Lesbian couple protests school's decision

registerguard.com ^ | Aug 29, 2003 | By Anne Williams

[MightyMouseToSaveThe Day]

I find it ironic that her alleged reason for insisting on enrolling her daughter in a parochial school is to enhance her 'developing Catholicism" and "learn the teachings of the Church".

well, duh, one of the teachings she's learning right now is that the Church doesn't approve of homosexuality! hahaha...talk about rich.

And I agree with one of the other posters (sorry i don't remember who it was) who suspected it was a test case to advance their agenda. I agree totally. Look at the timing. She's been absent from the Church for a long time, but only recently decided she wants to start contributing offerings and her daughter HAS to attend Catholic school. yeah, right.

[SuziQ]

she has attended and paid dues at St. Mary's since January after a long absence from the church.

Paid dues? What does she think her Parish is, some sort of social club?

[SuziQ]

"I want my daughter to receive a Catholic education that will be in keeping with her teachings at home, and I want to become part of a Catholic community again like I was when I was a child."

I hope her Catholic education will be exactly the OPPOSITE of what she's 'learning' at home, or it won't be worth the time it took for her daughter to be there.

Sounds like this woman is trying to stir up trouble. I'm just sorry she's using her daughter to do it!

[thegreatbeast]

You wrote, "It is just that the moral self-rightousness loses a bit of weight when the Church welcomes parents that live one type of sexually immoral lifestyle while refusing others- once you crack open the floodgates, don't be surprised when they burst wide open."

Don't make judgements upon your projections of what would happen in your hypotheticals! That would be self-righteous.

The school administrations aren't hiring detectives to perform credit or moral turpitude checks on enrollees. Here in Boston, parents are trying to get their kids in Catholic schools for the clearly superior education to be received. And all the schools want to do is give a good Catholic education to the kids but I don't believe that everyone has to be Catholic.

Truthfully, though, there probably exists a kind of a red and a blue map (reminiscent of the map of the 2000 election) of what is acceptable in Catholic dioceses across the country. Some bishops are taking a hardline while others are probably part of this homosexual tide.

One other thing, this is a two-fer for the commies. Yes, there is the gay angle being worked because how can you discriminate against a four year old girl? But another happy consequence is that if they can sell this public accommodation argument the commies could compel the Catholic schools to take the "troubled youth" that the public schools are obigated to house. One of the Big Lies offered by the teachers' unions is that the Catholics get to pick and choose and would prove quite as mediocre as the public schools if they had to admit anyone and everyone.

[George from New England]

What if the Catholic school teachs the 4 year old girl that mommy kissing mommy is wrong and must be stopped? Another law suit will follow.

[Concerned]

TEACHER317 WROTE: "Boy Scout membership is not critical to normal everyday living and/or travel in the country (as food and lodging are in my example above). Education can easily be argued to be. This is no slam-dunk."

Attending a PRIVATE/CHURCH school is NOT critical to "everyday living." Are there no GOVT schools where they live? I am CERTAIN there are. The govt ensures that the child can go there. There is no RIGHT to go to a PRIVATE/CHURCH school any more than there is a REQUIREMENT of it.

On the other hand, my Catholic sister-in-law mentioned the same thing as was mentioned in an earlier post: that the Catholic classroom may be the ONLY place where the child would get the TRUTH about God's prohibition of and disdain for homosexuality. Unfortunately, with so many homosexual Priests, however, it's kind of hard to avoid the appearance of the Catholic Church being hypocritical.

[hocndoc]

""""For instance, Catholic Charities doesn't only provide services to Catholics, it provides services to people who are needy," Fidanque said.

"We could argue that the church cannot discriminate in either its employment or acceptance of students."

Fidanque said the school also might be vulnerable under state law that prohibits discrimination by state-certified, extended-day preschools on the basis of the parents' marital status. Inkmann has complained to the state Department of Employment's Child Care Division, which is awaiting an opinion from the state Attorney General's Office on whether the school may be out of compliance. """"



Okay so Mrs. and Mrs. are going to be happy when little Susie comes home and tells them that they are going to hell for living the way they do?
Or it's going to be healthy for Susie to see both Mommies living the life that she's learning in school is condemned by the school they send her to?



This is simply one more step toward discrimination against churches: if churches will not accept "alternate lifestyles" then churches may not provide day care. They will have their policies set at the point of the same virtual gun that forces each of us to pay taxes.

Please take a look at the American College of Pediatrician's site, and their opinion on same-sex couples raising children. The oft-touted American Pediatrics Association study on the subject ignored that fully one third of the participants objected to same sex "parents." There is evidence in the medical literature that children are harmed by "families" that have same sex "parents."

http://acpeds.org/index.cgi?CONTEXT=cat&cat=0
http://acpeds.org/index.cgi?BISKIT=644529647&CONTEXT=cat&cat=22
Under "Social Eugenics"

Take a look at their position on abortion, too.

You can join, too, as an Auxillary member. I have.

[EdReform]

Belated Bump and ping

Scripter will be off line occasionally between now and the middle of September. I've agreed to help him out by running his homosexual agenda ping list.

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links

Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list)

Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search

All FreeRepublic Bump Lists

A simple freepmail is all it takes to subscribe to or unsubscribe from scripter's homosexual agenda ping list. If you wish to be added to the list in scripter's absence, please FReepmail me.

[TotusTuus]

'I_Love_My_Husband' has been making some very interesting discoveries about this couple in another "sister thread" here.

[fatima]

Bump.

[Teacher317]

Just telling you what they will argue, and what many courts and citizens will agree with.

[Phantom Lord]

I totally agree. Hypothetically though, how do you think it would plkay out if it involved a federally subsidized school voucher?

I think we know how it would play out. They would have to allow the kid in. And I can't say I disagree with that. As is the case with so much else envoloving the Imperial Federal Government, if the state/business/organization wants the money then they have to do what the government says.

I wish states would start telling the federal government to stuff it, keep the money, and we will do it as we see fit.

[joanie-f]

(A belated) thanks for the ping, Dan.

And for the perception: It's started. Almost right on cue, too.

Whether a private school falls under the mantle of ‘public accommodation’ is open to interpretation, but Dave Fidanque, executive director of the Oregon American Civil Liberties Union, says it should. A Catholic school, he said, ‘is essentially a business that provides service to the public at large.’

Bingo! The real agenda here is to get the state (even more) involved in the workings of public/religious organizations. So that the state can dictate that which the religious/private organization used to (rightfully) enjoy apart from state interference.

What is so infuriating is that these sinister do-gooders cheer ‘separation of church and state!’ (as if it were to be found anywhere in the Constitution) as the Ten Commandments are removed from the supreme court building in Montgomery. But let a church-run organization attempt to do that which a church-run organization was (Constitutionally) meant to do, and these same sinister do-gooders are screaming for state interference in church decisions.

I want my daughter to receive a Catholic education that will be in keeping with her teachings at home .... Lee Inkmann

There’s an oxymoron if ever there was one. A Catholic education in keeping with the home example of a homosexual union. I’d like to take a peek into Ms. Inkmann’s Bible. I’d like to see where she has highlighted the chapter and verse which proclaim a homosexual union as one that is holy and blessed by Him, and the chapter and verse in which He recants His initial description of such unions as vile abominations. I believe I missed that particular Sunday school lesson. Must have been during the great chicken pox epidemic in 1962, when I was laid up for two Sundays straight.

These people used to claim to simply want to be allowed to live their ‘alternate lifestyle’ without ‘judgment’ from others.

Then .... in addition to ‘non-judgmentalism’ .... they decided that they wanted to be allowed to be a part of private organizations that used to have a right to decide who was, or was not, admitted to membership.

Then .... in addition to ‘non-judgmentalism’ .... and the forcing of private organizations to accept members who did not fit their membership criteria .... they decided that they wanted to be involved in, and declared ‘moral’ by, religious organizations whose foundation is scriptural, and who therefore cannot remain true to their beliefs while at the same time condoning homosexuality.

There are many non-Catholic private schools in which this child can be enrolled. But enrolling her in such a school would defeat these (so-called) parents’ purposes: to bring to its knees any organization (private, religious, or otherwise) that dares not to condone (No, I take that back. Condoning has already been largely accomplished. These organizations must be forced to champion – maybe even someday openly promote – homosexuality). And until that (inglorious) day, the legal system, and rule by perverted adjudication, will be used to force each and every one of us to acknowledge the goodness and nobility of the homosexual lifestyle.

The truly sad thing about this case is the use of this innocent little four-year-old as a pawn to realize a sinister agenda. Even with their homosexuality aside, these women are not fit to be parents at all. Parents should always put the welfare of their children highest on their list of decision-making priorities. The welfare of this girl is apparently of little or no significance to these two women. And I sincerely doubt that they would know the difference between a motherly instinct and a toadstool.

~ joanie (remember)

[Landru]

"Whether a private school falls under the mantle of ‘public accommodation’ is open to interpretation, but Dave Fidanque, executive director of the Oregon American Civil Liberties Union, says it should."

Ahhhhh yes, there it is once again.
The Liberal-Socialist's *favorite* word used just like a can opener, "should."
It's gonna be mighty painful helplessly watching the mileage they'll rack up yet again with that one word.

"A Catholic school, he said, ‘is essentially a business that provides service to the public at large.’"

It does??
I suppose it's up to the Catholics to clarify who their schools are open to, and why, no?
(I'm sure the Episcopalians could lend Rome all kinds of *advise* on the subject, too.)

"Bingo! The real agenda here is to get the state (even more) involved in the workings of public/religious organizations. So that the state can dictate that which the religious/private organization used to (rightfully) enjoy apart from state interference."

Looks that way now, doesn't it?
At least insofar as "education" -- public or parochial -- now goes.
Just think of the *creative* ways this *homnosexual* thing'll be twisted to apply to those who're home schooling, eh?

"What is so infuriating is that these sinister do-gooders cheer ‘separation of church and state!’ (as if it were to be found anywhere in the Constitution) as the Ten Commandments are removed from the supreme court building in Montgomery. But let a church-run organization attempt to do that which a church-run organization was (Constitutionally) meant to do, and these same sinister do-gooders are screaming for state interference in church decisions."

You bet, and they'll do so on the grounds of "discrimination," no less.
As I said before, anticipating 'em has become far too easy.

"I want my daughter to receive a Catholic education that will be in keeping with her teachings at home...Lee Inkmann."

Uh-huh.
Y'know who'll be the only people to swallow that pap, joanie?
The Catholics.
Wanna bet?

"There’s an oxymoron if ever there was one."

Liberal-Socialists aren't capable of oxymorons, only we are.
Geezzz joanie, you're slipping. {g}

"A Catholic education in keeping with the home example of a homosexual union. I’d like to take a peek into Ms. Inkmann’s Bible."

In 2003?
Nawwww, you don't wanna do that.
Never know what you might find has been *recently* added or deleted.
You'll only wind up feeling like a horse's ass.

"These people used to claim to simply want to be allowed to live their ‘alternate lifestyle’ without ‘judgment’ from others. Then...in addition to ‘non-judgmentalism’...they decided that they wanted to be allowed to be a part of private organizations that used to have a right to decide who was, or was not, admitted to membership. Then...in addition to ‘non-judgmentalism’...and the forcing of private organizations to accept members who did not fit their membership criteria...they decided that they wanted to be involved in, and declared ‘moral’ by, religious organizations whose foundation is scriptural, and who therefore cannot remain true to their beliefs while at the same time condoning homosexuality."

HA!!
You got the drill down *pat*, Lady.
The last remaining step is for heterosexuals to become the minority; &, don't you dare laugh, either.
The "law" -- our law -- will somehow find a way to help 'em make that status a reality.

"There are many non-Catholic private schools in which this child can be enrolled. But enrolling her in such a school would defeat these (so-called) parents’ purposes: to bring to its knees any organization (private, religious, or otherwise) that dares not to condone (No, I take that back. Condoning has already been largely accomplished. These organizations must be forced to champion – maybe even someday openly promote – homosexuality)."

Well that's precisely what's being done in the public school hell holes right now, isn't it?
Where else can this possibly go from here, then?

"And until that (inglorious) day, the legal system, and rule by perverted adjudication, will be used to force each and every one of us to acknowledge the goodness and nobility of the homosexual lifestyle."

Under the penalty of death, ultimately, no less.

"The truly sad thing about this case is the use of this innocent little four-year-old as a pawn to realize a sinister agenda."

All that's missing is a *puppy*.

"Even with their homosexuality aside, these women are not fit to be parents at all. Parents should always put the welfare of their children highest on their list of decision-making priorities. The welfare of this girl is apparently of little or no significance to these two women. And I sincerely doubt that they would know the difference between a motherly instinct and a toadstool."

That's rich you should articulate our generation's highest priority so beautifully; because, as sure as God made little green apples each & every person outside of this phoney issue will be all consumed over that kid's welfare.
Except for these two agenda driven homosexuals.

...how many do ya think will appreciate that fine point?