Will the David Parker lie ever die?

Yes, I know what happened today.

The Senate killed hate crimes legislation. I don't like it but I am not that angry over it.

Recently I bought a book giving the pictorial history of the African-American civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. And reading it gave me perspective.

I figure if people like John Lewis, Fannie Lou Hamer, Viola Luizzo, C.T. Vivian, etc. can withstand beatings and the like for their basic rights then lgbts can withstand a little legislative setback without going all to pieces.

We moved this legislation farther than it has ever been before. So let's just take a small breath and get ready to move it even farther to completion.

The anti-gay industry has hindered us just a little bit but they can't stop us. Time and progress is on our side.

Now onto other issues . . .

I see that our friend Peter is basking in all of the attention his appearance on Fox News last night gave him. Never mind the fact that Alan Colmes made him look like a nut (yeah THAT Alan Colmes - I am as shocked as you). It is obvious that Peter defines the word "narcissist."

But I think it reveals a little bit of desperation on his part. Wasn't Folsom Street Fair held in September? Why is he still ruminating on it now in December.

Could it be that his recent requests for donations need a jolt in the arm?

Mmmmmm Could be.

Seriously though, I read something today that is the theme of this post.

Sometimes, the press can act as an unofficial ally of the anti-gay industry. This happens when a reporter is too lazy to do any actual reporting and prints the soundbites of the anti-gay industry without the courtesy of an investigation.

Case in point is this November 26 piece regarding David Parker and King and King.

I talked about Parker extensively in my book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, and on this blog. He is that parent in Massachusetts who was arrested for not leaving his child's school when asked to. Parker claimed that he did this because the school would not give him assurances that his child wouldn't be "exposed" to talks of homosexuality.

He subsequently sued the school, joined by another set of parents who objected to the fairy tale King and King (in which a prince falls in love with the brother of his intended bride) being read to their child (who was in the second grade.)

The lawsuit was dismissed earlier this year. However, Parker and company continues to pursue the situation.

Anyway, Cybercast News Service interviewed Parker for an article about the Presidential candidates' views of King and King. So I am going to take what was said and play that lovely game of truth vs. lie that I played earlier this week:

Distortion: The article said: Parker was jailed in 2005 after he insisted Lexington school officials follow Massachusetts' parental notification law and assure him they would not read such books (like King and King) to his then-kindergartner without prior notice.

Truth: Parker's individual situation had nothing to do with King and King. His son brought home what was called a "diversity bookbag." In the bookbag was a book that had included one same sex family. Parker complained about this. He received assurances that "learning about homosexuality" was not a part of his child's curriculum. However, he was told that some students attending his child's school lived in same sex households and mentioning these households did not violate the Massachusetts parental notification law. The school had checked and was told that the notification law dealt with matters of sex education, and not necessarily differing families.

Distortion: Parker said the following in the article - "We went into a meeting with the administration, they said they were not going to tell us, and I basically made the statement, 'I'm prepared to sit here all night until I get some form of accommodation for our little boy.' Then they called the Lexington police, who put me in handcuffs, and they took me to the Lexington jail. I opted out of paying bail, so they put me in jail over night."

Truth: According to a press release jointly issued by the interim superintendent of schools and area chief of police, Parker was informed of these things during the meeting. The press release also said that Parker was told that he could appeal this decision. Parker decided to take another form of action, i.e. not leaving until he was arrested.

I don't think any malice was intended on the part of the journalist who wrote this article. But his laziness still damages truth.