Posted on 03/04/2007 5:35:52 AM PST by A. Pole
WHATEVER ELSE might be said about it, US District Judge Mark Wolf's decision in Parker v. Hurley is a model of clear English prose.
"The constitutional right of parents to raise their children does not include the right to restrict what a public school may teach their children," Wolf unambiguously wrote in dismissing a suit by two Lexington couples who objected to lessons the local elementary school was teaching their children. "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."
Entitled to teach anything. That means, the judge ruled, that parents have no authority to veto elements of a public-school curriculum they dislike. They have no right to be notified before those elements are presented in class. And the Constitution does not entitle them to opt their children out of such classes when the subject comes up.
As Wolf's straightforward language makes plain, it doesn't much matter what that subject might be. The parents in the Lexington case objected to "diversity" instruction that presented same-sex marriage and homosexual attraction as unobjectionable. [...]
But suppose instead that the facts had been reversed, with parents who passionately support same-sex marriage filing suit because the school kept emphasizing the traditional definition of wedlock -- a definition democratically reaffirmed in many state constitutional amendments and statutes in recent years. As Wolf applied the law, the result would have been the same: The complaint would have been dismissed, and the school would have prevailed.
[...]
Get government out of the business of running schools, and a range of alternatives will emerge. Freedom, innovation, and competition will [...] increase choices, lower costs, improve performance -- and eliminate conflict.
[...]
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Jeff nails it again. He must be a very lonely person at the Gay-Lesbian-obe.
Paging Captain Obvious ...
Is this family going to continue their fight?
Imagine a federal judge saying you have no rights... it seems they usually have no trouble finding all sorts of phony rights...
Not a chance! Wolf would have made up something else to support the far-left agenda. Wouldn't it be fun to for some conservative community to adopt in their school program one that teaches that homosexuality is abnormal and then have it go before this same judge?
Seems to me if parents / taxpayers have no say in how their children are educated and what they are taught, then they shouldn't have to pay those school taxes..
But we all know school taxes are mandatory..
We all know what would happen if you refused to pay..
So, just kneel down to your masters and accept the judgement..
It's for your own good. ( Sarcasm )
www.massresistance.org
and
www.davidparkerfund.org
Both sites will keep you up to dateon this issue. I donated and would ask you and every one who claims concern to do the same. It will take a lot but they can decisively win this and that matters a lot. Our rights as parents are on the line here, and this ought to be removed for the tyranny in robes he has presented us all with. Butthe rat will not be removed because WE ALLOW it.
What do you see as the end game?
I can't seem to find that in my copy of the Constitution. In fact, I can't find anything that says anything about public schools. I must have a damaged copy.
US District Judge Mark Wolf's decision....judicial activism.... NOT Constitutional!
Entitled to teach anything. That means, the judge ruled, that parents have no authority to veto elements of a public-school curriculum they dislike. They have no right to be notified before those elements are presented in class. And the Constitution does not entitle them to opt their children out of such classes when the subject comes up.
-----
The ALL-POWERFUL socialist state. Marx would be proud....
Actually, I agree, sort of, with the judge.
That is, a public school is an outgrowth of the democratic process that created the school board, and in many cases, the State Board of Education. This means that if in elections, the people choose candidates who support teaching, or not teaching, anything, not in conflict with federal law, then that is their right. And if parents object, then they can vote out those who included or excluded the questionable material.
The only mitigating factor might be that in that State, there is no ready availability of private or religious schools, or home schooling, or that they are not supported as alternatives to public schools--that is, affordable and practical. In that case, what the school teachers would be seen in a more coercive light, and would be subject for debate.
The *reason* the judge would be right would be that he refuses to let the courts be used to push around the schools on curriculum decisions, by an irate parent, using undemocratic means to circumvent what the voters approved.
I cannot blame him for this, because in some schools, parents can be obsessively pushy about forcing all students to do what they want their child to do. And school boards are notorious for degenerating into petty squabbles based on ego and special interest.
It is bad enough as is, he doesn't want to open his door to a lot more of it.
It takes a village and a whole lot of tax money and some federal judges with no provable ability to read or apply the Constitution and a complacent public to pervert a child.
It's the "right of gummint skewels to turn your kids into ignorant, illiterate, innumerate, sexually abnormal knee-jerk liberals" clause. Everybody knows that!
We can also abolish gummint skewels as a menace to society, unproductive of anything resembling actual education and dedicated to the political and personal perversion of the chiuldren unfortunate enough to be dumped there at other people's expense. Even without the perversions that are epidemic in gummint skewel curricula, gummint edjamakashun is to actual education as a horse drawn wagon (in bad shape) is to the Daytona 500.
Yes the families are taking it to Appeals Court. I understand they will go all the way to the SC if need be.
FINALLY, some reasoning in the sea of mud.
Schools aren't run by democratic mob-rule any more than our gubmint is. They're run by elected school boards that're subjected to the State Board......at least here in MA they are.
They are most certainly not run by lawsuits from parents that might disagree with something being taught that they feel is controversial.
You gonna sue your Senator for everything he/she/it does that you don't agree with that affects your child? Or are you gonna take a civics class and learn how to vote the Board out? Or are you gonna move to a state/town that has the same exact ideology as you do. Those are you options, not a lawsuit.
Better have a string of lawyers lined up.
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.