Guest columnist Bonnie Jean Feldkamp: Did we really elect legislators to police love and belonging?
By Bonnie Jean Feldkamp
When my son was in preschool, he had two best buddies who were siblings. One boy. One girl. One day my son told me, "When I grow up, I'm going to marry either Charlotte or Tucker." My response? "Well, you have a while to figure that out, but I'm glad you love both of your friends so much."
Recent arguments over LGBTQ+ rights make me wonder: What if that conversation had happened in a kindergarten classroom? Would his teacher have had to reject this innocent expression of love for his friends and set the record straight to somehow not be perceived as indoctrinating a child in liberal views?
The fight for LGBTQ+ rights is showing up in every level of government, from our United States Supreme Court and our state legislature to our local school board meetings. There's a constant fight over what is considered "appropriate" for children to learn, accept and understand and at what age.
As a parent, I have a hard time understanding the notion that love should somehow be incrementally understood according to ages and stages of development. I also have a really hard time with the fact that our elected officials are spending their designated legislative time on creating laws around who you can openly love while also creating restrictions on how best to present yourself to the world.
Is that what you were elected to do? Police love and belonging?
One recent email I received read: "Exposing children to ideologies and lifestyles that they are unprepared to understand, is not time tested and is not a decision that a responsible parent would make."
It seems to me that it's grown-ups who are "unprepared to understand" that love is simply love. Love and partnership do not solely belong to straight cisgendered people. Love is free and available to anyone willing to accept it within the confines of consent. There's no need for incremental education that requires we first teach the concept that love is between a biological male and a biological female.
Then what? We're supposed to start making exceptions as the child grows to help them "understand" according to a developmental stage you deem appropriate? I don't think that's the goal if we're all being honest. I think the goal is to reject LGBTQ+ individuals from the outset and control what children understand about love. When you say "appropriate," you really mean teaching children that love exists within the defined constraints of your worldview.
To this I wonder: What about the LGBTQ+ people who exist in your child's life already? Yes. You have gay and trans people in your life. Whether it's your sister, brother, doctor or barista. They are all around you. Are these individuals supposed to hide who they are from your children until some predetermined time? Or is your expectation that your child not interact with any person who doesn't fit the cisgender roles you deem age-appropriate? This way you can teach them lifelong rejection. And what about gay and trans parents who have children in public school? Are these children supposed to question the validity of their parent's love and their family's existence?
I have three children. None of them had any problem understanding the concept that everyone is different and at the same time everyone belongs. They grew up understanding that you choose who you love and if that person loves you back, it's an incredible gift. Hard stop. No other explanation needed. You love who you love. And no matter who you love, no matter how you want to present yourself to the world, you are loved. You are worthy of love, and you belong just as you are. No exceptions. No expectations.
© Creators, 2023