CCF BULLETINS: Sexual Indoctrination Page 2 of 4

Print Page

[Continued from page 1] 

Now for the good news. There IS a ballot solution. But first we must choose the correct vehicle: a statutory initiative, which permanently overrides the Legislature, or a state constitutional amendment, which permanently overrides both the Legislature and the judges. These kinds of ballot measures are much better than a weak referendum.

The only way to override the California Legislature is by passing a statutory initiative. The statutory initiative would have to be carefully written with specific detail. If a statutory initiative were carefully crafted and passed by California voters, its language would go into the California Education Code. SB 777 would be effectively stopped. So would the Legislature, which would be prohibited from passing the same or similar bills again.

However, a statutory initiative will not stop the California Supreme Court from "interpreting" the state constitution to require "equality" for homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual lifestyles in public school instruction and activities. That would be SB 777 all over again. 

The only way to override California's state courts, as well as the California Legislature and Governor, is by qualifying and passing a state constitutional amendment. A detailed, well-crafted constitutional amendment would wipe out SB 777 and prevent it from ever coming back again, no matter what the politicians or judges desired. If written correctly, this constitutional amendment would also wipe out AB 394, the second school indoctrination bill pushing alternative sexual lifestyles on students, teachers, and parents through "anti-harassment" training. When voters pass a well-written constitutional amendment, they achieve the greatest security for their goal. Essentially, the voters are establishing and "interpreting" the state constitution...so that the judges can't.

Now, the average cost of gathering the required signatures to qualify either a statutory initiative or state constitutional amendment is about $2.5 million. No measure in the last 20 years has qualified for the California ballot without the bulk of the signatures being gathered by professional companies. Therefore, if a generous soul who wanted to stop sexual indoctrination in the government school system donated $2.5 million to a campaign committee for this project, a constitutional amendment or statutory initiative would go on the 2008 ballot for the protection of six million California schoolchildren and for children not yet born. Once qualified for the ballot, additional millions would be needed to campaign to pass it, against the millions guaranteed to be spent by the liberal teachers union.

A RECALL

A recall election is a high-profile way for voters to express outrage. But even if successful, a recall wouldn't solve the current dilemma of school sexual indoctrination. Some people wish they could recall Arnold Schwarzenegger, as well as the Democrat politicians who sent him the sexual indoctrination bills in the first place. While this is theoretically possible, a recall of the Governor would be more expensive than a constitutional amendment, due to the higher number of signatures needed to qualify recalls for the ballot. And given Schwarzenegger's consistent popularity (he's still doing his acting bit to "wow" people), I believe a recall election would be highly unlikely to succeed. A recall would have a much lower chance of passing than a constitutional amendment, which, in contrast, is issue-oriented, rather than personality-driven. Yet if a recall were successful, it would still not stop government-controlled schools from sexually indoctrinating children. Schwarzenegger has already seen to that by signing SB 777 and AB 394 into law.

A LAWSUIT

Unfortunately, there can't be a lawsuit until there is a "victim," someone who has been directly injured by the sexual indoctrination laws. Such a lawsuit would be difficult to win. So far, the pro-family constitutional attorneys we are in touch with have no confident lawsuit strategy. But they're still researching.

Like all lawsuits against the State of California, if the sexual indoctrination bills went to court, a judge would ask "What law do these bills violate?" Unfortunately, there is no California law that we know of that prevents public schools from promoting homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual lifestyles to children. Challenging SB 777 and AB 394 "on its face" would be a losing strategy. 

So, in all likelihood, a student must be unfortunately victimized by SB 777 or AB 394 before a lawsuit can be filed. If there is to be a case involving a victim, one of the untested legal strategies that might work is to charge government-controlled schools with endangering the physical health of a child, endangering the mental health of a child, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, or unconstitutional restraint of First Amendment rights through restrictive student speech or anti-harassment codes. It's an intriguing legal question: Will the sexual indoctrination laws make California public schools guilty of neglecting the wellbeing of the students they're entrusted with? The "court is still out" on this one.

CAN PARENTS "OPT OUT" THEIR CHILDREN FROM THIS INDOCTRINATION?

“Children are not casual guests in our home. They have been loaned to us temporarily for the purpose of loving them and instilling a foundation of values on which their future lives will be built.” -- Dr. James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family

Unfortunately, there is no parental "opt out" in SB 777, regarding school instruction and school activities, or in AB 394, regarding school "anti-harassment" policies. Therefore, it's doubtful that parents could "opt out” their children from classes, assemblies, or school activities that promoted alternative sexual lifestyles.

Realize that SB 777 affects all school "instruction" (textbooks, classroom instruction, homework, videos, and other instructional materials) and every school-sponsored "activity" (sex education classes, school assemblies, dramas, music, dances, proms, sports teams, homecoming games, etc.). To opt out of SB 777, you would have to opt out your child from the entire school day!

The only opt-out provisions currently in California schools for parents concerned about sexual indoctrination are for fathers and mothers who:

1. Watch their child's school like a hawk; and
2. Request in writing that their child be excused from "health" classes or instruction (Education Code, Section 51240) and "comprehensive sexual health education" or "HIV/AIDS prevention education" (Education Code, Section 51938) and "tests, questionnaires, and surveys containing age-appropriate questions about the pupil's attitudes concerning or practices relating to sex" (Education Code, Section 51513); or
3. Remove their child from school for a day or more without providing any reason.

Yet completely withdrawing your child from public school may be the only way to retain any sense of parental rights.

Most parents don't know about a shocking ruling two years ago in California. Parents in Palmdale had objected to a sex survey given to their children in school without parental permission. In 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that parents concerned about moral issues actually lose their parental rights once their child steps on school property!
Read a summary of the ruling here

These liberal Ninth Circuit judges said parents have a right to choose whether to send their child to public or private school, but once the public school is selected, the parent is subject to school officials' decisions on how to educate the child. The court, with emphasis, said, "Schools cannot be expected to accommodate the personal, moral or religious concerns of every parent. Such an obligation would not only contravene the educational mission of the public schools, but also would be impossible to satisfy."

This was a disastrous ruling for which we have not yet seen the full effect. Because of this awful decision, the California Department of Education under state schools chief Jack O'Connell is able to quietly trample parental rights in every California public school. If this alone does not motivate parents to remove their children from government-controlled schools, the implementation of SB 777 and AB 394 in January will surely push concerned parents to act.

>> Continued on page 3                                                                             Back to page 1