Posted by
Temlakos on Saturday, February 24, 2007 1:02:27 PM
Yes, that is exactly what the judge said. Read the story
here, the background
here, and excerpts from the judge's ruling
here.
I quote:
In essence, under the Constitution public schools are entitled
to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of
preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our
democracy. Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is
increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in
sexual orientation. Our nation's history includes a fundamental
commitment to promoting mutual respect among citizens in our
diverse nation that is manifest in the First Amendment's
prohibitions on establishing an official religion and restricting
the free exercise of religious beliefs on which plaintiffs base
some of their federal claims. Our history also includes instances
of individual and official discrimination against gays and
lesbians, among others. It is reasonable for public educators to
teach elementary school students about individuals with different
sexual orientations and about various forms of families, including
those with same-sex parents, in an effort to eradicate the effects
of past discrimination, to reduce the risk of future discrimination
and, in the process, to reaffirm our nation's constitutional
commitment to promoting mutual respect among members of our diverse
society. In addition, it is reasonable for those educators to find
that teaching young children to understand and respect differences
in sexual orientation will contribute to an academic environment in
which students who are gay, lesbian, or the children of same-sex
parents will be comfortable and, therefore, better able to learn.
So quoth the judge.
Now the judge said something else of which all the legal eagles, and even the worthies at WorldNetDaily, missed the significance, namely that a Christian's options are to:
- Send your kids to private school.
- Educate them at home.
- Elect a majority of school-board members who agree with you.
Here is the exact quote:
Parents do have a fundamental right to raise their children.
They are not required to abandon that responsibility to the state.
The Parkers and Wirthlins may send their children to a private
school that does not seek to foster understandings of homosexuality
or same-sex marriage that conflict with their religious beliefs.
They may also educate their children at home. In addition, the
plaintiffs may attempt to persuade others to join them in electing
a Lexington School Committee that will implement a curriculum that
is more compatible with their beliefs. However, the Parkers and
Wirthlins have chosen to send their children to the Lexington
public schools with its current curriculum. The Constitution does
not permit them to prescribe what those children will be taught.
The plaintiffs' lawyers find that odious. But I say that if the judge actually said that, then that must mean that private school and home school are still legal, and
furthermore, that the government
may not interfere with either of these institutions.
So my advice to the plaintiffs is to do exactly what the judge says: pull their children out of school and educate them at home. And if the state interferes with that, point to the judge's ruling.
And to my fellow Christians who object to the last two sentences, I cite I Samuel 8:10-24. As a latter-day Samuel, I warn you: if you send your kids to the king's school, then the king, not you, gets to decide what he shall teach your children. It's that simple.
I do find the above paragraphs contradictory, in this wise: if a public school is positively obliged to push a political agenda (of whatever type), then a private school would have that same duty. But the judge did not say that. He seems to be saying that a public school is not a public school if it does not push such agendae, but a private school need not push it. Fine. If a liberal judge wants to commit such a stupid, careless fumble, then pick it up and dash to the endzone as fast as your legs can carry you.