Judge Says Schools can Teach Sexual Orientation

  • Thread starter Thread starter gam197
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gam197

Guest
In MA, the Parkers and another couple wanted to be notified by their schools if their elementary school had a “gay day”.( The Parkers would take their five year old son out that day.). They lost the case…

From Mass Resistance…

In the ruling, Wolf makes the absurd claim that normalizing homosexuality to young children is “reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.” According to Wolf, this means teaching “diversity” which includes “differences in sexual orientation.”

In addition, Wolf makes the odious statement that the Parkers’ only options are (1) send their kids to a private school, (2) home-school their kids, or (3) elect a majority of people to the School Committee who agree with them. Can you imagine a federal judge in the Civil Rights era telling blacks the same thing – that if they can’t be served at a lunch counter they should just start their own restaurant, or elect a city council to pass laws that reflect the US Constitution?

Wolf’s reasoning uses the Goodridge ruling on same-sex marriage as well as Mass. Dept. of Education “Frameworks” and a flawed interpretation of the state Parental Notification Law – to effectively trump the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom.

He bolsters his decision with a patchwork of statements from other court decisions – some going back over a decade – and declares that these past decagons are “law” which much be enforced when making his own ruling on this case.

massresistance.org/docs/parker_lawsuit/order_to_dismiss.html
 
I saw this. It’s horrifying. To say we have lost the culture war is an understatement of epic proportions.
 
gam197 said:
In MA, the Parkers and another couple wanted to be notified by their schools if their elementary school had a “gay day”.( The Parkers would take their five year old son out that day.). They lost the case…

From Mass Resistance…

In the ruling, Wolf makes the absurd claim that normalizing homosexuality to young children is “reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.” According to Wolf, this means teaching “diversity” which includes “differences in sexual orientation.”

In addition, Wolf makes the odious statement that the Parkers’ only options are (1) send their kids to a private school, (2) home-school their kids, or (3) elect a majority of people to the School Committee who agree with them. Can you imagine a federal judge in the Civil Rights era telling blacks the same thing – that if they can’t be served at a lunch counter they should just start their own restaurant, or elect a city council to pass laws that reflect the US Constitution?

Wolf’s reasoning uses the Goodridge ruling on same-sex marriage as well as Mass. Dept. of Education “Frameworks” and a flawed interpretation of the state Parental Notification Law – to effectively trump the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom.

He bolsters his decision with a patchwork of statements from other court decisions – some going back over a decade – and declares that these past decagons are “law” which much be enforced when making his own ruling on this case.

massresistance.org/docs/parker_lawsuit/order_to_dismiss.html
Click to expand...
Only in Massachusetts…
 
If Christianity could spread as fast as perversions, the Parousia would have occurred around 100 AD.
 
Sodom and Gommorah is alive and well, but now it has spread thoughout the whole world 😦
 
WanderAimlessly said:
Sodom and Gommorah is alive and well, but now it has spread thoughout the whole world 😦
Click to expand...
At least in the Northeast and California. I make it a point not to look in the direction of those states, lest I be turned into a pilar of salt.😉
 
The remedy for this sort of nonsense in the Houston, Texas, area can be found here at the Cardinal Newman School.

And, now, a closing word: Vouchers!

– Mark L. Chance.
 
How about the right to free exercise of religion guaranteed by the constitution?

I’m no lawyer, but…
 
Ammonius_Saccus said:
What is wrong with the judge’s decision? Can you point to a provision of law that allows for a different result?
Click to expand...
Aside from the sheer arrogance of a judge telling parents that if they don’t like what a public school is teaching with their tax dollars they ought to move to a private school, there is the very real issue of viewpoint discrimination and the simple common sense idea that second graders don’t need to be taught anything about sex, let alone anything about sodomy.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Ammonius_Saccus said:
What is wrong with the judge’s decision? Can you point to a provision of law that allows for a different result?
Click to expand...
Show me the point of law that says parents are no longer responsible for their children.

People who have responsibilities must have commensurate authority – that’s a basic principle of management. If parents no longer have the authority to decide what’s best for their children, they can no longer discharge their responsibilities.

And we blame parents for children not studying in school, taking drugs, having sex, and so on. And we wonder why they “let” things like this happen.:whacky:
 
The Ruling should be appealed as it violates freedom of religion by establishing a state religion of hedonism and giving it preferential treatment over other religions.
 
In addition it is Sexual Abuse of the children involved and should be prosecuted as such.
 
It also violates Federal Law since there is no “opt out” in it. I cannot recall the law, but I know there is one.
 
mlchance said:
The remedy for this sort of nonsense in the Houston, Texas, area can be found here at the Cardinal Newman School.

And, now, a closing word: Vouchers!

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
Amen! I have been fighting for vouchers for years!!! I actually did a research paper on choice schools in college. Originally I didn’t think I would like the concept, but the more I researched, the more I saw all the benefits… more than can be imagined!
 
Such as it is, I see nothing in this opinion that is activist. Whether I agree with it or not, all of it rests upon binding precedent. Should it be appealed? Perhaps. In this judicial environment, however, I cringe at giving the courts yet another opportunity to wear away the right a parent has to educate his or her child.

It seems to me that, in one sense, the claims of the plaintiffs are unreasonable. I see nothing arrogant in pointing out that they remain free to educate their children themselves or to send them to a private school. One doesn’t stroll into Kentucky Fried Chicken and become indignant when they will refuse to serve to one a Big Mac. Similarly, if one insists on sending one’s child to a public school, it seems reasonable that one accept whatever curriculum the school has to offer. As Mark Shea never tires of pointing out on his blog, this would constitute yet another reason to homeschool and no one I know of accuses him of arrogance for doing so.

I understand that the standard reply to this is that, as our tax dollars support the school, it ought to teach whatever us parents say it should. To my mind, this introduces a whole host of unintended consequences that would render any form of public school system unworkable. It also would establish a principle that would effectively make it impossible for the government to spend any tax dollars on anything.

To begin with, there are any number of different things that parents may or may not want taught to their children at school. This one may not want evolution or the Big Bang theory taught. Another might be fine with those so long as any mention of God or religion is kept out. Still another might prefer that their child not be exposed to any lesson that would imply equality between the races. It’s no good pointing out that such-and-such a request is odious or contradicts a good education since the parent in question pays taxes to have his child taught by the school and that he or she therefore may dictate to the school what the school will teach and what it will not. To accommodate every one of these requests would effectively mean that each and every child would have to have a custom-tailored curriculum. This is both financially and logistically unfeasible and would contradict any form of standardized testing.

In the second place, no one expects that their tax dollars are going to be used in every instance to support only those things that they support. Certainly no one here believes that people like Cindy Sheehan have the right to dictate national defense policy because their tax dollars support it. Until the IRS or the respective state revenue services allow citizens to itemize where their tax dollars will be spent and where they will not, such a claim is just silly.

Now, this is not to say that there is no forum for people to protest the lessons a public school teaches or the ways in which tax dollars are spent. It’s called the ballot box. It cannot, as the OP’s link points out, be arrogant to suggest that families take their civic responsibility seriously. It’s no good to whine about activist judges and arrogant school boards when one does not avail oneself of the remedies that the government provides.

If Christians want to get anywhere in the culture war, we are going to have to stop endlessly playing the victim card and start being more proactive. We need to start supporting elected officials who will appoint the judges we need. We need to get Christian-minded initiatives on the ballot. Christ calls us to action, not deference to the courts that some have a tendency to go whining to.
 
Other_Eric said:
One doesn’t stroll into Kentucky Fried Chicken and become indignant when they will refuse to serve to one a Big Mac. Similarly, if one insists on sending one’s child to a public school, it seems reasonable that one accept whatever curriculum the school has to offer.
Click to expand...
Do the parents have a choice? Can they home school, meaning are they capable of doing the job? Can they afford private school if not? Public school parents have no rights to object to or change curricula? If so, when did public schools cease to be a public concern?

Perhaps more importantly, how is having a “gay day” even close to being an educational objective for elementary school students?

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top