Analysis of H4571: In unanimous vote Mass. House caves in to gay lobby on "anti-bully" bill.
Adds GLSEN homosexual school guidelines; requires diversity training to school staff; extends bill to include private schools; fines and jail terms for kids; and more.
Also: What should be done about bulling in schools? (see below)
POSTED: March 24, 2010 UPDATED: April 18. 2010
In an extraordinary move, the Massachusetts House of Representatives added language to the version sent from the Senate "anti-bully" bill to align it more closely with the goals of a major homosexual activist group, and passed it unanimously.
(Luckily, it does NOT include the "hate speech" language that was in the original version -- which we helped get removed from the earlier Senate version.)
At the center of this bill is GLSEN, the "Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network". GLSEN is an aggressive and militant homosexual national activist group which targets children in the public schools. GLSEN's goal is to normalize homosexual behavior to school children, often in a very graphic manner. Here in Massachusetts, they were involved with Fistgate, The Little Black Book, and other horrible events. They organize homosexual "gay-straight alliance" clubs in high schools and middle schools across the country, etc.
GLSEN is behind a recent push across the country to use state "anti-bullying" legislation as a vehicle to force homosexual diversity training into public schools (including staff training), and punish anyone who voices criticism of homosexual behavior. A large part of their website is devoted to this.
The House bill is patterned after GLSEN's "Model State Anti-Bullying and Harassment Legislation". It also includes language similar to GLSEN's "Model school anti-bullying and harassment policy" and GLSEN's guidelines for schools. These were designed with GLSEN's goals in mind: to use anti-bullying legislation as an entrée for enforcing the homosexual agenda in schools. It's very clear that whoever wrote (and amended) the Massachusetts House bill relied on these documents.
During the Nov. 17 public hearing at the State House, the Boston Globe reporter carried a GLSEN press release/fact sheet. (And the Globe articles pretty much reflected that.)
In addition, the mother from Springfield who's been the main face of the bill, Sirdeaner Walker, has been traveling around the country for GLSEN, using the tragic (and complicated) death of her son to promote GLSEN's homosexual anti-bullying legislation.
As we saw over the past several months, this was done with an incredible PR campaign of emotional bullying-related articles that just "happened" to show up in the media every few days.
An expensive knee-jerk reaction to media-generated hysteria
Given the breakdown of society, bullying has unfortunately become a bigger problem in the schools. Kids really are being victimized. But is the answer a long, comprehensive, and onerous new state law? We don't think so. Especially one designed by GLSEN, a poisonous organization that preys on innocent children and whose only interest is in pushing a radical sexual agenda.
This is unfortunately a rushed, knee-jerk reaction to the emotional media-based hysteria generated over the last few months. But it's a terrible way to make laws that will affect everyone for years to come.
What should be done about bullying in schools?
We have never seen a GLSEN-based "safety" program anywhere that had any level of success - except to promote homosexuality and transgenderism to children. If the Massachusetts Legislature were to act responsibly instead of reacting to hysteria (we realize that's asking a lot) they would look around to see what works.
For example, a few weeks ago the Wall Street Journal posted a very thought-provoking article titled Bullying: Declining or just moving online.
According to studies cited in the article, bullying in schools is actually declining, largely because of programs by groups such as the Olweus Foundation, CASEL, and others which are very effective -- and have very little resemblance to GLSEN or what the Massachusetts House just passed. The new challenge is online bullying. They take a different approach and look at the psychological causes of bullying rather than just reacting to the symptoms.
And they've found they can make a lot of progress without onerous state laws micromanaging the process. Our lawmakers need to step back and take a second look at the whole thing
Unfortunately, Republicans are all on board
It's hard to imagine that a bill this obnoxious would be unanimously passed 148-0. Doesn't anybody think for themselves anymore? Well, if you talk to people connected with the State House, you'll find out pretty quickly that the fear of (1) the Boston Globe and (2) the homosexual lobby (and the hysteria they can enflame) trumps everything these days, even common sense.
And to add insult to injury, after the vote Sen. Richard Tisei, (R-Wakefield), who is running for Lt. Governor this November (and who recently announced he is "gay") praised the bill in the homosexual news site EdgeBoston.
What's next . . .
This bill (H4517) along with the one passed by the Senate on March 11 (S2323) are going to a "conference committee" which will create a compromise bill, although they have lots of leeway on what they can include. State House News reported that the Senate members of that committee are: Sen. Robert O'Leary (D-Barnstable) who is Senate chairman of the Education Committee, Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton), and Sen. Michael Knapik (R-Westfield). There will also be three House members, who have not been named yet. (We will let you know when that happens.
There is no deadline for the conference committee to finish its work. After that, each branch votes again on the compromise bill. So it's not over yet. But this is pretty frightening.
We will keep you up to date on what happens -- and what you can do regarding the conference committee.
P.S. The decision to go to conference committee was made in one of the Senate's infamous "informal sessions" with only two senators (Rosenberg and Tarr) in the room. As we've pointed out before, the Massachusetts Constitution requires a quorum of 20 to conduct any business. But with a wink and a nod, they "pretend" there's a quorum and go on from there. That's your Legislature at work.