Posted on 09/22/2005 4:13:25 AM PDT by grundle
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46431
BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
Dad on trial over homosexual book
District banned him from property after dispute at meeting
Posted: September 21, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The trial of a Massachusetts man who was arrested after disputing the teaching of homosexuality in his son's kindergarten class has been continued until next month.
In April, David Parker, of Lexington, spent a night in jail and was charged with criminal trespassing after refusing to leave a scheduled meeting with officials at the Estabrook Elementary School unless they gave him the option of pulling his child out of certain classes.
Parker says the officials had indicated they would agree to a notification policy then suddenly refused. He insists he has done nothing wrong and is willing to contest the charge rather than plea-bargain.
The Lexington School Board contends Parker deliberately set out to be arrested and make national headlines.
Parker's attorney, Jeffrey Denner, rejected that claim, arguing Parker engaged in extensive communication with the school, at the invitation of officials, intending to "establish a dialogue to protect his own children and other children as well."
The dispute began last spring when Parker's then-5-year-old son brought home a book to be shared with his parents titled, "Who's in a Family?" The optional reading material, which came in a "Diversity Book Bag," depicted at least two households led by homosexual partners.
Article 8 Alliance, an advocacy group supporting Parker that opposes same-sex marriage, says that with the national publicity the case already has generated, the District Attorney's office appears reluctant to go forward with a trial, and would probably prefer to have Parker accept a plea-bargain that includes probation.
But Parker insists he has done nothing wrong and represents a danger to no one.
A no-trespass order issued against him by the school – which includes all district property – is "simply an intimidation tactic" against anyone who might protest the school's pro-homosexual policies regarding elementary school children, Article 8 says.
Parker cannot drop off or pick up his children from school; attend his children's sports events or other school activities; meet with his children's teachers at parent-teacher conferences; attend or participate in school committee meetings; or even vote on election day at his local polling place, a public school.
The illustrated book, according to Article 8, says, "A family can be made up in many different ways" and includes this text:
"Laura and Kyle live with their two moms, Joyce and Emily, and a poodle named Daisy. It takes all four of them to give Daisy her bath."
Another illustrated page says:
"Robin's family is made up of her dad, Clifford, her dad's partner, Henry, and Robin's cat, Sassy. Clifford and Henry take turns making dinner for their family."
Article 8 says the book "uses subtle but powerful emotions to normalize homosexual relationships in the minds of the young children."
A backer of the Lexington School District, Laura Tully, argued, according to WCVB-TV in Boston, "A 5-year-old who is coming to the classroom with two moms deserves to be in a classroom that includes books that show his family."
The jury trial was to begin today at 9 a.m. at Concord District Courthouse, but the judge postponed the case another month. Why?
"The Superintendent of Schools has said he hasn't had time to make a decision yet," Article 8's Brian Camenker points out in an Agape Press report. "Now, one has to think, it's been all summer. It's been in the news. How can he not make a 10-minute decision? But this is what he claims."
Thus, the judge has given the superintendent one more month to decide whether to keep the no-trespass order in place, adds Camenker, or whether to discontinue the ban preventing Parker from setting foot on school grounds.
I do private schools.
And I still don't support 'pay to play'.
I'll be you're right. No moms in long dresses and head coverings, either. Maybe there are no Orthodox Jewish or fundamentalist Christian children in the school, so the curriculum doesn't have to be "inclusive" for them.
His action to remain might have been civil disobedience. One thing that implies is violating a rule or law to protest. However, if you do, you have to be willing to suffer the consequences. People who demonstrate and break a law need to be willing to live with the result of their action. The most common role model was MLK. He didn't whine about going to jail. He knew it was part of the deal.
.........and apparently you don't support petitioning the government and a representative form of government. If the school board votes for a certain curriculum, they have the power to do so in the name of the people who vote for them.
Petitioning the gov doesn't always come with grant monies.
I was inclined to avoid the whole issue until February 2004. When the mayor of San Francisco and other officials across the country began to defy the law and issue marriage certificates to same sex couples, I became alarmed at their willingness to abuse authority and call out others to join them in their lawlessness.
There are legal processes available to change the law. This father is attempting use one of them by protesting to his elected school board. They had him arrested for refusing to leave a "scheduled" meeting. There are no charges of violence - he's not even accused of cussing.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/04/29/arrested_father_had_point_to_make/
Parker said he met with school officials to gain those assurances and then refused to leave until he got them. Parker stayed at Estabrook School for more than two hours, according to Superintendent William J. Hurley, as officials and Lexington police urged him to leave. Finally, they arrested him for trespassing.
Parker, who refused to bail himself out of jail Wednesday night, said he spent the night in custody to prove a point.
Sounds like he chose to engage in a little civil disobedience in order to make a point.
I wonder whether there's a law on the books that says, "Parents of students must leave the school when ordered by an administrator, at any time, for any reason."
I'm familiar with this case. Thanks. I was just showing in that thread that there are groups fighting and being intimidated not to.
So, the story posted here is factually correct.
Why would there be such a rule? The school boards are elected. The schools are owned by the local citizens. The children do not belong to the schools. There needs to be a compelling reason to demand that a parent leave a meeting. If they had him arrested for simply refusing to leave the building, they made a mistake.
I attended school with my son for a day during his early teens - he was getting in fights, not doing school work and I figured a day shadowing him would catch his attention (and that of his teachers and the school officials). It worked. I can't imagine how I would have reacted if the principal had agreed that I could do this and then ordered me to leave without a legitimate reason.
Hmmm.
A reasoned, calm response to my probably unreasoned, agitated literary aggression.
I am amazed, sir, and now withdraw from conflict but cannot refrain from remarking that your stance is remarkably unlike that of most libertarians with opinions on the freedom of homosexuality.
Most which I have dealt with go into absolute hover over the issue, inexplicably so, since the majority of our society absolutely reject the homosexual and the lifestyle, making the issue one that is simply not worth defending to most libertarians, as their conservative values usually override their libertarian permissiveness, particularly on this subject.
You have principles and values, misguided, somewhat, but apparent nevertheless.
And no, I do not attack libertarians, I attack the tacit support that their neutral-passive stance lends to the furtherance of the agenda of the homosexuals.
But were they to feel otherwise, they would not be libertarians, would they?
My inclination is to support the pay to play, however, it is impossible not to put at least 1 condition on it to keep you from using the Nazi argument.
That condition is that the issue being promoted is consistent with democratic values.
Otherwise, the potential exists that state schools, which are meant to produce high-quality citizens to be productive and contributing members of society, will be teaching children to destroy that very system.
The ID debate has quite a few parallels.
Well, that was my point. If there's no law against his remaining in the building after being ordered to leave, then the administration has no legal standing for their actions.
It's not "civil disobedience," as some posters have suggested, if the gentleman didn't break a law.
>>>>That condition is that the issue being promoted is consistent with democratic values.
And how would you do this?
What are 'democratic values'?
I can package *anything* with an effective song and dance to fit an arguement for values.
Now, little kiddies, let's show you what the two daddies do to each other to show their love for each other. Don't say "icky". This is just a different kind of family where the two daddies talk about flower arranging and jump on each other's back and wear funny clothes and have lots of friends who die from an icky disease.
Actually, these people have same-sex attraction disorder. And it truly IS a disorder once you get past the PC veneer.
Yes, but the trespassing charges were filed because he wouldn't leave a scheduled meeting until they granted his request to have his 5 year old exempted from certain classes. A charge doesn't prove guilt.
The charges sound like an abuse, to me. What constitutes criminal trespassing - and justifies an arrest and a night in jail - when there is a scheduled public meeting with an elected body?
Were there threats from the man? If so, he should have been arrested. Couldn't the board negotiate with him? For that matter, a smart group of adults would have simply closed the meeting and left him alone. Instead, they called the police and had him arrested.
What was so outrageous or extraordinary about his request that would lead them to refuse him, much less demand that he leave a scheduled meeting?
Wonder when the next
Your rant was a smart rant, so why disrespect it.
I don't consider myself a full-fledged libertarian. I do believe the needs of the whole must occassionaly overrule the needs of the individual.
My economics training makes me consistently worry about the tragedy of the commons. Defining what are commons and (expecially in the social areas) what despoils them is a huge challenge.
In my opinion allowing children to be presented with neutral information about the manner in which human beings chose to make commitments to each other is less damaing to the commons than the individual harm that would be suffered by their children if those same-sex couples were considered pariahs.
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.