The title of this post is boldly stolen from my esteemed colleague, Zippy Catholic, who used it for an inaugural post of his at this very blog about a year and a half ago. It seemed so perfect for this post that I could not resist but have added "redux" to it and trust that he will not mind.
Probably a number of my readers have already heard about the case in Massachusetts a couple of years ago in which parents, Mr. and Mrs. Parker, were denied an opt-out for their five-year-old from discussions and promotion of homosexual "marriage." The problem began with the child's being sent home with a "diversity bag" containing a book about a girl, her father, and her father's homosexual partner, all of whom live together and are treated in the book as a "family."
Mr. Parker demanded that he be notified and given an opt-out opportunity for such materials and discussions of them in the future. When the superintendant refused, the father insisted that he would not leave the school until an accommodation was made, and he was arrested for civil trespass.
It is not my intention to defend the father's actions. My own opinion is that if the Parkers had not yet realized before sending their child to a public school kindergarten that their beliefs would be actively assaulted, they should have realized it the minute he came home with anything called a "diversity bag," and, so far from refusing to leave the school building themselves, they should immediately have removed their children from the school and either sent them to a Christian school or, better yet, homeschooled them. Even if the school had agreed to such an opt-out, the other children would all have been receiving the material and probably discussing it among themselves, the school atmosphere would have been such that such ideas were promoted, and very likely the notion of homosexual "marriage" would be sufficiently integrated into the curriculum as to make it impossible to avoid situations in which its normalcy was promoted to the child. Opt-outs for objectionable material are, in my opinion, cosmetic, and parents should not rely on them.
What interests me, however, is this fact: Massachusetts has an explicit statutory law requiring that parents be notified and given an opt-out opportunity for the discussion of "human sexuality." So why wasn't the Parkers' wish granted? It's very simple: Since homosexual "marriage" is now officially, legally recognized in Massachusetts, parents who object to such propoganda material are told that it is not about "human sexuality" but rather just about "real life."
This point is made explicitly by a school principal in this NPR story (you must click on another link to listen to the whole story) about a gay fairy tale in which a prince "marries" a prince. This principal even pontificates a bit about "abiding by Massachusetts law," as though the legalization of homosexual "marriage" means (as it obviously does not) that public schools are legally required to read gay fairy tales in class.
Get it? See, if the people in the little "diversity" story in the Parker boy's bookbag are just a family, and the relationship between the two men is just a marriage, then unless the book contains explicitly sexual material, it is no more about sexuality than any little booklet showing a little girl living with her mom and dad. For that matter, I suppose that a mom and dad in some book given to children could kiss, hug, or hold hands if it came up in the story without the book's concerning "human sexuality," so by this logic, so could her dad and his homosexual partner. Very clever. (Note: I am not saying that this happens in the book. I haven't read the book. I'm only pointing out what could happen in the book without the book's obviously falling under the statute.)
The legal logic is impeccable, and so is the bait and switch. Homosexual rights, we have been told, is about your right to do what you want to do in your own bedroom, to be left alone, not to be persecuted for your private acts. But let's be clear: That is so only insofar as this really is about sex. The private acts in question are sexual acts. But the whole goal has been not simply to permit those private acts, which no one was running out to try to stop anyway. The goal was to force normalization of those acts, and everyone knows well that the normalization of a particular type of sexual act is the unspoken theme and purpose, the very raison d'etre, for such books as Who's in a Family? and King and King. It is not, after all, as though the little girl's father and his partner are heterosexual college buddies who live together to save on the rent! A book like King and King, being a "love story," makes this point even more obvious. So of course this is about human sexuality, but it's oh-so-easy, once normalization has taken place, to pretend that it isn't.
So we started with privacy, and here is where we have ended up: "Oh, this isn't about sex at all. See, now that this is legally recognized as marriage, this is about real life. This is just about different kinds of families. It's a public matter and must be treated in public as any other marriage is treated publically." Gotcha.
Conservatives warned until they were hoarse that this was the case but were not heeded. And so it will go on. Normalization is by no means about privacy. It's about what we say in public. And that was always the endgame.
HT Americans for Truth web site for NPR link