My friends at Campus Reform are on top of it, as usual. They always expose the thin-skinned idiocy of campus liberals and give me lots of column fodder in the process. Thanks guys. The next round of waffle fries is on me.
Campus Reform is reporting that Chick-fil-A, the popular fast food restaurant chain, has now been dubbed a "symbol of hate," by a professor at Eastern Illinois University (EIU). Lisa Moyer, who teaches in the Family Studies Department at EIU, apparently made the comment with a straight face, although some have suggested that the term "straight face" reinforces heterosexist oppression. Regardless, her comment reinforces my belief that it is always a mistake to choose a major ending in the word "studies."
Moyer made her strangely uninclusive remarks in response to questions about a faculty resolution at EIU. The resolution proposed expelling a Chick-fil-A restaurant from campus in order for the university to be more inclusive. Because of the franchise's alleged opposition to homosexuals, some faculty decided that getting rid of them would promote diversity by producing complete uniformity of thought on issues related to sexual orientation. Talk about queer reasoning!
Moyer, in typical liberal fashion, has projected her hatred of Chick-fil-A onto the restaurant itself and has characterized their company logo as a symbol of hate. I suppose it's now in the same category as a burning cross or a Nazi swastika. In her recent interview with Campus Reform, she elevated hypersensitivity to a Zen art by arguing that her efforts to censor this "symbol of hate" are justified because Chick-fil-A makes a lot of students, particularly in the LGBT community, "feel uncomfortable.” (See www.CampusReform.org for additional details).
Although the Faculty Senate resolution to remove Chick-fil-A from campus was defeated 3-6, the LGBTXYZPDQ community won anyway. That is all because the discussion resulted in the school opening an office for LGBTQ outreach. When they win they win and when they lose they still win - so long as they keep reminding everyone they feel uncomfortable and need special protection.
So I've been thinking about it and I've decided that our LGBTQIA Office here on my campus makes me feel uncomfortable. In fact, the rainbow is a symbol of hate. So, next week, I plan to introduce a resolution to ban them from campus. I expect the resolution to be defeated because it is idiotic. I'm just hoping I get a special office as a consolation prize - simply for being a narrow minded bigot.
Make no mistake about it: the best way to get money in higher education is to be a thin skinned bigot. African American centers reward racial hypersensitivity, Women's Centers reward gender hypersensitivity, and ABC-LGBT-XYZ-PDQ Centers reward unmitigated religious intolerance.
So what exactly is the motivation for all of this thin-skinned hyper-ventilating? Just follow the money. At the end of every rainbow flag, there's a pot of gold - and usually a few burned out professors smoking pot as well.
It is true that Chick-fil-A initially came under fire last summer after CEO, Dan Cathy, indicated personal opposition to same sex marriage. But that wasn't the real issue. The real outrage was over Cathy's personal donations to pro-family conservative groups such as the Family Research Council. The attempt to organize a boycott of the chain was simply an effort to cut off the flow of money to those organizations.
So those of us who support traditional marriage must borrow a page from the pink play book and do the same. If you are donating to a school that houses one of these LGBTQ outreach centers, then shame on you. Give your money to a pro-family "hate group" instead. They tend to be more inclusive anyway.
Oh, yes, and buy more chicken with the money you save from those withheld donations. It'll keep you from having a cow whenever you encounter a divergent viewpoint.
Chris Culliver, the San Francisco 49ers player who badmouthed gays last week, will soon begin LGBT sensitivity training. When do the public figures who badmouth conservative Christians begin their sensitivity training?
Back in 2007, basketball player Tim Hardaway received an avalanche of criticism when he said during a radio interview, “I hate gay people. I don’t like to be around gay people. I’m homophobic. I don’t like it. It shouldn’t be in the world for that or in the United States for it. So yeah, I don’t like it.” He too went to sensitivity training and has since emerged as a gay rights spokesman.
Also in 2007 (as I documented in A Queer Thing Happened to America), Isaiah Washington, star of ABC’s Grey’s Anatomy, referred to (then-closeted) gay co-star T. R. Knight with the “f--got” word during a heated, on-set incident. He then compounded his transgression in a backstage interview with reporters at the Golden Globes’ event, held on Monday night, January 15th, 2007: “No, I did not call T.R a f--got. Never happened, never happened.”
ABC was quick to express its outrage: “We are greatly dismayed that Mr. Washington chose to use such inappropriate language at the Golden Globes, language that he himself deemed ‘unfortunate’ in his previous public apology,” the network said in a statement. “His actions are unacceptable and are being addressed.”
Neil Giuliano, then president of GLAAD (the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, better described as Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement) referred to the situation as “deeply troubling” and stated that Washington’s repeated use of the word was “inexcusable,” asking for a meeting to discuss “the destructive impact of these kinds of anti-gay slurs.”
Then, on Thursday, January 18th, 2007, Washington came clean, expressing how deep his problems really were: “I apologize to T.R., my colleagues, the fans of the show and especially the lesbian and gay community for using a word that is unacceptable in any context or circumstance. . . . I can neither defend nor explain my behavior. I can also no longer deny to myself that there are issues I obviously need to examine within my own soul, and I’ve asked for help.”
He too went for professional counseling and rehabilitation, but despite his apology and his efforts to make amends with the LGBT community, ABC fired him. Contrition and sensitivity training were not enough for the great transgression of simply uttering the “f-----” word.
Contrast this with the reaction to actor Mark Ruffalo’s 2010 comments regarding conservative Christians and others who were opposed to redefining marriage. He said, “It’s the last dying, kicking, screaming, caged animal response to a world that is changing, a world that’s leaving a lot of those old, bigoted, un-accepting views behind. It’s over. Those against it are very tricky and they’re using really dark ways to promote their ideas.”
Was he sent off to sensitivity training? Would you like to venture a guess?
How about Roseanne Barr? Did she go to sensitivity training after expressing her ire towards Chick-Fil-A customers (especially Christian customers) in some notorious messages on Twitter last year? She tweeted, “Anyone who eats S*** Fil-A deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ,” adding, “off to grab a s*** fil-A sandwich on my way to worshipping Christ, supporting Aipac and war in Iran.”
Of course, she did receive criticism for being insensitive to cancer victims, tweeting in response, “Rereading my tweet I realize that I used the wrong word-I shouldn’t have used the word deserves. . . . I meant to warm ppl not 2 eat processed food.” But her vile attacks on conservative Christians continued unabated and without apology. Of course!
How about Bill Maher, a veritable treasure trove of anti-Christian comments? He actually made an entire movie called “Religulous” that was devoted to mocking religious faith, but somehow, I missed the news about his subsequent apologies and his time spent in sensitivity training.
And what about the new painting by West Hollywood artist Bronwyn Lundberg? It’s entitled “The Lesbian Last Supper” and features Ellen Degeneres as Jesus. (I kid you not.) Lundberg explained, “Religious art will inevitably strike strong responses in some people but those are issues I can’t worry about because I really can’t identify with them.”
In other words, the less you can relate to the sacred things of the Christian faith, the more you are welcome to mock them.
Can you imagine what the reaction would have been had Lundberg been a Christian artist (or even secular artist) who produced a portrait mocking gays, only to reply to her critics, “I can’t worry about their negative reaction because I really can’t identify with gays”?
Now, the truth be told, I think it’s a great idea for people who do not approve of homosexual practice to sit with LGBT leaders and young people and hear about their lives and their struggles. Absolutely. If we differ, let’s do so without caricature and with grace and sensitivity. And, to be perfectly candid, I hardly expect Christian-bashing to go away any time soon (see John 15:18-20).
But I raise these issues because, once again, the glaring, ridiculous double standard needs to be exposed, and, in light of the extreme reaction to any criticism of homosexuality today, one can only wonder what’s coming tomorrow.
The president declared it. A pastor prayed it. And woe betide those who differ with this new reality announced at yesterday’s presidential inauguration: Gay is now an official social category as defined and tangible as black or white. Put another way, romantic attraction and sexual desire are now viewed as being as innate and immutable as skin color.
Make no mistake about it. Another significant step was taken yesterday at the inauguration, and what was once associated with the extremist views of radical gay activists is now as American as apple pie. As expressed in the closing prayer of Episcopal pastor Luis León, “We pray for your blessing, because without it we will see only what the eye can see. But with your blessing, we’ll see that we are made in your image, whether brown, black or white; male or female; first generation immigrant or Daughter of the American Revolution; gay or straight; rich or poor.”
Earlier in the festivities, and framing his speech in historic, Constitutional terms, President Obama said, “We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths -- that all of us are created equal -- is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall . . . .”
Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall? By Seneca Falls, Obama was referring to a watershed moment in the women’s rights movement that took place in the mid-1800’s in Seneca Falls, New York. By Selma, he was referring to the pivotal Civil Rights marches and protests that took place in Selma, Alabama in the mid-1960’s. And by Stonewall he was referring to the Stonewall Riots that took place in New York City in 1969 when drag queens and their gay friends fought back against the police who raided their bar.
So, the president spoke of Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall in the same breath, and in front of the whole nation at his inauguration, thereby equating women’s rights, black civil rights, and gay rights – which include bisexual, transgender, and other categories as well – also putting the women of Seneca Falls, the blacks of Selma, and the drag queens of Stonewall in the same category.
Do we realize just how significant this is? Do we grasp the implications?
The president also said: “It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law -- for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”
To repeat my opening comments: woe betide those who differ with this new reality announced at yesterday’s presidential inauguration. The war is on against people of conscience and people of faith who do not affirm homosexual practice, no matter how loving and fair-minded they may be.
Third, they demanded that everyone recognize those “rights”;
Fourth, they want to strip away the rights of those who oppose them;
Fifth, they want to put those who oppose their “rights” into the closet.
I have often been ridiculed for laying out this progression, but it is unfolding in front of our eyes, with a massive shift taking place in just the last year. And with the president of the United States declaring at his second inaugural speech that homosexuality (and more) is equivalent to gender and skin color, a line has been drawn in the sand. And that line in the sand will soon become a line in the courts and law books to the point that anyone who does not affirm homosexual practice will be codified as a bigot or worse.
As I wrote in 2011, “the legitimizing of homosexuality as a perfectly normal alternative to heterosexuality also requires that all opposition to homosexual behavior must be delegitimized. At the very least, the gay agenda requires this (and let recognized gay leaders renounce this if it is not so):
“Whereas homosexuality was once considered a pathological disorder, from here on those who do not affirm homosexuality will be deemed homophobic, perhaps themselves suffering from a pathological disorder.
“Whereas gay sexual behavior was once considered morally wrong, from here on public condemnation – or even public criticism – of that behavior will be considered morally wrong.”
Yesterday marked a watershed moment in the gay rights movement, and it is time for people of conscience and faith to draw our own line in the sand: We will be loving and respectful to all people. We will oppose bullying and unfair treatment of all people. But we will not equate homosexuality with gender and skin color, and we will not celebrate that which we morally and spiritually oppose.
And so, Mr. President, we will not be intimidated, and to use your terms, in the spirit of Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall, we will stand up for what we believe is right, regardless of cost or consequences.
If we agreed with you, sir, that there is no moral or social distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality and that homosexuality was innate and immutable, we too would champion this cause. But we do not agree, sir, and in the spirit of Martin Luther King and others whom you hail, we will not compromise our convictions, come what may.
Are conservative Christians fighters by nature who thrive on the front lines of the culture wars? While there may be some of us who tend to be more confrontational, a recent incident suggests to me that most of us who identify as followers of Jesus are drawn to compassion more than conflict and are given to building friendships more than engaging in fights.
Last week, one of the pastors of my home congregation was informed by the police that there would be a gay protest outside of our church service on Sunday morning. A local gay website carried this announcement: “We will meet just before Service begins, and protest as they gather, we will have a silent protest as service is going and let them have it as they leave for the day. Remember we will be peaceful and respectful, something they don’t understand. We are going to STAND TOGETHER AS A COMMUNITY to show that our love is stronger than their hate.”
In response, I wrote on my blog: “On behalf of FIRE Church, I want to extend to you the warmest welcome and let you know that we are thrilled that you are here with us on Sunday. We have been praying for you for a long time!”
Interestingly, the blog entry, which ran about 325 words, received more hits than any of my previous entries. What made it so attractive?
Scott Volk, the pastor who received the heads-up from the police, posted a gracious invitation to the protesters on the same gay website that announced the event, letting them know they would be welcomed warmly. “In all our years here,” he wrote, “we’ve only desired to reach out with love to everyone in the local community here whether they are labeled as gay or straight. Hopefully, you’ll see that love demonstrated on Sunday as you protest.”
When Sunday morning came, about ten protesters showed up, and they were greeted with water, snacks, and genuine Christian love. Within a few minutes of dialog, they left, telling us we were too nice and loving to deserve a protest. When I posted an announcement on my Facebook page with this update, it received more “Likes” than any other post in memory. What prompted such a positive response?
On Monday, the organizer of the protest called into my radio show to apologize publicly for the protest, explaining that their “anger . . . was aimed [in] the wrong direction.” He continued, “Once we got there Sunday morning we were greeted with absolutely perfect love. I mean, it was fantastic.”
He accepted my invitation to meet him for dinner in the near future, not for the purpose of having a theological argument (I assured him that was not my intent) but to discuss how we could live side by side in the same city with such profound differences dividing us.
On Tuesday, I posted an article in the opinion section of a Christian news site, recounting this narrative and ending with the conviction that it is possible to “reach out and resist,” meaning reaching out to the LGBT community with compassion while resisting the activist agenda with courage. And I quoted Pastor Scott’s invitation to those who doubted his claims to truly love LGBT people to join him and his family for dinner one night. As he wrote, “to call someone hateful without ever meeting them, seeing them, or hearing them speak, is an indication of a heart that needs love. I make myself available.”
The response to my article, which was not triumphant in tone and put an emphasis on Christian grace, was amazing: Within 36 hours of being posted, it had been shared more than 12,000 times, whereas I was told that the average opinion piece there receives about 100 shares.
It looks like a clear pattern had emerged in the responses to my blog, Facebook post, and article. The Christian readers were thrilled to see love in action.
Without a doubt, when we are convinced of the rightness of an issue, as people with strong biblical beliefs, we will take a stand, regardless of cost or consequence. (I know there are cowards and hypocrites among us, but there are plenty of committed Christians who are willing to stand up for what is right, even when it means swimming against the tide and going against the grain.) And there’s no question that some of us are drawn to conflict and controversy.
But for the most part, we would rather be friends than fighters, ambassadors of reconciliation rather than culture warriors. The events of this past week underscore that clearly.
Two months ago, I wrote, “As of today, it is legal in California to give hormone blockers to an 11 year-old boy in order to delay the onset of puberty, but it could soon be illegal for a 17 year-old with unwanted same-sex attractions to receive professional counseling, even with parental consent.” Now, California Senator Ted Lieu, has removed any doubt as to why he introduced Senate Bill 1172: “The attack on parental rights is exactly the whole point of the bill because we don’t want to let parents harm their children.”
This is an absolute outrage, and every parent in California needs to contact their senators and urge them to vote against this ridiculous and wrong-headed bill.
Senator Lieu, who is married with children, said “he got the idea for the bill after seeing a television special last fall about adults who had gone through this kind of therapy as children. He said he was struck by their description of traumatic experiences, confusion, depression and suicidal thoughts.” And so Lieu has now appointed himself the guardian of the children of California, the arbiter of what is best for them, and the ward over the parents of his state.
If this is not an example of egregious government overreach, nothing is.
For those unfamiliar with SB 1172, it is an unprecedented bill that “would ban sexual orientation conversion therapy for California minors—even if they or their parents want it.” It would also make it very difficult for an adult with unwanted same-sex attractions to receive professional counseling, since the counselor would have to inform the client that the counseling does not work and that it could cause harm. How encouraging! [Update: The informed adult consent part of the bill has been dropped -- a small step in the right direction.]
The bill has the enthusiastic support of gay activist organizations and gay politicians, and it is making its way through the Legislature with almost total Democratic backing. Thankfully, there are some politicians who are exposing the absurd nature of the bill. As reported by Kim Reyes in the Orange County Register, Assemblyman Donald Wagner explained that, “The default of this Legislature is to assume authority over parents by getting invested in issues of medicine, which is something it is not qualified to do, especially regarding matters of medical decisions made between parents and children.”
“The Legislature has no business telling parents how to raise their kids, Wagner said, nor is it appropriate for a bunch of legislators without medical training to judge the effectiveness of a particular therapy. ‘I’m not a doctor,’ the assemblyman said.”
Reyes also noted that “three experts consulted by the Orange County Register said they were not aware of the California State Legislature ever outlawing a specific kind of therapy.” (I can only imagine what kinds of professional therapies take place in California, all without legal interference.) And Marc Mason, administrative manager at the Board of Behavioral Sciences, which licenses counselors and therapists in California, stated that “Therapies themselves are not regulated. We regulate individuals or licensees, and we do not have the ability or statutory authority to ban a certain type of therapy.”
Even the leftleft-leaning, pro-gay-activist, American Psychological Association (APA) “‘does not approve or ban’ therapies,” according to Rhea Farberman, an APA spokeswoman. “The association has said that sexual re-orientation efforts are not effective, but hasn’t designated such therapy as an ethical violation.”
Lieu, however, states that, “The facts show that you cannot change someone’s sexual orientation, and when you try to do that, it harms them. The only (legitimate study showing) that highly-motivated homosexuals can change their orientation was conducted by Robert Spitzer (a renowned psychiatrist). He retracted his study this past year, noting that there was no scientific reasoning to back up his findings. So, there is no factual proof that this type of therapy works.”
This, of course, is nonsense. First, there are thousands of former homosexuals who testify to significant or even complete change in their sexual orientation, be it through religious conversion or professional therapy or both. In this age of so-called tolerance and inclusion, why are they ignored or mocked or ridiculed? Why should we believe the testimonies of gays who tried to change but couldn’t while refusing to believe the testimonies of gays who did change? Second, there are actually decades of professional studies documenting the possibility of change (for a detailed discussion, see my book A Queer Thing Happened to America). Third, Spitzer did not retract his study, nor did he discover that his findings were scientifically inaccurate after further research. He simply apologized for the study after suffering years of ugly and unrelenting attack from gay activists and their allies.
But all this is secondary to the larger matter at hand, namely the extraordinary attempt of the government of California to tell parents and their children that, regardless of their spiritual convictions, moral convictions, social convictions, or scientific convictions, minors with unwanted same-sex attractions cannot receive professional counseling to help them change, even with parental consent.
To repeat the words of Senator Lieu, “The attack on parental rights is exactly the whole point of the bill.” Parents of California, are you going to let this bill pass on your watch?
In my last article, I explained how embarrassed the liberal elites were in the aftermath of North Carolina’s decisive passage of the marriage amendment. In their view, it was a triumph for backwoods bigotry. But there was a deeper sentiment lurking beneath the headlines and the sound bites: It’s hardly fair that these bigots get to vote! Just think of how wonderful America would be if only the enlightened ones could make the decisions.
A headline last week on the militant, gay activist site Truth Wins Out read, “North Carolina chooses bigotry over prosperity.” The article went on to say, “Those who live in the intelligent parts of North Carolina voted overwhelmingly against Amendment One, but unfortunately, there just aren’t enough intelligent parts of North Carolina.”
So, those living “in the intelligent parts” of the state, meaning primarily the counties and cities with major university populations, recognized how idiotic it is want to safeguard natural, organic marriage. Unfortunately, most North Carolinians were too dense to understand that a man has the civil right to marry another man. Presumably, the intelligent ones – the university students and their friends, not to mention the professors – have learned what really matters from authoritative sources like “Will and Grace,” a show justly touted for changing American opinion by no less a cultural pundit than our vice president, Joe Biden.
A commenter on another website, self-identified as a white gay woman exclaimed, “As I sit in the back of the bus and can only WISH the president would stop letting these backwoods S.O.B’S push me to the back of the bus as if me and my family do not contribute to this country!”
Backwoods S.O.B.’s indeed. Unintelligent bigots and boars. How do they (we?) even have the right to vote? It’s not fair to the enlightened ones (apparently akin to the “brights,” as some atheists self-defeatingly describe themselves). Presumably none of the intelligent ones live in Mississippi either.
Last week, on my Line of Fire broadcast, I received a call from a young lady named Sophie, a student at the University of North Carolina, living in Durham. She too was terribly embarrassed by the voting actions of her fellow North Carolinians, but she was quite proud of her county and city, since they had voted against Amendment One.
This was part of our conversation:
Sophie: And I don't think that is any coincidence that the counties that are heavily populated, developed and have universities all voted against the amendment.
Brown: So the smart ones, in other words.
Sophie: I'm not saying the smart ones
Brown: The educated ones?
Sophie: I'm just saying the people who were educated about the amendment and understood the consequences of voting for the amendment, because this is way more than marriage because if it was just about marriage then we wouldn't have an amendment at all because it’s already illegal in North Carolina.
Brown: No, Sophie the reason for the Amendment, is so no activist judge can … redefine marriage and when people go for civil unions that's just a step towards it. It was 100% to do with marriage...
A little later in the conversation, we got down to brass tacks:
Sophie: Well, this just shows the downfall of direct democracy. I mean sometimes I think that some things really should be left to the people who understand the consequences of the law and I think a lot of political . . . Almost every person who is high up in the North Carolina government has voiced their, their thoughts against this amendment, including the former democrat and republican mayor of Charlotte.
Brown: So Sophie, I think we . . . we just need the smart people, the educated people who think like you, to take control and to weed out these bigoted backwoods, Bible preachers like me, and America will be a better place. Why don't you just say it? Why don't you just say it?
Sophie: You’re putting words in my mouth. You’re putting words in my mouth.
Brown: Well those are the words you just. . . . OK then say it.
Sophie: I think if people understood the consequences of the amendment, that they would not have voted for it.
There you have it. The people who live in the “intelligent parts” of North Carolina, “the counties that are heavily populated, developed and have universities, all voted against the amendment.” Yes, “Almost every person who is high up in the North Carolina government” opposed the marriage amendment, leaving only the backwards, uneducated, bigoted blue-collar workers to vote for it, and sadly, they constituted a substantial majority. And “this just shows the downfall of direct democracy.”
So I have a proposal. Let’s be fair to America and honor the elites, and let’s get out of the way of the inevitable social progress that is coming our way, like marriage ceremonies pronouncing lesbian couples “bride and broom” (this really happened). And let’s leave it to the cultural “brights” to rule the day.
Surely, no group of highly educated, intelligent and enlightened progressive, social elites has ever hurt their country. Surely we have learned by now that “some animals are more equal than others.”
On April 20th, in thousands of schools across America, your hard-earned tax dollars will help underwrite the homosexual indoctrination of your kids. Yes, April 20th will mark the annual Day of Silence, described on its website as “a student-led national event that brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools.” As for those who do not support a special school day devoted to gay indoctrination, they are the ones who can expect to be silenced.
Originally the brainchild of some college students in 1996, the Day of Silence has been aggressively promoted for the last 12 years by GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. (Based on its activities, GLSEN would better be described as the Gay & Lesbian Sexual Education Network.) GLSEN calls on students to remain silent during non-instructional school times on the Day of Silence, thereby standing in solidarity with LGBT youth who are silenced through bullying and harassment.
But don’t some schools already have generic, anti-bullying programs in place along with special, daylong events to highlight the destructive effects of bullying, a subject that should concern all of us? Of course they do, but that’s not enough. GLSEN insists that a special focus must be put on LGBT kids, as if bullying a gay kid was worse than bullying a fat kid.
But there’s more that takes place on the Day of Silence: A pro-homosexuality message is often sent to the students, with teachers and administrators frequently promoting homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism over the course of the day. That’s why thousands of schools (and not just students) officially participate in the event, with the explicit backing of GLSEN. What about other messages being introduced during the day to balance the discussion? Perish the thought.
Just ask PFOX (Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays), which announced its intention to hand out literature on the Day of Silence. According to PFOX president Greg Quinlan, “PFOX is calling on students to distribute flyers promoting acceptance of ex-gays. Former homosexuals and their supporters are ridiculed and forced to live in silence. Our nation’s schools deny students with unwanted same-sex attractions any support or fact-based information that feelings can and do change.”
How was this announcement welcomed? According to one gay journalist, “the fact that they are attempting to sneak in their harmful message on the Day of Silence, a day which is supposed to show support for those who are forced into silence by outside pressures, shows just how deceptive their message truly is.”
How dare they introduce their message on the Day of Silence! As expressed in 2004 by gay activist Kevin Jennings, founder of GLSEN and most recently President Obama’s Safe School Czar, “Ex-gay messages have no place in our nation’s public schools. A line has been drawn. There is no ‘other side’ when you’re talking about lesbian, gay and bisexual students.” Ah yes, the voice of tolerance speaks once again.
What about the Day of Dialogue, sponsored by the evangelical Christian organization Focus on the Family, and scheduled this year for April 19th, the day before the Day of Silence? This event encourages “student-initiated conversations about the fact that God cares about our lives, our relationships and our sexuality. . . . [Jesus’] example calls us to stand up for those being harmed or bullied while offering the light of what God’s word says.”
Surely this event will be welcomed, right? Not a chance. As expressed by a professing Christian woman with a self-described “hair-trigger sensitivity for the protection of LGBT youth,” the Day of Dialogue has something “very rotten” at its core. She writes (on LGBTQNATION.com), “Allowing Focus on the Family to export their historical and counter-productive sacred discrimination of the LGBT community to Christian youth is a mistake.” To repeat the words of Kevin Jennings, “There is no ‘other side’ when you’re talking about lesbian, gay and bisexual students.”
Last week an elementary school teacher from Florida called into my radio program, identifying himself as a black male but not wanting to give any specifics about the grade he taught at school. He was concerned that his job could be in jeopardy if he dared speak out against the Day of Silence. (Other elementary school teachers have told me privately that they dare not speak out against the overt homosexual activism they see on a regular basis in their schools – remember, we’re talking about elementary schools – for fear of losing their jobs.)
Although the Day of Silence had not yet been introduced to this gentleman’s school in Florida, the faculty members were discussing strategies for its future implementation, with explicit instructions to present this as a civil rights issue. (Needless to say, this black American also did not approve of equating gay activism with the civil rights movement.) And what should the teacher do if a student raised a religious or moral objection to homosexuality? The conversation, he was told, should immediately be turned back to gay civil rights, and no religious or moral objections should be entertained.
Yes, the Day of Silence has become the Day of Silencing – unless parents and educators and students determine to let their voices be heard. Now would be a good time to start.
