The civil rights challenge of our time

Star Parker
Star Parker

STAR PARKER
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT
COALITION ON URBAN RENEWAL & EDUCATION

An incensed Andrew Sullivan — homosexual journalist and activist — told CNN anchor Anderson Cooper the other night that Barack Obama is ducking the “core civil rights challenge of his time.”

For once, I find myself on the same page with Sullivan.

But he and I have very different ideas about what that “core civil rights challenge” is.

For Sullivan it’s “gay rights.” For me it’s school choice.

We’ve got all kinds of flowery rhetoric from our president about the education crisis and the need to do everything to educate our kids. But, as is unfortunately often the case, Mr Obama’s deeds are less inspiring than his words.

Most recently, and flagrantly, was the announcement that Obama would sit by and allow Congress to pull the plug on the five-year old voucher program enabling 1700 kids in Washington, DC to attend private schools. This despite a new study from Obama’s own Department of Education saying that these kids outperformed their peers in DC public schools in reading. And that the vouchers, valued up to $7500 per scholarship, cost less than half the $17,000 per student that DC spends to maintain one of the worst public school systems in the country.

j0408891It’s no secret that President Obama is very much the politician, and in this case one beholden to unions. So perhaps educating children is important to our president. But not quite as important as the perks of elected office.

But back to Mr. Sullivan, we have more than a difference of opinion about civil rights and political priorities. Sullivan’s agenda not only is different from mine, but is one of the reasons I attach such importance to school choice.

Listening to Sullivan, you’d think that Barack Obama is anywhere from apathetic to antipathetic to the homosexual agenda. When Anderson Cooper asked him if Obama has “actually done anything”, Sullivan darted back “No!”

But the president has proclaimed June “LGBT” (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) month, with a long list of agenda items, including repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.

His Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has just announced that same-sex couples in America’s diplomatic corps around the world will now be treated identically, getting the same benefits, as traditional married couples.

And, a few days ago, the Obama administration announced the appointment of homosexual activist Kevin Jennings as assistant deputy secretary in the Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Drug-free Schools.

Included in the mission of this office, according to the Education Department website, is “Administer the Department’s programs relating to character and civics education.”

Jennings founded and was executive director of GLSEN — Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network — whose mission is to strive “to assure that each member of every school community is valued and respected regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.”

So what exactly is Sullivan upset about? This administration is assuring that children in America’s public schools will be properly educated to see all forms of sexual behavior as acceptable.

But parents who don’t want this have plenty to be upset about. Today’s real minority group is low to middle income parents who want their children educated with traditional values.

Needless to say, sexual moral relativism is the last thing that black kids need to hear in school. Most important for these kids, who come overwhelmingly from single parent homes, and half in our urban public schools that don’t graduate, is to be taught traditional values.

Of the 1700 kids in DC’s soon to be defunct voucher program, 879 have been attending Catholic elementary or high schools.

Liberating our kids from the cesspools in our urban areas that we call public schools is the great “civil rights challenge” of our time.

Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay. Prior to her involvement in social activism, Star Parker was a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark
  • Brian Rutledge
    Bob- Would like to hear your reasoning on gay marriage. The Constitution and its amendments guarantee that the law can not discriminate according to race, gender, religion etc. If a gay couple wants to get married in a civil setting, civil law must be abided by and the Constitution applies civil rights to all civil laws.

    I know how you feel about the religious aspect of this issue, but of course that is neither here nor there in civil law .. I do believe in the sanctity of marriage and feel it should be between a male and a female despite what Websters dictionary now says.

    The problem I see is if a civil marriage falls under civil law and civil rights must be applied to all law, how can the supreme court ( which is where is it will be decided) say that interacial marriage ( race ) is constitutionally correct ( Loving vs. Virginia ), but different gender marriage cant be allowed. Race and gender must have equal access and protection by our Constitution. Doesnt our Constitution guarantee the same rights for interracial marriage as it would gay marriage- Race and gender have equal rights and protection under the law.

    Again I know the religious arguments, but was interested on what purely legal grounds you stand on, which oppose same sex marriage. You know much more about law than I.
  • I'd be delighted to share that with you.

    The Constitution prohibits discrimination based on certain fundamental characteristics, practically all of which are physical, unchangeable, and morally-neutral in nature. The only exception is, I believe, religion, which the Founders and amendment writers rightly recognized as such a sacred and profound choice, that even though it might be subject to choice and change, it is at the very deepest level of how a person sees themselves and the world around them, and thus should not be subject to coercive efforts. Prohibitions against interracial marriage were never grounded in any legitimate foundation: not religious, not moral, not Constitutional, not practical. There is nothing fundamentally different between a white man and a black woman, or a black man and a white woman, other than their skin color; one might as well prohibit people of different hair or eye colors from marrying. The prohibitions against interracial marriage (and I don't even like that term, since regardless of skin color, we are all one race: human) of the past had no basis in upholding a moral or practical standard, nor did they have anything to do with protecting the fundamental nature of marriage, but were based purely on prejudiced and bigoted motives.

    Homosexual behavior is just that: a behavior. It is not necessarily a "chosen" behavior in the sense of choosing steak over chicken, but it is a choice in the sense that, despite a temptation to do it, one can resist that temptation--just as I as one inclined to drunkenness can resist that inclination, and have for over 15 years. It is also not a "sacred and profound" choice as is religious belief; a homosexual might feel strongly about their inclination, but that in no way qualifies it as sacred or profound. Rather, it is an aberrant choice, a perversion of normal, healthy sexuality in the truest sense of the word "perversion;" the fact that studies show less than 3% of the population is homosexual, and that the behavior has never been accepted on an equal plane of legitimacy in any culture throughout history (it has only been tolerated at times, and within minority subsets of a culture). It is also a sexual behavior that every major religion recognizes as immoral. It is also a practice that, through the rather obvious testimony of biological function, even an atheist should be able to recognize is not legitimate on a practical or functional basis; in other words, the sex organs are obviously not being used for their intended function (male-female union), with some of those practices involving a quite obvious and potentially dangerous and unhealthy misuse of various body parts, and serves no useful biological function. Finally, as extensive health data (from a variety of sources, including the CDC and other state departments of health) shows, it is an extremely unhealthy practice--both directly and indirectly. I already alluded to the potential injuries which can occur during a popular form of homosexual sex, but there are also risks of disease involving that very same practice (bacteria is highly prevalent in that area, as you know). The nature of this and other homosexual practices also makes homosexuals highly susceptible to the transmission of AIDS and many other STDs including Honoria, syphilis, HPV and more. Anal cancer rates are also much higher among homosexual men. Depression, anxiety, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence are also much higher in the homosexual community. And while some claim this is because homosexual behavior is not accepted by society, these health risks are still seen in areas where homosexual behavior has long been openly accepted (San Francisco, and various European and Scandinavian countries where homosexual unions have even been legally recognized for several years).

    Having pointed out these two vast differences between the protections the Constitution provides for innate, morally-neutral characteristics on one hand, and homosexual behavior on the other, it should become very obvious that there is simply no legitimate reason whatsoever for the state to provide legal recognition of a sexual practice which has no legitimate biological function, is immoral, and is highly unhealthy.

    This much should be obvious already, and I haven't even discussed the connection with family, child-raising, etc. and the inevitable demands homosexuals are already making to adopt children. Children need both a mother and a father in the home to develop properly and in a well-balanced manner. Men and women have different roles in the family and bring different sets of gifts to the institution of family; try as they might, one can never quite provide what the other can. We have seen the effects broken family units (even those that are broken and then "repaired" somewhat by bringing a new wife/husband into the picture): higher rates of academic struggles, higher rates of emotional distress, higher rates of juvenile delinquency, etc. What's more, a homosexual couple would deliberately deprive a child of either a mother or a father; not by a premature death, not even by divorce, but from the beginning and by design. And there are the low rates of commitment and monogamy among homosexuals (even "committed" homosexual relationships usually don't endure past 5 years, with most dissolved in less than 2 years--and "monogamy" is a very, very loose term in the homosexual community--not how heterosexuals typically think of the word). And don't forget all those health problems I previously mentioned. Having said this, it would be insanity to deliberately place a child in such an environment...but if the state legally recognizes homosexual unions, the state has forfeited any grounds upon which it might stand in protecting children from such a dangerous and deprived environment.

    Then there is the assault on the very meaning and sanctity of the institution of marriage itself. It has forever meant the joining of a man and a woman in a committed relationship. And that joining takes place on many levels: mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical. With two homosexuals, you can no more marry their sex organs in a legitimate manner than you can marry two male or two female ends together in a plumbing project in your house. You might be able to try, with some glue, duct tape or such, but it would not be a natural marriage of those parts, and it certainly wouldn't be a stable or legitimate marriage of those parts.

    Marriage has always had a distinct and unique definition and makeup precisely because it is a distinct and unique relationship--one that can only be legitimately formed between a man and a woman. U.S. currency is also distinct and unique, and it has value (just like the institution of marriage has a distinct non-interchangeable value). We protect U.S. currency from being counterfeited for a reason. Why? Because counterfeit currency devalues the genuine article. How much would the U.S. $20 bill be worth if the government suddenly said it was okay for anyone to slap one down on a scanner or copy machine and spit them out to their heart's content and these copies would be considered "legal tender"? Pretty soon, the $20 bills printed at the mint would be worth about as much as what was printed on your copier, and inflation would skyrocket (because people would recognize there was no distinct, unique value to the mint $20 bills).

    I hope that helps.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Bob Appreciate ( deeply) the above. But the Supreme Court will be limited to deciding whether civil law which includes and governs civil marriage can discriminate on the basis of gender.That's what Ted Olson and David Boies are specifically going for. The Constitution clearly states that issues like gender have no place or can be discriminatory on ANY subject or issue that falls under the purview of civil law.
  • Thanks, Brian, but actually the Constitution doesn't say that at all. The Constitution doesn't mention homosexual behavior, and it doesn't even mention "gender," which has really just become a muddy-the-waters word to try and confuse people into acquiescing to the homosexual agenda. It used to be synonymous with the biological word "sex" but it has been twisted (like so many things) to essentially mean "whatever sex role or behavior you feel like exhibiting."

    The Constitution prohibits discrimination based on those basic, fundamental, innate characteristics I mentioned such as sex. The Constitution doesn't care if you're mixed up on what sex you are (even though a quick look between your legs helps most people figure it out). If you have a penis and male genetics, you're of the male sex; if you have a vagina and female genetics, you're a female. It's really simple for people who aren't hostile toward reality, and the Constitution isn't hostile toward reality, either, which means a person's confusion, delusion, and animosity toward how God created them should have nothing to do with the law and legal recognition of their mental dysfunction.

    We should be trying to help these people adjust to and accept reality, rather than indulging their delusions and attempts to misuse their own bodies. We shouldn't play along with someone who thinks he's Napoleon, and we shouldn't play along with a man who thinks he should be a woman, nor should there be legal recognition or accommodation of these dysfunctions.

    "I want" has never (in any sane culture) been the basis for legal, educational or scientific policy.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Not sure the voucher program is a civil rights issue. As you noted, the voucher system in Washington D.C. allows 1700 students to attend private schools while the majority are attending public schools. You mention that the kids in these voucher programs outperform those in the public schools in reading, thus intimating a better educational experience.

    I thought civil rights would demand equal educational access for all students, which oviously is not the case in the D.C. voucher system. One group is clearly afforded a better educational experience than another. Civil rights,by definition, demands and quarantees equal access for all. The D.C. voucher system is doing the opposite.
  • I don't know that I'd agree with Star Parker either that vouchers are a civil rights issue, per se. Though since some of the worst schools in the country seem to be inner city areas that are mostly black, the case might be made on some level.

    No-strings vouchers should be expanded (not cut, as they have been under the current Democrat administration) to every school and every student.

    Though there are some bright spot exceptions here and there, the state of the public school system as a whole is pathetic, and the environment is a travesty. Not only do students get a sub-par level education, they are exposed to a moral cesspool in the process. The founders once recognized the vital need for children to be inculcated with morality and values as they gained an academic education, but today we have sanitized all morality from the public education system...and often replace it with immoral instruction by teaching kids that aberrant sexual practices are normal, natural and healthy.

    This combination of rot is why my wife and I homeschool our children. Our oldest continues to score years ahead of her grade level, and she manages to do so on a fraction of the education budget allocated to a similar public school student. Imagine the fine education we could give our children if we had a voucher (from the tax money we continue to pay toward the public education system) for even half the allocation of a public school student?

    But this is exactly why liberals and teachers unions fight tooth and nail against vouchers: they know that the more children who have access to other educational options, the more light will be shed on the travesty known as our public school system.
  • Brian Rutledge
    I agree the public school system is a mess. It is sad that there should even have to be home schooling and talk of vouchers in this country. I was a product of public schools , but my children are all private which is a finacial strain, but our only option.

    I do think that there are significant moral issues at schools, but i don't think that is where the main problem lies. It comes from the home and our society as a whole. Parenting skills, discipline, respect and values are a lost art. Even public school teachers who attempt to discipline kids are quickly challenged by the parent(s) and are forced to retreat.

    I'll never forget in 7th grade, when I was feeling my oats at school and said something to a girl that I shouldn't have said. She reported it and before I knew it, I got three licks ( a paddling)-all well deserved. It didnt scar me for life, but darn sure sent a message loud and clear. Not necessarily advocating that now, but it did teach me about consequences big time.
  • You're absolutely right that the biggest problem comes from home, where parents aren't instilling values and discipline in their children.

    But when the public schools can't or won't maintain discipline, and in some cases send immoral messages, it only exacerbates the problem, and makes it harder for those parents who ARE trying to raise their kids right. You're right that there are some teachers who try to discipline, only to have their knees cut out from under them.

    I remember a few paddlings, too. Too bad we don't reverse course and get that back into our schools. On one or two occasions I got punished even when I truly was innocent, but my folks were always of the idea that "Well, they probably missed punishing you for something you got away with before."
  • Brian Rutledge
    Forgot about the punishment when you're actually innocent ! That does teach an altogether different message. My Dad always said " Things have a way of evening up in the end" Seems like they were cut out of the same cloth
  • Yup, and now that I'm not the one getting spanked, I agree with my folks. :-)
blog comments powered by Disqus