Privacy for Me But Not for TheeApr 27, 2016
To the secular left, the right to privacy has always been sacrosanct.
Remember, it is the right to privacy on which the “right to abortion” rests.
It is the right to privacy on which “crimes against nature” laws were overturned by the Supreme Court, a decision on which the “right to same-sex marriage” rests.
And, it is the ACLU that has been at the forefront of fighting government over reach in looking at our communications data without a court order.
Apparently, however, the right to privacy has met its match.
The bathroom door.
Suddenly, a right that was heretofore beyond limit has, well, limitations. A right used to justify the taking of millions of unborn lives, used to justify the redefining of a relationship that is un-redefinable, is unceremoniously flushed.
Now, notice, there are no privacy limitations for the secular left, of course, but there are most certainly limitations for you. Overnight, the very idea that you might want to use a restroom, locker room or shower without someone of the opposite sex hovering around is irrational, hateful and dangerous. You wanting to exercise your right to privacy might cause someone to feel bad, so it’s jettisoned.
A privacy right to kill unborn children is limitless, but privacy for those who are living exists only to redefine cultural norms out of existence. Only a culture that has no recognition of the value of human life and transcendent truth could possibly come to that conclusion.
They'll Stop at Nothing
They'll Stop at Nothing
Over the objections of thousands of Prince William County parents and students throughout the past year, not to mention a mountain of unanswered legal questions, the school board there defiantly voted (5-3) last night to push through a policy that could allow boys in Prince William County schools to use the girls' locker rooms, bathrooms, and showers, and even to be paired with females in overnight lodging situations.
And what was the Board's response to these concerns? Well, it wasn't to deny that these things would now be permissible, but instead only to dismissively declare various versions of "Oh, that'll never happen." Such a response does make you wonder if these folks really know anything at all about the experience of middle school and high school, adolescent males, teenagers generally, history, or human nature.
Or more likely, they just don't care.
The Board's action last night came after a groundswell of outrage and public pressure last September forced the Board to punt on the issue until this summer (conveniently when school would be out and parents would be less engaged with school policies, or on vacation). In that time, the Board managed to gather the cover they needed in order for a majority of them to vote to place every child in danger - ironically in the name of "safety for all." After going practically off the radar since September, the LGBT activists emerged for yesterday's meeting highly mobilized and organized, all of them showing up more than two hours early to pack the front of the room, and all of them decked out in purple. Even so, as the evening progressed, more and more opponents of the policy change arrived, ending with a crowd split about evenly.
And while the Board and proponents tried to sidestep the issue of opposite sex children in intimate settings by including “guidance” language that says bathroom and locker room policies won’t change, the reality is that the policy adopted cannot be limited in such a way.
But last night’s vote was really just part of the story. Just hours before the meeting, it was revealed that the school board chairman, Ryan Sawyers, ripping a page out of Governor Terry McAuliffe’s playbook of ignoring the law and policy, had tried to use his power and influence to manipulate who was allowed to speak during the required public comment period. Board policy states that the first ten people who sign up with the Board clerk speak, but the chair had sent text messages to the clerk demanding that the names he submitted be placed “at the top of the list.” Exposed through a Freedom of Information Act from Delegate Bob Marshall (R-13, Manassas), the Board then received a letter from our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom explaining that if normal rules weren’t followed, any vote would be subject to legal challenge.
Unlike Governor McAuliffe’s Board of Health, which flippantly ignored the law when it scaled back abortion center safety standards, the Board backed off and followed normal public comment policy.
But both the willingness of the Board chair to ignore the law and the mobilization of secular progressives shows that those who wish to force their dangerous agenda on our children will stop at nothing to accomplish their goal. Public outrage doesn’t matter, the law doesn’t matter, truth doesn’t matter, science doesn’t matter.
So what’s the answer? Pro-family Virginians need to re-double our efforts to organize and mobilize. Churches need to stand up and be willing to mobilize to school board meetings across Virginia. And, people who understand that the dignity, privacy and safety of our children – not to mention DNA – matter need to run for school boards across Virginia!
If science and reality don’t affect school board members, maybe a few election losses will.
Breaking: PWC School Board Chair Violates Law?
Breaking: PWC School Board Chair Violates Law?
The chairman of the Prince William County School Board has apparently decided to take a page out of Governor Terry McAuliffe’s playbook and violate the law and policy to accomplish his personal agenda.
The Board is set to vote tomorrow night on a controversial policy that would threaten the dignity, privacy and safety of school children in intimate settings like showers and locker rooms. At multiple meetings over the past year, opponents to the policy have dominated the public comment period at board meetings. Apparently, the chair of the board, Ryan Sawyers, is tired of the opposition – you know, parents and grandparents of children in the schools. (Sawyers is currently seeking the Democrat nomination to run for Congress in the First District.)
Through text messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request from Delegate Bob Marshall, it was revealed that that Sawyers is apparently trying to use his power and influence to place hand selected speakers at the top of the public comment list for tomorrow's meeting, instead of requiring them to sign up like everyone else.
The first person Sawyers wants to speak? The first openly transgendered candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates who just happens to be running against Marshall in Prince William County.
That would be called a politically motivated PR stunt.
At the last school board meeting, the first ten people who had signed up were able to speak during the public comment period, but several others were forced to wait until the end of the meeting to speak, at the decision of the chair. If that same thing happens tomorrow, it would mean that Sawyers' hand selected proponents of the policy would be able to speak before the vote, but all those who oppose would be forced to wait until after the vote to speak.
According to Marshall’s press release, “A Legislative Services attorney advised Marshall today that the Prince William School Board’s own regulations (133-1) in sections B and E, provide that persons are to speak in the order in which they have put in their requests to speak. Chairman Sawyers’ directive that his preferred list of supporters speak first, ‘cannot be given precedence over any speakers who signed up with the Clerk to speak before the submission by the chair.’”
Marshall said, “I asked the PW School Board Clerk today whether Sawyers’ list was submitted after others had requested to speak. The Clerk responded that other citizens had already signed up to speak prior to the Chairman’s submission. Legal counsel further advised me that if the Board failed to follow its own regulations in adopting transgender policy changes, that failure could give rise to a court invalidation of such action.”
Of course, in Terry McAuliffe’s Virginia, rules and regulations are simply a burden to be ignored. It is his administration that violated the law multiple times to roll back abortion center health and safety standards, a decision that is now being challenged in court. Apparently, now others are following his lead, knowing that the media won’t hold them accountable, and few have the resources to fight these illegal acts in court.
It remains to be seen if the Board bows to the chairman’s illegal action or follows the law.
Media reports indicate that five members of the eight member board are prepared to vote favorably on the dangerous policy, despite overwhelming public opposition.
Recently, my daughter celebrated her eleventh birthday. As with any parent, I’m amazed at just how fast time has passed. Like most kids at her age, she’s caught between wanting to be a lot older than she is at times (see “teenager”), while still also wanting to stay a child. I know which daddy would prefer!
As we celebrated her birthday, I realized that at the age she reached, eleven, I lost my mom to cancer. It is hard for me now to comprehend that I was that young when my mom died. In my memory, I was never really eleven. My mom’s death forced me to take on a level of responsibility few kids are prepared for, and as I look at my daughter, I realize just how young and unprepared I was for what I had to handle.
But I was blessed by having a dad who took on the responsibility of raising me as a single parent and never, ever wavered. As I grew up, my dad was always there for me. He became my best friend, my mentor, my confidant, my advisor, and my constant encourager. It’s impossible for me to completely express what he did to form who I am today. Don’t get me wrong, he was far from perfect, but considering the circumstances, I can’t imagine what my life would be like if he had been anyone other than who he was.
But despite all he did, there is one thing my dad could never be, no matter how hard he tried. He couldn’t be my mom.
Now, it doesn’t mean he didn’t fill some of that role. Every single-parent has to fill the role of both parents as well as they can. But I believe if people who have experienced being raised by a single parent are completely honest, they’d tell you that their parent couldn’t fulfill both roles completely. That’s not an indictment or criticism or judgment on those single parents. It’s the result of the simple reality that moms and dads fill different roles because men and women are different.
Even now as my wife and I raise our daughter it is abundantly obvious that we parent differently. There is a role my wife plays in my daughter’s life that I simply cannot fill, and vise versa. Again, those aren’t weaknesses, they are not societal constructs. They are the result of the fact that I am male, she is female, and we are different. She can’t be my husband, I can’t be her wife. She can’t be dad, and I can’t be mom. Our strengths and weaknesses complement each other for the benefit of our child.
But in our culture today we are being told that’s not acceptable. Indeed, we are being told that this reality is dangerous, discriminatory and bigoted. We are witnessing a “progressive” drive to erase “gender-specific” terms like “husband” and “wife” from the law because they offend people who don’t emotionally align with their biology. They brush aside truth and social science and replace it with personal motives and desires. They argue that kids simply need to be “loved” and everything will be okay. They conclude that the gender differences moms and dads bring to parenting are social constructs or patriarchal deceptions and that there really are no differences and that mom and dad are interchangeable.
Sorry, but it simply isn’t true. Sure, kids are resilient and can overcome a lot, but if we want the best possible outcomes for our kids, our law and policy should strive to encourage a two-parent family with a mother and a father because each brings something different and necessary to family. To purposefully deny children one or the other to fulfill the emotional needs of adults is narcissistic.
Single parents have it tough. Often, like in my dad’s case, it isn’t by choice. Primarily, it’s the consequence of someone else’s decisions or tragedy. Many do a remarkable job considering their circumstances. But to ignore the reality that men can’t be moms and women can’t be dads isn’t hateful. It’s accepting of the real and, frankly, remarkable differences found in humanity. The mysterious and wonderful differences between men and women, between mothers and fathers.
It’s amazing that those who claim to fight for “diversity” are bent on removing the differences between men and women because it is within those differences where the strength of true diversity thrives. It is amidst those differences that children are more likely to find success. To deny children that diversity is not progress, it’s shameful.