Distorting the words of a judge

Another article from Worldnetdaily... This time the very title of the article, "Judge orders 'gay' agenda taught to Christian children", is false.

The article is about a lawsuit brought against a public school by people who claim to be Christian, trying to force the school never to mention gay people in class without their advance written permission. The basis of their claim is a Massachusetts law requiring that parents be notified in advance before sex education is taught in class so that they may choose to exempt their children from such classes. (Personally I think that's incredibly stupid given the repeated studies that have indicated that children who don't get sex-ed are just as likely to have sex as children who do, but those who do are more likely to take preventative action against sexually transmitted diseases, but that's another story.) Essentially their argument was that mentioning a gay couple in class constitutes sex-ed because, in their minds apparently, "gay couple" means "sex", and requires parental permission. By that logic, mentioning any couple in class would require a permission slip. Indeed, by that logic it would be illegal to tell the child who to give the permission slip to, because mentioning "parents" implies that sex went on, so they'd need a permission slip to discuss the permission slip.

So, it seemed pretty obvious to me that their case would get thrown out of court, and I can't imagine that their lawyers didn't think of that and tell them that, so I believe that the case was brought merely for the publicity, or perhaps to try to scare the school into doing what they want by running up a big legal bill at the expense of children's education.

Anyway, getting back to what actually happened, the judge did not order that a "gay agenda" be taught to christian children. What he did was reject the case, on the basis that people do not have a special right to force the school not to teach things they find objectionable. He also ruled that the school has a compelling legal reason to teach the material it is teaching; that doesn't mean it is required my judicial order to teach it, but rather, that teaching it is not frivilous and so the school's ability to teach the material overrides the distaste of an individual set of parents.

Indeed, not only did the judge not rule that the material must be taught to Christians, he even outlined no less than three options that the plaintiffs have to lawfully school their children without the child being exposed to anything they object to. Further, one of these three options is for the parents to cause a school board that agrees with them to be elected and thus cause the school to stop teaching the material. It is blatantly obvious from this that the judge is unquestionably not requiring that the children in question be taught the material the parents objected to or that the school must teach it; he is, rather, ruling that the school may teach it, and if the parents choose to send their children to the school, they do not have a special right to stop the school from doing so or to be notified in advance about it.

Despite all of these fairly indisputable facts, Bob Unruh, the author of the article, claims:

A federal judge in Massachusetts has ordered the "gay" agenda taught to Christians who attend a public school in Massachusetts, finding that they need the teachings to be "engaged and productive citizens."

This is so transparently at odds with reality that I feel that no further argument against it is necessary.

The article continues,

"David and Tonia Parker and Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, who have children of school age in Lexington, Mass., brought the lawsuit. They alleged district officials and staff at Estabrook Elementary School violated state law and civil rights by indoctrinating their children about a lifestyle they, as Christians, teach is immoral."

I've always wondered about this "gay lifestyle" thing. My gay "lifestyle" involves going to work, coming home, doing laundry, cooking dinner, and worrying about paying the bills. I'm really not sure which of these things they think is immoral. Maybe it's the laundry? But back to the article...

"Wolf's ruling is every parent's nightmare." [trimmed by TF] ...said a statement from the pro-family group Mass Resistance.

I sincerely doubt it. I know quite a few parents who would in fact welcome the ruling.

"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 U.S. Constitution?" the organization said.

Well, I guess that shows they can't possibly be ignorant of the three ways the judge offered them to get what they want. And I'd like to point out that unlike the plaintiffs in this case, who chose to be as they are, black people are born black, and are a lawfully protected minority. Like, for example, gay people in Massachusetts.

Back to the article:

But Wolf's claims followed very closely the reasoning submitted earlier in a brief by Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU, Massachusetts Teachers Association, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and other advocates for the "gay" agenda.

Earlier, Mass Resistance President Brian Camenker had wondered why such national groups were "so interested in a parent's right to decide what moral issues are taught to his children by adults in elementary schools, especially regarding homosexuality."

Mr. Camenker might wish to observe that neither the Massachusetts Teachers Association nor Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders are national groups. And further, if Mr. Camenker wishes to complain about involvement of national groups, perhaps he'd like to explain the staunch support of Worldnetdaily of his causes (including this one), or where the money backing him and the plaintiffs in this case comes from.

Mr. Unruh further claims:

Parker was arrested and jailed in Lexington in April 2005 over his request – and the school's refusal – to notify him when adults discuss homosexuality or transgenderism with his 6-year-old kindergartner. That despite a state law requiring such notification.

This is also entirely false. Mr. Parker was arrested for refusing to leave the school as the staff tried to close it, when he didn't get what he wanted. (A rather babyish action on his part, in my opinion.) Even the conservative Boston Herald notes that the parents could have sat down with school officials and tried to negotiate in a civil manner and attempt to reach some sort of compromise, but didn't. He was entirely free to make the request, even to do so again in the future if he desired, but he was arrested for breaking the law ("tresspassing", if I remember correctly) by refusing to leave. Notice that Mr. Unruh doesn't mention that very important detail?

But he goes on:

Parker and other parents followed with the federal civil rights lawsuit, alleging school officials were refusing to follow state law.

Just days later, David Parker's son, Jacob, was beaten up at Estabrook Elementary, officials said. MassResistance said a group of 8-10 kids surrounded him and took him out of sight of "patrolling aides," then pummeled and beat him.

Mr. Unruh seems to be trying to imply that these facts are in some way related. However, the school investigated extensively and determined that they weren't. Indeed, the parents of the boy who fought with Jacob Parker said that the two boys were actually friends having a disagreement, that it had nothing to do with the legal case, and that the boys had made up and were friends again. I think it's ridiculous to try to imply that a group of grammar school children would have much awareness of or actually care about a federal civil rights lawsuit, let alone that they'd take it personally enough to beat another kid up over it. Anyone who has attended a public school should be fully aware that playground fights happen all the time over trivial nonsense, and practically never over anything of substance.

Mr. Unruh quotes John Haskins of the "Parents' Rights Coalition":

"As the Lexington schools themselves are arguing, the state's right to force pro-homosexuality indoctrination on other people's children arises directly from former Gov. Mitt Romney's nakedly false and unconstitutional declaration that homosexual marriage is now legal."

Perhaps Mr. Haskins should review the history of marriage rights in Massachusetts. First, Mr. Romney merely implemented a court order, over his repeated and (in my opinion) exceedingly rude objections. The state implemented marriage for gay couples at the order of the Supreme Judicial Court, the highest court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which ruled that the state is required to recognize marriages of gay couples based on a number of specific elements of the Massachusetts constitution. So, rather than being unconstitutional, the ruling was in fact based on the state constitution. Moving right along:

Haskins said when the Massachusetts state Supreme Court demanded homosexual marriages in the state, it didn't have the constitutional or legal authority to order the governor to act or to order the Legislature to make any changes, and the creation of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts actually was accomplished by executive order from Romney.

If I remember correctly, the court didn't order the governor to act or the legislature to make any changes, it ordered the town clerks to accept marriage applications from gay and lesbian couples, and Mr. Romney's order merely specified the manner in which the court's ruling should be implemented. (Please don't view this as me defending or endorsing Mr. Romney. But, this blog is for keeping the facts clear.)

(The Boston Globe wrote an editorial about the ruling that I rather like.)