Where's the Outrage Over the Beating of David Parker's son?

The mainstream media has ignored a major news story out of Massachusetts involving a first grader who was dragged and beaten on the playground at Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington. His crime? He is the son of David Parker, a concerned parent who objects to his son being taught about homosexuality. School officials have admitted that the attack on his son was planned and premeditated!

In April, 2005, Parker met with the Estabrook principal and the director of education over the promotion of homosexuality in the classroom. He asked to be notified in advanced about any pro-homosexual teachings so he could pull his child out of the class. He then refused to leave the office until they agreed to his request. They called the police and had him arrested for “trespassing” instead. He was handcuffed and spent a night in jail before facing a judge.

Ever since his arrest for trespassing, he and his family have been the victims of a pro-homosexual smear campaign in Lexington. In this latest attack, Parker’s first grader was assaulted on the playground by eight to ten children on the second anniversary of the imposition of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts by the Supreme Judicial Court.

These young hoodlums surrounded Parker’s son on the playground, threw him against a wall and began punching him in the chest, stomach, and genital area. As he fell to the ground, one of the thugs said, “Now you can finish him off.” Fortunately, one girl ran to get a playground aide to stop the beating.

My good friend Brian Camenker, who heads MassResistance, is one of the few individuals to report on this hateful assault on David Parker’s son. Where are the outcries against “hate crimes” by liberal journalists? Where are the candlelight vigils on behalf of his son? Has Parker been invited to tell his story on Good Morning, America? Of course, not. Liberal hatred directed against a first grader isn’t apparently considered “hate,” but justice directed at the son of a “homophobic” parent.

Estabrook Elementary School’s leadership is apparently captive to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which sets up programs to make schools “safe” for students who think they are homosexuals. While GLSEN may make schools “safe” for homosexual recruitment programs, it obviously does not make schools safe for children who do not wish to be indoctrinated into thinking that homosexual conduct is normal or healthy. David Parker’s son is a chilling example of what may happen to other children whose parents oppose the normalization of homosexual sex among kids. Are schools to become unsafe places for these children?

It is time for Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to step up and be counted. He has expressed support for a federal marriage amendment that defines marriage as a one-man, one-woman union as the best protector of children. He should also put his convictions on the line by launching a thorough investigation into this hate-filled assault on David Parker’s son.

Gov. Romney should find out if pro-homosexual parents encouraged their children to beat up Parker’s son, to make sure the hoodlums who assaulted this child are punished, and to assure that all schools in Massachusetts are “safe” places for children who think homosexual behaviors are abnormal and physically dangerous. If parents encouraged this beating, they should be prosecuted as accessories to a crime.

In my view, David Parker is one of the most courageous individuals in America. He has had the courage to take on the homosexual activist movement and to protest against the recruitment of children into life-threatening homosexual behaviors. He should be honored, not vilified—and his son should not fear being beaten up on the playground.

What has happened to David Parker and his son is a frightening example of what will occur to anyone who openly opposes the homosexualization of our nation’s children. This injustice against Parker and his family must be corrected—and Governor Mitt Romney should take a leadership role in seeing that justice is done—and making certain that all children are safe in Massachusetts schools – not just sexually confused children who are being recruited into the homosexual lifestyle.

So tell me which seems more likely to you:

Nice false choice which, of course, puts all the bad intentions on the Parkers. You guys seem to be very good at "blaming the victim" from the get-go. Here's a scenario choice for you. Which seems more likely:

1.) A suburban Massachusetts school run by commie-libs and homo-positive agitators decides they want to intimidate a guy who is becoming a thorn in their side by threatening legal action to stop their homo-indoctrination of children. Since they can't get to him directly, they try to make life difficult for his child. (Nah, never could happen!)

Or...

2.) Some crazy nut sees conspiracies against him and his family in the perfectly normal school his son attends--a school which teaches young children that two guys kissing is normal and that it's perfectly good and right for two women to get "married." Said nut then makes up stories about persecution and the beating of his son out of whole cloth because he likes being a societal parriah and having his name slandered all over the Internet by homo-attack groups.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170599,00.html

The Culture War's Battle of Lexington
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
By Wendy Mcelroy

(excerpt)

The second Battle of Lexington illustrates several common characteristics of the culture war.

They include:

The conflict is fundamental and admits no compromise. Parker believes that parents, not government, have the right to teach moral and sexual values to their children. Estabrook assumes a duty to teach the values of "diversity." The adults involved have core beliefs that conflict, and there is only one child.

Short of a Solomon's Knife solution, which slices a baby in half, no compromise is possible. If the law enforces compromise, neither side will be satisfied and the fight for total victory will probably continue.

Another characteristic: agendas are attached to the dispute, drawing attention from the basic issue. Tammy Mosher from Concerned Women for America stated, "What's getting lost…is parental rights and parental notification as it pertains to education."

The basic conflict is not over same-sex marriage, to which anti-Parker activists have shifted the ground.

Indeed, some advocates of "diversity" claim that Parker's demand for parental rights are nothing more than an expression of hatred toward gays. The accusation illustrates another characteristic of the culture war: arguments are mixed with vicious personal attacks and, often, overwhelmed by them. Each side ascribes the worst possible motives to the other.

Neither acknowledges that the "enemy" might be a decent human being who simply disagrees. Demonizing the enemy is another reason why compromise is not possible. It becomes a deal with the devil.

It also stokes the emotions, making physical violence more likely.

On Sept. 6, Parker supporters rallied on the historic Lexington Battle Green. According to reports, pro-gay activists gathered in a counter demonstration. The media then arrived. The presence of media often acts as a catalyst because activists know it favors flash over substance, and tensions on the green became inflamed. Ultimately, the police were called to the scene.

Finally, culture warriors are often unwilling to work out difficulties privately, preferring to involve police and the courts almost from the word "go."

There is no way to accurately judge who's right in the culture war without examining the facts. Both sides can make valid points, and who's right often shifts with the tactics they employ.

Nevertheless, when I need to make a snap judgement — one I discard upon deeper examination — then I follow a few crude guidelines.

My preliminary bias is:

—Against the first one to call the police (if no violence occurred);

—Against anyone whose income depends on the outcome;

—Against someone who attaches a broader agenda or shifts the ground of discussion;

—For anyone who argues rather than insults;

—For those calling for a private resolution.

My preliminary bias can easily dissolve in the presence of a compelling fact to the contrary. Upon examining the Parker matter, my initial impression stood.

The Estabrook authorities, for whom "diversity" is part of a paycheck, called the police on Parker. School supporters portray Parker as an anti-gay bigot and attach a same-sex agenda to his basic demand for parental rights, thus shifting the ground of debate.

Meanwhile, Parker argues without insults. He was the one arrested at the school, and the one in danger of physical violence at the demonstration. Moreover, Parker's lawyer is calling for a private resolution; that is, the school should drop the restraining order, which has become a pivotal point. Estabrook refuses to negotiate.

A last word on the culture war. Most elected officials will hide from the controversy.

The most plausible explanation for the delay in Parker's trial comes from Agape Press.

"The district attorney…is running for State Attorney General" and he wants to hammer out a plea bargain to make the controversy go away.

The resolution is unlikely. The Superintendent of Schools claims he's had no time to decide about the restraining order even though the issue has dragged on for months.

For his part, Parker seems willing to go to the Supreme Court. This returns to the culture war's first characteristic: no compromise.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

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.