Editorials
What do you think is yet to come to Ontario schools under Premier McGuinty's EIE Strategy?
By Fr. Alphonse de Valk

Hardcopy Issue Date: February 2012
Online Publication Date: Jan 26, 2012, 13:00

            In the formation of the EIE Strategy in Ontario there were many suggestions and recommendations, which have not yet been legislated. In California however, they have had no such qualms. So, if we want to know what is in store for us, take a look at California. Here it is.

            Several new laws passed by the legislature and signed by the governor over the objections of California’s Catholic bishops took effect in California on January 1, 2012.

1. One of the most controversial -- the so-called ‘gay history law’ -- requires that textbooks used in public schools emphasize the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in history and prohibits “discriminatory content” in social studies instruction.

“A law which micromanages the study of history for political correctness is both unwise and dangerous,” said California’s bishops in a statement opposing the measure.

2. Also now part of California law is another measure vigorously opposed by the state’s bishops that allows minors 12 years old and up to consent to medical care for sexually transmitted diseases without their parents knowing about it. The bill, AB 499, is also known as the “Gardasil Bill” after the name of a controversial vaccination that some health experts consider dangerous (to which minors can now consent).

      California’s bishops opposed AB 499 from its inception, and, after its passage by the legislature, repeatedly urged Catholics to contact the governor to ask him to veto it. The bishops said the law “will greatly expand the ability of children to act without parental permission or the support and guidance of their families.” 

Other laws slated to take effect in 2012 that were opposed by California’s bishops include:

3. The “Gender Non-Discrimination Act,” which prohibits discrimination based on “a person's gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.” By adding “gender identity” to the law, the bill provides civil rights protection to transsexuals and requires employers to allow workers “to appear or dress consistently with the employee's gender expression.” The bishops opposed the bill because, they said, it was “confusing and unnecessary” and could result in “countless litigation.”

4. A law co-sponsored by homosexual advocacy groups redefines fatherhood in a way that favours children with same-sex parents. In a letter opposing the bill, the California Catholic Conference, the political action arm of the state’s bishops, wrote: "The very title of the bill, ‘Paternity: conflicting presumptions,’ captures the legal quandary created with today's experimental families and our society's rejection of common law, history and tradition. Although this bill attempts to resolve the conflicts among paternity presumptions, the final decision ultimately may lie in an adult forum -- the courts. Solutions imposed by those courts may be 'logical' -- but in the case of same-sex coupled families, still deprive children of their right to know and live with their biological mother and father."

5. The “Domestic Partnership Equality Act,” which eliminates virtually all legal differences between marriage and domestic partnerships.

Other measures taking effect in 2012 include:

6. A law making it easier for a transgender person to have his or her listed sex changed on birth certificates and other official state documents.

7. A bill that obligates school districts to enact uniform policies for handling complaints by homosexual students that they have been bullied and requiring school officials to take action if they observe any such bullying. (This already exists in Ontario with the Ontario Human Rights Commission acting as overseer and enforcer).

8.   A bill requiring state colleges and universities to adopt policies to protect lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender persons from harassment on campus and to designate specific school employees as contact persons to deal with LGBT issues.

9. A bill requiring businesses that have state contracts valued at more than $100,000 to have non-discrimination policies that protect LGBT workers and their “partners.”

10. A bill mandating that sexual orientation be added to the information on prospective judges in an attempt to increase appointments of homosexuals to the state judiciary.

Source: California Catholic Daily

January 2, 2012