Anita Bryant rules out thoughts of compromise

Dear Dr. Menninger:

I am so disappointed in you. When is anyone going to write about Anita Bryant's "rights," privileges, responsibilities, obligations, etc. She is not homosexual and she IS a parent a mother, to be exact.

Don't mothers have rights? Giving birth does give you a responsibility of guidin said baby through childhood as YOU determine.

When Anita Bryant had her children, it just wasn't granted that some homosexual has the right to educate her babies. How can being pro-parent be objectionable?

We castigate parents for not being concerned with their children; then when one risks a career to maintain control over who educates and influences her child, we call her insensitive. Mercy!

People have choices about how to live, but there just is no authority that can force people who choose to live within the major social structure to approve those who choose to live in a way counter or destructive to that society.

Being homosexual does not give you the inherent right to teach my child. I, the parent, retain my responsibility to be selective. I may or may not choose you. This is Miss Bryant's point, and it is VALID. Why can't I find it written? Mrs. A.M.

—

h

Today, many rights are in conflict. Sometimes the issues are clearly defined; often they are not. In the search for whose rights shall prevail, it often comes down to a difference of opinion

*

between sincere and dedicated people.

It is troubling that in the process, there are those who paint themselves into an extreme position with an attitude that rules out compromise. Either you're for me or you're against me. And all too often the extreme position. is based more on emotion than on

reason.

You ask, "How can being pro-parent be objectionable?" One such instance is when such a position is anti-child. For example, in cases of child abuse,

a parent may righteously defend the

Dr.

Walt Menninger

an individual to impart knowledge after having satisfied a state's requirements for teacher certification.

F

I have no idea of the sexual preference of all the teachers of my children, nor is that a high-priority concern to me. I am far more concerned that teachers be proficient in the knowledge they have to teach, in the skills to impart that knowledge and the capacity to stimulate my children to learn.

Further, I respect teachers as professionals who keep their private life and personal orientation separate

Today, many rights are in conflict. Sometimes the issues are clearly defined; often they are not.

severe physical punishment of the child. That parent is absolutely indignant that society, by pursuing a childabuse complaint, is interfering with his or her right to raise the child.

You imply that a teacher with a homosexual orientation is automatically going to undo the efforts of concerned parents. Or that a person's sexual orientation will significantly affect his or her capacity to teach. Those assumptions are myths.

Of course, being homosexual does not give a person the inherent right to teach. Neither does being heterosexual, for teacher selection is presumably based on the capacity for

from what they teach. I expect no less from them than any other professional with whom I deal doctors, lawyers, etc.,

Finally, I do not agree that one should automatically assume that an individual with a homosexual orientation is destructive to society. I am impressed with the greater destructive potential of a repressive over-reaction to homosexuals reflected by the efforts of Ms. Bryant.

After all, to keep the issue in perspective, the power centers, decision makers and significant leaders in our society those people who really have the power to affect society are almost universally heterosexual in their orientation.