If there is some radical homosexual agenda in South Dakota, it's not making much progress. Equality South Dakota summarizes the "gay" bills killed by the 2012 South Dakota Legislature:
- EqSD cites SB 119 as the only explicitly pro-gay bill filed this year. Republicans Senator Stan Adelstein and Rep. Chuck Turbiville wanted to add sexual orientation and gender identity to city and county non-discrimination rules. Senate Health and Human Services did not.
- SB 141 didn't turn into a gay rights debate until House Republicans got that ooky feeling familiar to homophobes everywhere. Rep. Shawn Tornow wasn't afraid to put his homophobia on the record. The House decided poking another finger in the eyes of our gay citizens was more important than sensible clarifications of our domestic abuse statutes.
- EqSD also cites HB 1255 as another bill that attacks homosexuals without mentioning those who must not be named. On face, Rep. Roger Hunt's bill to outlaw surrogacy agreements was just more misogyny. But EqSD smells the anti-gay agenda at work here, looking for another way to block homosexuals from becoming parents.
EqSD finds one positive bill for young homosexuals in South Dakota, SB 130, the bill requiring the last 12 school districts in South Dakota that lack anti-bullying policies to get with the program. The bill has no language about specific groups of students, but as the most bullied group in schools, homosexuals have more reason than most to applaud this bill... or to at least say, "About dang time!"
This interested party rues your choice of words, Cory: LGBTQ is a friendlier descriptor than "homosexual."
I guess each is five syllables... and "homosexual" doesn't cover the B & T... but note that the original EqSD headline simply said "gay".
ICYMI: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/03/court-declares-newspaper-excerpt-online-forum-non-infringing-fair-use
The letters appear most commonly, and in a variety of orders. I prefer LBTG, but it's not that important.
The far right wingers are determined that law must reflect their particular, extremely narrow, religious beliefs. Roger Hunt is the creepiest in SD, but many Repubs are apparently obsessed with sex. What is it with those guys? Are they afraid someone is enjoying it?
Roger and Rick (Santorum) are quite the pair. National conservative talkers are saying that the Repubs need to at least back off their sex obsession because it's costing them votes. Women are fleeing those dirty old men in droves. Of course. I think those guys are probably big fans of Old Testament marital law as described in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Ick.
Homofascism (from Cory's link to radical homosexual agenda)? How can you even respond to that?
Who can argue against equal rights?
Perhaps SB130 needs to address the Christophobians who would attack a kid for bringing a Bible to school. It is the homosexual agenda that is one of the driving issues in the New Age Theology found in public school curricula. What about parents who are bullied by their children once they receive the New Age indoctrination?
I have been searching for a copy of the Homosexual Agenda for decades! I had finally concluded it is as real as Bigfoot. But Sibson! You have one? Please post it! It sounds like my very life depends on knowing what the Homosexual Agenda is.
Those people and their measly 7-8% of the population, the group subject to the most violent persecution in this country - Yes! It is them we need fear!
Thank you Sibson. Thank you, thank you.
John, we could make a strong argument that the only proper response is mockery coupled with constant electoral vigilance.
Bigfoot—yes, D.E., yes!
Steve, I think SB 130 addresses Christophobes, homophobes, debatophobes, and other bullies equally. The model bullying policy provided by SB 130 defines bullying as "repeated physical, verbal, non-verbal, written, electronic, or any conduct directed toward a student that is so pervasive, severe, and objectively offensive that it (1) Has the purpose of creating or resulting in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive academic environment; or (2) Has the purpose or effect of substantially or unreasonably interfering with a student's academic performance which deprives the student access to educational opportunities." I think that covers the Bible-toters as well as the LGBTQ kids.
But lest you think SB 130 can be interpreted to stifle discussion, see also this clause from the model policy: " This policy may not be interpreted to prohibit civil exchange of opinions or debate protected under the state or federal constitutions if the opinion expressed does not otherwise materially or substantially disrupt the education process or intrude upon the rights of others."
Satisfied, Steve? (I'm going to regret asking.)