Don’t think for a minute that Springfield Dems are done genuflecting to homosexuals and cross-sex impersonators with the passage of the “Perversion Positive” sex ed bill, the “Free Tampons for Boys” bill, and the “Babies for EVERYONE” bill, which forces insurance companies to pay for “infertility” treatments for single people without sexual partners and homosexuals in naturally non-reproductive relationships. Oh, no, no, no. Morally fluid Springfield decree-makers have barely gotten started.

They also passed along partisan lines a bill (Illinois General Assembly – Full Text of SB1730 (ilga.gov) that amends the Business Corporation Act of 1983, which was written to address the underrepresentation of women and racial minorities on corporate boards. If signed into law, it will take effect this coming January and will require that “public corporations … report the self-identified sexual orientation and self-identified gender identity of its directors.”

If Governor J.B. Pritzker signs this bill into law, any publicly held domestic or foreign corporation with its “principal executive office in Illinois” will be required to submit an annual report to the secretary of state that includes the homoerotic predilections and “trans”-cultic practices of members of its board of directors.

The secretary of state will then send this information to the University of Illinois, which will issue a Chinese-social-credit-like “rating” to each corporation and issue edicts “identify strategies” to coerce corporations to get more homosexuals and cross-sex impersonators on their boards pronto.

Why—some Illinoisans are wondering—is Big Brother constructing ways to force corporations to procure more board members who prefer erotic relations with persons of the same sex and more board members who fancy themselves to be the sex they aren’t and never can be? Silly people, the reason is obvious. Corporate ethics and profitability are constituted by the number of homosexuals and cross-sex impersonators sitting on corporate boards.

There is, however, a problem with this law. This short but powerful tool for “equity” mentions “demographic diversity” three times, and yet, there is no mention of polyamorists—also known as consensual non-monogamists—autogynephiliacs, transableists, or cupiosexuals? Do any corporate boards in Illinois have members who identify as polyamorists, autogynephiliacs, transableists, or cupiosexuals? Does the secretary of state or University of Illinois have that information? If not, why not?

Despite portraying themselves as warriors for “demographic diversity” and “inclusion,” Springfield Democrats apparently want to remain mired on the wrong side of history.

Pulling my tongue out of my cheek, I will try to clarify the intellectual waters that leftists muddy with redefinitions and bad analogies: Neither “sexual orientation”—which really only means homoeroticism—nor cross-sex impersonation is analogous to biological sex or race. Whereas biological sex and race (or skin color) are non-behavioral, objective, 100% heritable, and in all cases immutable conditions, both homoeroticism  and cross-sex impersonation are constituted by subjective and often fluid feelings and volitional behaviors—like polyamory, autogynephilia, transableism, and cupiosexuality. There remains no rational or ethical justification for lawmakers to coerce companies to base board membership on potential board members’ sexual feelings.

The Great Awokening in Illinois continues, and while it does, let’s see how many more corporations and families flee Illinois.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Springfield-LawmakersGenuflect-to-LGBTQ-Communitym4a.mp3

---

Illinois Democrats are hell-bent on passing a new law—the REACH Act (HB 1736 and SB 647)—that will require every school-age child in Illinois public schools to be introduced to homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation through mandatory “comprehensive sex ed.” To be clear, that’s every child from kindergarten on up and the indoctrination will take place every school year, increasing in detail each year. This will be in addition to all the other pro-“LGBTQ” material in which leftists are drowning children via the proposed “Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards”; the existing “LGBT” school indoctrination law; the homosexuality- affirming “anti-bullying” law passed in 2010; and the novels, plays, movies, essays, and articles teachers are already choosing to teach.

Every year the amount of time and number of contexts in which positive images of and ideas about homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation—topics that no adult other than parents should introduce to children or teens—grows. Leftists have been planting a dark, impenetrable forest while self-neutering conservatives fret about the trash tree they just bumped into and left standing. Can conservatives not yet see the forest?

Leftists have their gimlet eyes always focused on the big picture as they play the long game to rule the country. And they know the big picture depends on shaping the hearts and minds of children. While conservatives dismiss the “little” offenses and fume briefly about the big offenses against decency, morality, and truth, leftists continue their march through every institution that shapes culture, including our schools which create our future culture-makers—or as we learned in 2020, our culture-destroyers.

Illinois made the national press recently for the youth mind-grab called the “Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards” that require teacher-training/professional licensure programs, all in-house professional development, and all classrooms to be infused with leftist beliefs about race, homosexuality, and cross-sex impersonation. That amendment will be decided in just a few days by a rules committee in Springfield composed of twelve lawmakers and controlled by leftists.

Meanwhile, here comes the REACH Act, which will enable leftists to reach deeper into the hearts and minds of impressionable children to shape their feelings and beliefs about sexuality under the viperish guise of protecting children.

IFI warned parents about this bill when it was first introduced last year. If passed, this legislation will require leftist-created “comprehensive” sexuality indoctrination to start in kindergarten. Currently, sex education is not required in Illinois, but if it is offered, the only type of curriculum that can be used is leftist “comprehensive” sex ed. That’s thanks to a 2013 law. More on that shortly.

Here are some morsels from the REACH Act (highlighted in yellow):

• “It is the intent of the General Assembly that comprehensive sex ed shall [must]… promote awareness and healthy attitudes about gender identity, gender expression” and “sexual orientation … and must be available to students in kindergarten through 12th grade.”

Since when did it become the job of public school teachers to promote “awareness” of homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation? When did it become their job to promote “healthy attitudes” about homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation? Who decides what constitutes a “healthy attitude” toward these phenomena, and on what criteria are such judgments made?

• “Comprehensive sex ed in kindergarten through second grade shall [must] include … instruction on the following topics: human anatomy … gender roles … [and] varying family structures.”

Discussing human sexual anatomy in co-ed K-12 classes is yet one more way for our leftists to dissolve feelings of modesty in young children just as those feelings are beginning to develop. Leftists view that as a good thing. Discussions of “gender roles” and of “varying family structures” are ways of introducing little ones to “trans”-cultic beliefs and homosexuality.

• “Comprehensive sex ed in the third through 5th grades shall [must] include information about diverse sexual orientations, gender identities, and gender expressions. … and an examination of the harm caused by gender-role stereotypes.”

No requirement that all competing views of “sexual orientation” be included or that criticism of “gender theory” be included.

No requirement that materials be presented that challenge the idea that all “gender-role stereotypes” are socially constructed and imposed.

No requirement that materials be presented that espouse the idea that “gender-role stereotypes” emerge organically from a recognition of sexual differentiation.

No requirement that materials be presented that discuss the possible ways “gender-role stereotypes” may serve a healthy cultural function.

No requirement that materials be included that argue that leftist gender theory is socially constructed and is being imposed on children with little to no public debate.

No requirement that materials be included that explain the serious health risks of chemical and surgical “treatments” to facilitate cross-sex impersonation.

No requirement that materials be presented on the social contagion that afflicts mostly adolescent girls called Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria.

No requirement that materials on desistance and detransitioning be presented.

• “[C]omprehensive sex ed must include … Discussion about … sexting” with 8-10-year-olds.

Leftists may be unaware of the many 8-10-year-olds who have never heard of sexting, never heard of porn, and don’t have cell phones. In those many cases, the passage of this law would mean the government would be introducing these young children to sexting. The innocence of their children that, at great effort and vigilance, parents have been able to preserve in the midst of this sex-saturated and defiling culture, the government would steal.

• Comprehensive sex ed “may not use stigmatizing or shame-based instructional tools or stigmatize parenting or sexually active youth,” “may not employ gender stereotypes” [you know, like saying only girls menstruate or only boys have penises], and “may not teach or promote any religious doctrine.”

In other words, schools must express only one judgment on homosexual behavior, cross-sex identification, and same-sex parenting: approval. So, what happens when the next sexual lobby gets their sexual identity added to the lawbooks? What happens when polyamorists are successful in having “polyamory” included in law as a “sexual orientation” as they already seek to do?

Enquiring minds wonder why this bill does not include these words: “Comprehensive sex ed shall not use stigmatizing or shame-based instructional tools to stigmatize religiously based parenting and shall not implicitly or explicitly teach or promote views critical of religiously based beliefs on the nature and morality of homosexuality or cross-sex identification.”

This bill follows the aforementioned comprehensive sex ed law passed in 2013. That bill required that any school that has a sex ed curricula in any grade must use only comprehensive sex ed—no abstinence-based sex ed. The bill’s sponsors argued at the time that the law was needed to reduce the number of STIs and unintended pregnancies among minors but then provided zero research proving that comprehensive sex ed achieves those goals better than abstinence-based curricula. And no Republican demanded such research.

The one good thing in the 2013 comprehensive sex ed law was that schools were left free not to offer any sex ed at all. That was then. This is now. The wolves waited for seven years, and then they pounced. Those little ones are so tender and tasty.

Last week, a video went viral of a justifiably enraged father taking a school board to task for the way his district was mishandling the education of children during the pandemic. Why haven’t there been an army of enraged fathers and mothers in Illinois taking school boards, administrations, and lawmakers to task for promoting evil ideas to their children? Why haven’t pastors and priests told parents that training their children up in the way they should go must never include even one positive teaching about homosexuality or cross-sex impersonation? Why haven’t churches made it possible for their members to remove their children from the ideological cesspools that self-identify as schools? Why are Christian teachers calling boys by female pronouns or saying nothing to oppose the sexual integration of children’s private spaces?

This is how leftists work:

Slowly they come, step by step, prepared for the wailing of conservatives, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Leftists bide their time, knowing the annoying sound and fury will shortly abate. Exhausted, conservatives will go home, abandoning all that messy, unpleasant opposition to the culture-unmaking of leftists. Conservatives won’t organize, won’t persevere, and won’t sacrifice. And the ones who do fight the evil-doers are alone and isolated because the masses of conservatives don’t want to do the hard work of culture-making.

They don’t want to say or do anything too public–anything that may affect their reputation in the neighborhood, their careers, or their children’s GPA. Even if they have the time and money to educate their children outside of government schools, they don’t want the hassle or expense. They don’t want to sacrifice those fantastic athletic and arts opportunities public schools offer. And they certainly don’t want to turn down a Big Ten or Ivy education for their children even if they—the parents—are feeding the very beasts who are destroying their children and freedom for people of faith in America.

There is no tiny sliver of the hearts, souls, and minds of Illinois school children that presumptuous Illinois lawmakers will allow to remain untouched by corrosive leftist beliefs on sexuality. And there is no child that presumptuous Illinois lawmakers view as too young to be exposed to those corrosive beliefs. Wail all you want, my conservative friends. Big Brother’s minions are patient. They’ll wait for the wailing to cease. They see in the distance a glorious time when wailing will be illegal.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state lawmakers to ask them to vote against the REACH Act (HB 1736 and SB 647). This radical sex education bill is heartily endorsed by Planned Parenthood of Illinois and by Illinois’ premiere “LBGT” activist organization, Equality Illinois, which should tell you everything you need to know about it.

Impressionable students in public schools should not be exposed to body- and soul-destroying messages that promote leftist beliefs about sexuality.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/audio_Another-K-12-School-Indoctrination-Bill-Coming-Through-the-Illinois-Sewage-Pipeline.mp3

---

Please consider supporting the good work of Illinois Family Institute.

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Perhaps you missed the disturbing news story about University of California Berkeley student Isabella Chow who was the only member of the 18-member student senate to abstain from voting in favor of a bill condemning President Donald Trump for the commonsense decision to make clear that in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the term “gender” refers to biological sex—which it clearly did when written. Chow bravely and graciously explained her decision to her dogmatist senate colleagues:

I have said and will always say that discrimination against or harassment of any person or people group is never ever okay. I certainly acknowledge any pain and experiences of individuals in this room who have gone through what no human being should ever go through. My heart breaks for you even more so if your pain has come at the hands of bullies and bigots who purport to be Christians but show no ounce of the love and understanding that Christ came to give. These shameful individuals only perpetuate the toxic stereotypes that my community and I vehemently abhor and even fight tooth and nail to strike from our identity in Christ.

My God is one who assigns immeasurable value to and desires to love each and every human being. In God’s eyes and therefore my own, every one of you here today in the LGBTQ+ community as a whole is significant, valid, wanted, and loved—even if and when our views differ. Jesus only had the deepest love and compassion for all who came to him. I hope that my actions and words, in addition to the relationships you and I have cultivated together, over the past couple years have only demonstrated the same depth of love and compassion.

That said, I cannot vote for this bill without compromising my values and my responsibility to the community that elected me to represent them. As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true. I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman. For me, to love another person does not mean that I silently concur when, at the bottom of my heart, I do not believe that your choices are right or the best for you as an individual.

Where this bill crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identity that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community. After lengthy conversations with many of my community leaders and advisors, I have chosen to abstain from voting on these bills tonight.

In closing, I again affirm with all my heart that each one of you in this room deserves nothing less than respect, acknowledgment, legal protection, and love, no matter your beliefs. I humbly ask that you extend the same respect and acknowledgment to my community as we continue this dialogue together. The Christian community is here to love and serve this campus in the way that we best know how. Thank you for your understanding, and please feel free to reach out to me at any time if you want to discuss this or anything else.

Chow did not vote against the bill. She abstained and in so doing freely exercised her religion.

So, how have those tolerant, free-thinking, anti-bullies at Berkeley responded? The campus newspaper, the Daily Cal, condemned her in an editorial, saying that her words were “appalling” and “homophobic and transphobic according to Daily Cal’s standards.” (Curiously, the gracious words of a theologically orthodox Christian are censored, while a deviant sex column written by a Daily Cal editor fits their “standards”). Those pesky Daily Cal exegetes claimed that Chow “chose to voice her personal—and highly problematic—interpretation of Christian scripture.”

The unhinged ideologues opined that “This abject dismissal and non-acceptance of gender identities goes far beyond personal opinion. Chow’s language erased and dehumanized individuals… Chow must stop framing these remarks as personal opinions or views. These statements are offensive and disturbing invalidations of human beings.” What exactly does it mean to erase and invalidate human beings? Disagree with their ideas and beliefs? Disapprove of their actions? Define differently the meaning of their subjective feelings?

What about the Daily Cal editors’ personal opinions and views? Do they go “far beyond personal opinion” (whatever that means)? Does their description of theologically orthodox Christian identities as “appalling,” “offensive,” “dehumanizing,” and “disturbing”—by their definition—erase, marginalize, and dehumanize Christian human beings?

The Daily Cal despots—who ironically recently published an op-ed titled “Vote to uphold UC Berkeley’s free speech legacy”—then refused to publish Chow’s self-defense. I wonder if she felt marginalized.

The Berkeley suppressors and oppressors weren’t done yet. They started a petition to force her to resign. They spent three hours in a subsequent meeting publicly condemning her while she sat under a huge banner that said, “Senator Chow Resign Now.” I guess they couldn’t find a pillory and scarlet thread.

On social media, she was called a “‘horrible person’” and a “‘mental imbecile.’” Regan Putnam, president of the Queer Alliance Resource Center (which brought the bill idea to the senate) and apparently a cross-dressing man, falsely accused Chow of “shrouding hate in ‘love.’” He didn’t define “hate,” but as near as I can tell, “hate” to him means holding moral propositions about volitional acts with which he disagrees. To be clear, the beliefs of the Berkeley tyrants that homosexual acts are moral, that marriage has no intrinsic connection to sexual differentiation, and that cross-sex “passers” are entitled to access to opposite-sex facilities are arguable, subjective moral propositions.

If the Berkeley Arbiters of Acceptable Moral Propositions believe that minority opinions on the nature and morality of homosexual acts and cross-sex “passing” should be censored, and if they believe that any student who holds those views should be prohibited from serving in the student senate, should professors who hold those views be similarly silenced or fired? Should books that express those views be allowed to be published? Should men and women who hold those views be prohibited from being elected to office?

At least as disturbing was the poor showing of support for Chow. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that only three students spoke in defense of this courageous young woman. Those theologically orthodox Christian students who knew about this controversy and failed to attend the public pillorying of Chow and speak in her defense should be ashamed.

The kind of indoctrination that masquerades as education and results in this kind of repugnant behavior does not start in college. For Leftists, there is no age too young to begin indoctrinating other people’s children, no means too devious, and no public cost too high. Here in Illinois, Leftist legislators continue to try to foist their personal ontological, moral, and political beliefs on children by concealing them in curricula. Leftists in Springfield are still pushing the “LGBT” sexuality indoctrination bill (SB 3249) which, if passed, will require that any “book or book substitute that will be used as a text or text substitute” in grades K-12 include the “role and contributions” of homosexuals and of men and women who adopt opposite-sex personas (also known deceptively as “transgender”). In other words, all materials used in schools will be required to address the roles and contributions of people who define themselves by their disordered sexual desires and sexual behaviors.

As I wrote in April 2018, there are no good reasons for teachers or textbooks to mention or discuss the sexual interests of contemporary or historical figures who have contributed something noteworthy to society. Their exceptional accomplishments should be noted, but their sexual proclivities—especially controversial sexual proclivities that many view as both immoral and destructive—have no place in public schools.

Homosexual and “trans” activists are not centrally concerned about ensuring the accomplishments of Sally Ride, James Baldwin, and Oscar Wilde are included in curricula; they already are. Homosexual and “trans” activists are centrally concerned about ensuring that students know that Ride, Baldwin and Wilde were sexually and romantically attracted to persons of the same sex. Homosexual and “trans” activists seek to transfer the good feelings children and teens have about accomplishments to homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation. It’s a ploy to render disordered feelings and immoral actions innocent by association with accomplishment.

But the quasi-religious ontological and moral dogma of the homosexual and “trans” communities regarding biological sex, “gender,” and “gender identity” are not facts and are not neutral. They are articles of faith—arguable beliefs—that government schools have no right to propagate either explicitly or implicitly. Taxpayers should no more be forced to subsidize material based on the quasi-religious beliefs of homosexual and “trans” activists than they should be forced to subsidize material based on the beliefs of, for example, the polyamorous community.

Would any lawmaker vote in favor of mandating that schools teach about the “roles and contributions” of polyamorists and poly-activists, or the roles and contributions of other communities whose identities are constituted by what many view as disordered desires and immoral volitional activities, like “amputee-wannabes,” infantilists, zoophiles, sadomasochists, and sibling-lovers (i.e., “Genetic Sexual Attraction”)?

“LGBTQ” activists take umbrage at such comparisons, declaiming that their sexual predilections constitute an authentic identity somehow set apart from those who identify as polyamorists, amputees, or babies, to which others may respond, “Who are you to judge?”

What if children or their parents experience such desires, engage in behaviors impelled by such feelings, or identify as poly, “amputee wannabes” or “infantilists”? What if they experience unwanted “minor attraction,” “genetic sexual attraction” or zoophilia? If homosexuals and “trans”-identifying persons should be able to see their predilections represented in curricula, shouldn’t other identity groups be able to see themselves represented in curricula? Should the accomplishments of people throughout history who experienced such feelings be excluded simply because they don’t yet have a powerful lobbying group that invents language that cloaks their beliefs in the appearance of objective facts?

We all know that schools—at least for now—wouldn’t teach about the accomplishments of polyamorists, “amputee-wannabes,” sibling-lovers, zoophiles, infantilists, or sadomasochists. Even if school leaders believed the feelings of persons in these groups were powerful, persistent, and unchosen, and even if school leaders believed biochemistry influences the development of their feelings, school leaders would not allow k-12 students to be taught that an important historical figure was a polyamorist, “amputee-wannabe,” sibling-lover, zoophile, infantilist, or sadomasochist. Why is that?

The reason is not merely that no one has yet demanded that they do so. The reason is that school administrators and board members—at least for now—believe the behaviors integral to those conditions are unhealthy, disordered, and immoral and that teaching about the role and contributions of those who engage in them would serve to normalize the phenomena.

Well, here’s an inconvenient truth: many believe the same about homosexuality and the science-denying cult of biological sex-rejection. What right have arms of the government (i.e., public schools) to treat the beliefs of Leftists on those two issues—homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation—as if they were objectively true?

Leftists are not helping to develop citizens who value the good, the true, and the beautiful. They’re constructing ignorant, arrogant, bigoted, hateful ideological tyrants like the Berkeley bullies—not free thinkers. Don’t let the indoctrination get any worse here in Illinois.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to both your state representative and state senator, urging them to reject this effort to politicize curricula in order to advance biased beliefs about sexuality to children in government schools. Contact them repeatedly.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/New-Recording-4-1.mp3

---

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.