How anti-gay is WorldNetDaily? It distorts the facts about laws intended to protect gays to the point where it is essentially telling a lie.
A Feb. 1 article by Bob Unruh starts off by referencing "a plan generated by California's legislature created a ban on the use of 'mom' and 'dad' in public schools." This links to an October 2007 WND article stating that a new California law means that "'Mom and Dad' as well as 'husband and wife' effectively have been banned from California schools" [emphasis ours]. Unruh goes on to repeat a previous false description of the California law as "mandat[ing] a positive – and no other – portrayal of bisexuals, homosexuals, transgenders and others choosing alternative sexual lifestyles in public schools."
As we've detailed when WND previously falsely described this law, SB 777 adds sexual orientation to the state's anti-discrimination laws as they apply to schools and requires that schools don't present material that "promotes a discriminatory bias" against those groups covered under the anti-discrimination clause. Unruh and WND are merely taking refuge in the Depiction-Equals-Endorsement Fallacy.
The October article goes on to state:
[Karen] England [of the conservative Capitol Resource Institute] told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias.
"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."
So, in fact -- by WND's own admission -- the law does not ban "mom" and "dad"; it "is not a list of banned words" at all. It is only speculation by conservative opponents of this law that are speculating -- no actual evidence, mind you, just speculation -- that "mom" and "dad" are banned.
Unruh, then, is portraying speculation as fact.
This man worked for the Associated Press for nearly 30 years and presumably knows better -- but as we've documented, it appears he learned nothing from the AP.
Meanwhile, another Feb. 1 WND article stated that a Massachusetts court ruled that "there is an obligation for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality." This claim links to a February 2007 WND article by Unruh that makes the same claim -- and then went further, asserting the judge "ordered the 'gay' agenda taught to Christians who attend a public school in Massachusetts."
But that's not true either; as the judge's ruling stated according to the brief excerpt, buried amid a pile of ranting about "pro-homosexuality indoctrination," Unruh included in his article:
"Under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy," the judge wrote. "Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation."
And, he said, since history "includes instances of … official discrimination against gays and lesbians … it is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students … different sexual orientations."
In other words, the judge approved teaching that homosexuality exists. Unruh invokes the Depiction-Equals-Approval Fallacy again!