DeSantis, Shapiro & Co. Want To Put My Kid in the Closet

[Billy Jingo]

DeSantis, Shapiro & Co. Want To Put My Kid in the Closet

Nineties fever is upon us. Wide-legged jeans and bucket hats are everywhere. Pam & Tommy’s sextape is on the tube. Death Row Records has schoolmarms squirming. And in Florida, Ron Desantis’s Republicans are plotting to revive another grody artifact of my childhood, with an assist from Ben Shapiro and the conservative media set:

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Part Deux: Scholastic Boogaloo.

Critics have termed the proposal “Don’t Say Gay” legislation and I have to be honest, when this first hit my radar I thought it was too ridiculous to be something that could actually become law.

Maybe this was one of those cases where a freakazoid state legislator proposes some hopeless nonsense for media attention? Or activists overstate the particulars of what’s being proposed for attention? Or maybe it’s one of those scenarios where a president attempts a multifaceted putsch to stay in power and New York Times columnists tell us we shouldn’t take it that seriously because he’s just a big joke and nothing will come of it?

But as it happened: No.

I talked with some people involved in Florida state politics and Don’t Say Gay is not at all DOA.

It has passed the education committees in both Florida’s House and Senate. It has the support of the governor. It is on track to be debated in both chambers in the coming weeks. And while controversial bills that arise early in the session sometimes die on the vine, as things stand today there remains a political path in Florida to codify this effort to silence any gay talk in the state’s schools.

If they are successful in Florida they won’t let teachers or students talk about Bruno* and the silence will be enforced by Florida Man.

The bill’s supporters aren’t even bothering to hide their intentions with Don’t Say Gay. The case these culture warriors are making for a DADT redux invokes all the wanton cruelty of the bipartisan O.G., but with the added innovation of bounty-style litigiousness that modern day Republicans find so appealing.

[scott]

“A school district may not encourage classroom 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.”


You object?

I think you didn't even read it, you're just repeating talking points fed you to dunk on anyone right of center.

You are a caricature.

[Frostbit]

“A school district may not encourage classroom 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.”


You object?

I think you didn't even read it, you're just repeating talking points fed you to dunk on anyone right of center.

You are a caricature.

iu.jpg

[Billy Jingo]

“A school district may not encourage classroom 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.”


You object?

I think you didn't even read it, you're just repeating talking points fed you to dunk on anyone right of center.

You are a caricature.

Find your fig leaf. Your guy is appealing to the malignant wing of the Republican Party. Make your peace with it now.

All that outreach to the gay community. Gone.

[scott]

Find your fig leaf. Your guy is appealing to the malignant wing of the Republican Party. Make your peace with it now.

You still haven't read it.

All that outreach to the gay community. Gone.

Really? You know lots of gay Florida voters? I know quite a few and those right of center don't have much of a problem with it. Those left of center are sorta shrugging. You know who is going ballistic? The straight white progressive outrage brigade.

People like you are sooooo upset and are really amping up their criticisms of everything right of center. Nikki Fried is all verklempt but so happy to have something other than the failed mask mandates to talk about. Realistic gay parents and grandparents around here are more concerned with parental rights with regards to their schools than virtue signaling.

Desantis is going to beat Charlie Crist in the election, and Crist is going to beat Nikki quite easily in the primary.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

“A school district may not encourage classroom 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.”


You object?

I think you didn't even read it, you're just repeating talking points fed you to dunk on anyone right of center.

You are a caricature.

I think the language is unconstitutionally vague, because it can mean anything or nothing. What "encourages" discussion? Is it OK to have a policy that students may not use derogatory terms toward each other? If the students bring up a topic in the appropriate class or context, are teachers allowed to let them speak and require other students to be respectful?

When we interviewed for HRH's elementary school, I asked the head of school if we would be the only gay-parented family in the school, and if that was likely to be a problem. HRH was far too articulate to just hope it wouldn't come up, even if I were that sort of person.

Now, to some extent, Shapiro is correct: for the most part, I neither knew nor cared about my elementary-school teachers' personal lives. However, we did know that some of them were married and others were not. Would this legislation require a married gay teacher to keep marital status a secret? Would it prohibit the teacher introducing a gay couple as So--and-so's parents?

This is a stupid and unnecessary bill at best, malicious and a potential cudgel to be used politically at worst. IMO, it's unlikely to pass, but if it does, it will need to be challenged.

Concurrently, people need to not take their politics of any stripe into the classroom. I know not all of Florida is like St Pete, but at all of the schools HRH attended in Florida, there were openly gay kids and parents (usually not in the same family). I don't foresee any legislation, no matter how misguided or malign, putting gay Floridians back in the closet.

[scott]

I think the language is unconstitutionally vague, because it can mean anything or nothing. What "encourages" discussion? Is it OK to have a policy that students may not use derogatory terms toward each other? If the students bring up a topic in the appropriate class or context, are teachers allowed to let them speak and require other students to be respectful?

When we interviewed for HRH's elementary school, I asked the head of school if we would be the only gay-parented family in the school, and if that was likely to be a problem. HRH was far too articulate to just hope it wouldn't come up, even if I were that sort of person.

Now, to some extent, Shapiro is correct: for the most part, I neither knew nor cared about my elementary-school teachers' personal lives. However, we did know that some of them were married and others were not. Would this legislation require a married gay teacher to keep marital status a secret? Would it prohibit the teacher introducing a gay couple as So--and-so's parents?

This is a stupid and unnecessary bill at best, malicious and a potential cudgel to be used politically at worst. IMO, it's unlikely to pass, but if it does, it will need to be challenged.

Concurrently, people need to not take their politics of any stripe into the classroom. I know not all of Florida is like St Pete, but at all of the schools HRH attended in Florida, there were openly gay kids and parents (usually not in the same family). I don't foresee any legislation, no matter how misguided or malign, putting gay Floridians back in the closet.

Exactly. It's nowhere near as bad as is claimed, it's a push back to the many activist teachers starting to "speak out" and force discussions on all sorts of political issues - which is why it's pissing progressives off so much.

Well let me clarify - people like Bok are just doing what they are told to do, which is to get massively outraged and this. Those orchestrating the outrage machine want to keep their platforms in the schools.

In true Republican fashion, the political response is goofy and ham-handed as well.

[Billy Jingo]

[scott]

Is it funny because of how wrong they are about the law or is it funny because clueless leftists wrote a skit mischaracterizing Republicans?

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Is it funny because of how wrong they are about the law or is it funny because clueless leftists wrote a skit mischaracterizing Republicans?

Actually, I thought it was pretty funny. And if I understood the news stories correctly, that is what the law would have done, had the author not backed off the outing amendment.

Even without the amendment that was withdrawn, I think the law is deeply flawed, simply because it is so vague that nobody will really know how to comply, which is, in fact, likely to lead to some very bad and biased enforcement in some places. Rather like prohibiting the advocacy of religion by teachers in public school classrooms led to stupid actions like punishing students for doing their book reports on religious books.

They say bad cases make bad law, but bad laws also make bad cases. This one will do nothing but cause trouble.

[Billy Jingo]

… I think the law is deeply flawed, simply because it is so vague that nobody will really know how to comply, which is, in fact, likely to lead to some very bad and biased enforcement …

You are correct but the aim of “vague” is not the danger of prosecutorial zeal; although that is a concern. It exists to instill fear.

Like laws criminalizing so-called Critical Race Theory in schools, whose purpose is to make teachers and those who write curriculum fearful so they won’t even come close to whatever the line is, “vague” is a feature, not a bug. And it works. I have personally seen it.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

You are correct but the aim of “vague” is not the danger of prosecutorial zeal; although that is a concern. It exists to instill fear.

Like laws criminalizing so-called Critical Race Theory in schools, whose purpose is to make teachers and those who write curriculum fearful so they won’t even come close to whatever the line is, “vague” is a feature, not a bug. And it works. I have personally seen it.

Well, duh. It's like loitering laws. They were intentionally vague so that they could be selectively enforced.

[80zephyr]

You are correct but the aim of “vague” is not the danger of prosecutorial zeal; although that is a concern. It exists to instill fear.

Like laws criminalizing so-called Critical Race Theory in schools, whose purpose is to make teachers and those who write curriculum fearful so they won’t even come close to whatever the line is, “vague” is a feature, not a bug. And it works. I have personally seen it.

Laws like this are vague because they have to be. Define porn. Now you see the problem.

Mark

[scott]

Actually, I thought it was pretty funny. And if I understood the news stories correctly, that is what the law would have done, had the author not backed off the outing amendment.

Even without the amendment that was withdrawn, I think the law is deeply flawed, simply because it is so vague that nobody will really know how to comply, which is, in fact, likely to lead to some very bad and biased enforcement in some places. Rather like prohibiting the advocacy of religion by teachers in public school classrooms led to stupid actions like punishing students for doing their book reports on religious books.

They say bad cases make bad law, but bad laws also make bad cases. This one will do nothing but cause trouble.

I agree and I don't support this law.

It is not as what is being claimed by people feeding Bok propaganda and it's not at all like the SNL skit.

[scott]

You are correct but the aim of “vague” is not the danger of prosecutorial zeal; although that is a concern. It exists to instill fear.

Like laws criminalizing so-called Critical Race Theory in schools, whose purpose is to make teachers and those who write curriculum fearful so they won’t even come close to whatever the line is, “vague” is a feature, not a bug. And it works. I have personally seen it.

That's common on both sides. Did you know people get fired in some places to say "niggardly" because it might offend someone who is ignorant of the term?

But go ahead and call Republicans evil for being politicians.