I'm not seeing anything about bathrooms in SB777.

And, I must argue, this limits noone's freedom. Families in all fifty states are free to not send their children to government schools.

Well, they can use the same bathroom...but they won't be allowed to kiss, so I guess no harm done.

~Zoo

Families in all fifty states are free to not send their children to government schools.

yes. That's true Gid. I just have to wonder.......if more and more people take their kids out of "government schools," does that mean our taxes will be lower?

but they won't be allowed to kiss, so I guess no harm done.

Ya think?

What's the big deal? When they hit the real world it's going to happen all the time. I've never been to a public toilet at a major event where there hasn't been a girl using one of the cubicles. It's a much shorter line and it's not like they're scoping anyone out.

Anyone who does act inappropriately can be disciplined. But, considering it's being instituted to cater for transgenders, my guess is that won't be necessary.

Families in all fifty states are free to not send their children to government schools.

Sure, and you are also free to flush money down the toilet.  WHich is what you are doing should you opt out of Public education.  But then given the state of it, the money is probably doing more good in the toilet anyway.

I'm not seeing anything about bathrooms in SB777.

prolly because it's not there.   nor is any of the other nonsense.

here's the legislative counsel's summary of sb 777

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   SB 777, as introduced, Kuehl. Discrimination.
   Existing law states that it is the policy of the state to afford
equal rights and opportunities to all persons in the public or
private elementary and secondary schools and postsecondary
educational institutions of the state regardless of their sex, ethnic
group identification, race, national origin, religion, or mental or
physical disability and prohibits a person from being subjected to
discrimination on those bases.
    Existing law prohibits a teacher from giving instruction, and a
school district from sponsoring any activity, that reflects adversely
upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap,
national origin, or ancestry.
   Existing law prohibits the State Board of Education and the
governing board of a school district from adopting for use in the
public schools any instructional materials that reflect adversely
upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap,
national origin, or ancestry.
   This bill would revise the list of prohibited bases of
discrimination and the kinds of prohibited instruction, activities,
and instructional materials and instead, would refer to disability,
gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation,
or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate
crimes that is contained in the Penal Code. The bill would define
disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, and
sexual orientation for this purpose.
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.

someone--apparently a lotta someones--need to work on their literal reading skills. 

my advice:  use whichever bathroom isn't being used by homophobe conservative senators from idaho.

homophobe conservative senators from idaho.

And you have proof of his predisposition?  Please enlighten the unwashed masses with your data.

And I'm sure you'll say his guilty plea is not proof enough, simply because the retard is trying to "reverse" it . . .

Like I said, English is not your strong point.

So show me where he pleaded guilty to being a homophobe.

his voting record:

Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
Voting YES implies support for amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage. This cloture motion to end debate requires a 3/5th majority. A constitutional amendment requires a 2/3rd majority. The proposed amendment is:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
Proponents of the motion say:
If Members of the Senate vote as their States have voted on this amendment, the vote today will be 90 to 10 in favor of a constitutional amendment.
Marriage is a foundational institution. It is under attack by the courts. It needs to be defended by defining it as the union of a man and a woman as 45 of our 50 States have done.
The amendment is about how we are going to raise the next generation. It is not an issue that the courts should resolve. Those of us who support this amendment are doing so in an effort to let the people decide.

Opponents of the motion say:
This proposal pits Americans against one another. It appeals to people's worst instincts and prejudices.
Supporters rail against activist judges. But if this vaguely worded amendment ever passes, it will result in substantial litigation. What are the legal incidents of marriage? Is a civil union a marriage?

Married heterosexual couples are wondering, how, exactly, the prospect of gay marriages threatens the health of their marriages.
This amendment would make a minority of Americans permanent second-class citizens of this country. It would prevent States, many of which are grappling with the definition of marriage, from deciding that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. And it would write discrimination into a document that has served as a historic guarantee of individual freedom.
Reference: Marriage Protection Amendment; Bill S. J. Res. 1 ; vote number 2006-163 on Jun 7, 2006


Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.
Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 625; Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001. The bill would expand the definition of hate crimes to incorporate acts committed because of a victim's sex, sexual orientation or disability and permit the federal government to help states prosecute hate crimes even if no federally protected action was implicated. If the cloture motion is agreed to, debate will be limited and a vote will occur. If the cloture motion is rejected debate could continue indefinitely and instead the bill is usually set aside. Hence a Yes vote supports the expansion of the definition of hate crimes, and a No vote keeps the existing definition. Three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 members, is required to invoke cloture.
Reference: Bill S.625 ; vote number 2002-147 on Jun 11, 2002

Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation.
Vote on an amendment that would expand the definition of hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation and disability. The previous definition included only racial, religious or ethnic bias.
Reference: Bill S.2549 ; vote number 2000-136 on Jun 20, 2000

Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA): Vote to prohibit marriage between members of the same sex in federal law, and provide that no state is required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Define 'marriage' as 'between one man and one woman.'
Reference: Bill HR 3396 ; vote number 1996-280 on Sep 10, 1996

Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.
Would have prohibited job discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Status: Bill Defeated Y)49; N)50; NV)1
Reference: Employment Non-Discrimination Act; Bill S. 2056 ; vote number 1996-281 on Sep 10, 1996

govote.com

then there's this letter he wrote 2 weeks after he was arrested in which he provides his opinion on 'don't ask, don't tell' :

August 17, 2007

[REDACTED NAME]
[REDACTED ADDRESS]
Boise, Idaho


Dear [REDACTED NAME]:


Thank you for contacting me regarding the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, H.R.1246 I appreciate your letter and I apologize for the delay in my response.


H.R.1246 is currently in the subcommittee on Military Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services. I am currently unaware of any similar legislation in the Senate regarding this issue.


I am glad you shared your suggestions with me. As you know, the Department of Defense's policy on this issue is commonly referred to as a "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy and would not allow for singling out homosexuals. In addition, I don't believe the military should be a place for social experimentation. The sole mission of the armed forces is to defend the United States.


Patriotism and the willingness to sacrifice on behalf of our country are character traits I wholeheartedly encourage and I believe every American should have the opportunity to engage in the service of our country in some capacity. However, the issue is not fairness, but military effectiveness. The armed forces exist to wage war. It is unacceptable to risk the lives of American soldiers and sailors merely to accommodate the sexual lifestyles of certain individuals.


Again, thank you for contacting me. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.


Sincerely,


LARRY E. CRAIG
United States Senator


LEC\bss

craig letter

a considerable number of people have been forced to leave the military after being asked...asked under oath that is during investigations prompted by events other than an outright declaration...whether they've ever had sex with a member of the same sex.

luckily for craig, his fellow senators have so far found it 'acceptable to accomodate his sexual lifestyle'--despite embarrassing them and the senate itself by showin the world his fake family values ass playin tearoom queen in minneapolis.

And where in there does it show an expressed fear (your actual term), or hatred of Gays? He voted against creating new rights. As did a lot of other congress people. And in so doing, now you have decided to label him a homophobe. No where in any of that stuff does it show in innate fear or loathing of gays by Craig. And now,like SOG, you are blaming him for a CLINTON policy? And using that to justify your smear?

So if someone does not vote YOUR line (and I actually thought you were better than that), instead of engaging them in an honest debate to sway them, you use hate speech to label them.

Typical of the left.

BTW: Has a non-biased source verified Craig's letter? Sure, I am going to believe that a thief is innocent based upon HIS word alone. Great debating skills.

what kinda conservative believes rights can be 'created' or destroyed? our constitution enumerates certain specific rights as a subset of human rights none of which may be legally limited nor curtailed and all of which our government is compelled to assert by force of law on behalf of all citizens.



lotta legislators voted against very similar bills containing the word 'race'. with few notable exceptions, they were racists.



this would be the same craig who insists he's exclusively hetrosexual? how else do you explain someone being so incredibly deep in denial?

btw...if i was on craig's jury, i'd vote to acquit til they pried my pad from my cold dead hands. indicating a desire to hook up with another adult is no sex crime whether done in a bar, a restroom or a rectory. if anything, he shoulda been charged with being a public nusiance.



a CLINTON (jeez) policy that would be fine if implemented as intended. who knew then it would wind up doing exactly what it was supposed to prevent? it's a policy in need of reform. like i said, it's a good thing (for him anyway) he's in the senate and not the military.