Should LGBTQ Affirming Ren Fair Programs Have Parental Warnings? Absolutely Not.

riEarlier this summer, a mother of six wrote a letter to the editor of the the Billings Gazette about a Ren fair she said was spoiled by a gay wedding. The Gazette published her letter.

I took my household (six children, ages 3-15, and myself) to the Renaissance Festival at the Billings zoo this past weekend. It was our first time to go, and overall, the kids enjoyed it very much.

We attended the parade, a barbarian raid, jousting and a royal wedding, as well as hearing numerous musical groups and looking through many booths. I expected some cleavage and wondered if there would be profanity and rough language. I heard no rough language, for which I was thankful for.

However it was shocking and disappointing that the “royal wedding” was a gay wedding with a long, deep-throated kiss at the end. I took my whole crew to this, as when one of the girls saw it on the program, she wanted to go. There was no parental warning anywhere that this was going to be a gay wedding, and I left it sickened and angry that that was presented with no warning. I apologized to my kids, and told them I would not have subjected them to that, if I had known.

She was sickened and angry, she writes, when she attended the advertised “royal wedding” at the Ren fair and witnessed a “long, deep-throated kiss” between two women. Would she have been similar sickened by a “long, deep-throated kiss” if it had been between a man and a woman? One things not.

In our current era, many of those who oppose homosexuality argue that they only on the grounds that the Bible says marriage should be between a man and a woman. They claim that it is not about disgust, not about bigotry—that it is simply about what the Bible says. Leaving aside the fact that Bible-based bigotry is still bigotry, the author of this letter to the editor makes it clear that disgust does play a role in her views.

Those who oppose gay rights today often claim that they object to gay sex in the way same that they object to premarital sex—because the Bible (they say) states that sex should take place only between a husband and a wife, not an unmarried man and an unmarried women, and not two men or two women, whether the state considers them married or not. They assert that there is no difference in how they view a sexually active gay man and a sexually active unmarried straight man.

But is that really the case?

Let’s leave aside the fact that there is a difference in the way they view these situations—in their eyes, after all, a sexually active straight man can get married, but a sexually active gay man cannot. But set that aside.

Consider this: When this mother attended the Ren fair, she surely cannot have assumed that the “royal wedding” would take place between an actually married couple. She likely assumed that they were actors. Any kiss that took place as part of the “royal wedding,” then, ought to be considered sexual promiscuity, regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of those doing the kissing.

This mother had no problem taking her children to see a kiss between two unmarried people who likely had no intention of actually marrying. Her objection was not to the sexual promiscuity involved in a deep-throated kiss. It also had nothing to do with what God does or does not allow vis a vis marriage. It had everything to do with viewing sexual activity between those of the same sex as repulsive.

The woman’s letter continued as follows:

If the Renaissance organizers wished to have their royal wedding show be between a lesbian couple, then I feel they should have put that on the flyer or been a warning at the beginning of the show, so that families who believe that is perversion could make the choice of whether they wanted their children exposed to that or not.

I believe that my rights as a parent were violated when the lesbian wedding was presented without warning. I came very close to leaving the fair because of it, but after driving 100 miles to come, standing in line for an hour to get in and paying the entry fee, decided to go to one more show and then decide.

The fair is presented as a family event, and other than this very disappointing choice by the organizers, I felt that it was. I hope that the organizers will give this consideration as they prepare for next year and if they want adult-only or gay presentations, then I ask them to make that clear in the program, so parents can avoid what they feel is inappropriate.

I’m going to hazard a guess that this same woman is the sort that poo-poos the idea of trigger warnings in college classes and refers to liberals as “snowflakes.”

What exactly is a “family” event? Conservatives’ have a seeming stranglehold on the term “family.” They’re the ones who supported tearing families apart at the border. They’re the ones who support cutting welfare benefits for families. And yet somehow, they’ve seized hold of the label “family” and act like they own it.

I’m reminded of the 1980 White House Conference on the Family. At a series of three conferences held around the country, sponsored by the Carter administration, a wide variety of stakeholders met and set out an agenda for government policy vis a vis the family. But there was a sticking point over definitions.

Just what was a family?

Conservatives rallied and organized and sought to stack each of the meetings, which they viewed as a battlefield in the wider culture war that was developing. They had a very specific definition of family in mind. As the Christian Science Monitor reported at the time:

The pro-family groups want government approval for their definition of a family as persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption. The more moderate groups recognize a broader definition of families as anybody in a loving and caring relationship, sometimes including unmarried and homosexual couples.

For many conservatives today, an event that is “family friendly” means one that not only has no nudity or language, but also has no same-sex acts or portrayals. In the eyes of these individuals, affirming incorporation of same-sex transgender individuals make an event de facto not “family friendly.”

Portraying of LGBTQ affirmation as inherently not “family friendly” has dangerous consequences, not only because of the message it sends to LGBTQ children and teens but also because of the message it sends to LGBTQ individuals and families. This is wrong, and should not be catered to in any way shape or form.

If you go out in public, you will see other people. That is how going out in public works. Beyond basic decency standards that apply to gay and straight individuals alike, you cannot restrict the actions of other. You cannot require events that would not otherwise come with parental warnings to to offer a parental warning if they they involve same-sex individuals, couples, or portrayals.

Seeing gay or lesbian individuals be intimate in public—in the same ways straight couples are—is simply part living in a world full of people. We have basic decency laws that bar things like public nudity. Selectively applying rules like these—or parental warnings—to actions that would be considered appropriate if the couple were opposite-sex is wrong, inappropriate, and discriminatory.

If this mother did not want her children to see a “full, deep-throated kiss”—the genders involved should be irrelevant—she shouldn’t have taken them to a “royal wedding” event at a Ren fair, period and full stop.

People are allowed to exist in public without a parental warning.

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing!