Joe Biden Slams Florida 'Don't Say Gay' Bill Following DeSantis Support

Come_Hither1

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Posts
69,514
Joe Biden slams 'Don't Say Gay' bill one day after Ron DeSantis signaled support for the controversial Florida legislation



President Joe Biden on Tuesday offered support to LGBTQ students while speaking out against a Florida bill that would ban the discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in the state's public schools.

"I want every member of the LGBTQI+ community — especially the kids who will be impacted by this hateful bill — to know that you are loved and accepted just as you are," Biden tweeted.
—President Biden (@POTUS) February 8, 2022

"I have your back, and my Administration will continue to fight for the protections and safety you deserve," he added.

The controversial legislation, which critics have dubbed the "Don't Say Gay" bill, passed the state Senate Education Committee along party lines on Tuesday. A near identical version was first proposed nearly a month ago in the state's House of Representatives.

The bill would restrict school districts from "encouraging discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students," though the text fails to define what would be considered "age-appropriate" or "developmentally appropriate" for the topics.

Advancement of the bill comes a day after Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signaled his support for the legislation, telling reporters on Monday that it was "entirely inappropriate" for teachers to be talking about topics like sexual orientation and gender identity with students.

"Schools need to be teaching kids to read, to write," DeSantis said during a press conference. "They need to teach them science, history."

The governor cited alleged examples of teachers telling students not to worry about "picking their gender" and suggested educators were hiding classroom material from parents.

Opponents of the bill worry it would cause gay, lesbian, and transgender children to be even further marginalized. They also fear the legislation could prevent educators from having classroom discussions about the topics and might erase LGBTQ history from the statewide curriculum.

Last month, Chasten Buttigieg, a former teacher and husband of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, said the bill would "kill kids," citing data from The Trevor Project which found that 42% of LGBTQ youth considered suicide last year.

Proponents of the bill, however, argue that the bill is targeting school districts, not teachers, which means educators would still be allowed to have such conversations if they came up. Last month, Republican Rep. Joe Harding, who introduced the bill, said the legislation would not stop students from talking about their LGBTQ families, nor would teachers be barred from teaching lessons on queer history, according to WFLA-TV.

The White House officially denounced the bill on Tuesday — a rare move that press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters was taken to make a statement.

"Today, conservative politicians in Florida advanced legislation designed to attack LGBTQI+ kids. Instead of making growing up harder for young people, @POTUS is focused on keeping schools open and supporting students' mental health," The White House tweeted.
 
My take is the bill's language is too broad. There's a lot of confusion about what this or that phrase within the bill means (what the bill language means for supporters and what it means for detractors, and even within those sides), as your numerously linked articles do show. Inconsistent interpretation is a flag that the bill probably ought to be, at minimum, rewritten. Then (hopefully) productive debate can follow.

What I'm worried about here, other than the language of the bill, is that rather than taking a look at what is practically best for children (how to perserve rights of the child and the parents, inform parents, resolve problems, and create a functional safe space for someone who does indeed identify with or is curious about sexuality or/and gender in whatever way), many are opting to use the issue to posture, to take a stand to show that they are taking a stand.
 
My take is the bill's language is too broad. There's a lot of confusion about what this or that phrase within the bill means (what the bill language means for supporters and what it means for detractors, and even within those sides), as your numerously linked articles do show. Inconsistent interpretation is a flag that the bill probably ought to be, at minimum, rewritten. Then (hopefully) productive debate can follow.

What I'm worried about here, other than the language of the bill, is that rather than taking a look at what is practically best for children (how to perserve rights of the child and the parents, inform parents, resolve problems, and create a functional safe space for someone who does indeed identify with or is curious about sexuality or/and gender in whatever way), many are opting to use the issue to posture, to take a stand to show that they are taking a stand.
I think it was made broad because one it's written from a place of fear and ignorance, and two to allow supporters of the bill to continue to expand and build upon the bill in order suppress anything they fear.

Just remember "It's for the children."

Honestly, the genie was released from the bottle in the 60's and society has been evolving ever since. It will continue to evolve no matter what barricades the moral minority throws in the way.

We just have to try and limit the damage to young adults as the barricades are dismantled. My prediction, the arm of the right who try to legislate their idea of morality will continue to shrink, they will have diminishing impact on legislation. But as their movement shrinks in followers and influence they will become more violent. They will become like the Taliban, but with less control.

We can minimize their impact by acting out of love. We must answer their hate by showing love, support, and defense of those they seek to minimalize and dehumanize. Doing that we will force those who are on the fence to decide are they going to stand by and let fear, ignorance, and hate rule society or allow love, acceptance, and the seeking of knowledge guide they evolution of society. Faced with those two choices who could not side with love
 
Back
Top