Referendum to Overturn Cali. Gay Education Law?


A religious conservative group in California has filed for a voter referendum on California’s new LGBT-inclusive education law, starting the process towards trying to repeal what is a historic piece of legislation.

Last week, Governor Jerry Brown signed the Fair, Accurate, Inclusive and Respectful (FAIR) Education Act that is designed to address the current exclusion of LGBT history and social contributions in California’s textbooks. The FAIR Education Act amends California’s Education Code to include instruction on the contributions of LGBTs and also prohibits discriminatory instruction or discriminatory materials from being used by the State Board of Education. It is hoped that this legislation may also help to passively combat anti-LGBT bullying as children learn that LGBTs are very much part of society and have been throughout history.

However, religious conservatives have vehemently opposed the legislation and now want to overturn it in the same way they enacted California’s gay marriage ban Proposition 8 — by a popular vote.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

A socially conservative organization based in Sacramento filed documents Friday afternoon to start a voter referendum on a controversial law that adds the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans to school instruction.

The proponent of the proposed referendum, Paulo Sibaja, filed a request for a title and summary with the attorney general’s office. Sibaja said he acted on behalf of the Capitol Resource Institute, which had officially opposed the bill throughout the legislative process before Gov. Jerry Brown signed it Thursday. Sibaja is the legislative director of that organization.

The Capitol Resource Institute is a hard-line, socially conservative organization that has long opposed efforts in California to expand rights for the LGBT population. Backers eventually would have to collect 433,971 signatures to allow voters to decide whether to keep the law in place or reject it.

The rhetoric surrounding this bill has been high, with one group even saying that it amounts to the “molesting” of young minds, that the legislation is “anti-family” and amounts to indoctrination as part of the gay agenda.

This is interesting on several levels, but chiefly that anti-gay groups do not seem to have learned from the Proposition 8 court case which is currently on appeal but does, I think, have a little to say on this matter.

Judge Walker ruled very clearly last year that Proposition 8 was motivated by animus, that is to say anti-gay feeling. In the case of Proposition 8 the rhetoric was, for the most part, more clever and more subtle with a “traditional marriage” line being used to mask proponents’ anti-gay hostility.

With this in mind though, anti-gay groups’ naked and rather disgusting rhetoric surrounding The FAIR Education Act would seem unwise at best and certainly self-defeating — yet such rhetoric must be highlighted so as to ensure that this overtly anti-LGBT attack cannot be spun into sounding remotely reasonable.

Senator Mark Leno, who authored the legislation, has said he believes it will be a “challenge” for proponents of the referendum to get the number of signatures necessary to place the measure on the 2012 ballot. He said that even if they were to succeed, he would expect the majority of fair-minded Californians to reject the bid.

Related Reading:
California Passes Gay-Inclusive Education Bill
California Senate Passes LGBT-Inclusive Education Bill
Lawmaker Accused of trying to “Queer” California Schools with New Legislation



Photo used under the Creative Commons Attribution License, with thanks to brainchildvn,


Franz Grabe
Franz Grabe5 years ago

PLEASE do some reading and research on the subject of homosexuality and religion!
The Bible does not judge it AT ALL!!!!!
Incorrect translations and changes by humans to suit their own dogma during historical times,are responsible for the misunderstandings on this subject!!!
To all Christians: wake up!!
Time is running out, and you are ill-informed about your own belief system!!!
Have the courage to face the truth!!!!!
It shall set you free.

Alicia N.
Alicia N.5 years ago


Ed Gould
Ed G.5 years ago

I know I worded it poorly and I regret having said it the way I did.
I cannot come up with another way of saying it though (in California's case). Just look at the number of special "exemptions" people wanted. A neighborhood wanted this exemption from taxes or the anti gay marriage or the other 100 (or more) special cases people wanted (and in some case got) because they thought they should be treated differently. No tax on this special parcel of land or whatever. You cannot run a government like that (and not go broke anyway) and expect everything to work out in the end. Taxes are a necessary part of living in a democracy and everybody should pay their fair share. BTW I am all for taxing churches and any tax free orginzations as someone has to pay. I know you can call out freedom of religion but in the end someone has to pay their fair share. One option is to have a bi level taxation and if church a has a tax of say 1,000. They only pay say 500.00 and the other gets spread over *ALL* the other people. That doesn't work really well as people will say I do not want to support a church I do not belong to. However it stll has to pay taxes. SO we are back at square one doing it tax free is essentially being paid by everyone else rather than say 50 percent. This is a no win situation and sooner or later somebody is going to have to pay for something they do not believe in. That is why I suggested eliminating the exemption and for the people who belong to the church have to pay

Sandra S.
Sandra S.5 years ago

Ed, "People always vote in their self interest not in anyone's elses."

Can't say I fully agree with that. I'm now living in the Mid-West, Kansas to be exact, and we have more than our fair share of Christians who feel the same as the ones in California. There are plenty of good conservative religious people here, but it's the others who make the news.

Ed Gould
Ed G.5 years ago

Not sure where to go on that Sandra.
The basic issue is (or was) should California people as a state be able to vote on spefic items?

California got to its miserable state (its in now) because of the people's vote. People always vote in their self interest not in anyone's elses. From my perspective people should not be allowed to vote on anything that affects other people in any material way.

That may sound rediculus but just look at the state and how its got itself into the financial bind itn has.

Ed Gould
Ed G.5 years ago

We come from different areas of the country. We also had outside required reading but *ZERO* about anyones sexuality was even hinted at or perceived during the reading. The school did not even have a sex education class(s) or health for that matter. Again different environment. I am not suggesting it was good far from it. But what I might be suggesting that most america is like that now as it was 40 years ago.

Tom P.
Tom Pearce5 years ago

Sandra! I totally agree with you! The people of CA should have the right to vote 'ya' or 'na' on it! In a perfect world, I wish that every issue that came up would be voted on by the people it affects and not the politicians. If there was someway we could do this, then I am open to any suggestions! I don't like for elected officials to make decisions on such things as affect human rights. In a perfect world, I would rather they stay to running the business and and let the popular vote decide (and none of this electorial vote business) issues like this( although I do see some problems with this thinking as well)..

Sandra S.
Sandra S.5 years ago

Tom P., you made a very reasoned argument and it has a lot of merit. It's heart breaking to hear of teens taking their own lives because of bullying. I still believe that it should have been up for a vote though in the first place rather than being left up to Jerry Brown.

Tom P.
Tom Pearce5 years ago

to FLANNEL and other! ""What's the point of having this legislation or being against it when Gays' contributions to society have always been in school books? "

I totally agree with you, BUT if its been in the schools all along (and it has) and children are being tormented and bullied for being gay or looking different, (several committing suicide) then maybe we need to do something a little different. I remember when blacks were given their civil rights. In school they began programs to educate the kids on black history although quite of bit of it was already in the books and being taught. By doing this, we concentrated on what it was like to be black. I can't tell you how or why but that changed my entire view of black people. I think this may be the reason for mandating gay history in the schools!

I don't know if this is why, but if status quo is kept then nothing changes and we still get young men and women committing suicide and being bullied. If the gov of California thinks that teaching gay history in school will help to combat bigotry and help these children then I think its worth the try. Just think, if it was your kid, you would want something/anything done to stop the bulling and possible suicide of your child. Yes? NO? Does this make sense?

Sandra S.
Sandra S.5 years ago

Since the topic involves LGBT & Christians, I saw this which might be of interest to some:

Meet the Bachmanns' "Ex-Lesbian" Friend

"...homosexuality is highly contagious...homosexuality is a choice, that homosexuals target children, and that "everyone in society is potentially at risk because homosexuality is very seductive and, apparently, has universal appeal." Say what?