To the editor:

In 2012 our state debated a proposed marriage amendment. Traditional marriage supporters were assured that if we would vote against the amendment and allow homosexual marriage, that would be the end of it, and we could all live at peace.

We now know that assurance was false. Same-sex marriage was legalized, but that was not the end of it. Our legislators soon began creating “rights” for other sex- and gender-focused groups — rights going far beyond marriage. Once a woke agenda item has been installed, there is no limiting principle standing in the way of even more radical agenda items. Every woke slope is slippery.

Now we have come to the point where the New Ulm Human Rights Commission is asserting the existence of a “human right” to have New Ulm’s kindergartners instructed on sexual orientation and gender identity. In a June 21 letter to The Journal, the HRC labeled a petition that calls such instruction inappropriate and an “attack on human rights.”

The HRC gives the impression that “classroom instruction on sexual orientation and sexual identity” in the lower grades would include nothing more than using pronouns and referring to family members in the way that the HRC considers correct.

But “classroom instruction on sexual orientation and sexual identity” encompasses far more than that. Theoretically, it could include a discussion of an entire spectrum of issues related to sex and gender, including a full and frank discussion of sexual reproduction and various kinds of sexual relations.

The HRC’s letter focuses on the relatively lesser issues of pronouns and the child’s relatives but says nothing about instruction that crosses the line into sexual areas that should be addressed only by a child’s parents at home, if at all.

Does the HRC recognize any limits on the “human right” to instruct kindergartners on sexual orientation and gender identity? Is there any limiting principle that would set a boundary beyond which instruction on these topics would be inappropriate?

The public cannot and should not be expected to simply trust that this “human right” that is being claimed by the HRC would not be used to sexually groom our young children or influence them in the direction of homosexuality, lesbianism, or transgenderism. We will not simply believe that none of our teachers or staff members would do that sort of thing. The potential for pedophilia and sexual grooming is too high.

The HRC needs to explain. Does the HRC recognize any potential dangers for our children in classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity? Does the HRC recognize any limits on the “human right” to provide such instruction?

Michael Thom

New Ulm