|Ana Samuel and Pete Buttigieg (Mayor Pete is the one on the right)
via Witherspoon Institute
Someone by the name of Ana Samuel claims to have a PhD from Notre Dame. Her advanced degree has not made her either smart or erudite. Thursday Ms. Samuel writes: A Message to Mayor Pete from a Latina Mama: “Don’t Force Your Sexual Ideology on Me and My Children.” Are you not in awe of the wisdom?
In case you haven’t guessed, the outlet for this vapid drivel is the blog of the ultra-conservative Catholic Witherspoon Institute.
With respect to her title it is becoming rather hackneyed to refer to facts that one does not like as part of an ideology. Catholic dogma is an ideology. Sexuality is not an ideology. Sexuality is neither a philosophy nor doctrine. The following are indisputable facts:
- Mayor Pete happens to be gay.
- Being gay is not an ideology. It is a fact that is well understood by science. Sexual orientation is a continuum with heterosexual and homosexual at the extreme ends.
- He also happens to be married to a man.
- Mayor Pete’s marriage does not require Ms. Samuel’s approval nor is her approval solicited.
- Mayor Pete is not objectively disordered. Is that not obvious?
- Mayor Pete did not choose his sexuality.
- Nothing that Mayor Pete does will cause anyone else to be gay.
I am cautiously assuming that a woman with a doctorate realizes the sexual orientation is not a choice. Therefore, I can further assume that her fear is of increasing tolerance. Why would anyone fear people being nice to others?
Just an excuse to dispense some religious disapproval:
Enough Is Enough
I’m talking about policies that undermine our parental rights and duties by seeking to indoctrinate our children in progressive sexual ideology without our consent and sometimes in spite of our explicit protest. Consider just a few examples:
Before I get to the examples, Anita Bryant used to say “enough is enough” in regards to the dreaded Homosexual Agenda™. Much of what I write and say (that Samuel would disapprove of) would not be necessary if the Catholic Church did not idiotically insist that gay people are “objectively disordered.” Nor would it be necessary were it not for the amateur psychiatrist — the Pope — discrediting what he moronically calls “gender ideology.”
A few or her examples:
The public schools in my area where reading assignments from the Language Arts curriculum ask: “What is heteronormativity and how is it harmful?” (Mind you: this is a question from the school district’s recommended language arts curriculum for eighth graders, not from a single health teacher or counselor. It is not unusual for the LGBT theme to find its way into history classes, foreign language studies, and even STEM courses. The explicit goal is to normalize LGBT lifestyles throughout curricula).
Ms. Samuel has not considered the simple fact that the promotion of heteronormativity makes it necessary for our public schools to offer some simple truths in order to reduce anti-gay bigotry. Stupid parents will do their best to undermine scientific truths if they conflict with scripture. Ana Samuel seems to have an agenda which, if passed on to her children, would also undermine the safety of LGBT kids in our public schools.
Public library programming where unicorns, rainbows, gingerbread persons, drag-queen story hours, and other symbols of progressive sexual ideology make an appearance, so that we must regularly steer our toddlers clear of the propaganda. With our middle-school children, it’s much harder to opt out. Trendy middle-school books (published after 2014) that appear to have fairly innocuous plots frequently feature an LGBT teen or gay couple, ever-so-gently normalizing the ideas that are so conflicting to our consciences. (Avoiding these storylines isn’t easy, since book-review websites regularly delete or block parents’ reviews that warn of LGBT elements, so we cannot even alert other parents of the real content within these books.)
Oh the poor dear for being exposed to the simple fact that LGBT people exist. Ana, let me tell you a secret: It’s contagious! Remember now, this is just between you and me. If a child reads more than 22,484 words of pro-homosexual text, he or she will turn gay. That is according to well documented peer-reviewed research. You just need to meter the word consumption.
Ms. Samuel lacks the introspection to realize that she foments what she dislikes. She is entitled to believe in the sanctity of a windshield wiper if that suits her. However, when she and her ilk promote their superstitions to the detriment of a vulnerable minority, steps must be taken to at least attempt to promote normalcy and tolerance. Judging from the contents of this little essay her own children are receiving some troubling programming.
For much of her life my mother kept Kosher. I am pretty sure that she did not go around screaming at everyone she saw eating a ham sandwich. Nor did she criticize them. Nor did she write tangled polemics for pseudo-intellectual blogs insulting people who happen to like bacon. But there is more. Eating “traif” is a voluntary act. Being LGBT is not by choice. If criticizing people for some choices is rude then criticizing people for their immutable traits is extremely boorish. Religion does not excuse incivility. At least it should not.
And last but not least, the latest round of violence against children: efforts to entice children to question the reality of their sex through school gender-transitioning ceremonies, pronoun-sensitivity training, and other transgender propaganda. Parents have historically enjoyed the right to direct the education and upbringing of their children, under the correct presumption that parents—rather than school counselors, psychiatrists, teachers, government bureaucrats, or any other persons—are best able to act in their children’s best interests. Now, activists are pushing courts to allow minors to receive puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones against their parents’ objections.
I will avoid the ad hominem which is surely justified. No one is causing children to question their gender. The ceremony she was referring to was a young child who was transitioning. To explain this to classmates the child did a before and after. No one was imperiled. Most of the rest of the above is about asking children to be nice. There is no reason for someone not to use gender-appropriate pronouns. It’s not a liberal conspiracy. A tiny minority of school children have gender dysphoria of sufficient severity to cause them to transition. That too is a medical and scientific fact.
To support her notion of court-ordered hormones, Samuel links to an article in The Federalist. Very compelling. Presumably she is unable to cite a specific case. I know of a Canadian case where a divorced mother and father disagree. I know of a Minnesota case involving an emancipated child. I know of an Ohio case where the mother and father apparently disagree and the child is living with supportive maternal grandparents. Any others?
Mr. Mayor, it is hypocritical for you to cry foul about policies that “harm you and your family” while your side pushes for government intrusions into the parent-child relationship at the most fundamental levels.
I did not know that there was a “side.” Bigotry is optional. It hurts LGBT people including children. Teaching tolerance hurts no one. The harms that Ms. Samuel claims to have endured are imaginary. They also reflect her insecurity as a parent which only exists because her faith-based arguments concerning nonreligious matters are extremely flimsy. Fragile.
Toleration for You, but Toleration for Me Too
Mothers tend to emphatically care about the welfare of all children, regardless of their family’s origin or current form. We also tend to emphatically care about every LGBT person—recognizing our common humanity even when we do not agree with their lifestyle choices. When we are polite to you, we are coming from a place of deep moral principle and authenticity. It’s not a superficial cover up for our true beliefs about you. You are rights-bearing individuals (like all of us) endowed with human dignity.
The woman is obtuse. Profoundly oblivious. Mayor Pete is part of an historically persecuted minority. There is enough homophobia in Samuel’s post to confirm her bigotry. She is asking people to be tolerant of intolerance. The very fact that she is referring to sexual orientation as a “lifestyle choice” demonstrates that she cannot help herself. She is a hateful bigot!
Samuel also asserts the idea that she is on the moral high ground. Morality is primary determined by how we treat others. And spare us the “human dignity” bullshit (rote). Samuel does not believe that. She feels superior to Mayor Pete simply due to his sexual orientation.
One day Mayor Pete might be Speaker Pete, Vice President Pete, maybe even President Pete. This awful woman will have a stroke.
Samuel goes on, at some length, to litigate the economics of cisgender heterosexuality. It’s not worth my attention. It is highly inflammatory so I will mind my blood pressure. Then she ends up at this rhetorical question:
Ask yourself: is the lifestyle you are setting up as a pattern for others to follow replicable and sustainable? Or does it further destabilize the family form that has provided the greatest financial and social stability to women, children, and the poor? The evidence consistently points to the latter.
Rhetorical questions are the tools of fools. They beg the question. Samuel is offering a false choice between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage. Were Mayor Pete not in a same-sex marriage then he would not be married at all. Eliminating same-sex marriage doesn’t make people straight (in spite of the insistence otherwise by folks like Brian S. Brown).
We could have another conversation about what constitutes evidence. Samuel needs a refresher course. “Women, children and the poor?” Please. Then we could have a conversation about how large families create more global warming which imperils the planet. However, suffice it to say, Mayor Pete’s marriage harms no one.
Bigotry, gibberish or bigoted gibberish?
You play the victim card, but it’s well-off same-sex couples who can afford to cushion themselves and their children from the costly effects of the progressive sexual lifestyle. You can redirect your children’s attention away from the gaping absence of a mother or a father towards a good education, nice clothes, memorable experiences, and recreation. However, your lifestyle cannot be sustained by millions of people who make less money than you. The mothers in my circles know this, and we care about those poor children—and their mothers and fathers, too.
What is her point? Most same-sex married couples are not wealthy and she seems to think that she has some knowledge of Pete’s bank balance. “Gaping absence?” The only thing that is gaping is, … Never mind.
Mothers are very good at educating and protecting our children from harm when we believe they are in danger. This time, that danger is the sexual ideology of the Left.
Finally, to my Latina sisters, my message is this: ¡Encuentren su voz! ¡No dejen que la ideología de genero de la izquierda borre nuestros valores culturales sobre la familia! ¡No dejen de ejercer sus derechos de madres! ¡Mamas del mundo: únanse!
That last sentence reads in English: “Find your voice! Do not let the gender ideology of the left erase our cultural values about the family! Do not stop exercising your rights as mothers! Mamas of the world: unite!”
Harm? Danger? This woman’s bigoted ideas threaten the safety of sexual minority children. Those LGBT kids are a small percentage of the population and they are vulnerable. As long as she refers to sexuality as an ideology she will portray herself as an intense bigot. Faith is no excuse for ignorance and bigotry.