Last week, Gov. Jerry Brown of California signed a bill which would require inclusion of the contributions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans in school lessons and textbooks.

This had to be the dumbest thing I read last week.  Why, you ask?

Let me start by saying, I don’t want to know or care how, when, where or with whom or what you want to involve yourself sexually.  I’ve absolutely no idea why that would be of interest to anyone.

Now that we’ve got that out of way, can anyone explain to me how anyone’s accomplishments become more or less important or significant if we learn the person is part of the GLBT community?

This is just plain ridiculous, stupid and ludicrous.  Did I say this is absurd? Dumb? Idiotic?  Are you getting where I’m coming from?

And a few words to California State Sen. Mark Leno, who sponsored the bill, and who had the audacity to compare Martin Luther King, Jr. to Harvey Milk and who thinks both men fought for civil rights and were assassinated for it.

There’s absolutely no comparison!  MLK, Jr. had not fought for the right to have a sexual preference which, by the way, should be a private matter, but rather advocated for an injustice which was clearly evident to anyone with half a brain.

Before the civil rights movement, blacks were treated as second-rate citizens, relegated to the back of the bus, required to drink out of separate water fountains and did not have the right to vote.  Can anyone show me where or when a gay person was forced to sit in the back of the bus or drank from a separate water fountain or prevented from voting?

The law won’t go into effect for at least five years because of the state’s textbook adoption process, but I think it’ll take that much time just to figure out the Table of Contents.

Will there be a section for heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and transgender individuals?   Will every historical person have a letter after his or her name, the same way we identify Republicans (R) and Democrats (D)?  When the father of country, George Washington, is discussed, will the section be prefaced:  “Heterosexual, George Washington was the first President of the United States” or will he simply have an (S) after his name?

If someone has been identified as a bisexual, will he or she appear in both the heterosexual and homosexual sections of the textbooks?

If someone is transgendered, will we read about his early accomplishments in the male section and her later achievements in the female section?  But what if the transgendered person who becomes a female identifies herself as a lesbian?  What if she prefers men?  Where will her story be included?

The whole idea is ridiculous.

Do I think the “The Picture of Dorian Gray,” or “The Well of Loneliness” are wonderful books because theirs authors, Oscar Wilde (G) and Radcliffe Hall (L) were homosexual?  Of course not.  Have I not read the poetry of Edna St. Vincent Millay because she was bisexual?  Absolutely not.  Gay, straight, whatever, I don’t care.  I wouldn’t read any of it because I don’t like poetry.  Period.

After it was revealed that Rock Hudson was gay, did I no longer love his movies, Send Me No Flowers, Lover Come Back, or Pillow Talk?   No, I still think they’re great.

The whole thing just feels like a further attempt to be politically correct and mainstream homosexuality into society even though the GLBT community is only approximately 3.8% of the total population of the United States.

And, finally, if we’re talking about sexual preferences, which is really the only difference between gay and straight people — lesbians have sex with women and gays have sex with men – what if someone prefers to have sex with animals, are we to identify them with a (B) after their names for bestiality and if someone’s preference is of the sado-masochistic persuasion, should (S-M) be after their name?  The whole thing is nuts.

With all the problems facing California and the dropout numbers unacceptable, why is this important?   For example, Latinos already represent more than half of the state’s K-12 students.  With a 40% dropout rate, shouldn’t this be of greater concern to those in Sacramento?  I’d be more concerned about students graduating than worrying whether someone preferred men or women.  But that’s just me.

I don’t get it, but if you do, God bless you.