Parental Rights Under Attack in Massachusetts
Parental-rights advocates in Massachusetts remain stunned by what happened in February when a federal judge in Boston shot down a lawsuit by some parents who objected to what Lexington schools were teaching their young children about sexuality.
U.S. District Court Chief Judge Mark Wolf told David Parker, and Rob and Robin Wirthlin that they had no legal right to challenge the schools--at all.
"It's so absurd, you can hardly even discuss it," said Brian Camenker, executive director of the Boston-based group MassResistance. "The judge said that the schools have a right and an obligation to teach about same-sex relationships, even in the elementary schools -- and that parents' rights end at the schoolhouse door."
The judge also indicated that if parents don't like what the schools teach, they are free to put their kids in a private school or to home school their kids.
"That's pretty offensive," Camenker said. "You can imagine a federal judge, during the civil-rights era when blacks wanted to vote or be seated in restaurants, saying, 'Your options are to either start your own restaurant or elect a city council that allows that.' "
Parker had objected to a book bag that his son brought home from kindergarten that included a book on "diversity" called 'Who's in a Family?" It portrays same-sex couples as just a different type of family.
The Wirthlins objected to a book their second grader was forced to read called "King & King," in which one prince kisses another prince.
Both families wanted to be alerted when homosexually-themed material was to be taught.
In his 38-page decision, Wolf said parents "have a fundamental right to raise their children . . . (But) the Constitution does not permit them to prescribe what those children will be taught."
The judge said diversity is "a hallmark of our nation" which trumps everything else.
"It is reasonable," he wrote, "for . . . 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."
Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, isn't surprised at the decision. Courts increasingly view parents as nuisances whom public schools can ignore.
"I think what the Massachusetts judge said was consistent with what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said last year -- basically, that 'the right of parents to direct the education of children stops at the schoolhouse door,' " Lavy said.
In the 9th Circuit case, (Fields vs. Palmdale School District) the court told parents they couldn't challenge a California school district that had elementary students complete a questionnaire about their sexual thoughts and activity.
"The questions assumed that the kids were all having sexual experiences," Lavy said. "The 9th Circuit told the parents who sued the school -- 'It's basically none of your business. The school can do whatever it wants.' "
The overarching message is a dismal one for parents, Lavy added.
"If you put your child in public education, you have no ability to determine what that child is going to be taught, regarding morals or anything else," he said. "We got to this point by having a legal system where judges do not feel constrained by law, do not feel constrained by history; do not feel that what the Founding Fathers intended to create in our legal system has any bearing on what they do today."
Even if the parents in Lexington and California appeal, Lavy said, they're not likely to prevail.
"I don't know that we have support even in the U.S. Supreme Court for overturning that kind of decision," he added. "We need people to be involved politically, to elect politicians who are going to pass good laws, and who will appoint judges who do not believe that they are mini-monarchs."
U.S. District Court Chief Judge Mark Wolf told David Parker, and Rob and Robin Wirthlin that they had no legal right to challenge the schools--at all.
"It's so absurd, you can hardly even discuss it," said Brian Camenker, executive director of the Boston-based group MassResistance. "The judge said that the schools have a right and an obligation to teach about same-sex relationships, even in the elementary schools -- and that parents' rights end at the schoolhouse door."
The judge also indicated that if parents don't like what the schools teach, they are free to put their kids in a private school or to home school their kids.
"That's pretty offensive," Camenker said. "You can imagine a federal judge, during the civil-rights era when blacks wanted to vote or be seated in restaurants, saying, 'Your options are to either start your own restaurant or elect a city council that allows that.' "
Parker had objected to a book bag that his son brought home from kindergarten that included a book on "diversity" called 'Who's in a Family?" It portrays same-sex couples as just a different type of family.
The Wirthlins objected to a book their second grader was forced to read called "King & King," in which one prince kisses another prince.
Both families wanted to be alerted when homosexually-themed material was to be taught.
In his 38-page decision, Wolf said parents "have a fundamental right to raise their children . . . (But) the Constitution does not permit them to prescribe what those children will be taught."
The judge said diversity is "a hallmark of our nation" which trumps everything else.
"It is reasonable," he wrote, "for . . . 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."
Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, isn't surprised at the decision. Courts increasingly view parents as nuisances whom public schools can ignore.
"I think what the Massachusetts judge said was consistent with what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said last year -- basically, that 'the right of parents to direct the education of children stops at the schoolhouse door,' " Lavy said.
In the 9th Circuit case, (Fields vs. Palmdale School District) the court told parents they couldn't challenge a California school district that had elementary students complete a questionnaire about their sexual thoughts and activity.
"The questions assumed that the kids were all having sexual experiences," Lavy said. "The 9th Circuit told the parents who sued the school -- 'It's basically none of your business. The school can do whatever it wants.' "
The overarching message is a dismal one for parents, Lavy added.
"If you put your child in public education, you have no ability to determine what that child is going to be taught, regarding morals or anything else," he said. "We got to this point by having a legal system where judges do not feel constrained by law, do not feel constrained by history; do not feel that what the Founding Fathers intended to create in our legal system has any bearing on what they do today."
Even if the parents in Lexington and California appeal, Lavy said, they're not likely to prevail.
"I don't know that we have support even in the U.S. Supreme Court for overturning that kind of decision," he added. "We need people to be involved politically, to elect politicians who are going to pass good laws, and who will appoint judges who do not believe that they are mini-monarchs."
posted by Michael Burns at 4:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home