I have written about this before. It is a tough subject for me because my judgement seems to fail to understand appropriate degrees of protest. How much can you piss people off before you are deemed ‘across-the-line”? When we speak of social justice we are talking about the advancement of civilization. The more just a society is, the more civilized it is. And justice is personal. Justice is not always measured in the aggregate – remember the story about the man throwing the starfish into the ocean? He did not save the entire species of starfish – but he did same the one. What about protecting a child? When the family or the school or society in general assaults the child for being ‘different’ then we have a duty to disobedience. We have a duty to the child.

This is personal for me. It also applies to Martin Luther King versus Malcolm X – different forms for protest for the same cause. For many of us, particularly in today’s politically charged environment, there are consequences to any form of protest. If one is adamant in the protest, others might judge them, not for the content of the social justice but to the content to their character. Maya Angelou tagged people who doth protest too vehemently. She said, “believe them”. Can we apply her quote in this context? This was not her intent.

But that lady goes on. Angelou gives us an out. She seems to suggest that not all protest can be effective. She says there is a limit to your power to change something with protest. Some things you just have to accept. Is this true? Yes. Sometimes we have to let go of the rope – and sometimes we should not even pick the rope up in the first place. But what is the line? What judgement delineates when to protest, demanding change, and when to change one’s attitude and accept what is?

Let’s get personal. I have friends and family who are in the LGBTQ community. The pendulum swung to the left and these people gained privileges. The pendulum is swinging to the right as I type. There are real consequences to these actions. The suicide rate in this community is growing. With 7.6 percent of the population identifying as LGBTQ this is a huge population – 25 million in the United States alone.

From Wikipedia: “…research shows that LGBT youths “who experience high levels of rejection from their families during adolescence (when compared with those young people who experienced little or no rejection from parents and caregivers) were more than eight times [more] likely to have attempted suicide, more than six times likely to report high levels of depression, more than three times likely to use illegal drugs, and more than three times likely to be at high risk for HIV or other STDs” by the time they reach their early 20s.”

EIGHT times more likely to have attempted suicide!!!! Did you hear that? We protest the obnoxious legislation by right-wing wackos because there are real consequences to their deranged attempts to force their perverted lifestyle on others. When the injustice does not change are we to ‘change out attitude’? But what about within our family? When parents of an LGBTQ adolescent accept their child but their parents, the child’s grandparents do not accept, refuse to acknowledge, and even reject the notion of gender identity – what are the parents to do? What is the accepted level of protest?

I have argued in the past that the defense of the child takes priority over the harmony among adults. This applies in this case. If the grandparents openly oppose the child then they put the child at risk for suicide and put them at much higher risk of mental health issues like depression – how clear is that? Given that choice, appease the grandparents or protect the child, does anyone see any choice other than to protect the child? Do the parents show the grandparents who they are – as Angelou says? Yes, they do. Do the grandparents judge them to be overly wacko and deranged and unfair – probably so. Everyone is pointing fingers at the other for their unjust behavior.

Justice is not the same for all people.

For myself – I think I’ll err on the side of the child. I have before and it cost me dearly – but I will do it again, and again if necessary.

Angelou also mentioned “…change your attitude”. When does this apply? In our scenario it applies to the adolescent LGBTQ’s world. The extended family, like the grandparents, must accept what they cannot change – or separate themselves from the family. The parents cannot let go, cannot give up the defense of their child. Their struggle is outside of their home – the people and environment they cannot control. They cannot control other students at school. They can be active politically but ultimately cannot control the legislature of their State. They can have input at the PTA and thus some input at the child’s school – but they must moderate their attitude to maintain their sanity.

And ultimately, the LGBTQ adolescent must learn that the world is not fair, not just, and does not always conform to their needs. They must find that happy attitude of accepting themselves and understanding that others may not. This, I think, was the intent of Angelou’s second quote about attitude.

(The following diatribe was originally in the content of this essay. I realized that it is academic nonsense that is boring and impersonal. It might be true – but it avoids the real issue of personal protest. I placed it at the bottom so you can read it if you want.

History offers some lessons on the broad civilization scale.. Look at some historical characters, Adolph Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi, and George Washington. In the case of Hitler the protest challenge was for other world leaders – obviously Hitler forced the issue and mere whining around did not suffice.

Gandhi maintained a civilized character while being vehement in his protest. Perhaps that is the lesson – not so much the social injustice as the means or method of protest. Gandhi was not about the change his attitude. And Gandhi did show who he was – a man of determined fortitude with a peaceful attitude. (We have to note that some deranged lunatic assassinated Gandhi).

George Washington and his cohorts, who we call our Founding Fathers, protested the policies of King George III. King George held the line, and even pushed back. Washington was tasked with accepting what he could not change or going to physical combat. History tells us that the people who choose physical combat are only recognized when they the combat.