“Adding [gender identity and sexual orientation] as a special sub-group for discrimination protection to a law that already protects everyone is unnecessary, and an insidious motive to destroy marriage between a man and a woman and to destroy marriage as God ordained it. To protect sexual orientation as a special status, allowing people to be protected because they say they were ‘born that way’ is an attempt to put alternative lifestyles on a moral plane. I believe homosexuality is a choice. It’s a form of indoctrination when you bring that into the schools.”

— Priscilla Schreiber, president of the Grossmont Union High School District governing board

In October, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 777, effective Jan. 11. The bill clarifies civil rights protections for GLBT students under the California Education Code.

So-called “family advocates” and the religious right decried the bill as an unnecessary “social experiment” and a tool to “brainwash” children with the “gay agenda.”

The opposition to the bill was punctuated last month with a lawsuit filed on behalf of the California Education Committee in the Federal District Court of San Diego.

And on Dec. 13, the suit names Priscilla Schreiber, president of the Grossmont Union High School District governing board, and four fellow GUHSD board members as supporters (see story, page 8).

Schreiber (who, it should be noted, endorses ex-gay, religious fanatic James Hartline for District 3 City Council) and the Christian cabal that passes as the district’s governing board have called SB 777 a form of indoctrination, a roundabout way of pushing a same-sex marriage agenda.

Their opposition to SB 777 defies logic and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the bill’s aim. It relies more on fear-mongering than fact.

SB 777 adds the terms “gender” and “sexual orientation” to the California Education Code and expands the existing term “sex” to include “gender identity,” which means a person’s self-identified gender.”

In truth, though, the bill doesn’t change the code – since 2000, California has prohibited gender discrimination in schools using the exact same definition of gender that SB 777 uses. According to the bill’s author, Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, the bill simply lists the current prohibited bases of discrimination and the current definition for those terms in one place for easy reference by parents and school administrators. It outlines students’ rights in an easy-to-access manner.

Opponents, however, are so concerned about boys in girls’ locker rooms and girls in boys’ bathrooms, they’ve ignored the fact history proves their theory wrong.

“What will prevent the 250-pound linebacker from deciding he wants to share the locker room with the cheerleaders?” Robert Tyler, general counsel of the Advocates for Faith and Freedom asks.

Thirty-five years ago, opponents of Title IX, which banned gender discrimination in schools under federal law, employed the same, outrageous claims – namely, that schools would be forced to create unisex bathrooms, and allow boys and girls to shower together.

No surprise – they were wrong.

There is no evidence to suggest SB 777 would lead to an unregulated number of lawsuits against teachers and school districts for perceived discriminatory practices. It would, however, afford protection to a segment of students who need it most.

Stripping SB 777 of protection for students based on gender, gender identity and sexual orientation would strip a number of students of their dignity and safety – if Priscilla Schreiber and the GUHSD governing board members are on board with that, then East County schools have more to worry about than a boy in the girls’ locker room.