Updated information about Homosexual Marriage Bill

By Dan Gallic

I just received a letter detailing the inadequacies of the amendment proposed by Bill Baroni and passed by the Judiciary Committee.

The letter began as I had expected. A detailed account why the amendment does not protect churches and it's members adequately. It had one really good point that might render the amendment a Trojan horse. The point was that a California court decided that since a Catholic Charities entity, serving the poor, was receiving public money that it was required to dispense birth control.

This is a good point to raise. Something that truly may be a fatal flaw in what I believe is a required amendment no matter which side of the fence you support.

The bottom line is: You can't force people of good-will to perform homosexual marriage. And, while some hot-heads are likening this debate to bigotry based on race, it is not. This is not about bigotry or prejudice. If, either by legislation or blunt force of the judiciary activism, people are forced to accept AND PARTICIPATE under fear of personal and professional damage, by the passing of this bill, then EVERYONE, on both sides, must reject it.

At this point, the homosexual marriage bill not not about homosexual marriage. It is about legislatively forcing one particular moral view on the public over another. This is categorically and absolutely wrong.

But that is not why I offer an update to my comments yesterday.

The bill also carries the language that students, whose parents have opted out of sex ed and other questionable moral activities or teaching, will also be exempt from.... I don't know and the bill doesn't explain.

One must construe that the bill carries some language that can be twisted into a policy that EVERY SCHOOL MUST TEACH HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE AS THE NORM BY DEFAULT.

This is insane. It's one thing to argue that some sort of sex ed must be taught. That is biology and, frankly, necessary because most parents are idiots when it comes to teaching their own children about sex, but it's another thing entirely, to, by default, teach everyone that particular morals are better than others, especially on topics such as homosexual marriage, where the word "marriage" connotes religious acceptance and support.

After listening to the Obama official teach 14-year-olds about fisting (if you don't know, don't ask), the idea that this bill gives a venue to speak about homosexual marriage as a default in public schools, is nothing short of crazy and, now listen carefully, will specifically create an atmosphere of divisive bigotry against the minority of students whose parents opt out of these programs or publicly disagree.

I will, today, call my daughters public school and request the opt-out option. Not because I'm some prude or think that sex-ed is wrong, which it might be, I just haven't heard of any objectionable material to date, but because if the default is to present one person's morals over another's, on issues not pertaining to fact or science, I'll take a pass.

I want to expose my daughter to these types of debates. I desire for her to understand her faith and why we believe, as Catholics, what we believe, but I DO NOT want the default position to be a biased, and possibly personally damaging, morale platform. By opting out of this discussion, we have preserved our rights to discuss this as practical Catholics and fair-minded citizens.

All of my contentions above are only true if you believe that "fair-minded" individual have a right to disagree, strongly, with homosexual marriage. If you think that everyone should accept homosexual marriage, no matter the creed, then your an ******** bigot. This law reads like it was written by bigots.

This bill must be denied passage. Legislators who find this bill acceptable will be guilty of a dereliction of their duty to uphold the constitution that guarantees freedom of religion without discrimination.