The superintendent of a
that sparked a
federal lawsuit by teaching homosexuality to children as young
as kindergarten has told another worried parent he can review
he has no right to withdraw his child from class during lessons.
The lawsuit, on which WND has reported extensively, was filed by
David Parker, whose child was in a class at
in Lexington, Mass.
strenuous objection to not being notified when lessons
concerning homosexuality were presented landed him in jail
overnight. His subsequent lawsuit resulted in a court verdict
that essentially concludes parents have no rights to control
what their children are taught.
The court ruling adopted the arguments submitted by several
pro-homosexual organizations that stated they had rights to
children in public schools. However, Parker has confirmed for
WND the case is being prepared for appeal to the U.S. Supreme
Court because of the far-reaching impacts of the ruling.
Unless the case is overturned, Parker told WND, "it now would
allow teachers in elementary
schools to influence
children into any views they wanted to, behind the backs of
parents, to a captive audience, and against the will of the
parents if need be."
In the latest confrontation, publicized by the
advocates at Mass Resistance, Lexington Supt. Paul Ash told
a parent who also wanted to be advised when homosexuality was
being taught to children that the school would not cooperate.
"We are not required to inform parents in advance of teaching
units that include same gender parents or required to release
students when such
topics are discussed," Ash told the parent in an e-mail posted
by Mass Resistance. "The appeals court dismissed the claim that
parents have a right to require the school provide advance
notice or the right to remove their children.
"In addition, the school committee has decided that
teachers must be able
to teach topics they feel are appropriate without the
requirement parents be notified in advance," Ash wrote.
The e-mail was in response to parent Shawn Landon's request
to be notified when such material would be promoted. His
concerns, in return, followed an announcement from the school
that it was "creating an inclusive environment and embracing
diversity" by expanding its promotions of such alternative
"A group of administrators, teachers, and community members
formed the 'Windows and Mirrors' subcommittee to develop a
comprehensive, inclusive K-5 Diversity
curriculum … [which]
promotes acceptance and understanding of the diversity of our
town, country, and world, and includes both historical lessons
on civil rights and contemporary lessons of families," Ash had
Those "contemporary lessons of families," Ash continued, will
include a focus on "gay and lesbian parents."
Landon, after getting word of the school's plans, wrote
Martha Batten, Estabrook principal, "I will absolutely require
prior notification to any discussion,
reading or anything at all related (even remotely) to
homosexuality. It is quite clear by the e-mail I just received
that you have a very specific agenda and my family will be
exercising our rights to be notified and not to participate.
This goes against everything we believe and practice…"
Batten forwarded the e-mail to Ash, who responded that the
court's have "established Lexington's right" to teach diversity
units, including stories that show same gender parents. He also
said there's no need for the schools to let parents know, or
even to permit parents to withdraw their children if they would
somehow happen to find out.
He did offer a solution: Landon could review the material
ahead of time, so he would know what indoctrination would be
presented at some later point.
"If your child happens to be placed in a class with a teacher
who will be
teaching the four of
five diversity units, you will then know what will be taught and
will be able to talk to your son or daughter about the topics at
home," the superintendent said.
Landon responded with his "disappointment."
"Your complete rejection of my basic rights as a parent is
nothing less than outrageous and discriminatory," he said. "It
is entirely unacceptable. I must insist that I be notified prior
to my child being exposed to this horribly offensive material."
"Good for you, Mr. Landon!" officials at Mass Resistance
posted. "It's about time more people stood up and were counted.
It's actually amazing and outrageous that people like Paul Ash …
are allowed to be educators… What kind of human beings would do
this to parents and children?"
Parker and his lawyers say they will be seeking permission to
submit the dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court over such
Parker said the ruling from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals
essentially concluded that it is no burden on parents' free
exercise of religion to have their children taught ideas at a
public school that violate the parents' religious teachings.
"But that ignores the fact that the most basic free exercise
is your teaching your children right from wrong in their
formative years," he said. "That is completely being undermined
by the rulings of these federal courts so far.
"Teachers are being postured to have a constitutional right
to coercively indoctrinate little children [into whatever they
choose to teach,]" he said. "It's not just exposure to an idea,
to the [offensive] books, It's the teacher's manipulating the
mind of children to embrace dangerous ideologies, because the
teacher happens to believe it's a good ideology.
"It brings these battlegrounds to the psyches and minds of
little children," Parker said. "Their little minds should not be
the battleground for culture wars.
"Proper boundaries have to be established. This is absolutely
of national significance. No parent wants to put their very
little children in positions in which they're minds are being
used as battlegrounds," he said.
He warned pursuit of such agendas would cause public schools
to implode. That's an issue that California already is facing,
as WND has reported. There, a coalition of organizations is
encouraging parents and providing resources for them to be able
to remove their children from public schools. The coalition's
goal is to take 600,000 children from California's public
districts, because of a new state law there requiring
indoctrination that not only is pro-homosexual, but also affirms
bisexuality, transsexuality and other alternative lifestyle
"The human secularist religion of the [National Education
Association,] buttressed by the power of the state, will now
turn public schools into the next secular synagogues," Parker
said. "[They say], 'We're just preparing the kids to be
citizens.' But it's a religion. It is a devious and evil form of
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the
Lexington, Mass., school district can teach children contrary
ideas without violating their parents' rights to exercise
"Public schools," opined Judge Sandra L. Lynch, "are not
obliged to shield individual students from ideas which
potentially are religiously offensive, particularly when the
school imposes no requirement that the student agree with or
affirm those ideas, or even participate in discussions about
As WND reported in 2006, U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf
originally dismissed the civil rights lawsuit, concluding there
is, in fact, an obligation for public schools to teach young
children to accept and endorse homosexuality.
Parker said if this topic is approved, why not any other
topic, up to and including Nazism?
The Parker dispute began in the spring of 2005 when the
Parkers then-5-year-old son brought home a book to be shared
with his parents titled, "Who's in a Family?" It came in a
"Diversity Book Bag" and depicted at least two households led by