Austin ISD Pays for Students to Engage in Pride Parade
This past weekend, on August 12th, Austin ISD (Austin’s public school system), held their annual “Pride Parade.” Men who think they are women, along with allied activists showed up wrapped in “pride” flags, as well as the transgender flag. One might ask, “How is this harmful to people?” The answer is, public morality and the common good—two goals that are fundamental to any civil society.
What most people take issue with is the fact that public tax dollars are being used to support this event. Austin has been known for some time now as quite the liberal city, but that is no excuse to use public dollars to put on an event showing grown men prancing around in perverse outfits, while celebrating their sexual deviancy. The worst part? The entire parade involves children, where adults push them to celebrate sodomy and sexual perversion. There is nothing normal about this behavior.
America’s founding fathers would not have supported this at all.
Noah Webster, who published the 1828 Webster dictionary, once wrote,
No usage, repugnant to justice and fundamental or natural rights, can be a law to a nation denying its obligation. Morality is binding on all men and states; practices, inconsistent with morality, have no authority over a nation…
Furthermore, Justice James Wilson, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, echoed Webster’s sentiment, stating,
Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness.
America’s founders were abundantly clear that immorality was not to be protected, but rather, punished, if it disturbs the public peace and is repugnant to the common good.
As much as liberalism wishes it to exist, there is no constitutional right to prance around in a sexually explicit manner, especially with children present; the First Amendment does not protect such actions. That behavior would have been grounds for investigation of child sexual exploitation not so long ago. There is not a single Supreme Court decision related to this subject which would legally uphold this perversion under the right to free speech.