Both sides file final briefs in federal appeals court on David Parker's civil rights case.

Schools' brief (written with major gay groups) outlines legal arguments for forcing homosexual indoctrination in schools across America.

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS (DEC. 28, 2007) Lawyers for the Lexington Public Schools and David Parker's lawyers have submitted their final briefs to the federal appeals court in Boston.

The three-judge federal appeals panel is now preparing to decide the fate of this landmark federal civil rights lawsuit about schools teaching homosexuality in elementary school without parents' knowledge or consent. At issue is whether the ruling by Federal Judge Mark Wolf dismissing the case -- whether that ruling stands, or if not, what happens next.

Last February, Wolf wrote a chilling, outrageous ruling dismissing the case and going further, giving schools virtually unlimited ability to normalize and promote homosexuality in classrooms. The Parkers are appealing this ruling. They seek to have the ruling vacated, and for the trial to be allowed to begin in federal court.

Over the summer, several pro-homosexual groups submitted amicae briefs to accompany the initial briefs by the two parties.

The hearing for the oral arguments took place on Dec. 5 before the 3-judge appeals panel. Now that the final briefs have been submitted, with each side summing up their positions, a decision is expected within a few weeks.

(As we've discussed. There's still an Alice-in-Wonderland quality to this whole thing. Think about it: A panel of federal court judges is seriously and dispassionately deciding whether it's proper to normalize issues homosexual behavior and cross-dressing to elementary school children without their parents' knowledge or consent. In fact, this is madness. It's reminiscent of something out of Red China's insane "Cultural Revolution" from the 1960s.)

Nevertheless, the briefs from each side state their positions pretty clearly:

The schools' brief

Read the school's brief here (Adobe Acrobat format).

The school's legal team consists of lawyers from two big Boston downtown firms, plus the ACLU of Massachusetts and the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, a powerful non-profit homosexual law firm.

The school's brief is a virtual blueprint for using the legal process to push homosexuality in the schools. Much of the foundation has been already replicated in other states:

• They make extensive use of "case law" to "prove" that what they are doing is legal and necessary. If anything, this illustrates that if you have the time to do enough research, it's possible to find shreds of case law to back up literally anything. It's quite eerie.
   
• When the Legislature slipped the term "sexual orientation" into the anti-discrimination and education laws a decade ago, almost no one said much. But now, the homosexual groups are using it as a legal battering ram to force homosexuality into the schools, and punish anyone who disagrees.
  
  "The appellate record reveals that Massachusetts law prohibits public schools from discriminating based on sex or sexual orientation, and requires schools to implement curricula aimed at encouraging respect for the human and civil rights of all individuals regardless of, inter alia, sexual orientation. The record further reveals that the defendants' use of the three 'objectionable' books is consistent with the above-mentioned state mandates. The defendants have the First Amendment right to use these books regardless of whether it is a part of the state's core curriculum and regardless of the plaintiffs' allegations of indoctrination."
   
• The terms "tolerance" and "diversity" into have found their way into the education system's official goals for what constitutes good citizenship. The schools are now stating certain case law gives them the right to "teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy." Again, the homosexual agenda finds its way in, against parents' wishes.
   
• We've heard this argument before -- teachers should make the final decisions regarding teaching materials. They say:
  
  "Whether King & King or the other books are the most suitable or age-appropriate materials available for teaching Lexington schoolchildren about issues of tolerance and diversity necessarily involves pedagogical and political issues beyond the ken of this Court."
   
• They admit that they intend to push the homosexual agenda into various subjects in elementary school. Thus, they claim it would be "impractical" to allow parents to remove their children.
  
  "Under plaintiffs' view, many subjects offered at Estabrook Elementary School may include course work involving 'sexuality, gender identity, and marriage construct.' For example, an art teacher may ask students in art class to draw pictures of their families and describe them to the class in an effort to discuss different types of families. If a student in the art class has same-sex parents, the teacher would have to anticipate the day on which that student would present her drawing to the class, remove students such as the Parker and Wirthlin children from the classroom, create an alternative lesson plan for those students, and make sure another teacher is available to supervise the students removed from the art class. Or a social studies teacher may wish to teach about the civil rights movement, which, in turn, gives rise to a discussion about whether discrimination against gays or lesbians is prohibited. If plaintiffs should obtain the injunctive relief they seek, the social studies teacher would have to anticipate that a student may ask such a question and give parents notice of the potential discussion topic. As the above examples illustrate, the injunctive relief plaintiffs seek is not only burdensome, but also impractical. "
   
• And, of course, there's the absurd argument that giving rights to parents would "harm" other students.
  
  "Further, granting injunctive relief to the plaintiffs will be harmful to students of same-sex parents, and possibly violate those students' constitutional rights. Specifically, students of same-sex parents may feel devalued if other students need to leave the classroom before they can speak about their families. Public schools have a duty not to impinge on the rights of other students."  
  
  Also . . .
  
  "If Cindy's parents are gay, what lessons does she learn if several of her classmates are escorted from the classroom by a public school official whenever she discusses her home life? Certainly, Cindy does not learn about the goals of tolerance and diversity."
   
• Finally, in their brief they insist that the age of the students doesn't make any difference when it comes to homosexuality or parents' rights. Elementary school-age kids are the same as high-school kids in this regard, they state.

Welcome to the brave new world! From a legal standpoint, only the Parkers and Wirthlins are standing their way. If they have their way in this federal appeals court, watch out America!

The Parkers' brief

Read the Parkers' brief here (Adobe Acrobat format).

The Parkers' lawyers do a good job of not backing down and stating the obvious rather than subtly implying it. A few quotes from the brief:

"[T]he purpose . . . is the specific intention to indoctrinate young children into the concept that homosexuality and marriage between same-sex partners is moral and accepted, and that those who hold a faith such as the Parkers are incorrect in their beliefs. Essentially, the defendants are requiring the minor plaintiffs to affirm a belief inconsistent with and prohibited by their religion. Such indoctrination is inconsistent with the Parkers' sincere and deeply held religious faith."

"The problem for the defendants is that they exhibited these books to very young children with the very specific intention of subverting plaintiffs' faith by subtly causing the children to affirm a practice that the plaintiffs believe is sinful."

"These books are not 'standard fare,' indeed, not part of the curriculum at all. The book 'King & King' goes far beyond 'teaching diversity and tolerance.' It demands nothing less than affirmation and celebration of same-gender marriage. This is consistent with the school administration's intended goal to affirm and 'change minds.'"

What they agree on

Interestingly, both sides agree -- and spend a great deal of time making the point in their briefs -- that the judges should make a decision one way or the other on the motion to dismiss. The judges could choose to "abstain" or "certify", which would force the issue into the state courts, with a possible return to the federal level at a later date. The first portion of both briefs argues against doing that.

What's next

The judges are expected to announce their decision within a few weeks, although there is no official timetable. They could:

1. Sustain Wolf's dismissal. In that case, the only recourse to the Parkers is to go to the US Supreme Court. This is what the school wants.

2. Vacate Wolf's dismissal and send it back to federal court for the trial to begin. This is what the Parkers want.

3. "Abstain" and send it to the state superior court because of the issues surrounding the state notification law or Mass. civil rights statute, with a possible return.

4. "Certify" it by sending to the Mass. SJC for an opinion, with a possible return.


We'll keep you informed!

Lexington parent David Parker was led into court in handcuffs in April, 2005. MassResistance was there!