Ash said Parker has been "a gentleman." But he worried that MassResistance, the Waltham-based group that issued the press release about the playground fight, is using Parker to further its cause.
As this newspaper sees it, of course, the problem is the president and not the fruitcake state.
Jay said the controversy contributed to her resignation after seven years at Estabrook, but she also liked that her new school in Sudbury was closer to her home and offered more vacation.
She said she was upset when someone took a picture of her in a meeting and splashed it on the Internet.
"That kind of thing makes people feel anxious," she said. "Is somebody going to be taking a picture of me or recording me?"
-------------------------------------------------
Like this?
My personal opinion is that this book and the agenda behind it has caused far too much controversy and disruption to the students and both should be eliminated for the sake of the student's learning experience.
This is so easy if you just think about it.
The last discussion on this topic was pulled by the moderators because of personal attacks. My advice: do not feed the leftist trolls that wish to silence the message that David Parker delivers. Rather than join in with personal attacks and get the topic pulled it is far better to relax and patiently let any visiting trolls get themselves eventually zotted.
Regardless the tangential spins and whining coming from the left -here is what specifically underlies the continuing conflict -- the taxpayer subsidized homosexual propaganda campaign that David Parker opposes and is up against -what his federal lawsuit filed on April 27, 2006 against the school and the administrators is all about
EXCERPT:
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, jointly and severally, respectfully request this honorable court:
1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 5 2201, to declare and rule that there exists a justiciable controversy between the plaintiffs and the defendants;
2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 5 2201, to issue a declaratory judgment declaring that each defendant has violated each of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights of due process as set forth above;
3. Order equitable and injunctive relief ordering that:
A. The plaintiff parents be expressly and clearly notified prior to any adult-directed or initiated classroom discussions of sexuality, gender identity, and marriage constructs, until such time as the children are in seventh grade. Such notification must be explicit about the content, given in a timely manner, and involve the written consent of parents to opt children into these presentations/discussions.
B. The plaintiff parents be presented with an opportunity to excuse the children from classroom presentations or discussions the intent of which is to have children accept the validity of, embrace, affirm, or celebrate views of human sexuality, gender identity, and marriage constructs.
C. The plaintiff parents be presented with an opportunity to excuse the children from classroom presentations or discussions when the intent is to have children accept the validity of, embrace, affirm or celebrate belief systems or religious perspectives.
D. The plaintiff parents be presented with an opportunity to attend, as silent observers, and record any school presentations or discussions of the aforementioned ideological/socialization perspectives.
E. That no materials graphically depicting homosexual physical contact be submitted to the students until the seventh grade, with the provisions of Sections 3A and 3C.
4. Order payment of compensatory damages to the extent allowed by law;
5. Order payment of special, exemplary, or punitive damages, to the fullest extent allowed by law;
6. Order payment of attorney's fees, expert fees, prejudgment interest, interest, costs and;
7. Provide such additional relief as the court deems just.
I was in Massachusetts this past weekend and visited a friend who has been working with pro-family groups the past three years, especially Focus on the Family (James Dobson's group). She explained to me that tomorrow, Wednesday, July 12th, the Mass. legislature is scheduled to vote on whether or not to put on the ballot in November 2008 a referendum on gay marriage.
Only 1/4 of the Mass. legislature has to vote for this referendum, which means only 50 legislators. BUT they have to repeat this legislative vote once more next year (2007). IF 1/4 of the legislators in Mass. vote YES -- to put the gay marriage issue to a vote of the people in 2008 -- and they vote YES two years in a row, then it will indeed go to the people of Massachusetts.
Of course, the people of Mass., by a large majority, want to protect the traditional definition of marriage as one man, one woman. So the gays of Mass. know they will lose if it is ever allowed to come before the people.
I ask all here on FreeRepublic to please pray (if you are so inclined) for the legislators of Massachusetts to vote YES for the people's referendum on Wednesday, July 12th.
Also, in case anybody here actually lives in Massachusetts, would you please, please call your state legislator and voice your approval of traditional marriage?
If there were no other reason, the most fundamental reason is the most important: Children cannot come into this world without a biological mother and father. They cannot function properly either, in the most healthy and productive way, without a loving mother and father. Of course, no law can force all heterosexual familes to be good for children, but the law should never work AGAINST public acknowledgement of the needs (and RIGHTS) of kids.
PLEASE, PLEASE do not give up on Massachusetts. There are many good, decent, God-loving people there who need to be supported. Also, don't descend to gay-bashing. Just uphold the positive, assert the rights and needs of the most vulnerable people in society (children), and stand firm. God is the author of the laws of Creation, and no human society can long thwart those laws and continue.
Thank you.