David Parker ruling reveals something very interesting . . .
When not working to finish my book, I have been trolling through various blogs and web pages to gather information about the David Parker case.
Yesterday, a federal judge threw out Parker's lawsuit against his son's elementary school for "daring" to mention same-sex households.
Of course all of the pro-Parker sites have been screaming bloody murder and calling the ruling a travesty. They have also been distorting the case. Check out two various headlines:
MASS. FORCE FEEDING of HOMO AGENDA
Judge orders 'gay' agenda taught to Christian children
But that's not the only questionable thing I found today. I looked on the webpage of Mass Resistance, the group behind Parker's lawsuit and various other anti-gay industry endeavors in Massachusetts. Naturally, the group isn't exactly happy over the ruling. It even gives an "analysis" of the ruling. By "analysis," the group means ways to whine about how evil the ruling is.
I found this interesting comment on the page. It may not mean anything, but you be the judge:
(Federal Judge Mark) Wolf also makes the point that must NOT be allowed to opt out! He echoes the homosexual movement's propaganda, that allowing religious freedom would send a bad "message" to children whose parents engage in homosexual behavior, so therefore schools must teach homosexuality in a positive light to EVERY student:
An exodus from class when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students. Cf. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 494 (1954).2 It might also undermine the defendants' efforts to educate the remaining other students to understand and respect differences in sexual orientation. [p. 7]
Wolf claims that the flawed and badly argued Brown decision is now the "law" of the United States. Did Congress pass this? No, it didn't. It's merely a ruling in a case. This ruling is full of use of "case law" from obscure decisions, as if it were real law:
Brown not only remains the law of the First Circuit, it has also been found to be persuasive in every other circuit that has discussed it in defining the scope of a parent's right to raise his or her children. [p. 18]
Is it just me or did this anti-gay industry group just claim that the Supreme Court decision in the case of Brown vs. the Board of Education (the case that led to the desegregation of American public schools) is "flawed" and "badly argued?"
Just food for thought.