Gay Rights and Freedom of Speech in California

Gay rights and freedom of speech in California.

Is homosexuality right or wrong? Please do not be a bigot on this issue, please keep an open mind on the subject. It is still being debated in our society and I feel it is the duty of all of our citizens to listen to the arguments put forth by both sides in coming to a decision.

However this might now be a little difficult in California. In California the state government has decided that the debate is over and gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders have won the debate. Both sides of the argument will not be tolerated in, for example, colleges and universities within the state.

(See here) where the News Fit to Post reports on California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signing into law the Nondiscrimination in State Programs and Activities Act, SB 1441.

The News Fit to Post article provides a link to a Campaign for Children and Families press release (see here) that states:

...SB 1441 specifically requires "any program or activity that... receives any financial assistance from the state" to support transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality or lose state funding. SB 1441 contains no exemption for religious colleges and universities that accept students with Cal Grants, or child-care providers that accept CalWORKS vouchers.

Besides the obvious trampling of religious freedoms, what would happen if a secular professor at, say UCLA, dared to get up in front of his class and state that he/she felt homosexuality was wrong on grounds other then religious morality? Would this professor be subjected to sanctions or discipline for merely stating an opinion because it might offend someone in his class?

Meanwhile the pro-homosexual advocate will be given free reign at the podium to express his/her side of the argument.

I noted with amusement that the News Fit to Post article was titled "Schwarzenegger Called 'Evil' for Signing Bill Banning State-Funded Bigotry".

Let us examine the definition of the word "bigot". From the Compact Oxford English Dictionary:

- a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others

(As a side note. Merriam-Webster used to contain a similar definition of the word bigot. However Merriam-Webster's definition seems to have been changed to become more politically correct.)

So I ask, just which side of the argument on homosexuality is being "intolerant of the opinions of others"? Is it those opposed to "equal rights" for homosexuals but whom still allow the other side the ability to put forth their side of the argument, or is it those who are advocates for "equal rights" for homosexuals who try and squelch the other side from giving voice to their opinions? Which side is bigoted?

How about this? If the state of California can get away with this, how about all the states (which are a majority) where the majority of the citizens overwhelming oppose gay marriage enact legislation that similarly prevents any state-funded promotion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people?

Now I know the Supreme Court has weighed in on the subject. They have ruled that homosexuals are allowed to be homosexual IN PRIVATE. Homosexuals, too, enjoy the right to privacy. However this ruling does not give them the right to actively promote their lifestyle. If California can squelch one side of the debate within their boundaries in violation of the rights of free speech, then another state, say Alabama, should have the same rights in the other direction.

Personally, I believe everyone should continue to enjoy the rights of freedom of speech no matter which side of the fence they sit on. However if California is free to tilt the playing field in one direction, then other states should be free to tilt the playing field in the opposite direction. If the government of California is free to be intolerant and bigoted, then those from the opposition in other states should enjoy the same freedom.