in the article. My apologies to the Sacramento Bee!.)

No on 8 Resorts to Hate Speech

Can someone explain to me exactly why this commercial does not constitute hate speech?




Imagine if the two guys who conducted this home invasion were Catholic... or Muslim?

How do you think public reaction would be different?

Craig DeLuz debates Prop 8

Over the weekend I had a chance to participate in a lively debate on Prop. 8, which amends the California Constitution to define marriage as being between and a man and a woman.

Click Here to listen in.

Over 1000 Yes on 8 supporters rally in Sacramento- MSM reports nothing!

On Tuesday, more than 1,000 supporters of Proposition 8 rallied at the state capitol to have their voices heard. But if they were counting on the main stream media to report on the event, they will have to think again.

Blacks, Latinos, Asians, whites- you name it, they were there. Pastor’s from all over the region stood before the crowd, unified in their support for protecting marriage. But the media reported nothing. And it wasn’t like they weren’t present. There were news cameras from at least 3 local stations. The Sacramento Bee even had a photographer there. But the only one who covered the massive turnout was local conservative talk show host, Eric Hogue. He broadcast the Capitol Hour, live from the steps of the Capitol. He later would replay the interviews and sound bites from the even on his evening show on 710AM. But he was the only one!

I have to admit that I was not surprised by the lack of coverage. But I was disappointed. But then again, it’s not like 1,000 Prop 8 supporters on at the Capitol is as compelling as 50 anit-prop 8 protesters outside the Mormon temple- as protest that did get media coverage. I mean, who can ignore those massive numbers?

I just wanted the rest of the country to know that Northern California’s pro-marriage community showed up and showed out. Congratulations to Pastor Philip Goudeaux and the folks at Calvary Christian Center, who put this event together. I was told that it was the largest Yes on 8 rally to date. I can’t wait to see how big the turnout is at Qualcom this Saturday.

I wonder if the media will show?

Halloween play propels church into the debate on Prop. 8

Assembly member Roberta Mitchell was the deciding vote in support of same-sex marriage. Little did she know that she would soon have to answer for her vote to none other than Satan himself.



This is just one of the many controversial, yet entertaining scenes within "Oh Hell No! A Revelation of Hell." This is the third year for this production at Calvary Christian Center, which is located in Del Paso Heights. "Our desire is to put on a production that speaks to real issues that people are dealing with today." Points out Lorraine Feltus, the Director of Calvary's Theatrical Arts Ministry (TAM) "We knew when we came up with this idea, it would challenge some folks. But we are here to speak the truth, in love."



Calvary's Pastor, Dr. Philip Goudeaux has taken the lead in promoting support for Proposition 8 in the Sacramento Region. And while the primary purpose for the production is not necessarily to promote the marriage protection initiative, it does make it clear that there could be dire consequences if Prop. 8 should fail. "We see this as an attack on the church and our values, "declares Craig DeLuz, TAM Assistant Director who also plays the Devil. "Failure of Prop. 8 will not only have real consequences for the church and for the community in general. People need to know that.



Oh Hell No started on Sunday, October 26th and has been played before audiences of up to 3,000. It runs nightly at 7 pm until Halloween, Friday October 31st. Attendance is free of charge.



Details:



OCTOBER 27-31, 2008

HOSTED BY:

CalvaryChristianCenter



LOCATION:

2667 Del Paso Blvd, Sacramento, CA95815



TIME:

7pm nightly



COST:

FREE!!!



CONTACT INFO:



Web: www.ohhellno.net

Email: info@ohhellno.net

In Case You Missed it: Gay people missing in Prop. 8 ads

Last Week Maroc Breton wrote a piece that I found to be very telling. He is not a conservative activist, but even he noticed the glaring absence of homosexuals in the "No on 8" campaign.


They know that if it is merely about allowing same-sex marraige they lose. They are trying to make this a civil rights issue without mentioning who's rights they believe are being violated.


Good luck with that!


Meanwhile, this Yes on 8 ad has been particularly effective in convincing the Dems and Independents I've spoken with.



Here is the Sacramento Bee article:

Gay people missing in Prop. 8 ads

In the public relations battle over legalizing same-sex marriage, it appears gay people have been relegated to the background.

They are invisible in television adsarguing for and against Proposition 8 – the initiative that would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Though many gays and lesbians see Prop. 8 as a civil rights issue, the campaign against it has been framed only by heterosexuals speaking in reassuring tones about gay people getting married. And from the proposition's supporters, a commercial features San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom – the guy who was once caught up in a public affair with the wife of a close friend.

You've probably seen it: Footage of Newsom gloating that gay marriage is here "whether you like it or not."

That single ad is part of a recent change in momentum. What was shaping up as an easy win for gay marriage has become a political dogfight.

It is also ingenious political advertising. It pushes hot buttons against gay marriage without belittling images.

As in anti-Prop. 8 ads, gay people are silent and in the background of the Newsom commercial. The desire of gays to legally marry is merely implied.

The commercial supporting Prop. 8 was conceived in Sacramento by political consultant Frank Schubert, whose office overlooks the state Capitol park.

Schubert was a veteran of successful campaigns you've barely heard of before his Catholic beliefs and personal opposition to gay marriage led him to this role as chief strategist in the Yes on Prop. 8 campaign.

Schubert's opponent on the other side is also based in Sacramento – Steve Smith, a former high-ranking Gray Davis official who has never lost when his goal was getting voters to vote "no" on a statewide proposition.

In their ads, both have avoided popular images of gays and overt proclamations for or against a gay lifestyle.

Both campaigns seem to want to make their cases without upsetting people who might vote for them.

It's as if they don't want their campaigns about gay people to be sidetracked by gay people.

For Schubert, Prop. 8 isn't about tolerance. People like him are tolerant, he says. To them, it's about preventing marriage from being used as a social experiment. "How gay marriage will be taught in the public schools is emerging as the biggest issue in the campaign," Schubert said Friday.

Smith bristles at this suggestion. "If this campaign is about eliminating marriage as a right, (Schubert) loses." That's why "he has to change the subject," Smith said.

Schubert's suggestion does smack of scare tactic, while Smith will continue to argue gay marriage is a fundamental right – one that shouldn't be argued anymore.

It's like having the right to be who you are in public – to be equal under the sun with anyone else.

It's a worthwhile goal, but on TV it's being debated by heterosexuals.

Poll shows Prop. 8 is Up. But MSM ignores the story.

According to the most recent poll by Survey USA, Proposition 8 is leading amongst likely voters 47% in favor to 42% against. But for some reason, most of the mainstream media doesn’t think it is newsworthy. There was nothing on these new poll results in any of the states major print newspapers.

Well thank God for alternative media!

Here is the story according to Survey USA:

California Proposition 8 Too Close To Call: In a vote today, 10/06/08, on California's Proposition 8 Ballot Initiative, which would change California's constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, approximately half the state supports the measure, half the state opposes the measure, according to this latest SurveyUSA poll conducted for KABC-TV Los Angeles, KPIX-TV San Francisco, KGTV-TV San Diego, and KFSN-TV Fresno. The exact findings are: 'Yes' (to change the law) 47%, 'No' (to leave the law alone) 42%.

But polling on ballot measures in general is an inexact science, and polling on homosexuality in general is a tricky business. So, not too much should be made of the 5 points that separates 'Yes' and 'No' today. Support for 8 may be higher or lower than any opinion pollster is able to measure. In a SurveyUSA poll released eleven days ago, 5 points again separated "Yes" from "No," but in the other direction, with the "No" vote coming out nominally ahead.

What is clear today: Those in the Inland Empire and the Central Valley continue to want the law changed. Those in the Bay Area continue to want the law left alone. Those in greater LA remain split. The youngest voters, who are the hardest to poll and who are the most unpredictable voters, support the measure, after opposing it eleven days ago. Seniors support the measure. Minority groups view the measure differently: blacks support, Hispanics split, Asians and others oppose. Support is strong among conservatives, Republicans, and those who attend religious services regularly. Opposition is strong among liberals, Democrats, and those who never attend religious services.

One local TV station did run a story on the poll. Click Here to view their story.

American River Student Council votes to support Prop. 8

8 in favor, 3 opposed and 3 abstaining; that was the final vote today as the American River College Student Council voted to endorse Proposition 8; the state constitutional amendment that will preserve the definition of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman.

The September 30th afternoon meeting drew a crowd of nearly 200 students who were about evenly split in their support or opposition to the Proposition 8 resolution. Chanting, yelling, clapping and calls for order by the President, were commonplace as students from No on 8 side expressed their views to the Council. Some shouted "NO on 8" from the podium. Others interrupted supporters of Prop.8 as they spoke by yelling insults and profane language.

After an hour and a half of student comment, the Council voted to pass the resolution with just over the 2/3rd majority vote required, drawing applause from students.

Student Representative Jorge Riley spoke in favor of passing the Resolution, stating that he would vote to uphold the majority's will, while Council member Tim Richey expressed his disgust with the Council's support for Prop 8 by emphatically stating his "NO" vote.

A student-publicized, anti-marriage rally against Prop 8 was held prior to the meeting and students were allowed to bring signs reading "No on 8" inside the meeting as well. Other students held signs reading "marriage still = 1 man +1 woman" and "Yes on Prop 8." Two campus police officers were called in to attempt to the keep the peace; several students were requested to leave the building and were escorted outside by the administration as No on 8 advocates cursed and yelled at their opponents.

Members of the ARC Student Council made a brave stand and I commend them.

Video of the full meeting will be made available at http://americanrivernews.blogspot.com/

In Case You Missed It: Same Sex Marriage Advocates Urge Judge to Throw Out Constitutional Amendment

Over the weekend, Equality California filed paperwork asking the California Supreme Court to deny California voters thier constitutional right to have a say on the issue of same-sex marriage.

AP reported:

Same Sex Marriage Advocates Urge Judge to Throw Out
Constitutional Amendment

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Gay rightsadvocates are asking California's highest court to keep a measure that would
again bansame-sex marriage in the state off the November ballot.

Lawyers for Equality California filed a petition late Friday arguing that the initiative is invalid because it would revise, rather than amend the California Constitution.

The petition also claims the measure should be disqualified because its impact was not made clear to the millions of voters who signed petitions to put it on the ballot.

Since the secretary of state already has certified the amendment for the fall election, a spokeswoman says she can only remove it with a judge's order.

This is clearly sign that same-sex marriage advocates are worried that this Consitutional Amendment will pass. Otherwise, why deny the voters their say?

Craig DeLuz Speaks out against gay marriage- NO CENSORSHIP HERE!

Last week in Sacramento, Campaign for Children and Families held a news conference to publicly respond to the Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage.

Click Here to see the story that aired on News 1o in Sacramento

on a more humerous note, Chanel 7, the ABC affiliate out of the Bay area actually recorded the entire press conference. And while I am on the tape.... well.... I'll let you check it out for yourself. Fast forward to about 4:53 min and watch what happens.

You are going to love this!

> Streaming video of CCF's May 15 news conference (9:51)

NO CENSORSHIP HERE!

Craig DeLuz Debates Same-Sex Marriage on Capitol Public Radio

The host is Jeffrey Callison

The segment will be live TODAY 2:00 to 2:25 p.m. on
- KXJZ 90.9 Sacramento
- KKTO 90.5 Tahoe City
- KUOP 91.3 Stockton
- KQNC 88.1 Quincy KXPR

The Classical Station
- KXPR 88.9 Sacramento
- KXSR 91.7 Groveland/Sonora
- KXJS 88.7 Sutter/Yuba City
The show will be archived on their website: http://www.capradio.org/programs/insight/default.aspx

If you would like to call in during or after the interview, if the topic continues. The call-in number is 1-888-345-5959.

Poll shows most ethnic voters support ban on same sex marriage & Democrats believe that voters, not the legislature should decide…

In 2000 California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22, which declared that “only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in the state of California”. And an interesting side story was the fact that ethnic voters were amongst the measure’s most ardent supporters with 65% of Hispanics, 62% of Blacks and 57% of Asians voting to protect marriage.

Well, it looks like not much has changed as a recent poll shows that California’s ethnic voters are still vehemently opposed to allowing same sex couples to wed and are among those most likely to support a measure that would protect Prop. 22 from activist judges by making it state constitutional amendment.

According to a Survey USA Poll conducted on April 24, 2008, 58% of Blacks, 60% of Latinos and 57% of Asian voters in California still do not support same-sex marriage. Furthermore, 57% of Blacks, 46% of Hispanics and 55% of Asian voters said they would be willing to support a state constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Another interesting fact: Only 14% of Democrat’s polled believe that the legislature should decide the fate of same sex marriage. As a matter of fact, a whopping 45% of Democrats said that the voter should decide. This flies in the face of the Democrat controlled California Legislature who has for the last two years in a row, violated the law and voted to legalize same sex marriage.

What’s the Purpose of Marriage?

I was asked by one of my readers to discuss the following question, outside of the context of religion-“What’s the purpose of Marriage?” This is a question that can be answered in a myriad of ways. Since the beginning of civilization this institution has come to carry religious, cultural and legal significance. And while one cannot fully understand the purpose of marriage without discussing all three; for this conversation, I will focus primarily on the purpose of marriage as defined by legal precedent.

How is marriage defined?

Black’s Law Dictionary Fourth Edition had three definitions of marriage.

The first definition was a “... condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life ...”.

Subsequent editions inserted “or until divorced”.

The second definition in Black’s Fourth was “A contract, according to the form prescribed by law, by which a man and woman, capable of entering into such contract, mutually engage with each other to live their whole lives together...”

Please note that the legal definition refers to a man and a woman. As a matter of fact, since the beginning of time, marriage has always been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman.

• Marriage: “That honorable contract that persons of different sexes make with one another.” A New General English Dictionary (1740).
• Marriage: “1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife . . .” Merriam-Webster online, April 20, ( 2005).

Now this is not to say the people don’t change the definitions of words. But in order to properly deduce what the authors of the follwoing legal opinions are trying to say, we must understand their words in the context in which they used them.

What role should government play in marriage?

When discussing the purpose of marriage from a legal standpoint, we must first understand government’s relationship to marriage. According to Meister v. Moore (1873) Marriage is not a right conferred by the state.

…everywhere is considered a civil contract. Statutes in many of the states it is true, regulate the mode of entering into the contract, but they do not confer the right.

And the reason that the state cannot confer this right is because the courts have deemed that it finds it roots in a power above even their own. As stated in 1892 by the Washington State Supreme Court regarding. McLaughlin’s Estate

marriage is a natural right, which always existed prior to the organization of any form of government, and all laws in restraint of it should be strictly construed in consequence thereof. It is held it should be the policy of the law to sustain all such contracts and relations whenever possible, and that this should always be done ...[590 marriage has] its origin in divine law”

So why does government regulate and promote marriage?

Legal precedent tells us that it is to create the optimum environment to have and raise children. As stated in Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 1971)

The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”

The same logic was part of the Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942):

Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

Understand that this does not mean that the only people who can get married are those who desire to have children. In this case, the law has and educational function- to tell what is normative. And while not all opposite sex couples will produce children, it is still normative for them to do so. However, it is impossible for any same sex couple to naturally produce children. Therefore, it cannot be normative.

So why does the state ascribe certain rights only to married couples?

Well first of all , it is wrong to think of these benefits as rights. A better description would be to call them incentives.

In Maynard v. Hill (1888) the court acknowledged that just how important marriage is to society:

“Marriage... having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature... the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations... for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress... It is a relation for life...”

This means that how we handle this institution as a society will have a lasting effect on generations to come. This is why every effort to change the definition of marriage has failed. In Williams v. North Carolina (1942) the court ruled against efforts to legalize polygamy because of the effect it would have on the children.

That choice in the realm of morals and religion rests with the legislatures of the states... Within the limits of her political power North Carolina may, of course, enforce her own policy regarding the marriage relation-an institution more basic in our civilization than any other. But society also has an interest in the avoidance of polygamous marriages and in the protection of innocent offspring of marriages deemed legitimate in other jurisdictions.


And according to the US Supreme Court in Maynard v. Hill (1888) marriage is not a right granted by the state. It is an institution that the state has an interest in regulating and promoting. And that interest is rooted in protecting the offspring:

“marriage is a thing of common right... any other construction would compel holding illegitimate the offspring of many parents conscious of no violation of law”

This is why the court quoted Skinner when it opted to once again to preserve the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in Loving v. Virginia (1967).

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

So what is the purpose of marriage?

While there are other cultural and religious purposes for marriage, when it comes to regulating marriage, the state has made it clear. The purpose is to create the most positive environment to have and raise children.

Citizens protest county clerk's abuse of power

Dozens of men, women and children stood up for marriage and good government on Valentine's Day as homosexual activists demanded and got "certificates of inequality" issued by homosexual-marriage advocate Freddie Oakley, the county clerk for Yolo County. After San Francisco in 2004, this was the worst California county's attack on marriage between a man and a woman yet.

(Click Here for video)

Report labels same-sex marriage activist as “Evangelical Christian” Real evangelical cut out of story. Liberal media strikes again!

If there was ever any doubt about the left wing leanings of the media this story blows them out of the water.

KGO, the ABC affiliate out of the San Francisco Bay Area interviewed yours truly for a story they were doing on Freddie Oakley, the Yolo County Clerk Recorder who plans on handing out “Certificates of Inequality” on Valentines Day to same-sex couples who come in and ask to be married.

The interesting part of this whole story is how they go out of their way to portray Mrs. Oakley as an “Evangelical Christian”:

The mother of two, in a traditional marriage for 37 years, is herself an evangelical Christian who says she just wants to make a statement.

And while they did include some of my comments in the article posted on their website:

Craig DeLuz, traditional marriage supporter: "She shouldn't be on the government dime when she's doing it. And she shouldn't be utilizing government resources, for example the county clerk's office, in order to be doing it."

They left out all of my comments in the story they would run on the evening news.

Now I called Nannette Miranda, the reporter who interviewed me and asked her about it and she had no idea that the video clip did not include my comments. Her specific words were, “This is not the story I submitted.”

She went on to say that she did not know that they were in the habit of changing hers stories and thank me for the heads up. She then committed to me that she would get back to me and let me know what happened. I look forward to hearing back from her.

Now… I was also interviewed by Fox 40 News in Sacramento and they did run some of my comments. In that interview I made the following points:

1. Even though she is an elected official, she should not use government resources to undermine California law, especially since this law was so overwhelmingly supported by the voters.

2. I wondered if Mrs. Oakley’s supporters would support the free speech rights of a County Clerk if he/she were to use their office to issue “Certificates of Denial” to same-sex couples advising them that their request to be married is in violation of California law, the law of nature and God’s law? I think not!

3. And finally, because Mrs. Oakley is such an “Evangelical Christian” I questioned where in the Bible she finds the authority to undermine civil authority and God’s Word, when it clearly says that marriage is between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is wrong.

I will post the video as soon as I get it.

Governor frustrates gay rights warriors, but it works for him

Of the seven gay rights bills still awaiting Schwarzenegger's acceptance or rejection, Assembly Bill 606 is considered to be the most important by those on both sides. The measure, carried by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, would require the state schools superintendent to develop an anti-harassment and anti-discrimination program centered on sexual orientation, and allow state support to be withheld for school districts lax in adopting it. During a rally on the Capitol steps this week, Robla School District Board President Craig DeLuz labeled AB 606 "the worst of all of them."


(Click Here for More)

Calif. Pro-Family Groups Protest Bills Promoting Homosexual Education

Craig DeLuz, president of the Robla School Board, said SB 1437 would have allowed only "positive images of homosexuals in any context of education."

"Meaning that if you wanted to talk about the spread of AIDS, if you wanted to talk about high-risk sexual activities, male-to-male sexual contact could not be mentioned because you'll have violated SB 1437," he said. "But that's the truth! What kind of law hides the truth?"

(Click Here for More)

Homosexual Indoctrination Bill Passes the California Assembly

Click Pic to Enlarge

The hotly contested SB 1437 was approved by the California State Assembly this afternoon. As amended, this measure states that No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that reflects adversely upon persons because of their race or ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion…

In other words, only positive images of this homosexuality are allowed in school.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez presented the bill before the Assembly for the author, State Senator Shelia Kuehl. And in his closing he made it a point to say that this bill would simply create a safe and “discrimination free” environment in our schools; which is a bold faced lie! It makes it against the law for a public school teacher to share information, no matter how factually accurate that would portray homosexuals in a negative light.

For example: A health class instructor, when discussing the spread of AIDS in the United States, could not share the fact that Male-to-Male sexual contact has been responsible for more people contracting the disease in the US than all other causes combined; even though this is backed up by data from the Center for Disease Control.

So essentially, SB 1437 forces our schools to teach one side of the story. And by definition, that is not education. It is indoctricnation!

Update

Here is the Press Release sent out by the California Assembly Republican Caucus

DEMOCRATS FLUNK OBJECTIVE LESSONS IN CALIFORNIA’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS

SB 1437 Imposes Special-Interest Political Agenda on State’s Classrooms

SACRAMENTO – Assembly Republicans today strongly criticized Democrats for passing an intrusive measure that will impose the political agenda of narrow special-interest groups in public schools across California.

“Our children should be given a complete and honest picture of the struggles, sacrifices and successes that have made America the nation it is today,” said Assemblyman Doug La Malfa, of Richvale. “The narrow political agenda of some Sacramento politicians should never alter how lessons are taught to students in our public schools.”

Senate Bill 1437, by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, would prohibit schools from engaging in any activity or using any instructional material that reflects negatively upon individuals because of their sexual orientation. While Democrats recently amended the measure to delete provisions that would have required the teaching of the history of homosexual Americans in public schools, Republicans believe that imposing lesson plans from the State Legislature is still a flawed approach.

“While this measure is not as intrusive as first proposed, it is simply wrong for state lawmakers to usurp the role of accountable school board members by mandating from the Assembly floor that teachers portray one group of Californians solely in a positive light,” La Malfa said. “It is offensive to California’s proud tradition of academic freedom and diverse viewpoints on our school campuses, something liberals say they have been fighting for since the 1960s.”

The measure now returns to the Senate for concurrence in the Assembly’s amendments. Governor Schwarzenegger has indicated publicly that he intends to veto the measure when it reaches his desk.