[Hoot Gibson]

Then I guess I should have included what the bill was actually stating. One of the ammendments is listed below, the only part of the bill that lists sexual orientation.

The code shall prohibit harassment, intimidation, bullying, or cyberbullying. As used in this paragraph, "harassment, intimidation, bullying, or cyberbullying":
1. Means any written, verbal, or physical act or any electronic communication that is intended to:
a. Threaten or physically harm a student or damage the student's property;
b. Be so severe, persistent, or pervasive that it substantially interferes with a student's educational opportunities, or creates an intimidating or threatening educational environment; or
c. Substantially disrupt the orderly operation of the school; and
2. Includes any written, verbal, or physical act or electronic communication shown to be:
a. Motivated by a student's actual or perceived race; color; religion; national origin; ancestry or ethnicity; sexual orientation; physical, mental, emotional, or learning disability; gender; gender identity and expression; or other distinguishing personal characteristic; or
b. Based on association with any person identified by a distinguishing characteristic described in subdivision a. of this subparagraph.

Based on what is written, how could that give special rights to gay students? It doesn't single them out from the rest of the "distinguishing characteristics"

The point I am trying to make is that they chose an ignorant reason to not vote the bill through.

Please reread the bill, paying close attention to the conjunction "and." The proposed law would apply only to the defined protected classes, one of which is "sexual orientation." Both conditions 1 and 2 must be met (because of the use of "and") in order for the proposed law to apply. In other words, a little girl who is white, straight, intelligent, and with none of the "distinguishing characteristics" would not be protected under the law. She could be bullied for wearing the wrong colors to school, not wearing make-up, distorting the curve on a test, or an infinite number of reasons not mentioned in the bill - and she would not be protected by the law.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is not legal for one person to physicall attack or harrass another person under current law.

The proposed bill is just another example of politicians trying to pander to certain voting blocs by creating special protected classes through legislation that applies only to those segments of society.

If another law against bullying is needed at all. then it should not exclude anybody from the added protection.