Filed in February, immediately after Judge Wolf's ruling was released.

Filed last summer, their intent to submit a brief. These are three of the most aggressive homosexual groups:

• GLSEN - Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network
  Very powerful national homosexual group targeting children in schools. This is the group that organizes the horrific "Gay-straight alliance" clubs, homosexual school assemblies, the "Day of Silence" in schools around the country, and annual GLSEN conferences pushing the most extreme homosexual topics and issues on vulnerable kids.  

• PFLAG - Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
  Also in public schools around the country, and in many ways even more destructive than GLSEN. Very heavy into transgenderism and related behaviors. Recent PFLAG conference also teamed up with the "New England Leather Alliance" which promotes bondage and sado-machosism.

• GLAD - Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders
  Well-funded and influential Massachusetts homosexual legal group (partially funded from public money) which specializes in suing government agencies and businesses to force them to accept homosexuality, transgenderism, public sex, and related behaviors. This was the group behind the Goodridge decision on same-sex "marriage" and pushing the new "transgender rights and hate crimes" bill.

Also, this past summer GLAD bragged in their newsletter how they're using their resources to pursue the Parker case and stop parents' rights. Read it here: "Keeping schools safe for LGBT families."

The brief gets right to the heart of the problem in attacking Judge Wolf's decision to dismiss the case. It makes five major points:

1. The public schools chose to intentionally indoctrinate very young children into disbelieving core tenets of their established religious faith.
2. This case is not dictated by the infamous "Brown v. Hot, Sexy and Safer" case in the 1990's, as the defendants claim, and the lower court improperly applied a certain "rights" principle in its decision.
3. The Massachusetts Civil Rights Act was violated.
4. The school does not have immunity from this lawsuit.
5. An argument can be made that the school's actions constitute a "civil conspiracy" against the plaintiffs.
   

The brief also directly attacks Judge Wolf's incredibly offensive decision that schools have not only a right but an obligation to push homosexuality in young children for the good of society. For example, Wolf says in his ruling (among other things):

As it is difficult to change attitudes and stereotypes after they have developed, it is reasonable for public schools to attempt to teach understanding and respect for gays and lesbians to young students in order to minimize the risk of damaging abuse in school of those who may be perceived to be different.

But this is clearly unconstitutional, as Parker's lawyers' point out:

This open acknowledgment of an intention to change plaintiffs’ faith is unconstitutional . . . Contrary to the views of the defendants and the District Court, a public school has no right to change children’s minds about their deeply held faith, particularly in the private areas of marriage and procreation.

This goes through an exhaustive and tedious rebuttal of each of the points brought out in Parker's brief, plus more. It relies heavily on attempting to apply so-called "case law", particularly the Brown case, to this one.

This brief was submitted by six groups, including three mentioned above: Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Greater Boston Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN).

Also included are Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Human Rights Campaign Foundation, and the Women's Bar Association ( WBA).  The "Human Rights Campaign" is arguably the richest and most powerful homosexual advocacy group in the country. It's funded by dozens of major corporations, including Staples, Verizon, American Airlines, and many more. At their fundraiser in Boston last fall, Deval Patrick (now Governor of Massachusetts) and Boston Mayor Tom Menino were keynote speakers.

The Women's Bar Association was originally formed in the 1970s to "fight discrimination" in the workplace and probably most female lawyers in Massachusetts belong to it. However, it has morphed into a very radical, anti-family organization that uses its clout to push legislation in the State House.

This brief "complements" the brief by the defendants by going into more radical "legal theory" and "challenges of diversity" to support the claims that the normalization and acceptance homosexuality MUST be taught in society. It also attempts to legally "prove" that there is no constitutional right of parents to opt their children out of such teachings.

Submitted by the national American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA - the state's teachers' union), Lexington Education Association (the local chapter of the MTA).

Also included are "Lexington Community Action for Responsible Community Action and Safety" and "Respecting Differences" - both of which appear to be phony local front groups.

This was submitted as one brief, but we divided them for ease of handling. Although very boring and tedious to plow through, they are interesting because they show the bizarre lengths one can go to use the minutiae of "case law" (along with other sources) to "prove" any claims imaginable. It really is frightening to see the most ridiculous points which they use to deconstruct the rights of parents to raise their own children by lifting bits and pieces of past court decisions out of context. 

Using "case law" this way is not only technically unconstitutional in Massachusetts, but also is a huge flaw in the way the American justice system works. One can see how the ACLU is able to ride roughshod over America

This brief uses "case law" and various other sources to attempt to make two points:

1. The state has a strong interest in normalizing homosexual relationships ("respecting different types of people and families"); and
2. The public schools are entitled to teach any subject that is reasonably related to a legitimate state interest.

Both of these points are absurd and offensive. But that didn't stop the ADL.

Traditionally one would think of the ADL as being primarily concerned with dealing with anti-Semitism. But in recent decades they've spent too much of their resources pushing radical politics -- and have recently taken some heat in the Jewish press about that (even from us). They need to go back to doing what they're supposed to be doing.

This final brief sums it up best. If you decide to read only one of them, this is the one worth reading. The main points it brings up are:

1. The state's interest in diversity is a "red herring".
2. Plaintiffs do not seek to dictate curriculum.
3. The amici and the defendants unfairly seek to discredit the establishment clause.
4. Plaintiff parents are the only appropriate guardians of their own children's rights.
5. The school system is placing an unreasonable burden on the parents.

Parker's lawyers also point out that the amici briefs tend to use specious outside sources to "prove" their assertions about parents' rights and the rights of the state over its citizens.

This was sent by court to all the attorneys. Note that ACLU attorneys are included. Not only does the ACLU (and probably others) support the defendants with briefs, but they actually work side by side with them in the case. The ACLU lawyers were present before judge at the Motion to Dismiss hearing last February.