Presenting the arguments before the Federal Court of Appeals:
Major pro-homosexual groups and Lexington school system file briefs to stop appeal of David Parker's federal civil rights suit.
At issue: Homosexuality in elementary schools vs the rights of parents.
(See briefs and other filings below)
When the 3-judge Federal Appeals Court panel convenes on Wednesday, Dec. 5 to hear the oral arguments from both sides on David Parker's federal civil rights suit -- to effectively decide if this will be allowed to go to trial -- they'll have had plenty to digest.
This case is brings to the light of day (1) how obsessed the homosexual movement is with reaching your children, and what lengths they're willing to go to do it; and (2) how strongly school systems believe that they supercede the family when it comes to defining values to children - even if the families object.
The best synopsis of all this is in the final rebuttal brief by the Parkers' attorneys (listed below - it's also the shortest - 10 pages). It describes the absurd twists that the pro-homosexual groups and the school system are taking to try to make the case that teaching homosexuality to young children should be mandated and protected.
Essentially, the school system and their allies are using these legal tactics:
All of these tactics are absurd, and in a normal courtroom would have no bearing on this case.
Here's what's been filed for this appeal from both sides:
(All documents are in Adobe Acrobat/PDF format)
Filed in February, immediately after Judge Wolf's ruling was released.
Filed last summer, their intent to submit a brief. These are three of the most aggressive homosexual groups:
Also, this past summer GLAD bragged in their newsletter how they're using their resources to pursue the Parker case and stop parents' rights. Read it here: "Keeping schools safe for LGBT families."
The brief gets right to the heart of the problem in attacking Judge Wolf's decision to dismiss the case. It makes five major points:
The brief also directly attacks Judge Wolf's incredibly offensive decision that schools have not only a right but an obligation to push homosexuality in young children for the good of society. For example, Wolf says in his ruling (among other things):
But this is clearly unconstitutional, as Parker's lawyers' point out:
This goes through an exhaustive and tedious rebuttal of each of the points brought out in Parker's brief, plus more. It relies heavily on attempting to apply so-called "case law", particularly the Brown case, to this one.
This brief was submitted by six groups, including three mentioned above: Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Greater Boston Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
Also included are Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Human Rights Campaign Foundation, and the Women's Bar Association ( WBA). The "Human Rights Campaign" is arguably the richest and most powerful homosexual advocacy group in the country. It's funded by dozens of major corporations, including Staples, Verizon, American Airlines, and many more. At their fundraiser in Boston last fall, Deval Patrick (now Governor of Massachusetts) and Boston Mayor Tom Menino were keynote speakers.
The Women's Bar Association was originally formed in the 1970s to "fight discrimination" in the workplace and probably most female lawyers in Massachusetts belong to it. However, it has morphed into a very radical, anti-family organization that uses its clout to push legislation in the State House.
This brief "complements" the brief by the defendants by going into more radical "legal theory" and "challenges of diversity" to support the claims that the normalization and acceptance homosexuality MUST be taught in society. It also attempts to legally "prove" that there is no constitutional right of parents to opt their children out of such teachings.
Submitted by the national American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA - the state's teachers' union), Lexington Education Association (the local chapter of the MTA).
Also included are "Lexington Community Action for Responsible Community Action and Safety" and "Respecting Differences" - both of which appear to be phony local front groups.
This was submitted as one brief, but we divided them for ease of handling. Although very boring and tedious to plow through, they are interesting because they show the bizarre lengths one can go to use the minutiae of "case law" (along with other sources) to "prove" any claims imaginable. It really is frightening to see the most ridiculous points which they use to deconstruct the rights of parents to raise their own children by lifting bits and pieces of past court decisions out of context.
Using "case law" this way is not only technically unconstitutional in Massachusetts, but also is a huge flaw in the way the American justice system works. One can see how the ACLU is able to ride roughshod over America
This brief uses "case law" and various other sources to attempt to make two points:
Both of these points are absurd and offensive. But that didn't stop the ADL.
Traditionally one would think of the ADL as being primarily concerned with dealing with anti-Semitism. But in recent decades they've spent too much of their resources pushing radical politics -- and have recently taken some heat in the Jewish press about that (even from us). They need to go back to doing what they're supposed to be doing.
This final brief sums it up best. If you decide to read only one of them, this is the one worth reading. The main points it brings up are:
Parker's lawyers also point out that the amici briefs tend to use specious outside sources to "prove" their assertions about parents' rights and the rights of the state over its citizens.
This was sent by court to all the attorneys. Note that ACLU attorneys are included. Not only does the ACLU (and probably others) support the defendants with briefs, but they actually work side by side with them in the case. The ACLU lawyers were present before judge at the Motion to Dismiss hearing last February.
The "Brown" case
The "Brown vs Hot, Sexy and Safer Productions" case is being used here by the defendants and amici briefs as extensively as applicable "case law", to assert that the parents do not have civil rights protection in the schools, in these situations.
In 1992 there was a mandatory assembly at Chelmsford High School purportedly on the dangers of AIDS. It featured an entertainer, Suzanne Landolphi (her company was "Hot, Sexy and Safer Productions Inc."). Landolphi's presentation to the students consisted of extremely vulgar and obscene jokes about sexuality and body parts, and crude sexual skits that included students from the audience.
According to court papers:
At that time, the news of this sent shock waves throughout the pro-family community across the state.
The parents of three students filed a $3.5 million civil rights lawsuit against Landolphi and the school. But in 1995 the federal court, and the appeals court, ruled that the students' civil rights were not violated, although the school probably should have allowed the students to skip the assembly.
However, there are several issues to consider:
But also -- something we noted at the time -- is the fact that the parents were hopelessly undermanned as far as legal talent and expertise. Our side used essentially one lawyer. From everything we could tell, our side did a pretty sub-par job of arguing the case and was not particularly aggressive or thorough. And we were up before judges who were clearly left-wing and philosophically very much against parents' rights.
On the other hand. the other side had literally an army of lawyers from various firms (many of them working for no charge) who do this kind of work all the time, including several from GLAD and the ACLU.
Unfortunately, that's the way things usually are for parents fighting these agendas. The Parker case is clearly different.
But the fact that the "Brown" case is even being considered as "case law" is a travesty, bordering on the criminal.