Judge orders 'gay' agenda
LAW OF THE LAND
Judge orders 'gay' agenda
taught to Christian children
Rules kids need teachings to be
'engaged and productive citizens'
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54420
A federal judge in Massachusetts has ordered the "gay" agenda taught to Christians who attend a public school in Massachusetts, finding that they need the teachings to be "engaged and productive citizens."
U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf yesterday dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by David Parker, ordering that it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.
Wolf essentially adopted the reasoning in a brief submitted by a number of homosexual-advocacy groups, who said "the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children . would undermine teaching and learning."
David and Tonia Parker and Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, who have children of school age in Lexington, Mass., brought the lawsuit. They alleged district officials and staff at Estabrook Elementary School violated state law and civil rights by indoctrinating their children about a lifestyle they, as Christians, teach is immoral.
"Wolf's ruling is every parent's nightmare. It goes to extraordinary lengths to legitimize and reinforce the 'right' (and even the duty) of schools to normalize homosexual behavior to even the youngest of children," said a statement from the pro-family group Mass Resistance.
It also is making available background information about the lengthy dispute.
"In the ruling, Wolf makes the absurd claim that normalizing homosexuality to young children is 'reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.' According to Wolf, this means teaching 'diversity' which includes 'differences in sexual orientation.'
"In addition, Wolf makes the odious statement that the Parkers' only options are (1) send their kids to a private school, (2) home-school their kids, or (3) elect a majority of people to the School Committee who agree with them. Can you imagine a federal judge in the Civil Rights era telling blacks the same thing - that if they can't be served at a lunch counter they should just start their own restaurant, or elect a city council to pass laws that reflect the U.S. Constitution?" the organization said.
Lawyers for the families said they already had planned an appeal of the judge's opinion.
But Wolf's claims followed very closely the reasoning submitted earlier in a brief by Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU, Massachusetts Teachers Association, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and other advocates for the "gay" agenda.
Earlier, Mass Resistance President Brian Camenker had wondered why such national groups were "so interested in a parent's right to decide what moral issues are taught to his children by adults in elementary schools, especially regarding homosexuality."
"They must see David Parker's case as quite a threat to their ability to push their message on children," he had said. His organization has posted information about the judge's ruling on the Internet for readers to review.
But the judge concluded that even allowing Christians to withdraw their children from classes or portions of classes where the religious beliefs were being violated wasn't a reasonable expectation.
"An exodus from class when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students," he opined.
"Under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy," the judge wrote. "Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation."
And, he said, since history "includes instances of . official discrimination against gays and lesbians . it is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students . different sexual orientations."
If they disagree, "the Parkers and Wirthlins may send their children to a private school .[or] may also educate their children at home," the judge said.
Parker was arrested and jailed in Lexington in April 2005 over his request - and the school's refusal - to notify him when adults discuss homosexuality or transgenderism with his 6-year-old kindergartner. That despite a state law requiring such notification.
The incident made news around the nation and even Gov. Mitt Romney agreed with Parker.
However, in April 2006 the same school presented the book "King and King," about homosexual romances and marriage, to second-graders and again refused to provide notification.
Parker and other parents followed with the federal civil rights lawsuit, alleging school officials were refusing to follow state law.
David Parker's son brought home the book 'Who's in a Family?' in school's 'Diversity Book Bag' (Image: Article 8 Alliance)
Just days later, David Parker's son, Jacob, was beaten up at Estabrook Elementary, officials said. MassResistance said a group of 8-10 kids surrounded him and took him out of sight of "patrolling aides," then pummeled and beat him.
"The state must fight 'discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation' in ways that 'do not perpetuate stereotypes,'" the lawyers for the school district had argued at an earlier motions hearing. They also explained to the judge that, in their opinion, parents have no right to control what ideas the school presents to elementary schoolchildren.
"David Parker's dilemma . threatens the parental rights and religious freedom of every Massachusetts parent, and indirectly every parent in America," said John Haskins of the Parents' Rights Coalition.
"As the Lexington schools themselves are arguing, the state's right to force pro-homosexuality indoctrination on other people's children arises directly from former Gov. Mitt Romney's nakedly false and unconstitutional declaration that homosexual marriage is now legal."
Haskins said when the Massachusetts state Supreme Court demanded homosexual marriages in the state, it didn't have the constitutional or legal authority to order the governor to act or to order the Legislature to make any changes, and the creation of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts actually was accomplished by executive order from Romney.
Judge orders 'gay' agenda
taught to Christian children
Rules kids need teachings to be
'engaged and productive citizens'
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54420
A federal judge in Massachusetts has ordered the "gay" agenda taught to Christians who attend a public school in Massachusetts, finding that they need the teachings to be "engaged and productive citizens."
U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf yesterday dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by David Parker, ordering that it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.
Wolf essentially adopted the reasoning in a brief submitted by a number of homosexual-advocacy groups, who said "the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children . would undermine teaching and learning."
David and Tonia Parker and Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, who have children of school age in Lexington, Mass., brought the lawsuit. They alleged district officials and staff at Estabrook Elementary School violated state law and civil rights by indoctrinating their children about a lifestyle they, as Christians, teach is immoral.
"Wolf's ruling is every parent's nightmare. It goes to extraordinary lengths to legitimize and reinforce the 'right' (and even the duty) of schools to normalize homosexual behavior to even the youngest of children," said a statement from the pro-family group Mass Resistance.
It also is making available background information about the lengthy dispute.
"In the ruling, Wolf makes the absurd claim that normalizing homosexuality to young children is 'reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.' According to Wolf, this means teaching 'diversity' which includes 'differences in sexual orientation.'
"In addition, Wolf makes the odious statement that the Parkers' only options are (1) send their kids to a private school, (2) home-school their kids, or (3) elect a majority of people to the School Committee who agree with them. Can you imagine a federal judge in the Civil Rights era telling blacks the same thing - that if they can't be served at a lunch counter they should just start their own restaurant, or elect a city council to pass laws that reflect the U.S. Constitution?" the organization said.
Lawyers for the families said they already had planned an appeal of the judge's opinion.
But Wolf's claims followed very closely the reasoning submitted earlier in a brief by Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU, Massachusetts Teachers Association, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and other advocates for the "gay" agenda.
Earlier, Mass Resistance President Brian Camenker had wondered why such national groups were "so interested in a parent's right to decide what moral issues are taught to his children by adults in elementary schools, especially regarding homosexuality."
"They must see David Parker's case as quite a threat to their ability to push their message on children," he had said. His organization has posted information about the judge's ruling on the Internet for readers to review.
But the judge concluded that even allowing Christians to withdraw their children from classes or portions of classes where the religious beliefs were being violated wasn't a reasonable expectation.
"An exodus from class when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students," he opined.
"Under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy," the judge wrote. "Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation."
And, he said, since history "includes instances of . official discrimination against gays and lesbians . it is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students . different sexual orientations."
If they disagree, "the Parkers and Wirthlins may send their children to a private school .[or] may also educate their children at home," the judge said.
Parker was arrested and jailed in Lexington in April 2005 over his request - and the school's refusal - to notify him when adults discuss homosexuality or transgenderism with his 6-year-old kindergartner. That despite a state law requiring such notification.
The incident made news around the nation and even Gov. Mitt Romney agreed with Parker.
However, in April 2006 the same school presented the book "King and King," about homosexual romances and marriage, to second-graders and again refused to provide notification.
Parker and other parents followed with the federal civil rights lawsuit, alleging school officials were refusing to follow state law.
David Parker's son brought home the book 'Who's in a Family?' in school's 'Diversity Book Bag' (Image: Article 8 Alliance)
Just days later, David Parker's son, Jacob, was beaten up at Estabrook Elementary, officials said. MassResistance said a group of 8-10 kids surrounded him and took him out of sight of "patrolling aides," then pummeled and beat him.
"The state must fight 'discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation' in ways that 'do not perpetuate stereotypes,'" the lawyers for the school district had argued at an earlier motions hearing. They also explained to the judge that, in their opinion, parents have no right to control what ideas the school presents to elementary schoolchildren.
"David Parker's dilemma . threatens the parental rights and religious freedom of every Massachusetts parent, and indirectly every parent in America," said John Haskins of the Parents' Rights Coalition.
"As the Lexington schools themselves are arguing, the state's right to force pro-homosexuality indoctrination on other people's children arises directly from former Gov. Mitt Romney's nakedly false and unconstitutional declaration that homosexual marriage is now legal."
Haskins said when the Massachusetts state Supreme Court demanded homosexual marriages in the state, it didn't have the constitutional or legal authority to order the governor to act or to order the Legislature to make any changes, and the creation of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts actually was accomplished by executive order from Romney.
0
-
This will hopefully be appealed...one more reason to homeschool your kids. We sacrifice one income to do it, but I doubt you could find a better behaved/educated kid. 0 -
My guess is that this will be appealed and overturned on the basis that it violates the First Amendment rights of people who have religious beliefs that do not accept homosexual activity as normal and forcing them to "endorse" such behavior. 0 -
When two gays fly to Massachachusetts to get married [good ridence]which parent pays for the wedding when theirs two grooms. 0 -
SCHOOL CHOICE Legislation. Although I doubt the teachers union and government won't let it happen, we need it now.
My kids go to private school because I believe they receive a better education there. It's a big financial sacrifice, while my tax dollars go to the public school system to fund crap like this.
Not unlike most taxes, I guess. Paying for something that I get no use from, while others use the service for free.
Yea, that seems fair!0 -
When two gay individuals fly to Mass to get married and then return home to your state or mine, are they married for purposes of state law where they reside and for purposes of Federal law? I know the answer, do you? Just curious. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by wtroper
When two gay individuals fly to Mass to get married and then return home to your state or mine, are they married for purposes of state law where they reside and for purposes of Federal law? I know the answer, do you? Just curious.
Depends on the state. NJ just said, "Yes."
Colorado law says "Hell no."0 -
Things have changed drastically since I was a kid in school.
The schools' responsibility was to teach the core elements to surviving and entering the work force; math, english, history, science, government and of course PE (gum for you younger folks). You did have to take some electives (lit, accounting, calculus, etc). Never was it the schools responsibility to teach the kids morals or to educate about "diversity" to this level. Yes we did learn that the Irish, Germans, Italians and all the others had a major impact upon the shaping of our country. No teacher threw in their own personal beliefs to skew history one way or the other.
Now, the schools are "dumbing" this countrys kids down on the important aspects of scholastic endeavors (math, science, history and government) all the while pushing a social reform agenda.
LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE. Let them be kids and they will learn to tackle the social issues when they get into the real world after school. That is how the majority of us who are 40+ grew up and I dont think we turned out that bad.
Just my humble opinion.0 -
It would be nice if the public schools could get back to teaching
Reading, Writing, Math, Science etc and let the parents decide on the rest. But then again that would make sense.....
Just another reason my sons went to a private school where crap like this is not an issue....0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
8 comments