Recently, a posting on "Embracing Diversity" on Amy Welborn's blog was hijacked by a commenter pushing the gay rights agenda. He turned the topic into a debate of the case of a boy in Lafayette, Louisiana, and condemned us "social conservatives" for giving tacit consent to the "terrorizing" of the little boy, who, reportedly, merely told his classmates that he had two mommies, because his mommy is gay.
He then trotted out reports concerning the Louisiana incident, similar to this from CNN.com:
She was astonished at what second-grade teacher Terry L. Bethea had written: "Marcus decided to explain to another child in his group that his mom is gay. He told the other child that gay is when a girl likes a girl. This kind of discussion is not acceptable in my room. I feel that parents should explain things of this nature to their own children in their own way."
Marcus was scolded in front of his classmates, sent to the principal's office and barred from recess, the ACLU said. And he was ordered to attend "behavior clinic."
Huff didn't understand. She asked Marcus what "bad word" he had used. The child answered, "gay."
"I just couldn't figure out what was so horrible about that word," Huff recalled Wednesday.
When I first read the reports, it struck me that they sounded like an ACLU press release. It shouldn't have surprised me, since further examination revealed that the press accounts were, in fact, almost entirely cribbed from an ACLU press release. That's balanced and objective reporting for you!
But, as it turns out, the truth isn't as dire as gay-rights activists, trying to gin up sympathy, would purport. On a Chicago radio talk-show yesterday morning, both the superintendent of the school system and the chairman of the school board explained that what in fact happened was a fairly ordinary disciplinary incident: The teacher had given her class an assignment to work on in-class. The boy involved in the dispute was not working on the assignment, but was engaged in chatter with other students, creating a distraction in class. The teacher corrected him several times and tried to get him back on task. Only when that failed did she send him to the principal's office, and only then did the content of the boy's remarks come out.
The incident had nothing, in it's origin, to do with the boy's mother being "gay". It was about his misbehavior in class.
Now, it is true that the teacher did write, in a note sent home with the student:
Marcus decided to explain to another child in his group that his mom is gay. He told the other child that gay is when a girl likes a girl. This kind of discussion is not acceptable in my room. I feel that parents should explain things of this nature to their own children in their own way.
I say "Bravo!" for that teacher! There is absolutely nothing wrong with her statement. She obviously has not had her common-sense beaten out of her by the elements of our society which are trying to prematurely sexualize our children.
I think most parents would most definitely not want their 7 year old children to be subjected in school to discussions about "gay" parents and about things like "gay is when a girl likes a girl."
It is, at best, disingenuous for pro-gay activists to say things like this [Caution: this site, Gay.com, has ads for things like "the world's finest male erotica"]:
"Of course we believe that parents should be the ones who talk with small children about things like sex, but Marcus McLaurin's school seems to think that he was talking about sex when all he was talking about was his two mothers," said Joe Cook, Executive Director of the ACLU of Louisiana.
To start talking about "gay is when a girl likes a girl", can be little else than an opening to talk about what "gay" love might mean. A child, naturally curious, will wonder just what the difference is between his mommy and daddy, who "love" each other, and Tommy's two daddies, who also "love" each other. And the opening to talk about what gay "love" means can only be seen as an effort to condition children to think of gay as being "normal", when in fact it is not.
I predict that the school district here will cave in the end. The teacher will probably be reprimanded, and possibly fired or have her contract not renewed. And her teacher's union will probably not lift a finger to help her. Such sacrifices are demanded on the altar of homosexuals' unfettered right to have no one whatsoever object to their behavior.
Parents are going to see more and more of this sort of thing. Their efforts to raise children whose innocence is intact are being increasingly undermined by the public school establishment, captive, as it is becoming, to the gay activist agenda.
What's the solution? Keep watch, be on guard. And be ready to find an alternative to the public schools, because I think the corruption has already set in too deep to stop it now.