By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Does new law elevate sexuality in our schools?
Placeholder Image
Was Aristotle gay? And what about speculation that Leonardo DiVinci was also gay?

Given their contributions, does it really matter?

Apparently it does to the California Legislature but only if they were Americans. The new state law requires California public schools to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.

And who says what goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults is a private matter?

The first law of its kind in the nation is aimed at increasing tolerance. And how else to do it but teach kids that your sexuality is something to flaunt in public right up there with other character traits.

Their objective is to show that gays et al contribute to society as well.

There are some gays whose sexuality is the cornerstone of their contributions. Harvey Milk - the assassinated San Francisco supervisor - comes to mind. He clearly made his mark on society with his crusade for gay rights. But after that, shouldn't sexuality have some relevance in teaching about the contributions of individuals?

Does it really matter that we teach Tennessee Williams was gay? Given the fact the prolific American writer is already given short shrift in public schools it seems to be a slap upon his contributions to elevate them now simply because he was gay.

And what about the fact Assembly Speaker John Perez is openly gay? Does anyone really think he was elected to the assembly simply because he was gay? It would be like insinuating that Willie Brown was elected just because he's black. You may disagree with the politics of either man but it was their consistent liberal stance, ability to deliver on campaign promises, and intelligence that got them elected from their districts and not their sexuality or skin tone.

But now the California Legislature is elevating sexuality to a level that it is highly doubtful they intended it to be lifted.

One's sexual orientation shouldn't dilute or validate your accomplishments or contributions to society.

It's absolutely rubbish to imply that artists for the most part are gay just like it is to contend war heroes are all straight.

Defenders of State Senator Mark Leno's legislation would contend people need to be made aware that gay people do the same things and make significant contributions just like heterosexuals do.

A cheap counter argument is to contend that by doing so they are drawing attention to the fact sexuality somehow makes a difference.

Schools should concentrate on important historical contributions of Americans and Californians regardless of skin tone, ethnicity, gender, or sexuality. There should be no debate on that matter.

Our public schools also should be a hot bed of tolerance.

What they should not become is a place where sexuality percolates to the surface for gratuitous purposes. Nor should public schools tolerate any openly sexual behavior whether it is a boy and girl kissing, two boys holding hands, or anything else of that nature.

If schools are teaching kids how to function in the real world, government rules make it clear that such behavior is not tolerated in the workplace as it constitutes sexual harassment to others who may be gay, straight, or otherwise.

Sexuality should be eradicated from public schools while at the same time sexual orientation shouldn't matter in terms of how one is judged either in history books or as a student.