(potato with eyes)
Posted on 06/19/2006 4:32:55 PM PDT by DBeers
(AgapePress) - The young son of a Massachusetts pro-family activist was physically assaulted by fellow elementary school students on the two-year anniversary of same-sex "marriage" in the state.
On May 17, first-grader Jacob Parker was beaten up by a group of eight to ten kids on the playground at Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington. Just weeks before the assault, his father and mother had filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the school.
Last year, David Parker was arrested and jailed for refusing to leave the school until officials agreed to grant him the right to opt his son out of classroom discussions on homosexuality. The Massachusetts father believes the assault was incited by parents who are upset with his opposition to homosexuality.
"What we're concerned about," Parker says, "is actually the environment being created in the schools, where children, maybe in the normal course of scuffling, will translate the aggression that they may be hearing from parents and administrators to other children."
The pro-family advocate suspects the physical attack on his son may have occurred because parents and school officials are angry over his stand for traditional marriage in Massachusetts and have allowed these feelings to influence kids who attend Estabrook Elementary. Also, he notes, back issues of the "biased" Lexington Minuteman newspaper were placed on a table in the school library for children to read the local coverage of the lawsuit.
Parker feels the Bay State's schools employ a large double standard when it comes to protecting students from bullying and discrimination. If the assault against his son had been perpetrated on a child of homosexual parents, "lessons teaching tolerance and diversity or homosexual behavior normalization would be forced upon the young children," he contends.
"What we have in Massachusetts," the activist points out, "is large sums of money being earmarked for children being bullied from gay households or gay children." However, such funding really "shouldn't be earmarked and directed on that basis," he insists. "It should be for all the children -- not earmarked to protect just one particular segment of society."
Parker says his case against the Lexington schools is fundamentally about freedom of choice for parents to raise their children in the interest of their well being, health, happiness, and development as productive members of society.
While that society allows its citizens the freedom to cross "the God-given and nature-dictated boundaries" of gender, the Massachusetts parent asserts, to do so is a treacherous path to follow and is not the path of freedom he and his wife choose to offer to their four- and six-year-old children.
"We all want what's best for our children," Parker says, "although differences exist in how parents accomplish this goal." The freedom to define what is best for their own families and how to achieve these goals should extend to all parents, he contends, regardless of color, culture, religion, or sexual orientation, and this "parental sovereignty" should not be undermined by school officials or other external authorities.
Are these peole going to take their kid of out this school NOW? I never understood why they didn't take hinm out before.
I have never had the pleasure (ugh) of going through Lexington, or the horror, living there!. Glad you got out!
I really respect Mr. Parker for not backing down and bringing attention to this. I have read the school board websites, and the press releases in the homosexual rags they call newspapers. We all fear for all those children who attend that school system.
Um, hun - why don't you answer a few questions for me.
1) Why didn't Parker file a police report for what? 3 weeks? 4 weeks? How many weeks was it again?
Is this what you would do if your son was attacked by a mob of kids and adults stood around and watched?
2) Why didn't Parker take his son to a hospital for an examination to see if he had internal injuries? If the kid had really been beaten by a mob, he could have died from internal injuries or a ruptured spleen.
3) Why didn't Parker make sure his attorney started the bureaucratic paperwork in motion to ensure that Children's Services investigated?
4) Why didn't Parker make sure his attorney started the bureaucratic paperwork in motion to ensure that the DA investigated?
5) Why did Parker leave his son in a school where clearly the adults were so irresponsible they would actually stand around and watch while a mob of kids hit, kicked and punched his child?
(potato with eyes)
How do you come up with the PERFECT picture? LOL
I do know that when the Parker stories first started on FR, I traced some pretty disturbing info back to GLBT.
But I do have some very similar questions that you posted in 63.
And I would like to copy your post 32 to quite a number of threads.
The Parkers have no legal standing if they remove their son. The court here would tell them, your son no longer goes to the school, case closed. For the time being, they feel the school system needs to be reformed, legally if necessary, and they are unwilling to just leave it as is, for the sake of the rest of the children.
Again, SOMEONE must care enough not to just run, and I am sure they speak with their son often about the right morals and values, and what not to say in school.
Remaining level headed while still effectively opposing and prosecuting the enraged moonbats that target homosexual agenda topic discussions requires such diplomacy. One must post softly yet carry a big take hike arsenal at the ready...
;-)
I'm am the potato unique :)
aee post #37
The answer to this I do not know; however, I am sure if one really wanted to know they could ask Mr Parker...
Give me a second and you'll have freepmail, Calpernia.
The children who live in Lexington have been indoctrinated since they were infants. It is an extremely liberal town.
I can't imagine it would be pleasant for the Parkers to live there. It's one of those places where if you don't spay your cat nobody in the neighborhood will speak to you. LOL. That's probably not a bad thing, there are too many feral cats around anyway.
Didn't they have that 'fistgate' controversy in Lexington?
LOL.
You did see the reply to that by another freeper, I hope.
Good dodge, by the way. Well, not effective, but interesting.
hehehe!
I'll talk with you tomorrow, Calpernia and check in with replies then. You have freepmail.
You are making an awful lot of sense, Peach!
What the h###$s the matter with you??!! LOL!!!
You are shooting blanks here... As I already posted -- remaining level headed while still effectively opposing and prosecuting the enraged moonbats that target homosexual agenda topic discussions requires such diplomacy. One must post softly yet carry a big take hike arsenal at the ready...
Is this true or not?! Because if it is, the Parker's story is just complete nonsense. If the 'gangland hit' rendition of the story is true, THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL THAT THE PARKER'S WOULD LET THEIR SON GO OVER TO THE 'CHIEF ASSASSIN’S HOUSE TO PLAY AFTER THE 'VICIOUS BEATING'!!! AND IF THEY DID, THEY HAVE SERIOUS MENTAL PROBLEMS OR SHOULD HAVE SOMEONE ELSE RAISE THEIR CHILDREN!!!
Plus, there is just no way that I can see the 'ASSASSIN’S PARENTS' (who supposedly put the kid up to it) letting the 'Parker kid' over their house to play with their son. This whole thing smells bad.
By the way, I always enjoyed your movies.... :)
Yet another dodge on this thread.
You mentioned exploding heads and seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you is a pro homosexual activist.
So I'll ask again, whose head is exploding on this thread? The only one I see is yours. I'll check your answer in the morning.
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.