Court Rules Schools Can Teach Homosexuality Without Parents Consent or Choice to Opt Out

Judge says good citizens must accept homosexuality in the name of “diversity”

By Meg Jalsevac
BOSTON, February 26, 2007 ( – Last Friday, February 23, Federal District Judge Mark L. Wolf dismissed David Parker’s civil rights lawsuit against the Lexington, MA school board.  Along with other parents from the same school, Parker filed the lawsuit last April after they were was notified by the local school board that the school was not required to provide parental notification before introducing and teaching homosexual or transgender material in elementary school classrooms.[…]

[…] Wolf did not leave parents the option to exercise their religious freedom and remove their child from class on the days when morally objectionable material would be covered saying that this could offend other children.  He said, “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.”
Wolf justified his decision saying that requiring public school children to be presented with “instruction concerning different types of families” was essentially necessary to prepare them to “respect differences in their personal interactions with others and in their future participation in the political process.”

Source: Court Rules Schools Can Teach Homosexuality Without Parents Consent or Choice to Opt Out

The courts in the The Peoples’ Republic of the United States have in my estimation taken the final step in their move for total control of the populace. By not allowing parents to opt out of an objectionable class what freedom or recourse is left? Can they sue the court? I don’t think so. Can they appeal? Of course but then the question arises to what. Another court determined to deny all freedom accept that which the court mandates. This Judge in making his ruling did say:

[…]In his decision, Wolf acknowledged that parents are the primary educators of their children.  However, he maintained that, should parents choose to send their child to public school, “The Constitution does not permit them to prescribe what those children will be taught.”  Instead, Wolf offered three options for parents who disapproved of the material being taught to their children in public schools – they can remove their child from the public system and instead choose a private school, they can educate their child at home or they can work to elect a school board that will uphold their beliefs.[…]

This court has said the parents have no rights regarding the brain-washing of their children on a subject that is undergoing national debate.  It is just a matter of time until the next court will not allow even the option of home schooling, for example. The German courts have removed that option and the children from a family over this very same issue.

The Busekros family merely wanted to tutor their daughter at home. They did and the child was removed by the state and now is in foster care. The Busekros’ are in danger now of losing their other children because they have the audacity to confront the state. What other conclusion can be drawn from statements from courts like, “…the interests of the state in educating children (take) precedence over the views of the parent….

[…]An appeal to the European Court of Human Rights failed last year when the court ruled Germany’s enforcement of the law did not violate the rights of parents to educate their own children, saying the interests of the state in educating children took precedence over the views of the parents.{…]

Is there any question the philosophy of the American Judicial system is on the road to pure Marxist management of the United States?

Freedom to do what you are told is not freedom and I don’t believe it will be much longer until the United States has laws – or should I say Judicially imposed regulations – like the Chinese have.

The Chinese obey:

[…]The recipient of a reeducation through labor sentence has no right to a hearing, no right to counsel, and no right to any kind of judicial determination of his case. Decisions are often hastily made. Liu Xiaobo, renowned literary critic and former professor of Chinese literature who helped negotiate the safe departure of students from Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989, was seized at his home on October 7, 1996 and administratively sentenced to a three-year reeducation term the following day. As mentioned, those administratively sentenced are technically not criminals and neither they nor their children may be discriminated against when it comes to employment or school enrollment.[…]

[…]Article 10 of a 1982 government document called Trial Implementation Methods lists the “categories of persons” to be “taken in for reeducation through labor.” Several of the categories and terms are vague. All the offenses described can be judicially prosecuted if sufficiently serious, but no specific distinction between those acts deemed minor and those which can be “pursued for criminal responsibility” has ever been made. The first category listed refers to “counterrevolutionary elements” and those who are against the communist party and socialism. Often such dissidents are held on trumped-up charges such as “hooliganism” or “disturbing the social order.” Other categories include “those who associate with groups which have committed murder, robbery, rape, arson, etc.”; migrants, prostitutes, and those who steal or cheat but who refuse to reform; gang members who “disturb the public order”; those who refuse to work or hinder production; and those who instigate others to commit crimes. Those not eligible for reeducation include mental patients, the blind, the deaf and dumb, the retarded, the severely ill, those who cannot take part in labor, and pregnant women or those whose children are not yet one year old and are being breast fed. Bishop Zeng Jingmu, the seventy-eight-year-old Catholic Bishop of Yujiang diocese, Jiangxi province, was sentenced to a three-year “reeducation through labor” term on March 18, 1996 for “violating administrative norms,” and for “irresponsibly organizing illegal meetings,” that is religious assemblies and masses not sanctioned by the government’s official Chinese Catholic Church. Too old to work like other prisoners, he was held in a facility housing detainees awaiting sentencing until his release in May 1998.[…]

Soon we will probably have labor camps here so that the “conterrevolutionary elements” IE: parents who are concerned with the education of their children, can be reeducated into the robots the Marxist courts in the PRUSA (People’s Republic of the U.S.) demand we become.