Reardon wrote on Dec 29, 2007 9:58 PM:A description of the intent of SB 777 by the author is instructive, but not dispositive. Within the authors' lifetime, she will see the Bill interpreted in most bizarre ways never intended by her. James Madison, the primary author of the US Constitution lived long enough to pen: ""I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." While Madison could not find that article, every Congress since has found it in spades! In the end, unelected Judges will determine what the words mean, and not the author. She will soon not recognize her own writing.

been there wrote on Dec 30, 2007 5:59 AM:Hello Reardon, Way to bring up a red herring. Madison has nothing to do with this non- monetary issue. Also, you do not refer to the hysteria over Title IX. Opponents used the same arguments against it yet nothing happened that came near to the claims. All we got was a bunch of girls playing sports and having fun. This uproar sounds like fearmongers trying to unite the faithful, the uninformed and the ridiculous.

Jason wrote on Dec 30, 2007 7:01 AM:"Within the authors' lifetime, she will see the Bill interpreted in most bizarre ways never intended by her." Sir, that would be the risk and fate of every law.

SB 777 is not good wrote on Dec 30, 2007 9:26 AM:I oppose SB 777, Children should not be thinking of sexuality at all. We should be teaching our children to focus on being children. Children do not have the mental capacity to sort out sexual ideas until they are true adults. SB 777 in my view encourages sexuality and homosexuality. These are subjects that should be discussed at home with parents. Children are cruel enough and SB 777 would encourage kids that might be gay to be targeted and harrassed even more. Why bring attention to the subject at all. How about focusing on things like Math, History, English or Science.

I've had enough, I'm moving. wrote on Dec 30, 2007 9:31 AM:It is sad that kids pick on one another, but I know that childish kidding is the way we become stronger adults. Its part of life. Are we going to arrest kids for hurting some ones feelings now? Come on! SB 777 will cause more harm than good. California is getting out of control. You can bet I will be moving out of this ridiculous over regulated state. I am embarrassed to be from here anymore. California and its law makers are a total JOKE.

Ron wrote on Dec 30, 2007 9:42 AM:Oh, we get it... just fine!!!
One day, your kid's teacher takes the usual summer break a man, and returns the next year a woman. Or if one day he "feels" like a woman, he dresses like one. Oh, we get it just fine.

This is what I predict wrote on Dec 30, 2007 9:56 AM:That teenage boys will use SB 777 to go into the girls locker rooms and bathrooms. The boys will be expelled from school for their pranks. SB 777 is opening doors for sexual harassment. Who's going to protect the rights of those who don't want to share their bathroom with some one who has a sexual identity crisis. Homosexuality and sex identity issues DO NOT BELONG in school period. I see many lawsuits on the horizon because of this ridiculous new law.

I don't believe wrote on Dec 30, 2007 10:04 AM:Our founding fathers intended Civil rights protection for Homosexuals. I know that sound harsh, but what I mean is sex is a private issue not to be shared openly with the whole world. I don't run around announcing to the world that I am straight and what I do in the bedroom, nor should anyone Gay or straight. It is not a public issue. If gays would keep there sexuality to themselves there would be no harassment. People don't feel comfortable when Drag queens run around announcing it to the world. What about my right to not be tolerant of homosexuality.

JP wrote on Dec 30, 2007 10:04 AM:Sheila Kuehl is just another narrow-focused legislator motivated by a personal agenda, which includes pushing for gay rights and universal health care for illegals. She and her fellow Democrats' vision of democracy makes radical Islam look like a good choice. Shiela is obviously still upset with being spurned by Dobie Gillis.

? wrote on Dec 30, 2007 10:06 AM:Shelia, Just because your gay doesn't mean I have to like it. Can't we love you as a person or do we have to love you as a gay person? As a Senator you should be focused on all the people not just gay people. It Ain't Right!

I see the hate wrote on Dec 30, 2007 10:37 AM:Lots of sweet comments here on how they and God can hate the sin and still love the sinner. Let's face it, gay bashing has been around forever and needs to be stopped along with what is being done about racism and sexism. Fear of gay people is either promoted by people like Robert Tyler who wrote the opposing editorial based on his faith in his pseudo-Christian beliefs - or it is promoted by men afraid of their own sexuality. The hysteria against SB 777 is just that - hysteria. Ms. Kuehl makes the astute observation of this same kind of hysteria against Title IX, which banned gender discrimination 35 years ago. I remember the same nonsense being spouted about same sex bathrooms, etc. It is time for society to get rid of the patriarchal all-knowing father slant on how we treat the people who make up our world.

Greg in Oceanside wrote on Dec 30, 2007 11:16 AM:What is it with the birkenstock-wearing, bleeding-heart liberals who continuously put the 'sexual orientation' agenda into our lives and legislate acceptance and protections for homosexuals? Why should the acceptance of homosexuality and being 'gay' be put into a state bill? Are gay students being threatened? If so, there are plenty of laws on the books already. But let's be real, this is just another way for homosexuals to make themselves a protected class. I'm sorry, that just doesn't fly with me.

I also see the hate wrote on Dec 30, 2007 11:20 AM:I don't see anyone saying to get rid of gay people. It sounds like somebody besides Sheila really hates patriarchal all-knowing fathers.

Reardon wrote on Dec 30, 2007 11:49 AM:I wonder if it is possible to disagree with someone on philosophical, or even legal grounds" without being labeled as a "hater.'

Realist wrote on Dec 30, 2007 12:13 PM:What's with all these bigots still living in the Ozzie and Harriot era? It wasn't long ago in this country that interracial marriage was illegal, women and blacks could vote, and blacks could serve in the military with whites, etc etc etc. Get over your prejudices and hate-filled rhetoric, people are people are people. I can assure you there's a good chance the man sitting next to you in church with his wife and kids is a tortured closet gay.

Crowley wrote on Dec 30, 2007 6:08 PM:Reardon is quite correct. This poorly written law would invite all kinds of judicial interventions eventually turning it into something far different than her proposal. Of course the real question is why are public schools conducting social engineering? It's funny that forty years ago I never had to be taught that it was wrong to hate others, for any reason. That was my parents job and common sense not the schools. Seems like we had one assembly per year to warn us against drugs and pre-mature sex. Seemed to work. Now we waste millions of dollars and hours telling our children the obvious. No wonder they can't read a map or count, they're spending all their time learning that it's okay for Johnny to have two "mommies."

Friscan wrote on Dec 30, 2007 6:13 PM:San Francisco has had an ordinance for years allowing "transgenders" to use any public restroom or shower that they feel meets their mental/emotional criteria at the time. Sometimes one might use the mens, other times the womens. Women have expressed to me their great fear and discomfort when a six foot tall drag queen enters into a lonely bathroom with them. Let's use some common sense. Nature (or God) gave us two genders for a reason. I don't think urinating or showering together was one of them.

AntiFascist wrote on Dec 30, 2007 8:19 PM:When SB777 says that "no teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school
district sponsor any activity which reflects adversely upon persons because of a characteristic listed in Section 220" (amended to include gender and sexual orientation)means that if only monogamous man/woman relationships are mentioned by either textbook, verbal instructions or activities, then that would reflect adversely on the homosexual "lifestyle" and thus all the above WOULD HAVE TO INCLUDE mention of any of the deviant forms of homo/bisexuality or transgenderism.
The inclusion of "gender" and "sexual orientation",from the Penal Code, will make any remarks by school staff, parent or student, about these deviant sexual choices hate crimes! Let's not forget that SB777 is tandomly enforced with AB394, using Big Brother tactics to make sure that everybody is in compliance. ...

Straight parent wrote on Dec 30, 2007 10:01 PM:Time to bring back the Voucher initiative. We parents who value good morals and responsibility are forced to use public schools which un do what we teach at home.

P wrote on Dec 31, 2007 8:01 AM:One word....Homeschool!

Duke wrote on Dec 31, 2007 8:39 AM:So some of you folks out there don't beleive in protecting the rights of all Americans? Shame on you! These distortions about the gay agenda being pushed on us all are simply people fighting for their rights. Some of you bigots out there disapprove so you invent false arguments and twist language to mask your preference to discriminate. Sorry, but the Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to all citizens in America. This new law just clarifies a bit. We have rights exactly because there are people out there ready to take them away from unpopular groups in society. Get over it! The Constitution trumps your intolerance!!

Ron wrote on Dec 31, 2007 8:47 AM:You know, we understand civil rights laws for people who are born black. But, sexuality is a behavior. Can I get a civil rights law for public urination?Cause that's what were talking about here.

Sally wrote on Dec 31, 2007 10:40 AM:No Ron, orientation is NOT the same as behavior. Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to innate feelings and self-concept. Having sex the behavior...

Mark wrote on Dec 31, 2007 11:02 AM:I am saddened by the hate I read in most of these comments. God forbid we try to protect the rights of all Americans. As a physician, I have seen all types: the married man who has gay sex on the side; the lesbians in a long term relationship trying to pay their bills and care for their kids; the transgender individual worried about losing their job; the straight couple dealing with a spouse with cancer.

PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE. Every one of them deserves respect. Remember, it says in the Bible:
'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.’ NOT just the ones that are like you but ALL you neighbors.

As far as "sexuality is a behavior"; I only ask those that truly believe this statement: when did you 'decide' on your sexuality? Was it a hard decision? Did you have to think about it? Because it isn't a choice, a person’s sexual preference is as much a part of them as their eye or hair color.

Ron wrote on Dec 31, 2007 11:20 AM:Maybe, I have a fear of bathrooms? Before bathrooms, all humans urnated outside, it's natural. Using a restroom is a learned behavior.

beati wrote on Dec 31, 2007 12:07 PM:Mark wrote "As far as "sexuality is a behavior"; I only ask those that truly believe this statement: when did you 'decide' on your sexuality? Was it a hard decision? Did you have to think about it? Because it isn't a choice, a person’s sexual preference is as much a part of them as their eye or hair color. "
Soooo that goes for pedophilia,bestiality,necrophilia,etc also.
These are all "behaviors" that are deviant and should not be condoned. With that kind of thinking sociopaths should have a right to kill!
We are all imperfect as humans but we should not try to legitamize our shortcomings.

Beware of foot tappers wrote on Dec 31, 2007 12:34 PM:Republican Senators in restrooms worries me more.

beati, Ron, Straight Parent, P, & I've had enough wrote on Dec 31, 2007 2:55 PM:All of you have a hard time hiding your bigotry and you're looking for a reason to legitamize your hate. You can't. Just because someone doesn't look or act the way you do does not make you better than them. Your morals are NOT more important. If you lean on your religious beliefs, read the post by the good doctor above and repeat the 2nd commandment to yourself over and over until God has taken your hate from you. As far as Mr I've Had Enough...good, get out and take everybody you know with you. We don't need another bigot like you taking up space in our overcrowded state anyway. While you're at it can you take Ron with you PLEASE!

SoCalNative wrote on Dec 31, 2007 3:18 PM:Why do homophobic people have such short memories? The disasters they predict never happen.

In the 70s they said that if gay student organizations were allowed on State College campuses, the colleges would soon be offering degrees in Sodomy. In the '80s they said that if Prop 6 failed, homosexuals would start manning recruiting booths at high school Career Day events.

Years ago these people insisted that gay people were evil because they were all promiscuous. Now they insist that gay people are evil because they want to marry each other, as well as all being promiscuous. They don't seem to realize that their beliefs about gay, lesbian, transgendered and bisexual people are not based on actual, real people, but on the fantasy people they and their friends have constructed in their minds.

Bigots will never be happy, since the world will never conform to their fantasies. I pity their children most - they have to listen to this drivel all the time.

Tina wrote on Dec 31, 2007 5:56 PM:"ron" says:

" You know, we understand civil rights laws for people who are born black. But, sexuality is a behavior. Can I get a civil rights law for public urination? Cause that's what were talking about here. "

Funny how Ron and those of his ilk conveniently ignore the FACT that while worshipping as a Catholic or a Baptist or a Jew or a Protestant are all CHOSEN BEHAVIORS, there *are* civil rights laws that protect those who do so from being discriminated against based on *that* chosen behavior....and even if you decide that you aren't a Catholic and are instead a Hindu, you are still protected in that chosen behavior.

And it's even funnier (as well as nauseating) that so many of the people making that specious argument hide behind those very same laws when spreading their vile mischaracterizations and wholly un-Christian contempt for fellow human beings...the message is clear: these people have no problem with special rights for chosen behavior, as long as it is the right to harass and degrade others in the name of "religion"- then they think it's the most natural thing in the world, and are the first to scream "persecution" when their lies are challenged.

Eric wrote on Dec 31, 2007 6:35 PM:You folks sure have a lot of (not so) pent up hatred and frustration down that way...

Enjoy...but keep it to yourself.

Reardon wrote on Dec 31, 2007 8:36 PM:I love the assurances that we will not have unisex bathrooms, but to be honest, none of those who opine have a vote. The decision will be up to one, three, or possibly nine (mostly) males wearing black dresses. A long lifetime of experience does not leave me with great confidence.

reality check wrote on Jan 1, 2008 8:57 AM:Reardon's last post helps to illustrate the underlying issue that all people need to fear more than unisex bathrooms (you know, like the ones that 99.9999% of private homes have)- the real danger is the utter contempt that modern American fundamentalists harbor for the Constitution's equal application of law and especially its system of checks and balances that include an independent judiciary...

Reardon wrote on Jan 1, 2008 9:38 AM:My bad! All this time I thought that the judiciary was part of the three equal branches of government, and that provides "checks and balances." I must have missed the coupe when the judiciary was crowned "King."

Freitag wrote on Jan 1, 2008 11:45 AM:Once again, Sheila Kuehl, the openly lesbian state senator, has shown her true nature and ignored the current and past will of the people of our state.The prophetess of the state gay agenda has found her disciples in the media and in Sacramento, especially our current governor.Anyone who dares to challenge and oppose Sen. Kuehl's pro-gay sermons and agenda's are quickly labeled intolerant, hate filled, religious,over reacting,narrow minded, fundamentalist,conservative bigots by her apostles who worship and bow down before her and the broad and open gay religion. While our nation is fighting a war on terror in the middle east, there is a spiritual war going on within our own state.Just reading all the comments from other readers regarding the article only serves to prove my point.Another sign of the times.

SoCalNative wrote on Jan 1, 2008 1:19 PM:Freitag does not seem to understand that you can only be called "tolerant" if you peaceably tolerate the differences of other people. And that if you spread false negative stereotypes about large categories of people, claiming that all gay people are immoral or wicked or pushing some imaginary "gay agenda", you are liable to be called "hate filled" and "narrow minded".

It's not that you oppose Senator Kuehl's positions, it's how you choose to oppose them that gets you characterized as a bigot. If you rely on actual, verifiable facts, and logically come to different conclusions, fine. When you try to discredit her by mudslinging and lies, however, don't expect to be treated as if you were being a responsible citizen.

reality check wrote on Jan 1, 2008 4:10 PM:reardon responds:

"My bad! All this time I thought that the judiciary was part of the three equal branches of government, and that provides "checks and balances." I must have missed the coupe when the judiciary was crowned "King.""

First of all, a "coupe" is a type of car...

And the judiciary you complain about is still subject to all the same checks and balances that it always was...those judges were either appointed by the executive branch (and reviewed and voted on by the legislative)or in the case of some non-federal positions elected according to law...and the laws that they sit in judgment of are either passed by the legislature, or by referendum...according to law.



Face it: the only problem is that only now that they are finally adjudicating cases involving people you don't think deserve equal protections under the law, and applying law EQUALLY you are all up in arms about it...were they to judge these cases in a manner that agreed with you, you would not be complaining, you would be praising their wisdom and chastising those who disagreed with their decisions.

If you don't like an independent legislature, I suggest you try living somewhere where they don't have one.

a. mcewen wrote on Jan 1, 2008 4:35 PM:The fact that in nowhere in her letter did Senator Kuehl mention sexual intercourse and how some of you are infusing that into a conversation about the protection of our children says a lot more about you than her or the law she supports.

Matt-Ontario wrote on Jan 1, 2008 7:04 PM:If I was not harassed or bashed because I was gay in high school 10 years ago, maybe I would of had a better grade point average and done better in school with my reading, writing and math.

If the evangelicals and their children just lived and let live, the GLBT youth who mind their own business then we would not need these silly laws.

Freitag wrote on Jan 1, 2008 7:04 PM:To SoCalNative. Thank you for displaying in your own words your intolerance for all to read and confirming my point exactly.Sheila Kuehl and other leaders of their gay religion want no opposition to their agenda. Even when opponents of the gay religion peaceably oppose and reject the agenda of the gay religion, they are attacked with verbal artillery shells marked "hate filled" and "narrow minded". One only needs to read and/or listen to the violent hate filled rhetoric of the leaders of the gay religion or their disciples in the media or Sacramento spreading false, negative, stereotypes towards those who oppose their agenda. I rest my case.

To Duke wrote on Jan 1, 2008 10:20 PM:Guess you missed that class in high school. Constitutional Rights come from the Federal government not the state. Take a class. Nothing the state legislature does changes that. Have your "Gay Rights" people take the issue there where it belongs. If the Supreme Court agrees, it'll be law. Don't hide your agenda behind a state school bill. Thanks.

Tina wrote on Jan 2, 2008 12:57 AM:It's amusing that Freitag keeps using the term "gay religion" over and over...if he really believes that promoting equal rights for LGBT people is a "religion", then why does he feel that the practice of that religion doesn't deserve the exact same protections that the practice of any other religion enjoys under the Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Didn't think that one out very well, did you?

I'm guessing that if you substituted the word "Christian" for "gay" in his statements, e.g.-

"One only needs to read and/or listen to the violent hate filled rhetoric of the leaders of the *Christian* religion or their disciples in the media or Sacramento spreading false, negative, stereotypes towards those who oppose their agenda."

-he would take great offense despite the fact that it is EXACTLY the same thing he is doing to those he brands as members of "the gay religion"...

and were people to attempt to pass laws that discriminated against the CHOSEN BEHAVIOR of being a Christian, he would of course remind us all that by law anyone who simply calls himself a "worshipper" (no proof necessary) enjoys SPECIAL RIGHTS as a member of that specifically protected class- rights that he wants to deny others even though he insists on calling them a religion.

Can you say "unrepentant hypocrisy"?

Roberto1 wrote on Jan 2, 2008 6:33 AM:Sorry, I just don't trust the giverment to make sound decisions in implementing this law...Look what they have done with hate crime (thought crime laws)

Disgusted American wrote on Jan 2, 2008 7:03 AM:Boy the Haters are out in FULL Force...a law that Protects EVERYONE is a law- we ALL could use. Isn't there enough Hate,bigotry & discrimination...and it's Reared it Ugly Head more-so in the last 7yrs under the GOP (let's be scared of dark people, and them thar gays). When will America WAKE ... UP..and LIVE UP TOO, the words LIBERTY & JUSTICE FOR ALL? Why does America Never learn, or take TOO long to learn from it's past mistakes?

Reardon wrote on Jan 2, 2008 8:24 AM:Reality Check: First, the addition of an erroneous "e" on a word does not negate the concept -- except in the minds (sic) of those who major in minor things. Second, your reply begs the question of whether you will be satisfied with a judicial decision that, worst case scenario, permits unisex bathrooms in public schools, transgender selection of bathrooms regardless of physical attributes, etc. ?

Revolting wrote on Jan 2, 2008 10:45 AM:Yet another revolting attempt by the sick and twisted to force their corrupt agenda on the innnocent children of others. Like vampires, they prey on the innocent to corrupt them into becoming one of their own. Come out and be separate from them! Yes, vouchers, but they are against that because it removes their ability to brainwash the young.

Gay? wrote on Jan 2, 2008 11:01 AM:I suspect some of you gay bashers are in actual fact closet queens the way you go on...

Remember BOYS! wrote on Jan 2, 2008 11:24 AM:Don't be late, sign up early! North San Diego County School News Briefs: Junior Miss program accepting entries. We are going to have to change that Miss title too, it has to go!

JR wrote on Jan 2, 2008 2:38 PM:Thought police!

Wrong JR wrote on Jan 2, 2008 2:45 PM:The ones who agree with this article aren't thinking let alone giving any thought to the matter.

Steverino wrote on Jan 2, 2008 4:24 PM:"been there" writes: "This uproar sounds like fearmongers trying to unite the faithful, the uninformed and the ridiculous."

"been there" is being redundant.

To So.Cal Native wrote on Jan 2, 2008 7:39 PM:Oh how wrong you are! I attended a State College in the 70's. At least two bathrooms had to be closed because of the gay activity in them denying the majority of us the convenience of that facility that WE paid for. As for classes in gay sex, they WERE offered and widely attended. On the Lesbian issue, men who signed up for "womens issues" classes were thrown out. I appreciate that you have an agenda to push but lying just makes your position look worse.

nuts wrote on Jan 2, 2008 8:10 PM:I'm a horse... yes a horse. I'm trapped it the body of a man.... uh... .. I meant the body of a person. yeah.. that's what I meant... a person of no specific gender, but I'm a horse just the same because that's what I think I am. I won't use the bathroom. I'll use the street and I expect that to cause no trouble.

My 4 year old thinks I'm nuts and is laughing hysterically but thats because a 4 year old has already learned to classify and seems to understand the difference between hardware and software.

Education of primary concern wrote on Jan 2, 2008 9:23 PM:Entirely too much time and energy is being wasted on these issues. Let us get back to teaching students to read and write WELL! We are living in a global community and our children need to be educated to be competitive in a highly technological market place. SACRAMENTO - stop wasting time on these issues and focus on improving education in California. I do not mean throwing money at a failing system, but rather create a system that works well for students of the 21st century. I cannot see what could possibly be wrong with allowing boys to be boys and girls girls while providing everyone with a quality education.

Lisa wrote on Jan 2, 2008 9:59 PM: On everyones bith certificate a docter had to certifie male or female. obviously there was enough hormone to creat one or the other. The subject is perversion and delusion they think they are someone eles. Now they think they are kids. and it makes them all hot and botherd when they can get close to our kids. I would'nt trust them with my dog

Freitag wrote on Jan 2, 2008 10:19 PM:To Tina.Just to clarify, my comments were not meant to be amusing. With all due respect Tina,it appears you made the same wrong turn as SoCalNative did regarding my comments.Yes Tina, it is a true fact and no secret that the gay organizations and their supporters have used hate filled language against those who oppose the gay agenda.Time and time again the voters of the state of california have rejected the gay agenda at the voting stations only to have politicians like state sen. Kuehl and others, especially our governor, blatantly disrespect the clear, majority will of the voters.This is also a true fact and no secret.The voters of the state of california have grown disgusted of their majority will being treated like refuse by the apostles and disciples of the gay religion,oops, sorry Tina,I will use crusade instead.

Gary wrote on Jan 2, 2008 10:49 PM:Have all the politicians just gone nuts, oh wait that may be a gender discrimination comment. You are born male or female. Why does everything have to middle of the road with no distinctive definition. I cannot belive they are trying to lump two different genders into one. We are different and need to be characterized as such.

Tina wrote on Jan 3, 2008 2:29 AM:Sorry Freitag, but your understanding of the constitutional doctrine of equal protection under the law is laughably ignorant- there is no provision under our Constitution for "the majority" to vote on whether or not any particular class of people will enjoy equal protection under the law or not...time and time again laws that singled out certain groups like blacks as being less equal or even laws that provided for separate but equal facilities have been struck down as unconstitutional and a violation of those groups civil rights- civil rights that if you have read the Declaration of Independence you will recall are GOD GIVEN and INALIENABLE, meaning that nobody gets to vote on whether others get them or not.

The will of the majority during the days of the civil rights movement in places like Mississippi was decidedly in favor of NOT allowing blacks and other minorities to enjoy the same rights that whites did- so by your twisted logic all of the equal protections secured by the 1964 Civil Rights Act are just another case of "disrespecting the clear will of the voters" who voted for Jim Crow laws in the first place.

reality check wrote on Jan 3, 2008 2:57 AM:Lisa and Gary are both woefully ignorant of the biological reality of human sexual differentiation- all people are NOT born distinctly male or female by a long shot, and we aren't talking about their feelings- we are talking cold, hard genetics and biology.

Fact of the matter is that not all people who appear physically male, have a penis, etc. have an XY chromosomal pattern, and not all people who appear to be female based on their physical body and external sex organs and other secondary sexual characteristics have XX chromosomal patterns...anyone who doesn't believe this can look up these terms:

De La Chapelle's syndrome (XX male)

Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (XY female)

Klinefelter's syndrome (47 XXY)

Turner's syndrome (45XO)

5-alpha-reductase deficiency


Unless an individual with one of these INTERSEX conditions has obviously malformed genitalia, more often than not a doctor will just base their label of "male" or "female" on a quick look and genetic reality is just plain ignorant and WRONG.

And on top of it all- if a child IS born with ambiguous genitals because of one of these conditions, the "God doesn't make mistakes" brigade are the *first* people to have these children subjected to surgery on their genitalia and hormone treatments to "correct" their God given bodies whether it is medically imperative or not, without the child's consent and with little or no consideration of what the child's internal sense of his gender is...these kids are subjected to the EXACT same procedure that these ideologues claim is an affront to God and nature when an adult seeks it....adults who very often seek treatment to correct what some doctor did to them as a child, because a lot of transsexuals have these underlying genetic intersex conditions.


So before spouting off with pathetically simplistic claims like "obviously there was enough hormone to creat [sic] one or the other.", perhaps you should take advantage of Google and decades of research by geneticists and biologists who actually know what they are talking about, and educate yourself, lest you end up looking like an uneducated fool.

If you care about looking like an uneducated fool, that is...

I like my sex wrote on Jan 3, 2008 8:07 AM:... can I have a special bathroom too? Or are we suppose to keep our sexuality out of common discussion? I have heard what goes on behind bedroom doors stays behind bedroom doors. Unless you are a child molester!!!

scotte wrote on Jan 3, 2008 8:22 AM:If this bill passes, it will be destructive to the public school system as more parents, including this one, will pull their kids out and home school or private school them. Ms. Kuehl ... is trying to push her personal agenda where it doesn't belong -- to our children!

How come we can wrote on Jan 3, 2008 9:00 AM:talk about gay sex, but all other preferences are to be ignored? Is this sexual bias that can bring lawsuit after lawsuit?

Reardon wrote on Jan 3, 2008 1:39 PM:"Reality Check" has still not told us if he, personally, favors people with female plumbing being permitted to use boy's bathrooms, and people with male plumbing being permitted to use girl's bathrooms? It is a simple question, not requiring a doctoral dissertation or biological knowledge, It is a societal question.

reality check wrote on Jan 3, 2008 3:22 PM:Reardon, as it stands now, all boys and girls who use the restrooms in schools effectively do so "regardless of physical attributes" for one simple reason- there is no requirement whatsoever that children in schools submit to an inspection of their privates...because all segregation based on sexual characteristics in school is based on legal documentation like birth certificates, that as I have already explained do NOT necessarily correspond to the genetic and physical makeup of the individual...

So just to make it crystal clear- despite the ignorant claims that all people are either male or female, there are in fact girls with penises and boys with vaginas using school restrooms that don't correspond to their genitalia as we speak...not confused delusional children, but children who were simply born that way because that is a biological reality, no matter how conspicuously you ignore it or try to belittle those who dare to bring it up.

And the saddest part of all is that these children are subjected to cruelty and harassment on a daily basis...correction, the *saddest* part is that there are adults who dismiss their suffering as not being worthy of attention, and who would allow their suffering and harassment to go on unabated, all so that like they could ignore biological reality and remain ignorant and cling to their insular views of the world.

Freitag wrote on Jan 3, 2008 8:07 PM:Interesting that Tina feels my comments and the comments of others are "Funny", "Funnier","amusing",and "laughably ignorant". Too bad there is nothing funny or amusing about her comments on a serious issue.

It is also too bad that Tina is still making wrong turns down roads that go nowhere.How did she come out of nowhere with "...constitutional doctrine of equal protection under the law..."???? Why is she rambling on and on like a drunk driver driving the wrong way at night in a thick fog with her headlamps turned off??? Tina is so intoxicated, so under the influence of the gay crusaders, that it is no wonder she makes wrong turns and then blames and mocks others by calling THEM ignornat,amusing, funny, etc.

Tina, we all hope you sober yourself up soon and exit the fog. Maybe you will stop making those wrong turns. Keep feeling around that dark room that you are in and find the light switch and then turn on the light. Or, you can continue on being Sheila's disciple and live your life in a amusing or funny way.

So, this will be my third and last posting on this issue. Tina, go ahead and lob as many grenades as you want to at me and the others who you feel are"ignorant", "funny", and "amusing".I will not be surprised if you, again, twist and bend my words to suit your own gay crusade propaganda. I want to thank the North County Times for allowing us all to express our viewpoints and posting them on its website.

Reardon wrote on Jan 3, 2008 8:18 PM:Reality Check continues his doctoral dissertation on an absolutely miniscule portion of the population, without addressing the issue before the public. Fortunately, that is obvious to even a casual observer. It is like asking the impact of Avian Flu on Indonesia, and getting a lecture on Avian Flu impact only on Indonesian drug store workers!

reality check wrote on Jan 4, 2008 12:47 AM:First of all, Reardon, since you care so much about other people's sex, I am not a "he"...

Secondly, your use of the phrase "a miniscule portion of the population" as if it mattered when discussing civil rights not only betrays your complete lack of knowledge of the subject of human sexuality, more importantly it points out beyond a shadow of a doubt that *your* personal agenda is to maintain at all costs a world where if a group of people who have a MEDICAL CONDITION is small enough, they simply do not count and can be treated as inconsequential and their calls for equal protection under the law can be mocked and then ignored.

Thank you for illustrating so perfectly the utter contempt that you and your ilk hold for *children* who through no fault of their own are BORN with bodies and features that are so sexually ambiguous that they are regularly harassed in school, sometimes to the point of suicide...THAT is the "issue before the public" and the point of this legislation, to prevent the systematic harassment of CHILDREN based largely on how they look.

Your obsession with bathrooms and repeated snide, condescending comments and obvious lack of compassion for CHILDREN being tormented do more to expose the odious nature of your false piety and phony concern for kids than anything I and others who oppose your despicable agenda could ever express in a million years of internet postings, so I thank you for that...please keep it up, you are making it so much easier to show others the real reason why this type of legislation is necessary.

Tina wrote on Jan 4, 2008 1:07 AM:Freitag-

So sorry to have brought that pesky Constitution and its core principles into a discussion about LAW...darn that old 14th Amendment and its Equal Protection Clause!

And I too would like to thank the No. County Times for providing a public space for pridefully thoughtless ideologues who pretend to care about the USA and its way of life to unwittingly expose their monumental underlying scorn and cavalier disregard for the legal and ethical principles and ideals that the Founders had in mind when they wrote-

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

has anyone noticed? wrote on Jan 4, 2008 2:05 AM:Has anyone else noticed that in the entirety of this discussion NOT ONE single person who opposes this legislation has even *acknowledged* the fact that kids are being routinely harassed and tormented both physically an emotionally in school for supposedly being gay or transgendered, even when they are neither?

These people blather on and on about hypothetical boys using the girls bathrooms and imaginary people claiming to be other animal species, but when presented with real-life circumstances of children being physically and mentally abused and persecuted on a daily basis, these self-proclaimed champions of children's rights have nothing whatsoever to say about it...they can't even muster up a "That's too bad, kids don't deserve to be treated that way" and never, EVER offer any alternative solutions.

They act as if no child was ever called a ... every single day in school, and/or beaten up because they happened to have a less than masculine physique or mannerisms.

They act not as if there are better ways of dealing with this kind of persecution; they act as if that persecution simply doesn't exist, or as if it is not an issue worthy of ANY consideration.

Perhaps it is just a head-in-the-sand approach to real issues that affect real people, taken by people too cowardly to *really* stand up for what is right...

but I also suspect that part of their reticence to even acknowledge the very real harassment experienced by some kids in school who are different is because it is THEIR children who are the ones doing the harassment, with the full support and encouragement of their parents.

This is sooo kewl! wrote on Jan 4, 2008 9:58 AM:look out ladies, I am coming into a restroom near you! And I would hate to file a lawsuit against you if you call, the police on me!

Just A Mom wrote on Jan 4, 2008 11:03 PM:I know I am just a Mom and the State of California must know wayyyyyy more about how to raise my children than me. They do such an outstanding job educating them in Reading, Writing , and Math. They are also worried about cupcakes in the classroom. I should just let them fill my kids head full of notions of happy transgendered lifestyles. Oh that's right our test scores in this state are the pits. Maybe the schools should just worry about the basics and leave lifestyle choices to my family's belief. I know that I won't fill my kid's heads full of liberal junk, but its okay state senator you'll get your chance to corrupt them once they go to college when I have less of a say.

Observation wrote on Jan 5, 2008 10:57 AM:Looks to me like one or two, three posters at most, writing under different names who support this legislation. Same story, same writing style, same stuff trying to make readers think there is a large amount of support. My guess is there is no more than 2% in favor of this. Just an observation.

Brian wrote on Jan 5, 2008 3:50 PM:What a sad bunch of ignorant, misinformed bigots.

Tina wrote on Jan 5, 2008 5:34 PM:"Observation"-

I'm curious- if it could be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that 98% of the population of the state of California supported this legislation, would you then bow to the will of the majority and accept it?

Or does the percentage of popular support for certain legislation and the will of the majority only matter when those figures support your agenda?

Just curious.


And as for similar writing styles- I noticed the same thing, but it was the high incidence among this bill's detractors of an inability to spell simple words or use proper grammar and syntax and form complete sentences, and reliance on sarcasm and repeating tired, unimaginative catch phrases like "gay religion" and "birkenstock-wearing, bleeding-heart liberals", rather than directly addressing the subject with reason and intellect that caught my attention...


all of which point to a high percentage of poorly educated individuals with limited critical thinking skills among their ranks...I wonder why that is?

Observation wrote on Jan 5, 2008 5:40 PM:Poor Brian. All he can do is call names. Sad, Ignorant, Misinformed, Bigots. I guess that's all you can do when the world is against ya. Where do I sign the petition to get SB777 stopped?

Karl wrote on Jan 5, 2008 5:46 PM:Brian, If someone doesn't agree with you they are bigots on this subject? How narrow minded. When one responds with Bigot they had better be right. The term unless applied correctly will diminish the meaning of the word and you sir are doing just that. You sir, are biased (notice the non confrontational term I used?). I suggest you use a different noun to discribe the people that oppose your views or you will be viewed as your noun.

ed wrote on Jan 5, 2008 6:16 PM:hey what's wrong with cross-dressers? Rudy Giuliani is one...and didn't he marry his cousin?

Brian wrote on Jan 6, 2008 5:45 PM:"Poor Brian. All he can do is call names. Sad, Ignorant, Misinformed, Bigots. I guess that's all you can do when the world is against ya. Where do I sign the petition to get SB777 stopped?"

Poor 'Observation'....you can try but it won't be stopped.
It's a well known fact that those who so vervently oppose all things homosexual........well you know.

Brian wrote on Jan 6, 2008 6:10 PM:Excuse the typo. Should be 'fervently'