When will political correctness claim Mother’s and Father’s Day?

   As Father’s Day winds down, and as I sit at the computer pondering the future of this nation, as I do most nights, I find myself asking the question; how much longer will political correctness allow us to honor our mothers and our fathers on these days?

  We live in an age where the words “Christmas” and “Easter” have been replaced with “holiday and “spring” in the politically correct interest of not offending people.

  Easter Eggs are  now spring spheres and Christmas trees are now holiday trees even though neither of these symbols have anything to do with Christianity. They are Pagan symbols which have been intertwined with Christianity and as such they have been banned from public places.

  Celebrating diversity has taken hold and we are no longer allowed to express our beliefs in public for fear of offending those who do not believe the same things that we believe in.

  What is most interesting about this is the fact that the first amendment and the “separation of church and state” was designed to ensure that people would be free to exercise their religion but the liberals and political correctness have actually used the first amendment to do the reverse. What was once a guarantee against religious persecution has turned into a ban on all things Christian in all public places and one only needs to read Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists to understand this. Yet the Supreme Court ruled exactly the opposite while using Thomas Jefferson’s words against the concept he was defending to the Connecticut Baptists.

  So in this age of political correctness I have to ask, when will Mother’s Day and Father’s Day be ruled insensitive and be condemned to public excoriation in the same manner as have been Christian displays? Does this seem like an odd question to ask? After all, how can the concept of honoring ones father and ones mother be considered controversial? Well, in order to accept the premise that there are  mothers and fathers based on certain roles and genders you have to accept a heteronormative point of view, and as can be seen below this can be quite to controversial perspective to hold in today’s anti-family society.

Speaking in front of a Harvard audience in 2005, Jada Pinkett Smith had this to say:

Women, you can have it all—a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career,” she said. “They say you gotta choose. Nah, nah, nah. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here. You can do whatever it is you want. All you have to do is want it

  This was supposed to be an uplifting and inspiring speech geared toward women. She was simply saying that a woman could have a family and wouldn’t have to sacrifice her career to have a husband and a family; she was saying a woman could have it all.

Imagine her surprise when she came under fire for this sentiment because it was considered an extremely “heteronormative” position to take.

After some students were offended by Jada Pinkett Smith’s comments at Saturday’s Cultural Rhythms show, the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) and the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations have begun working together to increase sensitivity toward issues of sexuality at Harvard.

Students said that some of Pinkett Smith’s remarks concerning appropriate gender roles were specific to heterosexual relationships.

In a press release circulated yesterday by the BGLTSA—and developed in coordination with the Foundation—the BGLTSA called for an apology from the Foundation and encouraged future discussion of the issue

The BGLTSA release acknowledged that the Foundation was not responsible for Pinkett Smith’s comments. But the Foundation has pledged to “take responsibility to inform future speakers that they will be speaking to an audience diverse in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender and class,” according to the release.

Pinkett Smith was honored as the Foundation’s “Artist of the Year” at its 20th annual Cultural Rhythms show, which she also hosted.

BGLTSA Co-Chair Jordan B. Woods ’06 said that, while many BGLTSA members thought Pinkett Smith’s speech was “motivational,” some were insulted because they thought she narrowly defined the roles of men and women in relationships.

“Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable,” he said.

Calling the comments heteronormative, according to Woods, means they implied that standard sexual relationships are only between males and females.

“Our position is that the comments weren’t homophobic, but the content was specific to male-female relationships,” Woods said.

Margaret C. D. Barusch ’06, the other BGLTSA co-chair, said the comments might have seemed insensitive in effect, if not in intent.

“I think the comments had a very strong focus for an extended period of time on how to effectively be in a relationship—a heterosexual relationship,” Barusch said. “I don’t think she meant to be offensive but I just don’t think she was that thoughtful.”

  In a country where an uplifting speech can be considered offensive simply because it includes the traditional family structure and does not acknowledge that there are people who choose not to live within the confines of this family structure–seeking an alternative lifestyle–how can we expect that we will  be able to celebrate the mothers and the fathers in this nation for much longer? If we are acknowledging the concept of parenthood, aren’t we ignoring those that chose to enter relationships where conception and parenthood  is not possible?

  By honoring our mothers and our fathers are we not also condoning an “extremely heteronormative” lifestyle which may be considered insensitive to the gay and lesbian community who cannot–or more accurately, choose not to–become mothers and fathers through the natural process?