Rocky Horror Department of Education

Posted on | May 13, 2016 | 55 Comments

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
— Barack Obama, Oct. 30, 2008

Whatever you say, you can’t say America had no warning about this:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is planning to issue a sweeping directive telling every public school district in the country to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity.

(Never mind whether their “gender identity” matches their genitalia or their chromosomes. Ignore what you learn in biology class, kids.)

A letter to school districts will go out Friday, adding to a highly charged debate over transgender rights in the middle of the administration’s legal fight with North Carolina over the issue. The declaration — signed by Justice and Education department officials — will describe what schools should do to ensure that none of their students are discriminated against.
It does not have the force of law, but it contains an implicit threat: Schools that do not abide by the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law could face lawsuits or a loss of federal aid.

(Transgender totalitarianism, in other words.)

The move is certain to draw fresh criticism, particularly from Republicans, that the federal government is wading into local matters and imposing its own values on communities across the country that may not agree. It represents the latest example of the Obama administration using a combination of policies, lawsuits and public statements to change the civil rights landscape for gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people.
After supporting the rights of gay people to marry, allowing them to serve openly in the military and prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against them, the administration is wading into the battle over bathrooms and siding with transgender people.
“No student should ever have to go through the experience of feeling unwelcome at school or on a college campus,” John B. King Jr., the secretary of the Department of Education, said in a statement. “We must ensure that our young people know that whoever they are or wherever they come from, they have the opportunity to get a great education in an environment free from discrimination, harassment and violence.”

(Via Memeorandum.) How did we get here? You have to go back to 1977, when the city of Miami passed an ordinance forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and Anita Bryant publicly opposed it. Bryant was a popular singer (her song “Paper Roses” hit No. 5 on the charts in 1960) who subsequently became famous as the celebrity spokeswoman for the Florida citrus industry. Her opposition to gay rights resulted in Bryant being demonized by the Left, but her Save Our Children campaign was prescient in recognizing that activists were using dishonest claims of “discrimination” to normalize abnormal behavior.

The question, viewed from a legal and political standpoint, exposed a widespread confusion between tolerance (most people don’t want to be bullies or bigots) and the far more radical concept of sexual “rights” advanced by gay activists. This parallels a confusion, which I note in the introduction of my book Sex Trouble, over the meaning of the word “equality.” Most people think of “equality” in terms of basic fairness, which is a much different idea than what feminists mean by “equality.”

Modern feminism, a movement originating in the radical New Left of the 1960s, advances a totalitarian notion of “equality” derived from Marxist-Leninist ideology. Many of the early leaders of Second Wave feminism (i.e., the Women’s Liberation movement) were so-called “Red Diaper babies,” the children of Communist Party members, and brought to the feminist movement of the 1960s and ’70s the conceptual framework of Marxism (historical materialism and class struggle) which were adapted to create what Shulamith Firestone famously called The Dialectic of Sex.

In the crypto-Marxist analysis of Firestone and her radical comrades, men were an oppressive “sex class” (analogous to the capitalist bourgeoisie in Marxist thought), women were victims of oppression (analogous to the proletariat), and feminists were the revolutionary vanguard, the sexual Bolsheviks who would overthrow the unjust tyranny of male supremacy.

This was dangerous insanity, of course, and was widely ridiculed at the time. How could such preposterous ideas ever succeed? Yet radical feminists had influential allies in the news media, academia and the entertainment industry, but more importantly in the Democrat Party. During the 1972 presidential campaign, George McGovern had won the Democrat nomination with the support of the New Left, and one of the things the McGovernites did at the 1972 Democrat convention was to change the party rules and platform to reflect a feminist agenda. After Jimmy Carter was elected president in 1976, he was expected to advance this agenda, and in 1977 — the same year Anita Bryant began her Save Our Children campaign, and also the year I graduated high school — the “National Women’s Conference” controversy erupted.

The chairwoman of this taxpayer-funded event was Democrat Rep. Bella Abzug, a radical leftist from New York, and the pro-abortion agenda of the conference in Houston sparked protests from Catholics and other conservative Christians. Among other controversies emerging from this 1977 event were reports from the handful of conservative women delegates in Houston about the disproportionate number of lesbian feminists among the 20,000 or so attendees. Lesbian rights were on the conference agenda, a strategy that had been planned from the very outset, with the approval of the Carter administration. In an interview with Anahi Russo Garrido, included in a recent anthology on the history of gay activism, radical lesbian Charlotte Bunch explained how this happened:

I participated in the first White House meeting with LGBT groups in 1977 . . . where I spoke about the immigration problems faced by LGBT couples from different countries. . . .
One of the most important projects we organized was a lesbian caucus for the National Women’s Conference in Houston in 1977. Houston was the national event forr the UN International Women’s Year — the only one ever sponsored by the US Government. . . . We coordinated a national network of lesbians, who attended their state events and sought to be elected as delegates to Houston, as well as to get lesbian rights on the agenda. We built alliances with feminist organizations like NOW and worked with mainstream groups like the YWCA and the AAUW . . .
This broad feminist coalition was successful in getting agreement on a 26-point platform that included planks on sexual preference, reproductive rights, poverty, minority women, etc. It was a turning point for me in seeing that the future of sexual rights lay in building coalitions.

So, here in 1977, you have “mainstream groups like the YWCA and the AAUW” forming a coalition with Bunch, who had divorced her husband, formed a lesbian collective known as The Furies and authored the 1972 radical manifesto “Lesbians in Revolt.” What became apparent at the Houston conference was that feminists were not only determined to destroy the marriage-based family, but that in pursuit of that goal, they welcomed as allies radicals like Charlotte Bunch who were opposed to heterosexuality, per se. As early as 1977, it was apparent that the official feminist agenda was not about “equality” in the sense of basic fairness, nor was “the future of sexual rights,” as Bunch saw it, about mere tolerance toward “alternative lifestyles.” By 1977, feminists already had been saying this for years, and they have continued saying it.

“Sexism is the root of all other oppressions … Lesbianism is not a matter of sexual preference, but rather one of political choice which every woman must make if she is to become woman-identified and thereby end male supremacy.”
— Ginny Berson, “The Furies,” 1972, in Lesbianism and the Women’s Movement, edited by Nancy Myron and Charlotte Bunch (1975)

“Gay revolution addresses itself to the total elimination of the sexual caste system around which our oppressive society is organized. . . . The lesbian is the key figure in the social revolution to end the sexual caste system, or heterosexual institution.”
— Jill Johnston, Lesbian Nation: The Feminist Solution (1973)

“The lesbian liberation movement has made possibly the most important contribution to a future sexual liberation. . . . What the women’s liberation movement did create was a homosexual liberation movement that politically challenged male supremacy in one of its most deeply institutionalized aspects — the tyranny of heterosexuality.”
— Linda Gordon, “The Struggle for Reproductive Freedom: Three Stages of Feminism,” in Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism, edited by Zillah Eisenstein (1978)

“To the extent that women harbor negative attitudes toward lesbians and lesbianism, we demonstrate identification with men. To the extent that women express negative attitudes toward lesbians in our words and deeds, we strengthen patriarchy.”
— Dee Graham, Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives (1994)

“Because sexism is the root of all oppression and heterosexuality upholds sexism, feminists must become lesbians and lesbians must become feminists if we are to effect a revolution. . . . To state that feminists must become lesbians assumes that lesbianism is a matter of choice and conviction, not biological conditioning or sexual behavior. Moreover, lesbians must also become feminists, that is, they must ground their sexuality in a political discourse if any social change is to occur. . . .
“I believe it can be shown that, historically, lesbianism and feminism have been coterminous if not identical social phenomena.”
— Bonnie Zimmerman, “Confessions of a Lesbian Feminist,” in Cross Purposes: Lesbians, Feminists, and the Limits of Alliance, edited by Dana Heller (1997)

“Heterosexuality is a category divided by gender and which also depends for its meaning on gender divisions. . . .
“The view that heterosexuality is a key site of male power is widely accepted within feminism. Within most feminist accounts, heterosexuality is seen not as an individual preference . . . but as a socially constructed institution which structures and maintains male domination.”
— Dianne Richardson, “Theorizing Heterosexuality,” in Rethinking Sexuality (2000)

“From the beginning of second-wave feminism, sexuality was identified as a key site of patriarchal domination and women’s resistance to it. . . .
“While heterosexual desires, practices, and relations are socially defined as ‘normal’ and normative, serving to marginalize other sexualities as abnormal and deviant, the coercive power of compulsory heterosexuality derives from its institutionalization as more than merely a sexual relation.”
— Stevi Jackson, “Sexuality, Heterosexuality, and Gender Hierarchy: Getting Our Priorities Straight,” in Thinking Straight: The Power, the Promise, and the Paradox of Heterosexuality, edited by Chrys Ingraham (2005)

“Heterosexism is maintained by the illusion that heterosexuality is the norm.”
— Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)

“Heterosexuality and masculinity . . . are made manifest through patriarchy, which normalizes men as dominant over women. . . .
“This tenet of patriarchy is thus deeply connected to acts of sexual violence, which have been theorized as a physical reaffirmation of patriarchal power by men over women.”
— Sara Carrigan Wooten, 2015

Rationalizing and justifying this radical agenda required the development of feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — which in turn leads to the idea that it is “discrimination” to keep boys out of the girls’ restroom:

“Equal rights” sounds so wonderful. Who can be against equality?
Yet as Richard Weaver warned us long ago, Ideas Have Consequences, and the sledgehammer logic of “equal rights” brutally dismantles every common-sense objection. Even the most obvious facts — e.g., boys and girls are different — must therefore be suppressed to conform with The Equality Principle.

Because this radical conception of “equality” has become such an intrinsic component of the Democrat agenda, it is promoted by the liberal media and is also taught in public schools, because the schools are controlled by teachers unions that donate millions of dollars annually to Democrats. You will be accused of “hate” if you oppose this agenda.

“As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children.”
— Anita Bryant, 1978

People called her crazy for saying that. However, when the Democrat Party owes its success to the support of gay activists, feminists, and teachers unions, and when everyone in the education system is required to support this bizarre anti-heterosexual agenda, is it any wonder that Democrats are imposing transgender cult ideology in public schools?

“Fundamentally transformed,” just like Obama promised.

Category: Education, Gays, Sex Trouble

Comments

55 Responses to “Rocky Horror Department of Education”

RS
May 13th, 2016 @ 4:13 pm

I have reached the point where I believe the administration is trying to foment civil unrest. I leave it to the reader to speculate as to the end game.
Darth Chipmunk
May 13th, 2016 @ 4:21 pm

I’m so thankful that when I was growing up my teachers and the other adults around me didn’t feel the need to shower me with their insecurities and brainwash me with their personal social worldviews. I was just a boy… because dangly bits. So simple. Who’d have ever thought that here in 2016 we’d have so “evolved” that we now marinate our youth in gender fluidity. Now everyone act surprised when we actually have a segment of the culture rejecting their very DNA and claiming they are something they literally are not. And everyone is applauding or being made to shut up, because either open-minded or hateful bigot. Fundamentally transformed, indeed.

It’s all a sham. One need look no further than the treatment Michael Jackson got for his surgeries and other procedures versus the treatment Caitlyn Jenner is receiving.
Adobe_Walls
May 13th, 2016 @ 4:24 pm

Well it isn’t as if we didn’t already know we had to abolish the Department of Education…and the Justice Department.
kilo6
May 13th, 2016 @ 4:24 pm

Well, there’s Saul Alinsky the lodestar of the 0bamaite Progressives. Didn’t he say the community organizing was all about community disorganizing and rubbing raw the grievances of the people you’re trying to “help”
If someone like me could discern that generality from a casual reading of his Rules for Radicals a few years ago just imagine what the graduates of the Industrial Areas Foundation are doing
NeoWayland
May 13th, 2016 @ 5:06 pm

After careful and exhaustive study, I can say authoritatively that there is absolutely no mention in the Constitution of the Federal government having control over who uses which bathroom.

In fact, a strong argument can be made that bathroom regulation should be left to the states.

You know, like public education.
TC_LeatherPenguin
May 13th, 2016 @ 5:15 pm

Everyone is concentrating on the bathrooms aspect of this edict, but unless someone can show me where I’m wrong, by citing Title IX, this edict DEMANDS guys who think they’re girls be allowed to participate in womens’ sports programs.
Adobe_Walls
May 13th, 2016 @ 5:17 pm

Already happening.
Mike G.
May 13th, 2016 @ 5:48 pm

Governor McCrory has been threatened with the withholding of federal funds. That works both ways. NC can withhold the funds the fed depends on from NC. Every red state should tell the feds to stick it where the sun don’t shine.
HWGood
May 13th, 2016 @ 5:52 pm

This is for public schools.
Does the private school his children attend follow this concept?
Scuttlebuttin'
May 13th, 2016 @ 6:31 pm

Is that last line sarcasm?
Scuttlebuttin'
May 13th, 2016 @ 6:32 pm

Seems less Poe-like every day:

https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/
theBuckWheat
May 13th, 2016 @ 6:46 pm

The key to interpreting events like this is to realize that with post-modern liberals (redundant!) every issue they raise is far more about the long term social goal than about the issue itself. In this case, this is part of the Gnostic pattern that if humanity could only change and improve enough, the secular utopia would arrive. In the process everything that opposes that goal can be nullified and ground into the dust.

The left may have jumped the shark this close to a national election. It is my hope that the reaction from the sane portion of the voting population will be substantial. Now is the time to hammer Hillary to make sure she states her support of this policy loud and clear.

What evil. What insanity.
RS
May 13th, 2016 @ 6:46 pm

Obviously, this new diktat–N.B. I do not use the word “law” as there is no statute or properly enacted regulation which authorizes it–only applies to public schools. There will be a severe backlash which will include removal of even more kids from the public system in favor of home schooling and parochial schools, especially those schools which are single sex. My wife’s all-girl parochial high school received ten calls this afternoon after the story broke on the news from parents inquiring about enrolling daughters for next year, late registration fees be damned.

This will lead to an ever-increasing effort to either ban, tax or heavily regulate non-public education. It is no secret that the NEA and its allies wish to destroy non-public education. Indeed in 2006, the NEA on its own website said so, until the public outcry caused them to file that position paper in the memory hole.

Bottom line: For any number of reasons, this is a hill to die on. If the feds get their way here, because the public is too complacent or cowardly, there is absolutely nothing they will not do to turn our children into mindless, soulless automatons.
Rocky Horror Department of Education | Living in Anglo-America
May 13th, 2016 @ 6:52 pm

[…] Rocky Horror Department of Education […]
Fail Burton
May 13th, 2016 @ 6:53 pm

This will lead us to the final step: children having their own “agency” when it comes to having sex with who they choose and at what age.

What a great President.
NeoWayland
May 13th, 2016 @ 7:02 pm

It might have been.

The Constitution doesn’t provide for Federal control of education.

You know all those arguments about what should and should not be taught in public schools? All of it goes away if there are no public schools.

Add the fact that one BIG reason public schools exist at all in the US is because certain politicos decided that the Catholic schools had too big an influence.
Liza
May 13th, 2016 @ 7:06 pm

Co-parenting with LGBT–will be horrific. The irony maybe that Trans is a form of reparative therapy and with the current trajectory there will be far fewer gay men in the future if they Trans all the little boys.
RS
May 13th, 2016 @ 7:11 pm

Quite. Consider a parent who wishes to tell a six year old, “boys don’t wear makeup. How long before that is deemed neglect or abuse warranting the removal of a child from the home? Make no mistake. That is where this is headed.
Scuttlebuttin'
May 13th, 2016 @ 7:12 pm

I understand, but it could be argued (mostly by statists) that Feds don’t actually control public education. Local districts could actually be run as they please, if only they weren’t hooked through the bag on fed dollars. That’s the lever the feds always have.
NeoWayland
May 13th, 2016 @ 7:20 pm

Yep.
Quartermaster
May 13th, 2016 @ 7:29 pm

Are you kidding? Of course not!
Quartermaster
May 13th, 2016 @ 7:30 pm

Yes. It’s the end of Women’s sports.
RS
May 13th, 2016 @ 7:39 pm

If there is one “positive” thing about this, it is that this will perhaps finally shake Christian teacher within the public school system out of their stupor. Over the years, teachers in my congregation of a very conservative, evangelical denomination have been openly hostile to the fact that we’ve sent our kids to a parochial school of a different protestant denomination. I have nicely, but consistently, tried to point out all of the anti-Christian agendas within public education, which they have routinely denied or skirted with protestations that it doesn’t apply to them or that they “can be a witness,” etc.

We’ve received the same comments from parents whose children are in the public school system, and we’ve received the same protestations that “it’s not that bad,” or “we can work to change the system from the inside,” etc.

Bollocks.

Christians will now have to face the fact that if they remain in the public school system whether as parents, students or teachers, they are complicit in the destruction of children. They have a choice to make: Shut up and go along, because doing otherwise will get you fired or a black mark in your child’s file about being a “bigot,” if not suspended or expelled a la the modern college “rape” hysteria or be fired for refusing to tell little Billy it’s ok for him to use the girls’ restroom because today he’s decided he’s “Wilhelmina.”
Adobe_Walls
May 13th, 2016 @ 8:12 pm

Nonsense. Federal money always comes with rules on how to spend it. The feds don’t give money to anybody to help but to control. Federal money is the worm on the hook, the shapely fake leg stuck out from the corner in a Loony Tunes cartoon. There is always someone with a mallet around that corner.
Eric Ashley
May 13th, 2016 @ 8:28 pm

In the future, I thought a Woman’s Rights Org denouncing men, with the leaders on stage all having beards, and denoucning other guys with beards was coming.

Didn’t expect it quite so soon.
Joe Joe
May 13th, 2016 @ 8:59 pm

That is the goal: pedophilia.
robertstacymccain
May 13th, 2016 @ 9:19 pm

Quoth the feminist, “Nevermore.”
Finrod Felagund
May 13th, 2016 @ 9:24 pm

You’re reminding me of the Bud Light commercials, where the prize for the women’s pool tournament is a case of Bud Light, so all these men in beards are dressing up in dresses etc to enter it.
Finrod Felagund
May 13th, 2016 @ 9:26 pm

And which candidate wanted to eliminate the Department of Education? Ted Cruz.
MIlwaukee
May 13th, 2016 @ 9:27 pm

News to me. Never heard of this before.
“Add the fact that one BIG reason public schools exist at all in the US is because certain politicos decided that the Catholic schools had too big an influence.”

Please elaborate or explain where this came from. Thank you.
Finrod Felagund
May 13th, 2016 @ 9:29 pm

Calling it the Rocky Horror Department of Education isn’t fair– to the Rocky Horror Picture Show. After all, near the end of the movie (can there still be spoilers for a movie released over 40 years ago?) Riff-Raff and Magenta kill Frank N. Furter for having too extreme a lifestyle.
MIlwaukee
May 13th, 2016 @ 9:30 pm

I have been planning a web site to promote the decriminalization of school truancy. Mandatory school attendance is totalitarian, and Marx is thrilled we have “free” public education which children are mandated to attend, under penalty of law.
NeoWayland
May 13th, 2016 @ 9:53 pm

http://www.catholicleague.org/an-anti-catholic-laws-troubling-legacy-2/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/799540/posts

http://www.hprweb.com/2014/08/sticks-stones-and-broken-bones-the-history-of-anti-catholic-violence-in-the-u-s/

http://americamagazine.org/issue/497/article/mandate-anti-catholicism-blaine-amendment
MIlwaukee
May 13th, 2016 @ 10:42 pm

Fascinating. The first one is about Oregon. I do believe Oregon used to have laws that Blacks could not live there. Very “liberal” place, with such a history of intolerance. I’ll follow up on these. Thanks. My theme: Decriminalize what? School truancy! Decriminalize when? Now! Because when truancy is outlawed, truants are made into outlaws!
If You’re Wondering How We Got To This Point… – The Lonely Conservative
May 13th, 2016 @ 11:22 pm

[…] presidential decrees on transgender bathrooms in public schools, RS McCain has weighed in on the subject. I was waiting for him to do so, since he’s been following the communist/feminist/LGBT agenda […]
Fail Burton
May 14th, 2016 @ 12:11 am

There’s a reason radical lesbians have been so drawn to comics, gaming and sci-fi compared to NASCAR, romance fiction and jazz: that’s where the kids are.
Joe Joe
May 14th, 2016 @ 12:24 am

The radical lesbians are the least of your problems in that regard. There are photos of NAMBLA marching in the San Francisco gay “pride” parades. And the trannies, the Good Lord only knows.
Joe Joe
May 14th, 2016 @ 12:46 am

RSM,

OT. You know that pay gap that feminists are always talking about? And you know how we explain that women make different choices and that explains much of the differences in pay?

Well, you’re gonna love this:

Yes, I would like to be a tenured professor, writes Julie Shayne, but I decided to choose happiness over self-implosion.
https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2016/05/13/although-not-tenure-track-academic-finds-emotional-and-professional-satisfaction

It gets better: Julie was ONE YEAR away from her tenure review (usually in year 6 of your employment) and she QUIT the tenure track:

“In 2006, I resigned from my tenure-track assistant professor job about a year before I submitted my tenure portfolio. Yes, I wanted tenure — who doesn’t, especially after going through the hell of the tenure track? But I wanted a happy family and personally rewarding life, as well. And being a West Coaster living in the Southeast made the nonwork happiness an unattainable reality, tenure or not. So I resigned. (I discuss that decision and move in an essay called “Mother’s Day,” which is the afterword in my newest book, Taking Risks: Feminist Activism and Research in the Americas.)”

PLEASE WRITE SOMETHING ABOUT THIS. Here is a self-identified feminist who made just such a choice. And she complains that she hasn’t gotten anywhere in her career! She’s Thomas Sowell’s ultimate anecdote.
Eastwood Ravine
May 14th, 2016 @ 1:24 am

I do believe you’re right. Someone is going to snap, and then the Left will finally get what they’ve been wanting – an act of domestic terrorism done by a conservative, Christian, Tea party person, or group of people. (That’s how they would characterize an opening salvo in a civil war.)

And to get it to happen during a Presidental election – well, that’s just icing on the cake.

As for the speculation on the end game? Do you really think Obama wants to leave behind the trappings and power of the presidency in 2017?
Eastwood Ravine
May 14th, 2016 @ 1:24 am

Ann Barnhardt (at Barnhardt.biz) has, I believe, the correct analysis. Basicly, if you think people are going to fight this (which they should), well, you’re in for a surprise.

Her conclusion is that the county has become so infested with evil, corruption, and whatnot, that it’s time to burn it to the ground and start anew.
Scuttlebuttin'
May 14th, 2016 @ 6:18 am

That’s exactly what I am saying.
NeoWayland
May 14th, 2016 @ 7:43 am

Sometimes I go off on these public education rants. Most critics just focus on the Prussian system and overlook the other freedom destroying bits.

There is one serious advantage that private schools have over public schools. You have to want to be at the private school.
Police: Lesbian Teacher Had Sex in Cemetery, Spent the Night With Teen Girl : The Other McCain
May 14th, 2016 @ 11:54 am

[…] America now teaches children that approving of homosexuality is mandatory. The federal government requires schools to support transgenderism. Students are being taught that it is impermissible to express disapproval or moral opposition to […]
feeriker
May 14th, 2016 @ 1:35 pm

THIS.

I’ve attended several churches attended by PS teachers (a couple of the guys were principals) and whenever I brought up the fact (however politely) that they were effectively servings as priests of a pagan temple, their visceral reaction was always one of “well, how else am I supposed to earn a living?”

When I would respond with “by establishing or working to expand the size of an existing Christian school,” they would respond with some variation of “that’s impractical!”

Similarly, whenever Christian parents whined about what their children were suffering in public school, I would respond with “what are they doing there in the first place? Why aren’t they in Christian school or being homeschooled? You’ve always known what public schools are all about. As a Christian parent, why are you allowing the enemy to educate your children?”

Of course after further discussion, it always became obvious that the reasons for the decisions of both PS “Christian” teachers and “Christian” parents lf inmates in PSes were purely economic. For teachers, the enemy offered much better pay and benefits. For parents, the price was right for the enemy’s “school” (i.e., free, or so they thought; they never considered the obscene “property taxes” they paid as being the true cost), and they could make their offspring somebody else’s problem for most of the day while they went off to pursue the world’s goals (earning money for a keep-up-with-the-Joneses UMC lifestyle, with all of its obligatory excesses).

TL;DR version: a Christ-centered, academically rigorous education for their children is not even a priority for most Christians. Or at least not something they’re willing to exert effort or sacrifice for. For this reason they’ll tolerate this latest assault on human decency and much, much worse – as long as it doesn’t negatively affect their bank accounts.
feeriker
May 14th, 2016 @ 2:02 pm

They should have done this a long time ago. I’d love to see this issue become the one that causes a neo-secessionist movement to gain momentum. Withholding of tax revenues from the feds would only be the beginning. The real “proof in the pudding” would be the reaction of the residents of a state (or multiple states) if Caesar ordered federal “law enforcement” or military forces to invade and/or occupy them.
darleenclick
May 14th, 2016 @ 2:02 pm

IMHO and having observed the defeat of the ERA (and recalling the catcall derision when opponents said that, logically, passing of it may lead to women being stripped of their privacy in public restrooms) is what we have witnessed is the abuse of the general “live and let live” principles of libertarian/conservative people where it regards behavior that we consider outside the province of Government. The Left actually has used the tools of Government in remaking culture.

I could not care less about the private life of the two guys who live next to me. As long as they are polite, keep their lawn in good shape & don’t disturb me after 10 pm, so what? However, if they go to the government and use it to put the photographer lady across the street out of business for refusing to take the gig of their “wedding” because she’s Catholic; well then, it DOES become my business.

Trans “women” have been passing for some time – and going into the ladies room do to their business is a moot point because no one was the wiser. But demanding now that women and girls must never challenge any obvious male walking naked through their locker room or be punished by The State is insane and actionable.
darleenclick
May 14th, 2016 @ 2:04 pm

Also all locker rooms, showers and dressing areas. And if any girl objects, THEY have to go hide behind a curtain, the haters!
feeriker
May 14th, 2016 @ 2:05 pm

Inre the Constitution, I really think that any discussion of “that goddamned piece of paper” is quite thoroughly moot.
feeriker
May 14th, 2016 @ 2:08 pm

But of course. Most Repubs will claim to want to do that while campaigning. Once in office, however … well, that’s an altogether different story.
RS
May 14th, 2016 @ 2:38 pm

Obviously, I’m 100 percent in agreement, and I’ve had similar discussions. The “we can’t afford it” argument especially galls me, because I see behind it new cars, a fancy vacation, the 2500 square foot house and the recently remodeled kitchen, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Twenty-five years ago, I tried to get a consortium of conservative congregations from conservative denominations to pool resources to start a K-12 Christian school with a robust academic program. As you point out, there were enough PS teachers and administrators in these churches to make it work, and work well. Sadly, the idea was completely and totally ignored, so my wife and I went our own direction. And so we deal with the slings and arrows of people invested in public education.

I think, deep down, Christian parents (and Christain P.S. teachers ) realize that their priorities are misplaced which is why they get so offended. People don’t like feeling guilty and seek to deflect that guilt onto something or someone else.

That may now change. It will become increasingly more difficult to the point of impossible for Christians to just keep their heads down and hope the evil passes them by. They will be made to submit. They will be made to facilitate and celebrate evil to their own humiliation and to the glee of their NEA masters.

Sadly, they’ll find the decision will be a lot harder now, that it would have been 25 years ago, if they’d done the right thing then.