Is homosexuality inborn or a social construct? Some argue the former, queer theorists argue the latter. I come down neatly in neither camp, but that's beside the point of today's article, which continues the theme of loss of speech rights I visited in an earlier article.

New York City's token conservative magazine City Journal documents, in somewhat shotgun fashion, efforts by the Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered and Bisexual community to help school children "be more sensitive" to those who are changing their gender by various means.

(Of course, "being more sensitive" must involve instructing students, without parental notification nor consent, in the fine practice of "fisting", but again, I digress...)

In the course of doing so, we run across this story:

Consider the experience of Elliott Chambers, formerly a student at Woodbury High School in a suburb of Saint Paul, Minnesota. Woodbury High had posted pink triangles on 48 of its 60-odd classrooms and offices (what made the other rooms "unsafe" isn?t clear). Belonging to a conservative family, Chambers decided one day to express his values and wore to school a sweatshirt with the words STRAIGHT PRIDE emblazoned across the front and an image of a man and woman holding hands on the back.

The school principal found this expression of support for heterosexuality unacceptable. He forbade Chambers from wearing the sweatshirt in school, explaining that another student had found it offensive. Chambers's parents, increasingly concerned about what they considered Woodbury's aggressive endorsement of the LGBT agenda, met with the principal, who charged them with being "homophobic" -- a frequent accusation made not only against anyone who questions the morality of homosexual acts but also against anyone who doesn?t accept the entire gay activist program, as if such questioning could only grow out of psychological disturbance rather than reasoned judgment. The parents then filed a federal lawsuit, claiming that the school had squelched their son's First Amendment rights.

When a preliminary judgment came down in Chambers's favor, the principal announced over the school public address system that the court had actually agreed with school officials that the sentiment of "straight pride" seemed intolerant toward homosexuality, and if circumstances changed so as to create a reasonable belief that a substantial disruption of, or material interference with, school activities might ensue" from the wearing of the shirt, the school could prohibit it again. Foreseeing further disturbance, Mrs. Chambers decided to home-school her son.

Food for thought.