Posted on 11/28/2004 12:21:56 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Sunday, November 28, 2004
If administrators of Kentucky's Boyd County school district can't find a way to force all students to attend sexual orientation and gender identity "tolerance training," the American Civil Liberties Union is threatening to take them to court – again.
Ten months ago, the district settled a lawsuit with the ACLU over the right of a student group, the Gay-Straight Alliance, to meet on campus. The year-long litigation strained relations in the conservative northeast portion of the state. In addition to allowing the group to meet on campus after school, district officials agreed that all students, staff and teachers would be required to receive "tolerance training."
The agreement stipulated all would attend "mandatory anti-harassment workshops," including the viewing of an hour-long "training" video covering sexual orientation and gender identity issues for middle and high school students.
But ten months on, one-third of Boyd County students have failed to see the video, and that has the ACLU threatening court action.
"It sounds like the training can't possibly be done," James Esseks, litigation director for the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, tells the Louisville Courier-Journal.
District figures show 105 of 730 middle school students opted out of the training video and 145 of 971 high school students did likewise. On the day scheduled for training, 324 students didn't show up for school.
The current legal snag arises from the fact the original consent decree had no provision for parents exempting their children.
"The schools have great latitude in what they want to teach, including what's in training programs, and the training is now part of the school curriculum," Esseks says. "Parents don't get to say I don't want you to teach evolution or this, that or whatever else. If parents don't like it they can homeschool, they can go to a private school, they can go to a religious school."
"Where are the parental rights in this whole thing?" asks Rev. Tim York, president of the Boyd County Ministerial Alliance and head of Defenders Voice, a community group formed to contest the decree.
According to the group's website, Defenders Voice "incorporated due to the need for protection of both the physical and mental health of our students and citizens." Its members place blame for their current distress squarely on the ACLU:
"We have seen an onslaught of aggressive homosexual activism sweep across our country. In many cases, these activists are supported by the ACLU in their attempts. ... Defenders Voice believes that an organization like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) should not be allowed to tell parents what their children must learn."
The Alliance Defense Fund, a religious-liberties public-interest legal group, has signed on to help Defenders Voice, pledging to sue the school district unless it adopts an opt-out policy for parents this week. Alliance was formed in 1993 with the guidance of several well-known Christian conservatives, including the late Dr. Bill Bright, the late Larry Burkett, Dr. James Dobson, Dr. D. James Kennedy, and the late Marlin Maddoux.
Joe Platt, a Cincinnati attorney representing Alliance, says mandatory training on tolerance for homosexuals violates the right of conscience of parents and students who believe such behavior immoral.
But school district attorney, Winter Huff, insists to the Courier-Journal the decree does not violate parental rights: "Students certainly have the right to believe in what they want to believe, but they don't have the right to act out in inappropriate ways. The point is you don't treat people disrespectfully, you don't pick on people, you don't bully them, you don't make them afraid to come to school."
Meanwhile, only one of the seven plaintiffs in the 2003 lawsuit still remain in school. Six have graduated, and the teacher-adviser for the Gay-Straight Alliance club asked to transfer to another campus.
The ACLU's Esseks is now questioning whether the mandatory video meets the decree's required hour of anti-harassment training. Like one-third of the students in Boyd County schools, he has yet to view it.
If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.
Congratulations, you won't be sorry you did this! When I posted #69 I hoped that there would be at least one person who would see the possibilities, seize the opportunity and go for it.
It can be done as a one-man operation, but it becomes a lot more productive when there is one on the inside and two or three others providing support, research and contacts, on the outside.
Good luck.
--Boot Hill
Politics and sexual perversion are not similar. Only in the last generation - since the early 70s when the "gay" activists began their takeover of society - has sexual dysfunction been anything but either a crime or a sickness.
Are their child molesters' clubs? Bestiality clubs? Theives' clubs? If not, why not, if people want them?
Because the only way to guarantee liberty for the best of us, is to secure liberty for the worst of us. Same reason the KKK is allowed to operate.
I reject the Bible. I don't reject moral absolutes. It's very possible to have morality without a Bible.
There is a veritable tsunami of evidence that this country was founded on the moral absolutes as taught in the Bible
There is no veritable tsunami that the country was founded by people who believed the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Many were mere deists. They didn't need the text of a Bible to understand morality.
You may say, well, "gay" is ok, but necrophilia is not. Why?
Because a corpse can't give consent? Because people have a general right to expect not to have their bodies disturbed after they die?
I don't have to oppose necrophilia on the grounds that it is "icky," there are plenty of legal reasons to strike it down.
If "gay" clubs are allowed, there is absolutely nothing to stop (in the future, as we slide down the slope) NAMBLA clubs, sheep lovers clubs, and on and on
It's illegal for adults to have sex with children and it's illegal (at least in some states) for people to have sex with sheep. Schools don't have to accept clubs promoting illegal activity. So, no, I don't have to accept pro-NAMBLA or Scottish Heritage clubs, in order to have equal rights for pro-gay kids.
I would also take a moment to remind you that because of Lawrence v. Texas gay sex is legal in all states now, so that isn't a valid excuse to ban pro-gay clubs.
It is crystal clear that the ACLU is part of the Department of Indoctrination division of, Big Homosexual,Inc. Their duty it seems, is to force every heterosexual adolescent in America to view this Homosexual indoctrination and recruitment film.
Next step will be bringing suit against the families of every student, who, despite having seen this mandatory homosexual recruiting film, still stubbornly insists on remaining straight.
Those things are illegal. Gay sex is not.
I would also point out that while such clubs would not be allowed in public schools, it is legal for adults to form political organizations to call for the legalization of such things. It is legal for adults to call for the legalization of child molestation, sheep molestation, corpse molestation, petty theft, drug use, prostitution, carrying concealed weapons without a permit, etc. etc. etc.
Politics and sexual perversion are not similar.
Political rights for sexual perverts is a political issue. There is no question about that.
>The same reason the KKK is allowed to operate<
The KKK is held in check by Civil Rights. It is not funded in any way by the government. It does not impose its agenda via the courts as does the ACLU. The ACLU is clearly subversive, thus a threat to our way of life in America. Christianity is the main focus of the ACLU, thus
it is anti-Constitution.
I repeat, the ACLU is a Communist front organization,
Tell me why it is allowed to flourish in this country?
What would you suggest we do about it? I certainly hope you don't think it would be appropriate for government to step in, as that would be the furthest thing from a conservative solution as is possible.
This may come as a shock to you, but it's not a crime to be a communist in America. New Mexico I believe even elected a governor who was a member of the communist party.
Now, naturally, I oppose the goals of American communists, but I grant them their right of conscience to openly hold their true beliefs. In the end, you can't regulate belief, you can force outward compliance (see lie) or a public face.
thanks for the information links.
Abortion is legal -so what? Homosexual 'marriage' is legal in Massachusetts -so what?
I would suggest that the POINT you seem to miss is that a majority on the right (maybe even you) seek to overturn what is considered morally corrupt and morally 'illegal' activities.
The POINT is that if these 'things' were not 'legitimized' via law(s) -specifically via judicial fiat, there would be no need to discuss HOW to legislate against these 'things'. Your statement of FACT does not add to the discussion and merely implies you to be at best neutral on the issue.
This can be done without compromising any of your personal or spiritual values as Caleb found out during his trip to spy in the land of Canaan (Num. 13). In fact, it can reinforce those values like nothing else you've ever done.
--Boot Hill
Okay, where do your moral absolutes come from? The Bhagavad Gita, Mahabharat, or other Vedic scriptures? Hmmm, that won't work. They have the same basic moral absolutes. Okay, do yours come from the Torah and the Talmud? Hmmm, that won't work, the Torah is part of the Bible and the Talmud agrees with it. Okay, Buddhist teachings and moral absolutes? No, that won't work either, they have the same basic moral absolutes. Okay, Sikh dharma - ooops, same moral absolutes. Jainism? Nope, same moral absolutes.
Okay, where do yours come from? Your mind? But other peoples' minds think up different sets of right and wrong. Guess what - other than the religions of the world (which all agree on the basics) there is no source of moral absolutes in the history of the world.
Okay, people have devised morals without the light of religion. But these "morals" often say that sex with members of your own sex is fine, sex outside of marriage is fine, abortion is fine, and so on. Philosophies such as Nazism considered itself very moral - Killing all the Jews wasn't called the Final Abomination, it was called the Final Solution! Hitler and his assistants were just trying to make the world a better place, according to their view of right and wrong.
In fact, although such things may be illegal at the present moment, bestiality, necrophilia, incest, and "intergenerational sex" all have their promoters, backers and supporters. Just saying that these practices are at present illegal is meaningless. Same sex sodomy was illegal in many states until the Texas vs Lawrence decision.
They didn't need the text of a Bible to understand morality.
This statement of yours is either made out of total ignorance of history, or a desire to misrepresent history. Are you a liberal revisionist history teacher by any chance? Here's a few quotes for your edification.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry [18th century word for illicit sexual relations], would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." John Quincy Adams
"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors." --George Washington
"It is impossible that a nation of infidels or idolaters should be a nation of free men. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom." --Patrick Henry
"Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe." --James Madison
“We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us ... to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” -James Madison
[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." Benjamin Franklin
"By removing the Bible from schools we would be wasting so much time and money in punishing criminals and so little pains to prevent crime. Take the Bible out of our schools and there would be an explosion in crime." Benjamin Rush
"Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts ... in which all religions agree." --Thomas Jefferson
I would also take a moment to remind you that because of Lawrence v. Texas gay sex is legal in all states now, so that isn't a valid excuse to ban pro-gay clubs.
Even if same sex sodomy is legal (because of a very stupid SCOTUS decision) why should sexuality be a basis for a club in public schools? There is simply no legitimate reason to promote dangerous sexual behavior in schools - a behavior which the majority of the American people do not consider moral.
My question to you is this: Why do you want to promote the "gay" agenda?
BTTT
You're welcome!
Sex with the undage is illegal.
Soliciting minors to perform sex acts is illegal. (contributing to the delinquency of minor.)
These GSA is only about performing recreational sex.
Ping
But they have to continue to pay for public schools, of course, while also paying for the alternative. Ya gotta love liberal "fairness".
It's called taxation without representation! If you opt of of public schools, you should get a refund or at least a credit toward your own educational method.
empty nesters have been hoping for that for decades.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
