Five years ago, when the smoking ban in restaurants first went
into effect in my home state of Connecticut, I told a few folks who
were happy about it that it was only a matter of time before the
government came after their private property rights or other issues
that were near and dear to their hearts. Most people scoffed at my
defense of the restaurant owners’ property rights and one fellow
actually said, “The problem with you people is that all you care
about is the Constitution.”
Of course, the ensuing years only saw more government intrusion
and some shocking court decisions eat away at the liberties of a
proud, freedom-loving people. The case that most disturbed my
liberal friends was the U.S. Supreme Court’s shocking 2005 decision
in Kelo v. New London, which essentially eviscerated the
Fifth Amendment’s proscription against depriving citizens of their
private property except for “public use.”
Now, when I repeat my warnings that, with liberals in power, no
one’s rights are safe, I hear little or no argument at all. And the
fellow who chastised me about the Constitution has since actually
read the eight-page document and is now a proud conservative who
joins me in castigating those still in denial.
Yet, while I bemoan the liberal goings-on in my once
liberty-loving state, I only have that much more empathy for the
many good people of California, who also have a RINO governor, but
labor under the “leadership” of a much worse regime. This week’s
outrage concerns the ruling of an appellate court that “parents do
not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children” and
that those who do so might be subject to severe penalties.
Now the judges in this case may actually have a legal leg to
stand on, given that California really has no concrete provisions
either for or against homeschooling on the books, but of course,
that is not really the issue at hand. That more and more parents
are taking direct responsibility for the raising of their own
children is naturally troubling to the proprietors of the Nanny
State.
The father in the case said that he withdrew his children from the
public school system because “[w]e just don’t want them teaching
our children. They teach things that are totally contrary to what
we believe.” This is an affront to those who would wean our
children on their secular, socialist agenda. Here is the real
kicker from Judge H. Walter Croskey, writing the unanimous opinion (emphasis mine):
The parents in the instant case have asserted in a
declaration that it is because of their “sincerely held religious
beliefs” that they home school their children and those religious
beliefs “are based on Biblical teachings and
principles”… [T]hose assertions are not the
quality of evidence that permits us to say that application of
California’s compulsory public school education law to them
violates their First Amendment rights. Their statements are
conclusional, not factually specific. Moreover, such sparse
representations are too easily asserted by any parent who wishes to
home school his or her child.
One of the many reasons that Judge Croskey and friends fear
additional “easily asserted” claims, just might have something to
do with a law recently passed in California which
states: “‘Gender’ means sex, and includes a
person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior
whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s
assigned sex at birth.”
Yep, this law basically says that God might have erred when
handing out sex assignments and that the little kiddies — no doubt
aided by their state-sponsored counselors and teachers — can now
assume whatever gender they choose. The bill also deals with
revised “activities and instructional materials” to be used in
class. I’ll leave it to you to figure out what that means.
Homeschooling is a threat to these folks because in states that
continue to refuse to permit realistic school “choice,” concerned
parents must look elsewhere. This particularly bucks the feminist
agenda, which is huge in the educational field, because
homeschooling allows moms to stay at home and make the raising and
educating of their children their number one priority instead of
going out to do battle with the dreaded “glass ceiling.” And it has
the anti-God squad foaming at the mouth as well.
Liberals get really testy when some folks, devout Christians for
example, choose to live their lives under God’s laws; but have no
compunction in compelling others to live under the tender mercies
of the Nanny State where they make the rules. They seem genuinely
shocked when citizens refuse to cede their parental rights to them
so they can fashion their children into liberal clones.
The case in California might unfortunately lead to more
government regulation of homeschooling, but hopefully it will be
overturned on appeal. In his opinion, Judge Croskey cited parts of
Wisconsin v. Yoder, a 1972 Supreme Court case dealing with
an Amish family who wanted to withdraw their children from public
school after the eighth grade. What Croskey didn’t cite was this
from the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E.
Burger:
This case involves the fundamental interest of parents,
as contrasted with that of the state, to guide the religious future
and education of their children. The history and culture of Western
civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the
nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the
parents in the upbringing of their children is now established
beyond debate as an enduring tradition.
Lisa Fabrizio is a columnist who hails from
Connecticut. You may write her at mailbox@lisafab.com.
