What interests me, however, is this fact: Massachusetts has an explicit statutory law requiring that parents be notified and given an opt-out opportunity for the discussion of "human sexuality." So why wasn't the Parkers' wish granted? It's very simple: Since homosexual "marriage" is now officially, legally recognized in Massachusetts, parents who object to such propoganda material are told that it is not about "human sexuality" but rather just about "real life."
This point is made explicitly by a school principal in this NPR story (you must click on another link to listen to the whole story) about a gay fairy tale in which a prince "marries" a prince. This principal even pontificates a bit about "abiding by Massachusetts law," as though the legalization of homosexual "marriage" means (as it obviously does not) that public schools are legally required to read gay fairy tales in class.
Get it? See, if the people in the little "diversity" story in the Parker boy's bookbag are just a family, and the relationship between the two men is just a marriage, then unless the book contains explicitly sexual material, it is no more about sexuality than any little booklet showing a little girl living with her mom and dad. For that matter, I suppose that a mom and dad in some book given to children could kiss, hug, or hold hands if it came up in the story without the book's concerning "human sexuality," so by this logic, so could her dad and his homosexual partner. Very clever. (Note: I am not saying that this happens in the book. I haven't read the book. I'm only pointing out what could happen in the book without the book's obviously falling under the statute.)
The legal logic is impeccable, and so is the bait and switch. Homosexual rights, we have been told, is about your right to do what you want to do in your own bedroom, to be left alone, not to be persecuted for your private acts. But let's be clear: That is so only insofar as this really is about sex. The private acts in question are sexual acts. But the whole goal has been not simply to permit those private acts, which no one was running out to try to stop anyway. The goal was to force normalization of those acts, and everyone knows well that the normalization of a particular type of sexual act is the unspoken theme and purpose, the very raison d'etre, for such books as Who's in a Family? and King and King. It is not, after all, as though the little girl's father and his partner are heterosexual college buddies who live together to save on the rent! A book like King and King, being a "love story," makes this point even more obvious. So of course this is about human sexuality, but it's oh-so-easy, once normalization has taken place, to pretend that it isn't.
So we started with privacy, and here is where we have ended up: "Oh, this isn't about sex at all. See, now that this is legally recognized as marriage, this is about real life. This is just about different kinds of families. It's a public matter and must be treated in public as any other marriage is treated publically." Gotcha.
Do read the whole thing, if you can.
I'm getting very tired of pro-gay marriage advocates asking "How does my gay marriage threaten your marriage?" as if that's all this was about. Their faux marriage threatens mine personally, immediately, and specifically no more than the current faux marriage of some oft-married, oft-divorced Hollywood starbeing's does.
But the total re-shaping of society in which marriage has nothing to do with biological parenthood and where parenthood has nothing to do with marriage does hurt me; it hurts all of us. You can't have an enduring social order based on temporary whims of passion engaged in by spoiled adults; you won't have progeny, if the bearing of children is seen as no more important or valid a lifestyle choice than some same-sex groom's choice to pair his white Swarovski-crystal encrusted wedding pumps and gray suit with an olive green derby hat to make his eyes really pop.
We've already created a nightmare situation for traditional marriage, where marriages are supposed to be exclusive and permanent and ordered toward children, and are instead open and temporary and ordered toward self-indulgence and narcissistic contraceptionism. Adding same-sex marriage to that already destructive reality will only hasten the complete collapse of traditional marriage, and with it, the collapse of America.
No nation has ever survived very long when its citizens decide their fun is too much ruined by the duties of fatherhood or motherhood. No nation has ever elevated an inherently sterile relationship to the status of marriage, either; the combination will be lethal for our country.