Federal judge Mark Wolf dismisses David Parker’s civil rights lawsuit.
Outrageous ruling goes further -- reinforces right of schools to teach homosexuality without parents’ consent or choice to opt-out
This bizarre ruling is every parent's nightmare. But more than that, it's a complete abandonment of right and wrong, civil rights, or even common sense. It's hard to imagine a person sworn to uphold the law could write this. How bad is it? Read on.
Excerpts from ruling by Federal Judge Mark Wolf, with analysis:
(Keep in mind that this will now be considered "law" in future federal court cases. Link to full text of 38-page ruling.)
Judge 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." This means teaching "diversity" which includes "differences in sexual orientation." This is lunacy:
In essence, under the Constitution public schools are entitled
to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of
preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our
democracy. Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is
increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in
sexual orientation. Our nation's history includes a fundamental
commitment to promoting mutual respect among citizens in our
diverse nation that is manifest in the First Amendment's
prohibitions on establishing an official religion and restricting
the free exercise of religious beliefs on which plaintiffs base
some of their federal claims. Our history also includes instances
of individual and official discrimination against gays and
lesbians, among others. It is reasonable for public educators to
teach elementary school students about individuals with different
sexual orientations and about various forms of families, including
those with same-sex parents, in an effort to eradicate the effects
of past discrimination, to reduce the risk of future discrimination
and, in the process, to reaffirm our nation's constitutional
commitment to promoting mutual respect among members of our diverse
society. In addition, it is reasonable for those educators to find
that teaching young children to understand and respect differences
in sexual orientation will contribute to an academic environment in
which students who are gay, lesbian, or the children of same-sex
parents will be comfortable and, therefore, better able to learn. [p. 4-5]
Then Wolf makes the odious statement that the Parkers' 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?
Parents do have a fundamental right to raise their children.
They are not required to abandon that responsibility to the state.
The Parkers and Wirthlins may send their children to a private
school that does not seek to foster understandings of homosexuality
or same-sex marriage that conflict with their religious beliefs.
They may also educate their children at home. In addition, the
plaintiffs may attempt to persuade others to join them in electing
a Lexington School Committee that will implement a curriculum that
is more compatible with their beliefs. However, the Parkers and
Wirthlins have chosen to send their children to the Lexington
public schools with its current curriculum. The Constitution does
not permit them to prescribe what those children will be taught. [p. 6]
Wolf also makes the point that must NOT be allowed to opt out! He echoes the homosexual movement's propaganda, that allowing religious freedom would send a bad "message" to children whose parents engage in homosexual behavior, so therefore schools must teach homosexuality in a positive light to EVERY student.
An exodus from class
when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be
discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the
children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a
damaging effect on those students. Cf. Brown v. Board of Education,
347 U.S. 483, 494 (1954).2 It might also undermine the defendants'
efforts to educate the remaining other students to understand and
respect differences in sexual orientation. [p. 7]
Wolf claims that the flawed and badly argued Brown decision is now the "law" of the United States. Did Congress pass this? No, it didn't. It's merely a ruling in a case. This ruling is full of use of "case law" from obscure decisions, as if it were real law.
Brown not only remains the law of the First Circuit, it has
also been found to be persuasive in every other circuit that has
discussed it in defining the scope of a parent's right to raise his
or her children. [p. 18]
Wolf apparently is comfortable with the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom being violated if there is a "rational" basis for doing it. What part of the Constitution allows this? And who defines what is "rational" and what isn't?
In view of the foregoing, Brown's holding that parents do not
have a fundamental liberty interest that permits them to prescribe
the curriculum for their children means that the defendants' use of
the books at issue and related teaching is constitutionally
permissible if there is a rational basis for the instruction. [p. 27]
In this series of paragraphs, Wolf's reasoning is so bizarre that it practically defies dissection. He says that students need to be "prepared for citizenship in a diverse society." He uses state laws and even state "curriculum frameworks" to trump the federal Constitution. He uses the same-sex "marriage" arguments in the Goodridge case to make the case for pushing homosexuality in the schools. (Isn't this what we warned about?).
Students today must be prepared for citizenship in a diverse
society. See Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 330 (2003) ("the
skills needed in today's increasingly global marketplace can only
be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures,
ideas, and viewpoints"). As increasingly recognized, one dimension
of our nation's diversity is differences in sexual orientation. In
Massachusetts, at least, those differences may result in same-sex
In addition, as described earlier, Massachusetts law prohibits
discrimination based on sexual orientation. M.G.L. c. 76, §5.
Consistent with this, the Department of Education requires that all
public schools teach respect for all individuals regardless of,
among other things, sexual orientation. 603 C.M.R. §26.06(1). It
also encourages instruction concerning different types of families.
Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Curriculum Framework at 30, 33.
Some families are headed by same-sex couples.
The alleged conduct of the defendants at issue in this case
was responsive to these requirements and standards. In view of the
value to the community of preparing students to respect differences
in their personal interactions with others and in their future
participation in the political process, the conduct at issue in
this case is rationally related to the goal of preparing them for
citizenship. It is also rationally related to the goal of
eradicating what the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
characterized as the "deep and scarring hardship" that the ban on
same-sex marriages imposed "on a very real segment of the community
for no rational reason." Goodridge, 440 Mass. at 341.
Moreover, attempting to teach young, elementary school
students to respect gays and lesbians is also rationally related to
the legitimate pedagogical purpose of fostering an educational
environment in which gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex
parents will be able to learn well. [p. 29-30]
Read the full 38-page ruling by Federal Judge Mark Wolf (Adobe Acrobat format).
If you ever needed assurance that our judicial system has abandoned constitutional government and become a tyrannical revolutional tribunal, look no further. This is Exhibit A.