EDGE Boston

Two sets of Massachusetts parents who claim that public schools are indoctrinating children by teaching about broader social inclusion--including for GLBT people--have taken their case to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

David Parker, who was arrested for trespassing after he refused to leave the grounds of the Lexington school attended by his son, and his wife, Tonia, together with Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, had seen their case against Eastbrook Elementary School decided in favor of the school when a judge opined that schools have a duty to prepare children to be able to live in society at large so as to become "engaged and productive citizens."

But the parents say that the judge who decided against them, U.S. District judge Mark Wolf, has imposed an unconstitutional opinion by saying that "it is reasonable for public schools to teach understanding and respect for gays and lesbians," and for saying that for those parents who do not wish their children to learn about acceptance of human differences, home schooling or private schools would remain an option.

The Parkers brought suit against the school when their son, who was five at the time, brought home a book about a family with two parents of the same gender.

The Wirthlins became involved in the suit after a teacher at the school read aloud to a second-grade class from a fairy tale about two princes that fall in love.

The Parkers and the Wirthlins, according to a story posted today on World Net Daily, object to their children being taught about such issues on the grounds of their Christian beliefs. In the parents’ interpretation of Christian tenets, homosexuality is immoral.

At the time of the initial hearing, Parker said, "When the teacher puts it forward, it becomes the gospel according to the teacher."

Added Parker at that time, "The children are so young--they can’t reflect on that idea. They’re too young to put it in context."

The World Net Daily article quoted from a statement from anti-gay family equality group Mass Resistance, which said, "Wolf’s ruling is every parent’s nightmare."

The Mass Resistance statement continued, "It goes to extraordinary lengths to legitimize and reinforce the ’right’ (and even the duty) of schools to normalize homosexual behavior to even the youngest of children."

The Mass Resistance statement also said, "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."

Adopting the gay equality movement’s citation of the civil rights movement as a legitimate forerunner, Mass Resistance added, "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?"

According to the World Net Daily article, Parker commented to WND that his concerns are not so much what school officials determine should be on the curriculum, but rather that he as a parent should have the right to be notified of portions of the school’s curriculum that he may regard as unsuitable for his son, and that he should have the right to refuse those lessons being taught to his son.

Bran Camenker, anti-gay activist and President of Mass Resistance, was quoted in the article as questioning why national gay equality organizations such as the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) would be "interested in a parent’s right to decide what moral issues are taught to his children by adults in elementary schools, especially regarding homosexuality."

Camenker had added, "They must see David Parker’s case as quite a threat to their ability to push their message on children," according to the story on World Daily Net.

Parker said to WND that, "What they want is to be able to do this behind the backs of parents," according to the World Net Daily item.

Added Parker, "What they’re doing is trying to steal the role of the parent, and put it in the hands of administrators, many of whom have been trained by GLSEN."

The story said that Parker claimed such groups wish to inculcate in young children the idea that gay marriage and GLBT people are normal.

Said Parker, "It has been affirmed [in the court’s ruling] they indeed not only have the right to indoctrinate, but there is a moral imperative," Parker said.

Continued Parker, "They understand to push the agenda forward, they have to tread upon the authority of parents... They see this as an opportunity to create a precedent for the entire country, to mow over the parents."

Parker added, "We’re asking essentially to be notified, we’re asking ’If you’re going to present your indoctrination session to little children as young as four years old, you need to notify the parents.’"

As for the judge’s recommendation that other options existed for parents who would not accept the inclusion of diversity education in the curriculum of public schools, said Parker, "That’s court-ordered segregation."

According to the World Net Daily article, the text of the appeal brief reads, in part, "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."

Continued the brief, "It is the school administration that seeks to restrict the flow of information to parents when knowingly inculcating beliefs antithetical to their Faith."

The brief goes on, "The injunctive relief requested seeks to remove this dictated restriction and restore primacy to the parental role of overseeing their children’s moral education."