How you view a drag show ban depends on how you read Scripture | Opinion

In an essay in the Herald Leader on Feb. 23, Charles Halton, Associate Rector of Christ Church Cathedral objected to the present legislature’s House Bill 360 which would, in order to protect minors, ban public drag shows.

In other places and times, some objected to such bans as unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. But the First Amendment does not apply to speech to minors. One cannot say whatever they desire to a minor because society has an understanding that minors do not have enough maturity/strength/wisdom/discernment to ascertain truthfulness or what is healthy or even comprehend what is being said.

Since such an argument has not made much headway, the Rector argues the problem can be solved by parents not taking children to drag shows. But parents apparently do. There is much law not referencing the current problem proscribing parental behavior and such law is weighty. The community rightfully does not allow parents to do anything they want with children or to allow parents to not meet obligations. So, leaving all to parental discretion is not a good argument against the proposed law as overreaching.

The Associate Rector argues that his position, that all are one in Christ, is scripturally based. But he completely ignores scripture that has the Christian community staying apart from those not adhering to a morality that insisted on male/female gender identity and marriage. Such scriptures are one reason why so many of American Marxists/Progressives have abandoned and demonstrated disdain for Christianity and western civilization.

The Rector makes clear that he defends such shows because they erase gender boundaries, like Christ, and argues that was what Christianity was all about. It was not.

Nor need such a law, as proposed, necessarily subordinate gays and put them in their place. For one thing not all gays participate in drag shows. For another those who wish to can hold an indoor adult revue 24 hours a day. But as presented by the bill’s sponsor for the protection of minors against “indecent” and “prurient” behavior the bill does do so. And that is the crux of the matter, — whose definition of indecent holds.

Such a proposed bill denies the push, as the Rector makes clear, to redefine normality regarding not only definitions of indecent but definitions of gender. Not allowing that redefinition is what the Rector finds intolerable and discriminatory. That is the underlying issue, not persecution.

J. Larry Hood is a retired state employee.