The chief of a major pro-family organization in California is accusing state education officials of softening the language they use to describe new requirements that schools teach affirmatively about homosexuality and other alternative sexual lifestyle choices.

“In an apparent attempt to keep children enrolled for the purpose of sexual indoctrination and average daily attendance funding, the California Department of Education is deceiving parents about the mandate of SB 48, which requires, through supplement instructional materials right now, and new textbooks in three years, that children admire ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans,'” said Randy Thomasson, founder of

He cited the explanations that the state Department of Education has posted online regarding Senate Bill 48, adopted last year by the legislature and signed into law.

The law says teachers and schools “shall” teach only positive aspects of such sexual alternatives. Specifically, it requires, “Instruction in social sciences shall include … a study of the role and contributions of … lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans … with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society.”

Understand how the war for America’s values is actually fought with “The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom”

It also forbids any negative portrayal of such lifestyle choices.

But Thomasson contended that the state agency makes SB 48, just one of eight sexual indoctrination laws in the state, sound innocuous.

“On its website, the CDE refuses to use the word ‘shall,’ which is the operative command in SB 48,” he explains. Instead, the state agency states, ‘The bill added language to Education Code Section 51204.5, which prescribes the inclusion of the contributions of various groups in the history of California and the United States.’

“The word ‘prescribe’ is widely understood to be a recommendation, like a doctor’s prescription. … Using ‘prescribe’ instead of ‘require’ is deceptive to many readers. And to not highlight that the main emphasis of SB 48 is the positive promotion of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality is serpentine and misleading,” he said.

Further, the state explains the law “added some requirements with regard to instruction materials.”

The state agency states: “Education Code Section 51501 outlines prohibitions on materials included in textbooks or other instructional materials. This section already included prohibitions on matter ‘reflecting adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry’; this bill added ‘sexual orientation’ to the list.”

Thomasson’s analysis said: “How lightly and vaguely the new homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination is described! Writing that SB 48 ‘added some requirements … this bill added ‘sexual orientation’ to the list’ is an attempt to hide the promotion of homosexuality and bisexuality within an acceptable list of immutable or unchangeable characteristics. And the CDE forgets to inform parents that the legislature’s definition of the word ‘sex’ includes transsexuality, cross-dressing, and ‘sex-change’ procedures.”

Further, Thomasson takes issue with the CDE statement that instruction “in history-social science should include the contributions of those groups listed … but it is up to local districts to determine how the instructional content is included.”

“The CDE refuses to use the command word ‘shall’ from SB 48, and instead uses the weaker admonition of ‘should,’ Then, CDE attempts to pacify worried parents by implying this is a local school district decision, perhaps even up to individual teachers.

“Don’t be deceived – SB 48 is mandatory for every teacher and student at every public K-12 school in California, with no parental opt-in or opt-out,” Thomasson’s analysis continued.

“The bottom line? You can’t trust the California Department of Education to protect children or parents from SB 48 or the other sexual indoctrination laws on the books,” Thomasson’ said.

His recommendation is found on the “ website, which urges parents to remove their children from the control of the public school system and turn to homeschooling, parochial schools or other options.

In addition to SB 48, Thomasson’s organization cites the following:

  • SB 543, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2010, “allows school staff to remove children ages 12 and up from government schools and taken off-campus for counseling sessions, without parental permission or involvement. The purpose is to permit pro-homosexuality teachers and administrators to remove sexually confused children in 6th grade and up from campus and take them to pro-homosexuality counselors who will encourage them to embrace the homosexual lifestyle.”
  • ACR 82, approved by the California Legislature in 2010, “creates de facto ‘morality-free zones’ at participating schools (pre-kindergarten through public universities). Schools that become official ‘Discrimination-Free Zones’ will ‘enact procedures’ (including mandatory counseling) against students from pre-kindergarten on up who are accused of ‘hate,’ ‘intolerance,’ or  ‘discrimination’.” What is the hate? Peacefully speaking or writing against the unnatural lifestyles choices of homosexuality and bisexuality.
  • SB 572, signed by Schwarzenegger in 2009, establishes “Harvey Milk Day” in K-12 California public schools and community colleges. In classrooms, schools and school districts that participate, children will now be taught to admire the life and values of late homosexual activist and teen predator Harvey Milk of San Francisco the month of May.
  • SB 777, signed by Schwarzenegger in 2007, prohibits all public school instruction and every school activity from “promoting a discriminatory bias” against (effectively requiring positive depictions of) transsexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality to schoolchildren as young as five years old. SB 777 means children will be taught their “gender” is a matter of choice.
  • AB 394, signed by Schwarzenegger in 2007, effectively promotes transsexual, bisexual and homosexual indoctrination of students, parents and teachers via “anti-harassment” and “anti-discrimination” materials, to be publicized in classrooms and assemblies, posted on walls, incorporated into curricula on school websites, and distributed in handouts to take home.
  • SB 71, signed by Gov. Gray Davis in 2003 and implemented in 2008 through the new “sexual health” standards approved by appointees of Schwarzenegger and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, teaches children as young as 5th grade that any consensual sexual behavior is “safe” as long as you “protect” yourself with a condom, and teaches children that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality is “normal.”
  • AB 1785, signed by Davis in 2000, required the California State Board of Education to alter the state curriculum frameworks to include and require “human relations education” for children in K-12 public schools, with the aim of “fostering an appreciation of the diversity of California’s population and discouraging the development of discriminatory attitudes and practices,” according to the state legislative counsel’s digest.
  • AB 537, signed by Davis in 1999, permits teachers and students to openly proclaim and display their homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexuality, even permitting cross-dressing teachers, school employees and student on campus, in classrooms, and in restrooms.

WND reported recently on a warning from Robert Tyler, founder of Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a non-profit law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty, about what’s next in California.

“‘Gender liberation’ will likely be the new vogue term used to describe the tidal wave that is fast approaching the shores of the California public school system,” he said. “In other words,” Tyler explains of what “gender liberation” means, “male-female distinctions must be eliminated in order to ‘liberate’ children from unnecessary ‘stereotypes.’ This is not a movement seeking ‘equal rights,’ but a movement seeking to obliterate our God-given distinctions between male and female.”

Tyler’s law firm represents students and parents in a number of cases in California, including former high school student Chad Farnan, who brought suit against his history teacher for regularly ridiculing Christianity in class, including making the statement, “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.”

Homosexual former San Francisco leader Harvey Milk

SB 48 takes the state even a step beyond its demand that students in public schools every year honor Harvey Milk, a homosexual activist and reported sexual predator, as well as an advocate for Jim Jones, leader of the massacred hundreds in Jonestown, Guyana.

In honoring Milk, schools are advocating for the acceptance of what Milk sought: the entire homosexual, bisexual and cross-dressing agenda; a refusal to acknowledge sexually transmitted diseases spread by the behavior; his behavior as “a sexual predator of teenage boys, most of them runaways with drug problems”; advocacy for multiple sexual relationships at one time; and “lying to get ahead”; according to, the leading statewide pro-family organization promoting moral virtues for the common good.

A 1982 biography of Milk tells of a 16-year-old named McKinley, who “was looking for some kind of father figure.”

“At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him,” the book says.

It also states, “It would be to boyish-looking men in their late teens and early 20s that Milk would be attracted for the rest of his life.”

The consequences of refusing to accept the state’s beliefs about homosexuality can be devastating, SaveCalifornia documents.

Thomasson said in a report that he received an email from a parent whose daughter had objected to attending a “gay straight alliance rally to honor Harvey Milk at Moreno Valley High School.”

Said the email, according to Thomasson, “You were right: Our daughter was told she had to attend a gay straight alliance rally to honor Harvey Milk. … She shared she was a Christian with the teacher and only after she saw Lauren was clearly upset about going to this rally did she issue her a hall pass. She was persecuted by another student but made it out of the class. I picked up her and she was very upset. How many other Christians were forced to go to this rally?”

The account from 16-year-old Lauren provided more details, Thomasson reported.

“When she walked into her U.S. History class Monday, May 23, she saw the words ‘Gay-Straight Alliance Assembly – Harvey Milk’ on the blackboard. Her teacher, obviously a pro-homosexuality agenda sympathizer, told Lauren and every other student walking in to go to the assembly. Lauren protested, but the teacher didn’t listen to her at first. Lauren again said she didn’t want to go, and finally the teacher exempted her, but only her,” he said.

“Lauren got out of that one, but her fellow students were corralled into the brainwashing assembly, like cattle going to slaughter, where the homosexual sponsor of the on-campus Gay-Straight Alliance told them how they must support the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda of Harvey Milk. Later, a Muslim classmate told Lauren she wished she had refused to go to the assembly, too.”

The report described how the teacher, several days earlier, had “played several minutes of the R-rated ‘Milk’ film, which showed two homosexual men in bed together.”

“Parents, realize there was NO advance parental notification of this happening or the opportunity to opt out your children. Even more, realize there was no parent permission sought, no opt-in form to sign. No, Harvey Milk sexual indoctrination, and other sexual indoctrination implemented, because of other perverse laws are being done behind parents’ backs and despite parents’ objections,” Thomasson’s report said.

WND previously reported what happened to one irate parent who found out about a public school’s sexual indoctrination of his children and demanded changes – he spent the night in jail.

David Parker, who brought a case against Estabrook Elementary school in Lexington, Mass., several years ago, eventually ended up withdrawing his children from the school because of the harassment they endured in the dispute.

An appellate court said the indoctrination was appropriate because same-sex “marriages” are legal in Massachusetts following the work of former Gov. Mitt Romney and others, and the refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

That left the school district not only teaching behaviors the Parker family considered immoral but deliberately refusing to tell them when it would be taught, so they could keep their children home.

Parker noted the ruling says teachers “have a constitutional right to coercively indoctrinate little children [into whatever they choose to teach].”

A WND/Wenzel Strategies poll last year indicated an overwhelming majority of Americans believe elementary school is no place to promote the homosexual lifestyle. Even among liberals there is the strong belief that such lessons should be left outside the door of the classroom.

“Whether they object on moral grounds or simply out of concern that many U.S. schools are failing in their core missions of teaching basics doesn’t really matter – the vast majority of American adults want this type of curriculum kept out of the classroom,” Wenzel chief Fritz Wenzel said.

The scientific telephone survey was done April 19-21 with a margin of error of 3.23 percentage points. It found that 65 percent of all respondents objected to teaching elementary school children that homosexuality is a “normal alternative lifestyle.”

Only 22 percent were in favor, and 13 percent were unsure.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.