This is What Happens When the State Is Allowed to Supersede Parental Rights

We have argued recently on the dangers of allowing the state to make decisions for parents. Whether the parent agrees or disagrees with the actual decision is not the issue. The issue is the state stepping in and taking parental rights absent of any “harm,” (physical, psychological or emotional) to the child of that parent. The fact that we have allowed the state to do leads to the inescapable position that if the state can restrict what you do with your child that is not harmful, then the state will say that it is allowed to do what it wants in regards to the child – even if the parents argue that “harm” is being done to the child or the parent / child relationship.

This idea is manifested in a new California law:

California lawmakers pass bill to teach gay history

SACRAMENTO, Calif (Reuters) – A bill to require California public schools to teach the historical accomplishments of gay men and lesbians passed the state Legislature on Tuesday in what supporters call a first for the nation.

Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, has not said publicly whether he supports the bill, which he has 12 days to sign or veto once it reaches his desk later this month. If he takes no action, the measure would become law automatically.

California already requires public schools to teach the contributions made to society by women and by racial and ethnic groups that were historically discriminated against, such as blacks, Latinos and Native Americans.

Before going further, let us make one thing clear: if a person overcame prejudice and bigotry to contributed to history, that is one thing. It is another to say “look at this person! They were gay!” Or “they were black!” Or “they were Hispanic!”

There is a difference between contributing to history in spite of obstacles put in front of a person and person contributing to history where no “prejudicial obstacles” existed.

It seems that the bill is designed to look for gays that have some sort of historical impact and then hold them up to students.

“It’s unfair to leave out or exclude an entire portion of our population from history,” said Carolyn Laub, executive director of San Francisco-based Gay-Straight Alliance Network.

We did not realize that anyone that had made a significant contribution to history was being excluded. In fact, we doubt seriously that anyone was excluded from historical discussions based on their sexual orientation.

As examples, there are those who claim that Eleanor Roosevelt was a lesbian. Whether that is a true or not is up for debate. What is not up for debate is that her role in seeking equality for women and blacks had nothing to do with her alleged sexual orientation.

Two names who allegedly gay will surprise you. There are those who believe George Washington was gay. They believe that Washington had an intimate relationship with Alexander Hamilton which is why Hamilton was made Secretary of the Treasury. Even if Washington was gay (he was not) does that mean that his achievements should be given more weight?

Or how about Abraham Lincoln? Author Gore Vidal asserts that Lincoln was gay. Lincoln has the distinction of being the subject of the most books in history. If he was gay (he wasn’t) where is this lack of inclusion in history that Laub claims to happen?

We do not buy the idea that this is a bill to “include gays into a historical discussion.”

If this new bill is signed into law, we believe that gay rights advocates will use it to advance an agenda that homosexuality is “normal” in spite of the wishes of of parents. Despite that some parents will teach their children that homosexuality is a sin, the state will teach otherwise. In doing so, the state will trample the First Amendment rights of parents. The state will demand that students attend indoctrination classes in spite of the parent’s moral and religious objections. Students will be tested on “gay history” to insure they have fully assimilated the teachings.

The teaching of “gay history,” “Hispanic History,” “Black history,” “women’s history,” etc., is counter productive to a the idea that America is a melting pot of people and ethnicities. In separating history in to different group of people, we lose the overall influence and importance of people’s actions.

Or, as author and historian David McCullough says,

Another problem is method. “History is often taught in categories—women’s history, African American history, environmental history—so that many of the students have no sense of chronology. They have no idea what followed what.”

What’s more, many textbooks have become “so politically correct as to be comic. Very minor characters that are currently fashionable are given considerable space, whereas people of major consequence farther back”—such as, say, Thomas Edison—”are given very little space or none at all.”

Teaching history in “groups” is it all the rage is bad educational policy.

Teaching “history” to further an agenda that is against the moral and religious beliefs of a parent is something the state has no Constitutional basis to be shoving down the throats of parents and students.

Comments are closed.