Mass. Dad's Parental Rights Fight Polarizes Lexington

[Amelia]

Mass. Dad's Parental Rights Fight Polarizes Lexington

Polarized, Pro-Family and Pro-Homosexual Crowds Clash Over Court Case

By Jim Brown

August 5, 2005

(AgapePress) - A trial date has been set in the case of a Massachusetts parent who spent the night in jail after protesting the promotion of homosexuality in his son's kindergarten class. In September he is scheduled to appear before a jury to dispute a charge of criminal trespassing.

David Parker and his wife Tonia had asked for parental notification and the ability to "opt-out" when transgender and same-sex issues are broached to their son by authority figures at Estabrook School in Lexington. But in late April, when Parker vowed not to leave Estabrook's premises until his request was granted, school officials had him arrested for trespassing.

In addition to the criminal charge he is now facing, the concerned father is also fighting a decision by the state and the town of Lexington to bar him from all school property. As a result of the prohibition, he cannot set foot on school grounds anywhere in town without getting prior written permission from the superintendent of schools or a designee. This excludes him from school committee meetings, certain voting places, parent-teacher meetings -- not to mention picking his son up at school or participating in any of his son's school events.

"If this ever had a function, it certainly doesn't have a function now," Parker says. "And really, it's going to appear more and more that the Lexington administration are just being bullies in this and really hurtful." And maintaining the ban is entirely "at their discretion," he says. "This can be lifted at any time. This is not part of the arrest."

The Massachusetts father feels the school officials in Lexington have not been very tolerant or inclusive of his family. "They have convinced themselves with their own propaganda, in a way, that a safe school -- a safe and welcoming school -- equates with exposing young children to these concepts, to these alternative lifestyles at the youngest age they can," he says.

But Parker does not see it that way at all. "In fact," he adds, "one has to question why parental notification would cause an unsafe school." It is a question that has been echoed by his supporters, including members of the pro-family group Article 8 Alliance, and the many concerned community members who showed up in force to demonstrate solidarity with Parker during his August 2 court appearance.

Article 8 Alliance director Brian Camenker notes that even though homosexual activists in Lexington have been waging a campaign to discredit him, Parker has garnered support and sympathy across Massachusetts. Even Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has expressed support for the beleaguered parent. In a televised statement, Romney pointed out that schools under the state's parental-notification law are required to inform parents of "matters relating to human sexuality that may be taught in the classroom and to allow that child to be out of the classroom for that period of the education."

Parker's jury trial is set for September 21, and he says his fight for parental rights will go on as long as it has to. The Christian dad has pleaded not guilty to the trespassing charge and maintains that he has done nothing criminal. In the interests of discovery, his attorneys plan to subpoena all the fax communication, phone and police records the state would not turn over at last Tuesday's pre-trial conference.

[Neil D]

If the Dad and wife feel this strongly about homosexual issues, why don't they send thier child to a private school?

Here is where smart adventist educators could take advantage of an issue and add to thier numbers in school.

[Barbara]

Not everyone can afford to send their child to a private school.

[Neil D]

Here is where I disagree with you, Barbara...If this guy has money to spend on legal bills, then he has money for his child's education. And it will prolly be less expensive and less contentious and less stressful to all concerned.

[Bravus]

It's actually an issue that will have to be thrashed out at some point, though.

There already exists the proviso that parents have to be informed, and have the right to withdraw the kid from class, if there's any discussion of human sexuality. That usually covers things like sex ed classes, and is more about the 'mechanics' of sex. If the school failed to provide that information and that right to this father, then I think he has a case.

On the other hand, that right/provision doesn't currently extend to things like tolerance education. If someone in class says "we shouldn't be prejudiced against people on grounds like race, gender and social class", that's relatively uncontroversial, and would be considered part of normal teaching activity. To add "sexual orientation" to that list seems uncontroversial to me: even if we disagree with someone's orientation, we shouldn't show prejudice toward them. But as I understand it that's the issue being addressed in this situation, and schools do need some guidance.

[Barbara]

Where does it say that this guy has money to spend on legal bills?