The federal effort is depicted by officials and sympathetic media as a campaign against “bullying,” but it pushes far beyond the prevention of physical violence, and seeks federal regulation of kids’ statements, online conversations, social arrangements and social “climate.”
The impetus for this effort originates from the gay community. There are two objectives. On the surface advocates hope to stop young, gay people from committing suicide. This is a commendable goal for which new laws against bullying have been promoted as the solution.
The Its Gets Better Project has been most vocal proponent of counter-bullying legislation. Founded by activist Dan Savage, the initiative seeks to record people telling young homosexuals that their lives will improve and that they should not commit suicide. An unstated but apparent second goal of the Project is to convert the national dialogue on homosexuality from one of dispute to one of presumed acceptance. (Dan Savage is the same individual who created the highly controversial "Google bomb" against Rick Santorum. By manipulating Google search results so that the former Pennsylvania senator's name now redirects to an objectionable "definition" of his name, Savage successfully, at the minimum, complicated Santorum's political life. The It Gets Better Project does not just want stop people from killing themselves because they are gay.) The Project is cleverly trying to force everyone else in America to accept the proposition that homosexuality is ordinary.
This normalization of gay life is what riles the religious right.
“We all oppose bullying in any shape or form,” said Tom Prichard, president of the Minnesota Family Council, a conservative advocacy group. But progressive advocates are exploiting episodes of bullying to push their diversity ideology, which seeks “to promote the embracing and affirmation of homosexuality and other sexual lifestyles,” he said. These advocates want to fragment the family ideal, which has very successfully entwined sex, adults and child-rearing for more than 2,000 years, he said.
Obviously suicide is tragic and no sensible person wants anyone to die. Even the most passionate Christian would agree with homosexual advocacy groups that young people should not be committing suicide over stress from being gay. The left might be shocked, but decent Christians care about all people, including gays. In fact, the notion of Christian love might very well be the chief reason so many Christians oppose efforts like the It Gets Better Project.
Exclude the Westboro Baptist Church lunatics from this discussion and consider the other several hundred million Christians in America. At the root of their objections to homosexualty is not, as it is so often reported, hatred. Rather it is a sincere belief that homosexual activity is sinful and detrimental- not just to society as a whole, but to gay people themselves. Many Christians- right or wrong- want gay people to stop being homosexual for what Christians perceive as the good of gay people themselves.
In that sense, the religious right has good intentions. And so does the left. Members of each group believe they are pursuing the morally correct course. Christian groups think they are saving souls and America. Gay groups think they are saving lives and their freedom.
Both groups are wrong.
Christian groups are wrong because they fail to blame the USG for its greatest offense: intrustion into an area where the federal government has no authority. According to the White House:
“This president, this attorney general, this secretary of health and human services, and this secretary of education — this federal government, in short — is going to put every tool in its arsenal to bear on this issue because … we cannot allow it to be a rite of passage,” Tom Perez, Obama’s assistant attorney general for civil rights, told a coalition of parents, gay advocacy groups and government officials at a government-funded summit held Sept. 23.
Has Attorney Perez informed the President that the federal government has no "tools in its arsenal" to address this issue?
Like the It Gets Better Project though, which claims one goal (ending suicide among gay youth) while seeking also another (widespread acceptance of homosexuality), the alleged "conservatives" have their own hidden objective: to utilize federal authority to thwart homosexual activity. One need look no further than religious right standard bearer and Google bomb victim Rick Santorum who recently chided his fellow GOP debaters for failing to accept the proposition that the federal government has the authority to ignore the 10th Amendment and institute legislation regarding personal behavior on moral grounds.
The left itself makes the same mistake. The progressive equivalent of Senator Santorum, Lady Gaga, this weekend implored President Obama to end bullying. Via Twitter she opined that bullying "must become illegal. It is a hate crime."
Santorum formulates a coherent, defensible, but very debatable argument that the 10th Amendment has been misinterpreted as granting the states default authority. Lady Gaga and Savage likely lack the historical and legal background Santorum possesses, but essentially take the same course.
Santorum's exchange with Ron Paul on the point is if nothing else sincere (No doubt Gaga and Savage's sentiments are as well). But like the It Gets Better Project, Santorum is seeking to compel individuals how to act using the power of the federal government. The federal government needs to get involved to assure people are compelled to act a certain way. The USG should be our morality police.
Congressman Paul though, takes the sensible, constitutional, and correct approach. Paul appreciates that the federal government has no authority in this area. That absence of authority means no action is permitted. Such an approach would actually serve both the left and the right best in the long term.
Centralized government action can be beneficial or detrimental, depending on if one agrees with the party in power or not. While the It Gets Better Project might today embrace the idea of the USG having the ability to uniformly order individuals to act a certain way, would that sentiment remain if Rick Santorum were to become president and had with him a GOP Congress? Would the Project believe the USG still has such authority if the law were rewritten to proscribe certain comments by homosexuals?
An underlying reality of the larger hate crime debate is the fact that existing criminal statutes and common law offenses already cover such acts. It has never been legal in America to assault someone. But proponents of hate crime legislation desire more than just punishment for a crime. They want social evolution guided by the hand of government. Hate crime laws seek to elevate penalties, but also to couple such increased punishments with accompanying social action legislation. Criminal law, traditionally the body of jurisprudence dealing with offenses against society, has been morphed into a collection of codified special interest protections.
The social trauma of being adolescent in America has traditionally been difficult, especially for homosexuals.
Listening to proponents of such legislation, one would think 2011 is an especially hard time to be gay. This present period though, because of current social mores, appears to be the easiest time in modern America to come out. This is claimed not to minimize the struggle of young gay people, but to note that society has quite succesfully and without the action of government, been slowly evolving toward a more progressive view of homosexuality. Santorum and his allies might argue against this trend, and the left, the middle, and every other political group should support his right to do so. But that loud, serious, and profound debate should be amongst the citizens of each state, and not at the national level.
Among other blessings, our federal system allows us to enjoy different standards of regulation at the state level. In Nevada a resident can enjoy gambling, girls, and guns. Cross into Utah and the indulgences are less risky, salacious, and explosive. Santorum might not like the fact that the 10th Amendment reserves certain unstated powers to the states and people, but it most certainly does. The left might not celebrate the reality that the federal government has no authority to govern what people say to each other, but that is indeed the case.
Forcing the USG to adopt an anti-gay or pro-gay agenda will undermine our federal system and subject both groups to potential tyranny.
This much is indisputable: suicide is tragic and concern for the moral direction of the country is important. But the proper course to address such concerns is outside of the federal government, amongst the states, and the people.