Posted on 08/24/2007 5:12:07 AM PDT by alvindsv
A Massachusetts man handcuffed and hauled to jail after he objected to a public school teaching his kindergarten-age son about homosexuality has gone to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking justice.
The man, his wife and another family are battling what they describe as a court order for segregation, after a judge ruled if they didn't like the school's advocacy for homosexuality, they could take their children and leave.
They also are arguing that U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf's statement that "as it is difficult to change attitudes … after they have developed, it is reasonable for public schools to attempt to teach understanding and respect for gays and lesbians," actually is unconstitutional.
The appeal is in the case brought by David and Tonia Parker and Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, who have children of school age in Lexington, Mass. They alleged district officials and staff at Estabrook Elementary School violated state law and civil rights by indoctrinating their children to approve homosexuality, which they, as Christians, teach is immoral.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Fine! I'll take my tax dollars too!
Just another Mass-h#le judge with power.
Public schools...one of the last bastion of Stalinism.
You mean they objected to teaching their child how some men put their penis in other mens mouths an up other mens anus?
This post should not be removed by mods because that is exactly what they are teaching. The man arrested may be the only sane man left in Massachusetts.
The judge is wrong YOU CAN NEVER EVER EVER LEAVE as long as they take our money. It is taxpayer standing because they FORCE us to pay money to support the public schools. (even renters end up paying the taxes)
Homosexuality is only about sex, Parents have the approval/disapproval right of sex education on their child.
This judge is saying recrational sex should be taught to kidnergardners!
Imagine if this judge said something like that to a black family, but because this family were just Christians it is perfectly acceptable in the people's republic of Massachusetts.
I'm guessing he did more than just complain to get arrested. The school policy and the judge are nuts, but these some critical detail that has been left out of the story.
“What is wrong with this army, sir?”
Nothing that hanging a few generals wouldn’t cure” was the reply.
“Which ones?” asked Grant, with a chuckle.
“It doesn’t really matter, just start at the beginning and hang a few dozen and then you will have a better Army!”
Self-appointed Solons in black robes are destroying my country!
Well, if this is the same case I remember from when I was up there, they’re teaching more than just the basics of which you speak. We’re talking the really sick stuff, if you can imagine.
Is only one family involved in this particular battle? That’s the real problem - when families see nothing wrong with introducing kindergartners to homosexual concepts - teaching them something they can never unlearn - making them consider things they should not have to consider at that young age - it’s robbing them of years of innocence - a type of mental molestation. And when all the other families in the school district shrug their shoulders and just go along with it - the battle has already been lost.
Now, if they taught that Homosexuality IS a sexual DISORDER... I’d buy it.
The established facts are that Parker attended a planned meeting with the school administrators after school hours to discuss the issue of exposing his son to homosexual indoctrination. Parker demanded that his son not be present when discussions of homosexuality were taking place in class, to which the administration agreed. He also demanded that no incidental classroom discussion regarding homosexuality take place in his son's presence, to which they could not provide assurance against. Administrators said that if a student were to bring up the subject, there would be no assurance that his son would not be exposed to the ensuing discussion. A stalemate resulted, and Parker refused to conclude the meeting and leave until a solution could be worked out. The school then informed him that he was to leave or risk trespassing charges. He stood firm on insisting on resolution on the issue and the school had him arrested for criminal trespass.
Beyond these facts, who knows what happened? The level of belligerence exhibited by either school officials or Parker is probably a subjective call limited to those present.
He refused to leave the principal’s office unless they agreed to notify him when his son would be taught about homosexuals, so they called the police.
The legal precedent is already clear with sex ed or evolution instruction: children are to be liberated from the putative errors of their parents.
Found an interesting, relevant paragraph from an old SCOTUS dissent:
It might also be argued that parents who want their children exposed to religious influences can adequately fulfill that wish off school property and outside school time. With all its surface persuasiveness, however, this argument seriously misconceives the basic constitutional justification for permitting the exercises at issue in these cases. For a compulsory state educational system so structures a child's life that, if religious exercises are held to be an impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed at an artificial and state-created disadvantage. Viewed in this light, permission of such exercises for those who want them is necessary if the schools are truly to be neutral in the matter of religion. And a refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism, or, at the least, as government support of the beliefs of those who think that religious exercises should be conducted only in private. -Justice Potter Stewart, Dissent, School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp 1963
Well if the nanny state would give the good people their money back (vouchers?) then the good people could afford private schools.
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.