School has “legitimate state interest” in teaching the homosexual lifestyle, parents have no choice
Posted on February 15, 2007
Posted: February 14, 2007
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Lawyers representing a Massachusetts school district named as a defendant in a parent’s civil rights complaint have said teachers at Estabrook Elementary School have a “legitimate state interest” in teaching the homosexual lifestyle, and parents have no input into those decisions.
“of the people, by the people and for the people”, taxpayers, aka parents “have no input into those decisions.” The “State” no longer serves the people, the people serve the “State”.
“A nation, as a society, forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society.”
- Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father and third U.S. president (1743-1826), in a letter to George Hammond, 1792
The arguments came in a recent hearing on the district’s motion to dismiss the complaint filed by David Parker, a parent whose concern over the school’s promotion of the homosexual agenda to grade-schoolers prompted a meeting with school officials, for which they had him arrested for trespassing.
According to a report from the activist group MassResistance.org, those arguments echoed the claims made earlier in the case when a brief in support of the school’s position was filed by a collection of homosexual advocacy organizations.
“The state must fight ‘discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation’ in ways that ‘do not perpetuate stereotypes,’” the lawyers for the school district argued. They also explained to the judge that, in their opinion, parents have no right to control what ideas the school presents to elementary schoolchildren, and if parents disagree with that dictate, they can take their children elsewhere.
“Once I have elected to send my child to public school, my fundamental right does not allow me to direct what my child is exposed to in the public school,” said the school’s lawyer.
Dozens of parents’ rights supporters of the Parker family braved freezing temperatures to offer moral support to David Parker in the hearing on his case against school officials in Lexington, Mass.
Parker was represented by lawyers Jeffrey Denner, Robert Sinsheimer and Neil Tassel, who argued before Judge Mark Wolf that what the school calls “diversity training” more accurately would be called “indoctrination,” since several viewpoints were absent from the school’s presentations, and only the pro-homosexual position was present.
And lawyers said the school “ultimatum” to “remove yourself and go somewhere else” was vulgar.
“American values rely on religion. Religious rights trump the secular. Parents have the right to direct the moral upbringing of their children,” said Sinsheimer. “It is the Constitution that protects the minority segment from the majority… The Parkers choose to send their children to the Lexington Public Schools to be part of the fabric of the community.”
The elementary curriculum promoting homosexuality, he said, was specifically intended to change a child’s outlook of the world to something that his parents didn’t teach him.
An ACLU lawyer, however, told the judge that “it is a tremendous bonus” for children to be given information of which their parents wouldn’t approve, and that teaching children homosexuality when their parents’ Biblical beliefs do not support that has nothing to do with a violation of religious freedom, according to the MassResistance.org reports.
“David Parker’s dilemma … threatens the parental rights and religious freedom of every Massachusetts parent, and indirectly every parent in America,” said John Haskins of the Parents’ Rights Coalition.
“As the Lexington schools themselves are arguing, the state’s right to force pro-homosexuality indoctrination on other people’s children arises directly from former Gov. Mitt Romney’s nakedly false and unconstitutional declaration that homosexual marriage is now legal.”
Haskins said when the Massachusetts state Supreme Court demanded homosexual marriages in the state, it didn’t have the constitutional or legal authority to order the governor to act or to order the Legislature to make any changes.
Officials said Wolf usually announces a decision within several weeks of a hearing, and that’s what is expected in this case. Parker’s lawyers are scheduled to supplement their oral arguments with written briefs this week.
The brief filed earlier by the Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in support of the school’s homosexual promotions said parental rights “have never meant that a parent can demand prior notice and the right to opt a child out of mere exposure to ideas in the public schools that a parent disapproves of.”
Brian Camenker, a spokesman for MassResistance.org, said the high-profile groups must see Parker’s claims “as quite a threat to their ability to push their message on children.”
He said his organization, a “pro-family action center for Massachusetts” which equips citizens to fight attacks on freedoms, constitutional government, children and parental rights, can see the “true agenda” of the homosexual organizations in their demands.
Parker was arrested and jailed in Lexington in April 2005 over his request – and the school’s refusal – to notify him when adults discuss homosexuality or transgenderism with his elementary-age son. The school took that position despite a state law requiring such notification.
Then in April 2006 the same school chose to present the same single-perspective information, and again refused to notify Parker, who followed with the federal civil rights lawsuit.
[snip]
The arguments on behalf of homosexuals were remarkably similar to a recent European court’s conclusion.
The European Human Rights Court several months ago concluded in a case involving similar objections that parents do not have an “exclusive” right to lead their children’s education and any parental “wish” to have their children grow up without adverse influences “could not take priority over compulsory school attendance.”
That court said a German family had no right to provide homeschooling for their children. The family had argued the public school endangered their children’s religion beliefs and violated the family’s Christian faith.
Irrelevant, said the court. “The parents’ right to education did not go as far as to deprive their children of that experience,” it said.
“The (German) Federal Constitutional Court stressed the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society,” the European ruling said.
In Germany, the situation has continued to deteriorate for homeschoolers, with one 15-year-old student recently being taken into custody by a SWAT team and ordered by a judge to a psychiatric ward of a hospital because she was being homeschooled.
We have listed the “Communist Goals” on this site several times in the past two years and this is a good time to repost two of them…
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.
» Filed Under ACLU, Church And State, Homosexual Agenda, News, Politics As Usual
Trackback URL
Comments
10 Responses to “School has “legitimate state interest” in teaching the homosexual lifestyle, parents have no choice”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Please. Somehow, I highly doubt they said anything remotely close to “Homosexuality is fun! You should try it when you grow up.”
Regardless of your beliefs on its morality, homosexuality exists, has existed throughout recorded history, and will likely continue to exist. The community of Lexington, Massachusetts decided it wanted to make the children aware of it in an effort to curtail orientation-based hate.
If your family believes homosexuality is a sin, all you have to do is say “Yes dear, some people do do that. Some people are adulterers and blasphemers, too. God clearly tells us that those actions are sins.”
Isn’t that exactly the kind of tolerance that separates most Christians from Phelps?
Schools should be for academic learning only. Any moral upbringing is the realm of parents (as it used to be), for good or for bad. I’ve opted my kids out of many things in school, formal rules in place or not. This includes DARE (the drug “education” program that endorses replacing parents with school officials and police), hearing and eye exams (my children have doctors and it’s none of the school’s business), and nasty books like “Lord of the Flies”. I have no problem with science courses on the reproductive system, but “sex ed” should be left to parents. What makes the teacher any more qualified to teach “sex ed” than a parent? And in elementary school?
I’ve educated my kids on what is acceptable in school and what is not and they know they can refuse to participate in questionable activities. They instruct the teachers to call me if there’s a question.
The schools are forgetting that taxpayers are their bosses, not the other way around, and parents are taxpayers too.
And no, I’m not on the religious right. I’m an atheist. That does not mean that I want virtual strangers brainwashing my kids on moral matters or any other subject. And no, it also doesn’t mean that I want all traces of Christianity erased from public life. Our country was founded as a Christian nation and it’s those values that hold it together, whether I believe in the source of those values or not.
Please. Somehow, I highly doubt they said anything remotely close to “Homosexuality is fun! You should try it when you grow up.â€
“Urvashi Vaid, former executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), said children should be a special target for gay rights activists in the attempt to change society.”
“For these homosexual crusaders, the moral and religious views of parents are to be rejected if they contradict the philosophy of the gay rights movement, and if necessary, the authority of parents is to be circumvented.”
“In XY Magazine, directed to homosexual youth, writer Indigo Escobar drives just such a wedge between parent and child. What should kids do, Escobar asks, when parents install filtering software on the home computer which blocks access to homosexual websites? “If your parents disagree with you — well, they’re wrong and you are right. This is part of separating from your parents and becoming your own person, and if they force you to get gay youth information behind their back — that’s their fault and their problem.”
“Children are targeted because homosexual activists see them as holding the keys to tomorrow. In The Advocate, lesbian author Patricia Nell Warren issued what was intended to be a warning about the goals of “religious extremists” in this country: “It is the first fact of civilization,” she said. “Whoever captures the kids owns the future.”
The use of the public school system as a propaganda tool for the homosexual movement is merely the fulfillment of a decades-old goal. During their 1972 march on Washington, D.C., homosexual activists published a list of demands for social change. One of those demands was government “encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by Gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality.†A similar demand made during the 1993 homosexual march insisted that such a view be taught on “all levels of education.â€
Homosexuals are not fighting this “bloody war†in a haphazard manner. Instead, homosexual groups like the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), are organizing and developing a national strategy to get into public schools. Based in New York City, GLSEN has been enormously effective since it was formed in 1990. Some 7,500 GLSEN members now promote their agenda in more than 80 chapters throughout the U.S., and the number of Gay-Straight Alliances in public schools registered with GLSEN now stands at 400.
Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus
They Won’t Know What Hit Them
If your family believes homosexuality is a sin, all you have to do is say “Yes dear, some people do do that. Some people are adulterers and blasphemers, too. God clearly tells us that those actions are sins.â€
So 3% of the population should be allowed to use the taxpayer funded public schools to tell the other 97% that they are not entitled to an education of their choice and what their taxes are paying for?
Or how about… If your family believes homosexuality is okay, all you have to do is say “yes dear, some people do do that. But we believe differently. We believe that what goes on in the bedroom , is a private matter between adults and should remain there, rather than parade it in the publics’ streets and force the public to fund our agenda and teach it to their children. We believe in “representative government” until and unless we don’t succeed, then we will use the “Judicial Branch” rather than the “Legislative Branch” to force our agenda on the public.
Homosexuals can teach at home, just as easily as you suggest heterosexuals do.
Regardless of your beliefs on its morality, homosexuality exists, has existed throughout recorded history, and will likely continue to exist.
So do, pedophilia, beastiality, necrophilia and a slew of other perversions! Are you suggesting we mandate that they be taught in our schools as “alternative lifestyles?”
Isn’t that exactly the kind of tolerance that separates most Christians from Phelps?
No. It’s the kind that separates human beings from animals.
Indeed, they can and do. You need to doublecheck your facts, though. This suit was brought by the Christian mother. The school board, which is representative government decided to include this particular lesson in the curriculum. This is a case of a single Christian family trying to push its will on the community.
Yes, and those acts are still generally considered to be illegal. Homosexuality, while still considered immoral by many, is not considered illegal if it is between consenting adults.
Please clarify. I’m not sure what you were trying to say.
The school board, which is representative government decided to include this particular lesson in the curriculum.
It’s your claim, substantiate it by showing anywhere, that people voted the homosexual agenda into the public schools.
Yes, and those acts are still generally considered to be illegal. Homosexuality, while still considered immoral by many, is not considered illegal if it is between consenting adults.
Technically yes. I don’t recognize or accept that, anymore than I recognize or accept SCOTUS’ decisions concerning the “Separation of Church and State”, “Gun Rights”, “Sodomy”, “Roe v. Wade”, and “Eminent Domain”. The Supreme Court doesn’t take mine away and I sure as hell don’t surrender them!
Please clarify. I’m not sure what you were trying to say.
Then I’ll rephrase it.
Unlike your understanding and practice of “tolerance”, mine is specific and defined, not relative.
Scripture is unequivocal and details when and to what we are to be tolerant and what not to tolerate. The homosexual act and lifestyle is not to be tolerated.
Phelps and his ilk, twists Scripture to serve him and his hatred. He hates the homosexual act, lifestyle and homosexuals.(and basically everything and everyone)
I’ll assume you were not trying to be clever and try to box me in with the “Phelps”, “tolerance” remark. But it does look that way.
“ACLU (Incorrectly) Says that a Homosexual Teaching Curriculum is a “Legitimate State Interestâ€â€
This position assumes, incorrectly, that homosexual behavior is a directly inherited condition; such as race or gender, eye color,…etc. and as such this incorrect assumption leads to further confusion by insinuating that “privileged class” of minority status already applies, which it most certainly does not as this status is reserved for directly inherited conditions with minority protections.
This is easily shown not to be a directly inherited condition; scientifically, in peer reviewed studies, repeated with the same results. Homosexual identical twin studies prove whether raised together (data inherently includes many environmental similarities and associations) and those raised apart clearly show that both twins are not necessarily homosexual, especially considering the standard for twins pertaining to race (identical twins are always born of the same race; no exceptions) or gender (identical twins are always born of the same gender; no exceptions). This is only one such point; there are many studies which strongly point to this condition, homosexuality, is a behavior.
Morally deviant behavior, practiced by a few, does not automatically imply or prove that the practitioners were born that way nor therefore does it automatically translate into Civil Rights laws achieving “privileged class” minority status. In fact, there are several strong verifiable reasons which imply they were not born that way; overwhelmingly so.
Can one person be counseled and change their gender or race? Yes or no?
Can one homosexual person be counseled and change to a heterosexual? Yes or no?
See the difference?
(1) Homosexuals within a given society over large period of time have never been historically uniformly present above one percent; instead this trait “spikes†in population from one to ten percent but only under certain circumstances’; high population, lots of leisure time, wealth, and political freedom. The highest known concentrations of population of homosexuals occur in prisons; coincidently prisons hold the highest concentrations of populations of several other categories of deviant behavior.
(2) Homosexuals who have received counseling are no longer homosexuals.
(3) Homosexuals cannot reproduce and when they infrequently do with opposite sex partners, the resulting offspring are no more likely to be homosexual than the society at large.
(4) Scientists have not found any directly inheritable genetic evidence for homosexuality.
Historical demographics shows this to be true, medical counseling demonstrates this condition is non-physical, biological limits prevent genetic traits from being passed on, and the remaining whole of scientific evidence fails to show otherwise; homosexuality is a behavior.
I’d love to know where “CitizenUSA” gets his/her information. By saying that the highest concentrations of homosexuals exist in prisons it’s obvious that he/she is trying to imply (and lead the reader to conclude) that homosexuals are more likely to be criminals. Nice try… but most sex in prison is situational. Most sex is occurring between heterosexual men because they’ve been removed from society (and women). It’s important to understand the difference between homosexual orientation and situational homosexual behavior.
If I was David Parker, I’d compile a book with the title, something like “gay people spread AIDS”, “Homosexuality: sick sinners from hell”, “Homosex: not just for White folks anymore”, “Promoting homosexuality in the black/minority communities”, etc., make at the local printery, and have the son pull that out whenever the ‘king and king’ book was utilized…