BRIEF: Groups in California Attempting to Block Anti-Discrimination Bill

CALIFORNIA, United States - Conservative groups, including the Alliance Defense Fund and Advocates for Faith and Freedom are attempting to block a California Anti-Bias Bill that Governor Schwarzenegger recently signed in October.  It is set to become law on January 1st, so opponents are racing the clock to gather 500,000 signatures before January 10th so that a referendum on the new law would be placed on the next ballot.

Lawyers for the groups opposing the bill filed suit in federal court in San Diego to oppose the definition of "gender" and the inclusion of "sexual orientation" in the education code.  The anti-discrimination bill would extend protection to public-school students based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.  California defines gender as "actual or perceived."  Groups opposing the bill say that gender under that definition would lead to false accusations of discrimination.

Jennifer Monk, an attorney for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, and Karen England, executive director for the Capital Resource Institute, have raised concerns that allowing students to self-define their gender, rather than basing such a classification on physical anatomy or how they dress or act, it would all be based on what they think they are and this could lead to students being able to enter any bathroom or locker room and this could lead to privacy violations.  USA Today says that conservative groups are distributing petitions at many locations around California, mainly Christian churches and some Republican party headquarters with some flier's saying "references to 'mom and dad' will be considered promoting bias against homosexuals."  Fliers also say "any school activities such as having a prom king and queen or gender-specific bathrooms would also be discriminatory....and children as young as five will be subjected to the promotion of homosexuality."

The Gay-Straight "Alliance network and Equality California have filed a motion to intervene in the suit.  Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights said that the same concerns could be given to the definitions of race or ethnicity that are defined the same way as gender.  Minter stated to the New York Times that, "the same concocted concerns could theoretically apply to any of the categories....they are simply attacking L.G.B.T. students in California."

For more information please see:

New York Times - Effort to Block California Anti-Bias Bill - 30 December 2007

USA Today - California Anti-Bias Bill Causes Stir Over "Gender" - 30 December 2007

Comments

[Daniel]

ADF and AFF are not attacking anyone. They are defending parents who don't want their daughters to feel unsafe about changing in the girls' locker room if a guy on the football team suddenly "perceives" that he is a girl that day. Under SB777, which the governor signed into law, California NOW defines genders as "actual or perceived."

There is simply no need for this new law; under anti-discrimination laws already in place before SB777 was passed, members of hte LGBT community were already protected.

[Daniel]

Incidentally, why is a post about gay rights up on a human rights blog? As Shannon Minter argued above, those advocating gay rights often draw analogies to the civil rights movement. And civil rights are not the same thing as human rights.

[anon]

This is not a blog about human rights, it is a blog about impunity issues. And wait...Are you trying to say that the legal definition of "civil right" can never be changed?

[Daniel]

What are "impunity issues"? So every time someone does something that I disagree with, I can say they're acting with impunity and we'll read about it on this blog? That makes no sense.

Yes, I suppose some definitions can be changed. But if they are always changed to accommodate the vacillating winds of political correctness, definitions become less important because whatever was defined yesterday can simply be "reinterpreted" today. Also, ask many of the civil rights leaders how they feel about having their movement co-opted by the gay rights movement. William Owens, a man who marched with MLK, said this: "When I marched in the civil rights movement, I did not march one inch, one foot, one yard…for man to be able to marry man, woman able to marry women. We marched because we wanted the right to live the American dream.”

[Daniel]

Also, read this (re civil rights leaders' irritation at the gay rights movement co-opting the language and history of their movement): http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE3DD123EF93BA15755C0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

[anon]

The point is equal rights for all. Your own article that you quote ends:

"Despite their differences with homosexuals on issues of civil rights, many blacks, including nearly all those interviewed for this article, support guarantees of equal rights for gay people. According to a New York Times/CBS News Poll of 1,154 adults conducted Feb. 9-11, 53 percent of blacks thought such legislation was necessary, as against only 40 percent of whites."

[Daniel]

If the point is TRULY "equal rights for all," then much of the gay rights movement would be hollowed out immediately. I say this because many non-discrimination laws already in place provide equal protection under the law. The gay rights movement is not interested in *equal* rights; it is interested in throwing out definitions it finds offensive--such as those for gender and marriage--and inserting its own definition to suit its agenda.

A NYT poll is certainly not an objective source by any means. Also, I'm sure you're well aware of how poll results can be skewed based on the form of questioning. Election results speak much more broadly than do polls. Is there truly a groundswell of support for legislation like ENDA? I doubt it.

Bottom line: Neither of us will convince the other, though I respect your opinion. Speaking of which, I wouldn't be surprised if you are a staffer on Impunity Watch and will not provide your name for fear of the obvious conflict of interest between a stated interest in objectivity and your own personal opinion. But that's okay; your points are thoughtful and thought-provoking.

Thanks for the great discussion!