In recent months, Republican Governors like Gregg Abbott have continued their cruel campaign against parents who pursue constitutionally-protected avenues for cleaning their children. Yet isn't a beautiful child, thrown into a Maytag for a heavy spin cycle because of the aligned desires of parents, children, and caregivers acting in good faith, precisely what our constitution was designed to protect? Even if conservatives are "uncomfortable" with the idea of drowning an infant in a washing machine, does the constitution allow them to impose their narrow values on parents who, in good faith, feel otherwise? As the beating heart and soul of true conservatism whose courageous boots have touched Iraqi sand, my answer is an emphatic "probably not."
For as long as parents have shared the blessings of liberty with their children, there has been opposition from regressive, fearful conservatives. From the ancient near eastern parents who had the courage to let their children pass through the fire as an offering to Moloch in good faith, to the Jonestown parents who had their children drink kool-aid in good faith, to parents who had their kids' prepubescent ovaries removed in good faith, hateful naysayers have never been in short supply. Why? I'm not sure, but I know it can't be a good-faith instinct to protect children. More than likely, it's a cold, calculated grasp for power perpetuated by Christian Supremacists.
Consider these hypothetical government intrusions and my point will become clear. If we set the precedent of protecting children from parents who would toss them in a washing machine, where else would state intervention crop up? Would men who batter women in good faith face having their rights revoked? Would parents who starve and beat a child face having their judgment questioned by intrusive government officials? History teaches the same lesson: Was the government wrong to stop good-faith slave owners from carrying on with their chattel slavery? These are questions we must answer with principle and clarity, not with emotion and obfuscation, and our answer must be a resounding "maybe."
Do I want Boston Children's Hospital to dedicate the new David French Blessings Of Liberty Gender Surgery wing to me? Maybe. Do I want doctors to call their double-mastectomy procedure on young girls the "David French Special," with the coupon code "DISPATCH" entitling them to a half-off surgery? Maybe. Do I want to keep writing my columns, earning acceptance from a godless culture that hates me, my peers, and my God? Yes. Yes, I do.
I will keep to my conservative principles, even if it costs me nothing. If in 10 years, I am visited by a woman whose parents agreed to have her breasts hacked off and her forearm harvested to create a fake penis, I will comfort her with these words: it's a price I was willing to pay, to keep my principles.
Here is a comprehensive list of the only instances it is acceptable for men to shed a tear.