how about we just have a citizenship/society/civics class that explains what it means to be a responsible citizen and care for the people around us. How about we teach that violence and discrimination against anyone is wrong and letting the students find historical context themselves. I’m so sick of all this pointing towards race, creed, religion, sexual orientation crap. Just don’t discriminate. Period. Why do we need to we need to spell out each and every [current] social minority? It just leaves loopholes for the next one to come along and the wording needs to be rephrased. again.
I’m curious as to how they plan to implement this. I have no objections to homosexuals being included in history just so long as it is done responsibly. How important is the sexuality of some historical figures? I’m happy if students know Richard the Lionheart was the King of England and went to fight in the Crusades. It doesn’t really matter whether he was gay or not. Likewise I’m happy with students know what contributions Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin made to American History nevermind their sexual habits.
I have a college level textbook that includes a “point of view” from someone who lived during that chapter. For example they have a point of view from a man named Yick Wo who challanged the city of San Francisco when they refused to grant business licenses to Chinese people in the 1880’s (I think) and his case went to the Supreme Court and he won. That seems to be a decent way to handle it.
Even at the college level we don’t expect people in the basic history courses to know the sexual habits of most historical figures. Do we expect that kind of thing in high school?
Marc
Perhaps not, but it will cause a lot of confused adolescents to go gay. Which is the whole point! 
Because that’s not the same thing as “history.”
Why is it wrong to highlight the contributions of people from different groups? The history that’s taught in schools is not “neutral,” it’s predominantly white. Why not make it more complete by including what other groups of people brought to it?
Hush you! We can’t have everyone knowing the agenda!
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to undermine marriage and bring about the fall of western civilization. 
Once again, for those who apparently haven’t read the bill linked above, it’s simply amending existing law, which stated that group a, b, c should not be written negatively about or ignored because of the fact that they belong to a, b, or c. The amendment simply added group d to the mix. It’s not “PC Police Gone Wild IV: Overzealous in California.”
Again, here is the bill. For example, here’s one piece of the original:
Here is the text from the new bill
I’m not seeing anything to get worked up about.
Indeed and in truth. http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/
Your phrasing is not helpful, nor is it valid. This has nothing to do with historical figures’ “sexual habits”, it has to do with their identities as human beings.
What we are doing now is hiding this information from students. Why not treat them with more respect?
My apologies if the use of “sexual habits” was offensive but we don’t mention the heterosexuality of most historical figures either. The sexual orientation of Richard II, Abe Lincoln, or Teddy Roosevelt aren’t really all that important in the grand scheme of things. Especially when we’re talking about general history courses found through high school. It’s more important that we know who those people were and what they acomplished and I don’t really see how their sexual orientation matters in a general history course.
I certainly agree that it shouldn’t be hidden. It’s just that given the limited amount of time schools have to teach history courses I’m not quite sure how much time they expect to spend on the subject. Are they just going to mention “oh, and Richard might have had an affair with the king of France” or will they go into even more depth?
On a related topic I’m concerned about legislators dictating what historians will be putting into their books. It’s one thing to tell schools they need to have X amount of history and government classes but to dictate what will make the history books?
Marc
If it makes you feel any better they do teach most of the truths behind those laws in college courses.
Marc
I know. I meant in addition to history. Not replacing it.
Its not wrong. I’m not arguing against that. I was alluding to the wording of the laws for equal protection.
Hiding or leaving out because of relevance? I would argue that if it explains certain policy decisions or reveals motivations of important historical context, then it should be included. However if you just start lumping it in as ‘knowing the historical person’ then why not include every suspected affair and spouse of everyone as well? I suggest leaving the indepth personal analysis to specialized classes in 2ndary and post-secondary eduaction and focus on the cold-hard actions/reactions in the primary.
Ah. Some schools do have courses like that.
The ‘equal protection’ part appears to say nothing more than "textbooks shouldn’t put people down because of their sexual orientation.
Bolding mine. And I have to say it’s fascinating that people are harping on ‘sexual orientation’ when it was included with a number of other issues.
I don’t think I’ve evers seen a history book that put people down because of race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. in a public school. Do you perhchance know of any examples?
Well the OP was about homosexuals in history so that might be why we’re discussing it.
Marc
I don’t. But that is what the bill is about.
I meant people like the columnist quoted in the OP picking ‘gay history’ out of that list of groups, not people here responding to a thread about ‘gay history’ by talking about gay history. 
Thanks Marley. Can anyone find any examples of history textbooks that put down historical figures based on race, religion, national origin that was used in California public schools within the last 20 years? Then again maybe we need to define what put down is. Is non-inclusion considered a put down?
Marc
Are you kidding?
No. Sometimes they don’t even mention that they were married unless it has some sort of relevance. Henry VIII, Lincoln, etc. but we never learned in high school that Rasputin or Ben Franklin were notorious womanizers. We never heard about Frederick the Great, Einstein, or Theodore Roozevelt’s wives. So yeah, for the most part they don’t really flaunt their heterosexuality in my experience.
On the other hand everyone has some bias and it’s possible that my heterocentric has prevented me from noticing it. I tend to think everyone is straight until evidence shows me otherwise. I do not have anything against the inclusion of mentions of homosexuals in history books.
I do have something against legislators dictating how historians should write books though.
Marc
Maybe not at your high school, but I definitely learned both. Hell, I learned about Franklin’s indescretions in seventh grade…at a CATHOLIC school.
I wonder how common that is. I know my single example certainly isn’t a big enough sample group to come to any conclusion.
Marc