The Loudoun County Parents Face Public Backlash

It was only a matter of time before the parents of Loudoun County, Va., faced organized opposition. To be honest, I’m surprised it took as long as it did. As it turned out, those who support the agenda of the school board were only waiting for the right trigger. And the most recent school board meeting provided that trigger.

According to a report by Fox News, the opponents of the parents found their opportunity to pounce when one man, Mark Winn, decried the teaching of LGBTQ issues in the schools and quoted Matthew 18:6:

If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

You can watch the entire video here.

Strictly speaking, the above passage refers to false religious teachers. You would be hard-pressed to find a specific verse in the Bible that explicitly prohibits arson. There is no passage that states, “Thou shalt not set buildings ablaze.” But we prosecute people for that crime because we have been gifted with reason.

For our VIPs: NBC Reporterette Defends the Sexual Grooming of Children But Accuses Parents Opposed to it as the Real Sexual Predators

And now the backlash has commenced. Community organizer Andrew Pihonak has circulated a petition that will ban hate speech at future school board meetings. He reportedly has gathered 875 signatures. The petition reads:

Hate speech incites violence, yet if it occurs, the Loudoun County School Board procedurally has to listen to it during public comment, say ‘thank you’ to the inciter, and then stream it for all to hear on their website. During the School Board meeting on December 13th, A man said that people in the LGBTQ+ community are better off with ‘millstones around their necks at the bottom of a river.’ Many people in the audience cheered.

Platforming hate speech like this empowers people to commit acts of violence against oppressed groups of people, and causes people like me in the LGBTQIA+ community to be bullied (often into suicidal ideation or suicide), tortured, and killed. I demand policy in the School Board that requires them to cut off a person speaking during public comment the second hate speech is spoken.

While the biblical passage in question is used out of context, Winn was objecting to the sexualization of children. And as a result, he has been hit with a charge of hate speech. When one has been caught in the midst of bad behavior, it is not uncommon for that person to make an excuse, blame someone else, or claim that they are being persecuted. Not only does that deflect the attention away from the behavior, but it also provides permission for it. It silences and moreover criminalizes opposition. Apparently, the school board and the petitioners can’t even wrestle with the idea that people have all of their adult lives to explore their sexuality, and that children don’t need that baggage at an early stage in their development. One must wonder if the petitioners are similarly supportive of the district’s decision to cover up two acts of rape under the banner of gender. Or was that okay, too? Where exactly is the line when it comes to behavior?

When I was a reporter, I used to have to cover courts. Usually, I could get a copy of the day’s docket the night before or first thing in the morning. There were certain things I glossed over, such as drug charges and DUIs. But there were cases for which I kept an eye out. These included sexual abuse cases. In some cases, it was actual physical abuse at the hands of a family member or friend, or stranger. In other cases, it was a charge of providing sexually explicit or harmful materials to a child. In both situations, grooming was involved to a certain degree. And that involved gaining a child’s trust or abusing a position of trust to sexualize them. The cases were all horrific and I will not relate them here. I don’t want to think about them and trust me when I say that you don’t want to read about them.

I watched a parade of men, and yes, the occasional woman, wend their way through the legal system for sexualizing children. And it occurs to me that if the people in various school systems across the nation were to do what they do over the internet or a smartphone or during a conversation, they would eventually find themselves facing very serious charges. But to sexualize children inside the walls of a school is perfectly acceptable. If a friend, family member, or some random person walks up to a child on the street and talks to them about or promotes sexual activities and provides them with explicit material, the police would be called. But if the exact same thing happens in the classroom, it is sacrosanct? These things are either criminal or they are not.

The petitioners of Loudoun County, whether they are gay, straight, or transgender, may want to take a moment and consider the kinds of people with whom they are throwing in their lot.