From Tolerance to Intolerance: How the Normalization of Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage Will Lead to the Suppression of Freedom
Recently popular talk show host and comedian Ellen Degeneres commented upon the position of Sarah Palin’s support of amending the Federal Constitution to define marriage between one man and one woman. In response to Palin’s comments on Christian Broadcasting Network, Ellen said:
So if you’re wondering…how I fell about this…I don’t like it. I don’t agree. Maybe it’s because I’m gay that I think we should all be equal. But I feel that we’re all equal…I don’t know what people are scared of. Maybe they think that their children will be influenced…People are gonna be who they’re gonna be…And we need to learn to love them for who they are, and let them love who they want to love (US Magazine.Com)
I do not disagree with Ellen in that all of us have been created in the image of God and there are certain unalienable rights that we possess as human beings. I also agree with Ellen in that we have the freedom of choice and the freedom to choose whom we give our love and affection to. However, once our actions move beyond the realm of our own lives to the realm of impacting others health, safety, and/or convenience, then our ability to ”freely choose” should be diminished (seeWe Too Are Prochoice).
From Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right, Daniel Garcia and Robert Regier observed:
When protecting one’s inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between liberty and license. This requires that rights attach to persons because of their humanity, not because of their behaviors, and certainly not those behaviors that Western legal and moral tradition has regarded as inimical to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” as stated in the Declaration (bold mine).
A person’s civil rights are not dictated by their behavior, but rather by their humanity, something that is immutable and unchangeable. However, celebrities such as Ellen are striving to have homosexuality and same-sex marriage receive special legal protection from the government to the detriment and suppression of freedom among individuals, parents, families, church, and community organizations.
Massachusetts and Connecticut have already succumb to this political battle, while California hangs in the balance. California’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O’Connell, recently commented upon the affects of same-sex marriage on the states public education curricula:
I’ve seen the spots on the TV, and (legalized gay marriage) just isn’ going to require any kind of teaching of personal relationships or lifestyles…That’s just not an accurate statement or portrayal (AP, Public Schools Become Focus of Gay Marriage Ban).
Not only has Mr. O’Connell level such an affirmation, but Laura Schulkind who serves as the representative lawyer for school districts across California said:
The education code already has a high expectation that school districts are going to create an environment where respect for human dignity and acceptance of differences, including sexual orientation, are promoted…I don’t see how the legalization of gay marriage or the passage of Prop. 8 changes that obligation (ibid.)
Is this the case? Will the endorsement of same-sex marriage have no bearing upon the curricula of state schools? What will ensure that school districts of CA, or any state for that matter, will not require their schools to normalize homosexuality or same-sex marriage?
What we will briefly observe is that the special legal protection of homosexuality and the allowance of same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to it’s normalization in state schools; therefore, directly affecting state school curricula. Moreover, this normalization of homosexuality and same-sex marriage will lead to the suppression of freedom of individuals, private religious and civic organizations.
OBSERVATIONS ON THE PRESENT DAY NORMALIZATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Even though CA state law does not require their schools to teach same-sex marriage, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley believes that the state “may require” such instruction in the future (ibid.).
If we simply observe what is taking place in MA, where same-sex marriages have been performed since 2004, we can readily conclude that the normalization of homosexuality and same-sex marriages will be necessitated within our public schools. Therefore, state schools will “require” curriculum in the future that accomplishes this end.
Brian Camenker, in his article entitled What Same-Sex “Marriage” Has Done to Massachusetts, observed,
In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship! (What Same Sex Marriage has done to MA, bold mine).
Even though schools possess a secondary authority to that of parents, it appears that they are beginning to usurp their authority and rights in choosing whether or not to opt their children out of such classes. The author of this article shared an experience of his own stemming from this normalization. Brian shared:
At my own children’s high school there was a school wide assembly to celebrate same-sex “marriage” in early December 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be “marrying” their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students (ibid.)
By publicly acknowledging and celebrating same-sex marriage, and passing out literature with the purpose of educating youth of the normalcy of same-sex marriage, state schools will integrate such activities as a part of normalizing homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
Not only is this happening in MA, it is already happening in CA in spite of what Mr. O’Connell and Ms. Schulkind say. From an e-mail sent by the Family Research Council we read:
“We’re learning to be allies.” That’s how one California mom discovered that something was terribly wrong at her kindergartner’s school. Together with other five-year-olds, her daughter has spent the entire week learning what it means to be “tolerant.” This morning, without notifying a single parent, Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science kicked off “Coming Out Day” as part of “Gay and Lesbian History Month.” When parents called the school to complain, an office worker directed them to contact Hayward Unified School District. Despite several attempts, the District never answered its phone. Only from the hallway posters did parents learn that the elementary school is hosting a “TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud” next month.
Observing just this small selection of examples will lead us to conclude that the allowance of same-sex marriage in any state, rather it be MA, CA, or WV, will lead to the states normalizing of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. States that look to normalize homosexuality and same-sex marriage through special legal protection and benefits will undeniably suppress the freedom of others.
NORMALIZATION OF CHOICE TO THE SUPPRESSION OF FREEDOM
As just stated above, any states special legal protection and benefits of homosexuality and same-sex marriage will lead to the suppression of freedom amongst those of differing beliefs.
On one hand, we have just observed above that parents – who bare the primary responsibility in educating their children – will lose their right to choose whether or not their children should participate in school curricula that endorses homosexuality and other sexual orientations.
On the other hand, private religious and civic organizations will lose their right in the criteria that they use in determining who can who the hire or who can participate with them. For example:
The Boy Scouts of America were sued and brought before the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2000 to explain why they had “violated” New Jersey’s law against discrimination against homosexuals. Though the Scouts won by a razor-thin 5 to 4 margin, the writing on the wall was clear: homosexual activists have pressured local and state governments into giving homosexuals special legal protection instead of securing the inalienable religious and associational rights of private organizations (Daniel Garcia and Rober Regier, Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right)
In addition to the Boy Scouts of America, we have already witnessed in Boston the closing of a Christian adoption agency that refused to place orphans with homosexual couples. Unfortunately, it appears that similar situations will soon occur in San Fransico considering that the city council has officially condemned Christian opposition to homosexual adoption as hateful and discriminatory (see The Family Research Council).
Moreover, religious organizations that teach homosexuality to be immoral and wrong will potentially be suppressed and silenced from speaking out against it, which is already taking place in parts of Europe and Canada (see Criminalizing Christianity and Sweden’s Shame).
This is not all. The normalization of homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage will even suppress the freedom of businesses. For instance, in New Mexico, a Christian-owned studio was fined more than $6,000 for refusing to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony (see The Family Research Council).
Although many whom are pro-homosexual and same-sex marriage argue for tolerance and equality are doing so - with the help of state courts - at the expense of suppressing the freedom of individuals, private and civic organizations, and even businesses. To argue otherwise is a refusal to accept the facts.
WHY WE SHOULD ACT NOW
Since the normalization of homosexuality and same-sex marriage will lead our country and state from tolerance to intolerance, we, as citizens of WV, need to act now in encouraging and supporting an amendment to our state’s constitution that defines marriage between one man and one woman. WV are encouraged to call their representatives and encourage them to endorse and support such an amendment to our state’s constitution.
Further Food for Thought:
Homosexual Agenda: Intolerance on the March, written by Alan Sears and Criag Austen