Both sides file final briefs in federal appeals court on David Parker's civil rights case.
Schools' brief (written with major gay groups)
outlines legal arguments for forcing homosexual indoctrination in schools across America.
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS (DEC. 28, 2007) Lawyers for the Lexington Public
Schools and David Parker's lawyers have submitted their final briefs to the
federal appeals court in Boston.
The three-judge federal appeals panel is now preparing to decide the fate of
this landmark federal civil rights lawsuit
about schools teaching homosexuality
in elementary school without parents' knowledge or consent. At issue is whether
the ruling by Federal Judge Mark Wolf dismissing the case -- whether that ruling
stands, or if not, what happens next.
Wolf wrote a chilling, outrageous ruling dismissing the case and
going further, giving schools virtually unlimited ability to normalize and
promote homosexuality in classrooms. The Parkers are appealing this ruling. They
seek to have the ruling vacated, and for the trial to be allowed to begin in
Over the summer,
several pro-homosexual groups submitted amicae briefs to accompany the
initial briefs by the two parties.
The hearing for the oral arguments took place on Dec. 5 before the
3-judge appeals panel. Now that the final briefs have been submitted, with each
side summing up their positions, a decision is expected within a few weeks.
(As we've discussed. There's still an Alice-in-Wonderland quality to this whole
thing. Think about it: A panel of federal court judges is seriously and
dispassionately deciding whether it's proper to normalize issues homosexual
behavior and cross-dressing to elementary school children without their parents'
knowledge or consent. In fact, this is madness. It's reminiscent of something out
of Red China's insane "Cultural Revolution" from the 1960s.)
Nevertheless, the briefs from each side state their positions pretty clearly:
The schools' brief
Read the school's brief here (Adobe Acrobat format).
The school's legal team consists
of lawyers from two big Boston downtown firms, plus the ACLU of
Massachusetts and the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, a
powerful non-profit homosexual law firm.
The school's brief is a virtual blueprint for using the legal process to push
homosexuality in the schools. Much of the foundation has been already replicated
in other states:
- They make extensive use of
"case law" to "prove" that what they are doing is legal and necessary. If
anything, this illustrates that if you have the time to do enough research,
it's possible to find shreds of case law to back up literally anything. It's
- When the Legislature slipped
the term "sexual orientation" into the anti-discrimination and education
laws a decade ago, almost no one said much. But now, the homosexual groups
are using it as a legal battering ram to force homosexuality into the schools,
and punish anyone who disagrees.
"The appellate record reveals that Massachusetts law prohibits public
schools from discriminating based on sex or sexual orientation, and requires
schools to implement curricula aimed at encouraging respect for the human and
civil rights of all individuals regardless of, inter alia, sexual orientation.
The record further reveals that the defendants' use of the three
'objectionable' books is consistent with the above-mentioned state mandates.
The defendants have the First Amendment right to use these books regardless of
whether it is a part of the state's core curriculum and regardless of the
plaintiffs' allegations of indoctrination."
- The terms "tolerance" and
"diversity" into have found their way into the education system's official
goals for what constitutes good citizenship. The schools are now stating
certain case law gives them the right to "teach anything that is reasonably
related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive
citizens in our democracy." Again, the homosexual agenda finds its way in,
against parents' wishes.
- We've heard this argument
before -- teachers should make the final decisions regarding teaching
materials. They say:
"Whether King & King or the other books are the most suitable or
age-appropriate materials available for teaching Lexington schoolchildren
about issues of tolerance and diversity necessarily involves pedagogical and
political issues beyond the ken of this Court."
- They admit that they
intend to push the homosexual agenda into various subjects in elementary
school. Thus, they claim it would be "impractical" to allow parents to
remove their children.
"Under plaintiffs' view, many subjects offered at Estabrook Elementary
School may include course work involving 'sexuality, gender identity, and
marriage construct.' For example, an art teacher may ask students in art class
to draw pictures of their families and describe them to the class in an effort
to discuss different types of families. If a student in the art class has
same-sex parents, the teacher would have to anticipate the day on which that
student would present her drawing to the class, remove students such as the
Parker and Wirthlin children from the classroom, create an alternative lesson
plan for those students, and make sure another teacher is available to
supervise the students removed from the art class. Or a social studies teacher
may wish to teach about the civil rights movement, which, in turn, gives rise
to a discussion about whether discrimination against gays or lesbians is
prohibited. If plaintiffs should obtain the injunctive relief they seek, the
social studies teacher would have to anticipate that a student may ask such a
question and give parents notice of the potential discussion topic. As the
above examples illustrate, the injunctive relief plaintiffs seek is not only
burdensome, but also impractical. "
- And, of course, there's the
absurd argument that giving rights to parents would "harm" other students.
"Further, granting injunctive relief to the plaintiffs will be harmful to
students of same-sex parents, and possibly violate those students'
constitutional rights. Specifically, students of same-sex parents may feel
devalued if other students need to leave the classroom before they can speak
about their families. Public schools have a duty not to impinge on the rights
of other students."
Also . . .
"If Cindy's parents are gay, what lessons does she learn if several of her
classmates are escorted from the classroom by a public school official
whenever she discusses her home life? Certainly, Cindy does not learn about
the goals of tolerance and diversity."
- Finally, in their brief they
insist that the age of the students doesn't make any difference when it
comes to homosexuality or parents' rights. Elementary school-age kids are the
same as high-school kids in this regard, they state.
Welcome to the brave new
world! From a legal standpoint, only the Parkers and Wirthlins are standing
their way. If they have their way in this federal appeals court, watch out
The Parkers' brief
Read the Parkers' brief here (Adobe Acrobat format).
The Parkers' lawyers do a good job of not backing down and stating the obvious
rather than subtly implying it. A few quotes from the brief:
"[T]he purpose .
. . is the specific intention to indoctrinate young children into the concept
that homosexuality and marriage between same-sex partners is moral and accepted,
and that those who hold a faith such as the Parkers are incorrect in their
beliefs. Essentially, the defendants are requiring the minor plaintiffs to
affirm a belief inconsistent with and prohibited by their religion. Such
indoctrination is inconsistent with the Parkers' sincere and deeply held
"The problem for
the defendants is that they exhibited these books to very young children with
the very specific intention of subverting plaintiffs' faith by subtly causing
the children to affirm a practice that the plaintiffs believe is sinful."
"These books are
not 'standard fare,' indeed, not part of the curriculum at all. The book 'King &
King' goes far beyond 'teaching diversity and tolerance.' It demands nothing
less than affirmation and celebration of same-gender marriage. This is
consistent with the school administration's intended goal to affirm and 'change
What they agree on
Interestingly, both sides
agree -- and spend a great deal of time making the point in their briefs --
that the judges should make a decision one way or the other on the motion to
dismiss. The judges could choose to "abstain" or
"certify", which would force the issue into the state courts, with a possible
return to the federal level at a later date. The first portion of both
briefs argues against doing that.
are expected to announce their decision within a few weeks, although
there is no official timetable. They could:
1. Sustain Wolf's dismissal. In that case, the only recourse to the Parkers is
to go to the US Supreme Court. This is what the school wants.
2. Vacate Wolf's dismissal and send it back to federal court for the trial to
begin. This is what the Parkers want.
3. "Abstain" and send it to the state superior court because of the
issues surrounding the state notification law or Mass. civil rights statute,
with a possible return.
4. "Certify" it by sending to the Mass. SJC for an opinion, with a
We'll keep you informed!
Lexington parent David Parker
into court in handcuffs in April, 2005.
MassResistance was there!