On September 14, 2016 the six Democrats on Michigan’s State Board of Education passed an LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning) guidance policy (link to the policy) for Michigan schools that will put children and adolescents at risk, as well as systematically marginalize students who regard the homosexual lifestyle as outside their belief system. The two Republican members on the State Board of Education, Dr. Richard Zeile and Eileen Weiser, voted against the guidelines.
1. The “Q” in LGBTQ originally represented those individuals who identified as “Queer.” The “Q” was expanded by LGBTQ activists to represent both “Queer” and “Questioning.” This redefinition of the “Q” to include “questioning” has influenced vulnerable kids confused about their gender and sexuality. Individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer are a political minority united in promoting their values. Kids who are questioning their gender and sexuality are not in that political minority yet. They are seeking answers, seeking their identity. They are innocent and they are vulnerable.
2. The LGBTQ guidelines recommend that children who identify with the sex opposite their biological sex be allowed to use whatever restroom they choose. The guidelines read: “Students should be allowed to use the restroom in accordance with their gender identity” (Michigan, 2016). The State Board of Education has ignored the requests of the majority of parents who do not want biological boys using a restroom with their daughters.
3. The LGBTQ guidelines recommend that schools allow transgender students to play in sports according to their gender identity rather than their biological sex, as well as use the locker rooms in accordance with their gender identity. The guidelines read: “Transgender students should be allowed to participate in such activities and access such facilities consistent with their gender identity” (Michigan, 2016). Many Michigan parents see this directive lacking in common sense, putting children and adolescents in harm’s way.
4. The LGBTQ guidelines recommend increasing the LGBTQ outreach in the schools. The guidelines encourage schools: “to include a selection of LGBTQ books and media” in their libraries. They encourage: “Incorporating LGBTQ topics throughout the educational culture of the school.” The guidelines encourage schools to support LGBTQ political organizations; in particular “Gay-Straight Alliances” and “Gender and Sexuality Alliances.” They also state schools should provide “affirming counseling, and support services” to LGBTQ students (Michigan, 2016).
5. According to the LGBTQ guidance policy recommendations, parents do not have to be notified of their child’s sexual confusion, if their son or daughter has not “come out” to their parents. The policy reads, “When students have not come out to their parent(s), a disclosure to parent(s) should be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis” (Michigan, 2016). This subjective language has the potential to be abused, as teachers and school counselors guide a child according to their worldview on gender role and sexual orientation. Parents, if left uninformed, will have no opportunity to give guidance to their child or to seek guidance by sources they approve.
6. It is a tenet of many parents’ and students’ faith that the Bible is their moral guide, and the Bible refers to homosexual behavior as going against God’s laws. For school policy to promote an LGBTQ worldview is to marginalize students and parents who hold a biblical worldview. The LGBTQ guidance policy, which was supposedly designed to create “an inclusive school environment for all students” (Michigan, 2016), will actually marginalize those who hold the biblical worldview.
7. An important fact not mentioned in the LGBTQ guidance policy is that most children who wish to be the opposite sex as a child grow out of that wish by adolescence (Green, 1987). The same dynamic applies to early homosexual behavior. A University of Chicago study of Americans between the ages of 18 and 59 years of age found that 9 percent of American males had at least one homosexual experience in adolescence, but only 5 percent had at least one homosexual experience after the age of eighteen, and only 2.8 percent of adult males identified as homosexual or bisexual (Michael et al., 1994). The study implied that if left alone, over two-thirds of male students who had at least one homosexual experience in adolescence would not identify as homosexual or bisexual in adulthood. These facts cannot be ignored just because they are politically incorrect and displease LGBTQ activists.
8. The fact that many individuals have changed from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation is not mentioned in the LGBTQ guidance policy. This is a fact that LGBTQ activists have worked to suppress for forty years. Clinical evidence has shown that when boys who question their sexual orientation and gender role are mentored to identify with their masculinity, most develop a heterosexual orientation (Stoller, 1978). If these same students are mentored in an LGBTQ worldview, as the LGBTQ guidance policy suggests, the percentage of those who identify as gay or lesbian in adulthood is likely to rise.
9. In addition, the health risks of male homosexual behavior are not mentioned in the guidance policy. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2014 HIV diagnoses increased among young males who identify as gay. “Young African American gay and bisexual men (aged 13 to 24) experienced an 87% increase in diagnoses” (CDC, 2016, HIV). On the 9th of May 2016 the health risks associated with male homosexual behavior were shared before the State Board of Education in verbal testimony and in referenced printed information given to each Board member. It appears that the Board members who voted for this policy ignored significant health risks associated with the lifestyle choices they are in effect promoting.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (Updated July 11, 2016). HIV in the United States: At a glance. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overview/ataglance.html
Green, R. (1987). The “Sissy Boy Syndrome” and the Development of Homosexuality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Michael, R. T., Gagnon, J. H., Laumann, E. O., & Kolata, G. (1994). Sex in America – A Definitive Survey. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Michigan State Board of Education (September 14, 2016). State Board of Education Statement and Guidance on Safe and Supportive Learning Environments for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ) Students. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/SBEStatementonLGBTQYouth_534576_7.pdf
Stoller, R. (1978). Boyhood gender aberrations: treatment issues. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 26, 541-558.
Children and teens who 'Question' their sexuality or gender are not part of the LGBTQ community. They are part of their parent's family and may need protection from LGBTQ activists and policies. Tom Coy - Guard Our Children
YOU CAN HELP!
Guard Our Children is registered as a Michigan Super PAC. Donations are not tax deductible. Until it is defeated, all funds donated in 2020 will go to fight against the LGBTQ initiative to add "sexual orientation, and gender identity and expression" to Michigan's civil rights act.
Donations by check need to include your name and address. If the donation is over $100, you are required by Michigan law to include your occupation, your employer, and your employer's address. If you are retired, just note “retired.” Corporate checks can also be received.
Make checks payable to "Guard Our Children" and mail to: P.O. Box 402, Davison, MI 48423.
To donate online click here: Donate online