Bible

[excel]

Court Rules for Pro-Gay Curriculum


The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit from Massachusetts parents seeking to prevent the discussion of homosexual families in their children's elementary school classrooms.

Parents in the Lexington, Massachusetts, school district had argued that reading pro-gay books like "King and King" and "Who's in a Family?" to kindergartners, first- and second-graders was an attempt to indoctrinate their children. But the court ruled that "public schools are not obliged to shield individual students from ideas which potentially are religiously offensive." It also said that a teacher reading a few books, "even if to a young and impressionable child, does not constitute 'indoctrination.'"

In 2006, U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf dismissed the parents' civil rights lawsuit, saying there is an obligation for public schools to teach young children about homosexuality. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has now affirmed Judge Wolf's decision. "Public schools," Judge Sandra L. Lynch wrote in her opinion, "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 them."

Candi Cushman, education analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said parents do have choices if they discover homosexuality being promoted in their children's schools. "Parents and students have the power to challenge the school to give equal access to books and speakers who can give countering opinions on why embracing homosexuality is not the best choice for kids, as well as research-based explanations of how man-woman marriage strengthens society," she said. "In light of the court's comments that public schools are not obliged to shield students from controversial ideas, the parents would have good arguing grounds."

David and Tonia Parker, one of two couples who generated the lawsuit on behalf of their five-year-old son, are prepared to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, noted their attorney Jeffrey Denner.