Appeals Judge issues outrageous ruling embracing homosexual ‘tolerance’ lessons, ignoring Constitutional religious guarantees; links ‘same-sex marriage’ to homosexual instruction

 Judge Sandra Lynch

Folks, it is astonishing how far the “gay agenda” (which some homosexual activists say doesn’t exist!) has come in the last 30 years. From defending homosexual bars to opposing parents who merely want to be informed about pro-homosexuality lessons in their young child’s class, the agenda moves on.  Massachusetts and California are the states to watch to see where the homosexual youth- and school agenda is headed. 

We recommend carefully studying the MassResistance website, and other sites like Linda Harvey’s TruthatSchool.org to get engaged on this issue. 

____________________________ 

The following is MassResistance.org’s report on Judge Lynch’s decision, which the Parkers and Wirthlins are appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court:  

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of David Parker Case

Judge issues outrageous ruling embracing homosexual “tolerance” lessons; uses notorious “1999 Curriculum Frameworks” in argument; Parker’s lawyers already preparing to appeal case to US Supreme Court

Federal Appeals Judge Sandra L. Lynch, a Clinton appointee, wrote the opinion 
 
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS (JAN. 31, 2008) www.massresistance.org — A three-judge federal appeals panel issued a bizarre and horrific ruling today denying the recent appeal  by David Parker, his wife Tonia, and Rob and Robin Wirthlin in their federal Civil Rights case against the Lexington school system. The ruling, written Judge Sandra L. Lynch, upholds the dismissal of the case by Federal Judge Mark Wolf, agrees with his reasoning (with some minor exceptions) and even goes a bit further.

BACKGROUND RESOURCES:

• Full text of ruling by First Circuit Court of Appeals (44 pages, Adobe Acrobat format)
• MassResistance’s comprehensive report on the Parker case;
• MassResistance article: “David Parker lawsuit having chilling effect on schools’ homosexual programs”;.
• Reaction by New England’s leading homosexual activist group GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) to Judge Lynch’s decision;
• Click HERE for MassResistance’s article about Judge Wolf’s ruling, which Lynch upheld

Strange legal reasoning
Judge Lynch shows little interest in the major point made by Parker attorney Rob Sinsheimer that the basic Constitutional protections of religious belief are being trampled on by the school. Instead, she attempts to show how Massachusetts law makes it necessary. She digs pretty deep to do that. In her ruling references 1993 Massachusetts Education Reform Act as mandating that standards “be designed to inculcate respect for the cultural, ethnic and racial diversity of the commonwealth.” 

Lynch then uses the extremely controversial Massachusetts 1999 Comprehensive Health Curriculum Framework to justify homosexual-oriented “tolerance” lessons in the lower grades. She quotes from its “measurable goals” in the lower grades, such as “define sexual orientation using the correct terminology.”  But Lynch completely ignores the fact that that document was clearly intended as a non-mandatory, informal set of guidelines.  That is why Planned Parenthood has filed bill H597 this year to make that document a legal guideline, not informal. (Even the resources listed in the document are from the radical fringe.)

Lynch also presents an interesting analysis of the state Parental Notification Law (Ch. 71, Sec. 32A) which succinctly explains that it is so watered down — and is particularly compromised by the Department of Education’s “advisory rulings” — that it is essentially useless in this situation.

Lynch then observes that the 2003 Goodridge decision held “that the state constitution mandates the recognition of same-sex marriage” and therefore, she implies, the schools must recognize it also.

Most of the rest of Lynch’s reasoning consists of a merry-go-round of excerpts from various “case law” decisions going back several years. That is always suspicious, as we’ve seen throughout this case, because one can cherry-pick language from past decisions (often out of context) almost forever.

Click HERE for the full article on Judge Lynch’s ruling by MassResistance

 Cal Lutheran’s gym: the high school was sued for expelling two alleged lesbians. Their attorney argues that the Christian school should be treated like a business, and adhere to the state’s homosexual “nondiscrimination” laws.  

Note below how the alleged lesbians’ attorney calls the Lutheran school a “business” that must adhere to California’s pro-homosexual nondiscrimination laws. It is foolhardy to argue that such laws do not war against religious freedom — the litigious evidence is all around us. So it now becomes a battle over priorities: many “gay” activists believe their homosexuality-based “rights” — a trendy legal concept dating back a few decades, based on supposedly innate and unchangeable “orientation” — take precedence even over religious schools’ faith creeds. However, religious freedom dates back to the founding of this nation. Certainly, preserving America’s “first freedom” must take priority (the lesbians are free to form their own school if they wish).

Also, consider how a federal ENDA law (Employment Nondiscrimination Act) would open schools in states without “sexual orientation” laws to similar lawsuits in federal courts. — Peter LaBarbera 

WorldNetDaily.com, which is to be commended for its vigilance in covering these matters, reports (emphasis added):

Lesbian suit against Christian school tossed
‘No triable issues’: Academy’s right to expel 2 girls in ‘relationship’ confirmed

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com, Jan. 25, 2008

A California judge has ruled that Christian schools can set standards for behavior for their students, and impose penalties if they are not met.

The decision comes from Riverside County Superior Court Judge Gloria Trask, who found ‘no triable issues’ on claims that a Christian school discriminated against two girls because of their perceived sexual orientation, according to a report in the North County Times.

Trask recently dismissed the claims made against California Lutheran High School in Wildomar by the two girls and their parents.

The case developed in 2005 when the girls, members of the junior class, were expelled after school officials noticed behavior by the two that may have indicated a lesbian relationship.

 ACLU’s homosexual Executive Director, Anthony Romero. Read the ACLU’s outrageous, pro-bathroom-sex legal brief here: http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/craig_v_minnesota_acluamicus.pdf.
  
By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, could any of us on the Right make up something this nutty, this extreme? The ACLU is defending DEVIANT SEX IN PUBLIC BATHROOMS as a “privacy right.” This was too much even for lefty MSNBC “Countdown” host Keith Olbermann, who makes a living slamming conservatives. Here’s a paragraph from their amicus brief in the Larry Craig case (emphasis added):

Sex is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. … Thus, the government may make sex a crime only where it has a constitutionally sufficient justification for doing so. … [cites the Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision striking down Texas’ sodomy law].  The government does not have a constitutionally sufficient justification for making private sex a crime. … It follows that an invitation to have private sex is constitutionally protected and may not be made a crime. … This is so even where the proposition occurs in a public place, whether in a bar or in a restroom.

Activists courts are the tool that the Left has used to advance what pro-family attorney Jan LaRue calls America’s “unholy trinity”: abortion-on-demand, pornography, and homosexuality.  If killing one’s unborn child (with his or her own, separate DNA) can be justified as a “privacy” right; if owning or buying even child pornography can be defended as a First Amendment “right,” then hey, why not homosexual perversion in bathroom stalls?
  
We know enough about the ACLU to assert that even if a homosexual activist (Anthony Romero) were not running the organization, it would have joined this case.  “Sexual freedom” is the Libertine Left’s new clarion call to legalize and expand the “rights” of even the most outlandish perversions: sadomasochistic house parties; the hetero “swingers community”; the “right” of sex businesses to set up shop in your neighborhood; “polyamory” (multiple-partner “marriage,” anyone?); and, yes, even public bathroom sex.

Can you picture the liberal protesters chanting: “FREE LARRY CRAIG”!! “FREE LARRY CRAIG”!!

Wackiness aside, if America’s modern history has taught us anything, it is to take the Left’s legal gambits and cultural aggression seriously.  Using the courts, the ACLU lawyers and their comrades in the Homosexual, Radical Feminist (Abortion) and Porn Lobbies are destroying America, in the name of freedom.

Think about that later this year when you vote for our next U.S. President, who will pick the nation’s highest-level judges. God help us.  

P.S. Click HERE for a great piece on the ACLU’s folly by Brenda Zurita of CWA’s Beverly LaHaye Institute.

And the Punch Line Is …

 Will the ACLU’s bathroom-sex agenda stall?

By Brenda Zurita

Reprinted with permission from CWA’s Beverly LaHaye Institute, Jan. 16, 2008

Due to the current Hollywood writer’s strike, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has jumped in to fill the gap existing in late-night monologues and sit-coms. If only that were true there might be a joke in there somewhere.

Alas, the title refers to a brief filed by the ACLU in the Larry Craig case in Minnesota. Yes, the senator of the “wide stance” fame has a new defense argument, courtesy of the ACLU.

The Associated Press reported that the ACLU is arguing there is an expectation of privacy when people have sex in public bathrooms.

Hmmm, when I enter a public bathroom I have the expectation of toilet paper being in the stall, not a sex encounter. And privacy in a public bathroom is at a minimum. The gap around the door frame and the open space between the dividers and the floor and ceiling provide only a modicum of coverage. Not exactly a rendezvous spot for randy patrons expecting privacy. It does however make an excellent place for exhibitionists to meet.

Imagine taking your child to a public restroom and hearing two people engaging in a sex act six inches away. Again, due to the construction of the average public restroom stall, there is little that is private. Having an expectation of privacy there is laughable. And what about the expectation of people using the restroom for what is was intended and not being subjected to sex acts?

Charlene Cothran/David Parker AFTAH BANQUET VIDEO Is Finally Available!

Excellent teaching tool for young people who are being brainwashed to accept homosexuality!
 
The AFTAH Banquet Videos are finally available and will be shipped ASAP!  To order a complete DVD (or CD) set of both ex-lesbian Charlene Cothran’s and parental rights hero David Parker’s outstanding talks, make an online donation of at least $25 postpaid to Americans For Truth (http://americansfortruth.com/donate/). Please use the online form at https://americansfortruth.nozonenet.com/donate/cc.php to specify your order.  You can substitute an audio CD but you must request this specifically. To order by regular mail, send your check or money order specifying “2007 Banquet DVD” (or CD) to: Americans For Truth, P.O. Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.

Bulk Orders available: 2 for $40; 3 for $55; 4 for $70; add $10 for each additional DVD or contact us at americansfortruth@comcast.net (or 630-717-7631) for large bulk order pricing.

Repent America issued the following release November 15th:  

PENNSYLVANIA’S COMMONWEALTH COURT
STRIKES DOWN “HATE CRIMES” LAW EXPANSION

PHILADELPHIA – The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in a 4-1 decision today struck down amendments to the state’s “hate crimes” law, declaring that the amendments enacted in 2002 were “unconstitutional and therefore null and void.” The ruling was a victory for Repent America (RA), a Christian evangelistic organization, several of whose members challenged amendments.

“Praise the Lord!” stated RA director Michael Marcavage upon hearing the decision. “This is a victory for constitutional government, so let us be thankful,” he concluded.

The legal challenge to the law, formally known as the Ethnic Intimidation Law, stemmed from the arrests of eleven Christians with RA, who became known as the Philadelphia 11, after they were jailed and charged under the amendments to the law while ministering the Gospel in 2004 at a publicly-funded homosexual event known as “OutFest”. The charges were all later dropped and/or dismissed as being without merit.

Seven defendants in the Philadelphia criminal cases subsequently filed an action in the Commonwealth Court challenging the process by which the amendments to the Ethnic Intimidation statute had been enacted. In particular, the petitioners asserted that the passage of the bill – which originally criminalized agricultural crop destruction but through amendment became the first statute in Pennsylvania history to recognize “sexual orientation” as a protected class – violated various sections of Article III of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Section 1 of Article III prohibits the changing of a bill in the course of its passage through the legislature such that its original purpose is changed. Section 3 of Article III requires that the subject matter of a bill be clearly expressed in its title.

The Court, finding sufficient basis to rule in the petitioners’ favor due to an alteration of purpose of the bill as expressed in its original text, declined to rule on the challenge brought under Article III, section 3. The amendments struck down today would have increased the penalties for various crimes committed with a malicious motivation based upon “actual or perceived . . . ancestry, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity.”

“The legislative process that led to the enactment of these amendments clearly violated Article III of the Pennsylvania Constitution,” stated Aaron Martin, attorney for the Repent America defendants. “The Court rightly found that there was no logical or legal connection between trampling down a hay field and assaulting someone on the basis of sexual orientation,” he concluded.

The Court’s majority opinion was authored by President Judge Emeritus James Gardner Collins, who was joined by Judges Doris A. Smth-Ribner, Dan Pellegrini and Robert Simpson. President Judge Bonnie B. Leadbetter dissented without opinion. The full text of the Court’s opinion can be found by clicking HERE.

‘Civil Unions’ is hardly an acceptable compromise 

By Peter LaBarbera 

The item at bottom was sent out Nov. 18 as a part of Family Research Council President Tony Perkins’ “Washington Update.” We agree with the sentiments, with a caveat regarding this line: “…force the state back into a bitter debate that many believed was solved by the legislature earlier this year.” This apparently refers to  the New Jersey legislature’s 2006 vote for homosexual “civil unions,” which was signed into law by Gov. John Corzine (D) last December and went into effect in February.

We are sure that by using the word “solved” Mr. Perkins does not mean to condone “civil unions” — which is merely “same-sex marriage” by another name. However, it is unfortunately the case that a significant minority of “conservatives,” including pro-life and pro-family advocates, now see “civil unions” as a way out of the homosexual “marriage” mess.

The gap between traditional marriage (i.e., normalcy) and “civil unions” is far wider than that between “civil unions” and “same-sex marriage” — a strategic reality of which the more savvy homosexual activists are well aware (even as the Gay Whining Machine complains about a lack of marital “equality”).

In fact, New Jersey’s “civil unions” law recognizes out-of-state “gay marriages.” It “seeks to give gay couples the same rights in the state as married couples,” reports the USA Today. How much clearer can you get than that on the effect of this “compromise”?

CWA Release, November 8, 2007

[Call your senators at 202-224-3121 or go to www.congress.org; call President Bush and urge him to veto ENDA if it passes at 202-456-1414 or 202-456-1111, or www.whitehouse.gov/contact.]

Washington, D.C. — On Wednesday, lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives passed — largely along party lines —  H.R. 3685, the so-called Employment Non-discrimination Act (ENDA), by a vote of 235–184. [Click HERE for the Roll Call and HERE to see which Congressmen voted against their party’s majority.] 

Matt Barber, CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural Issues, said, “By passing this Orwellian piece of legislation, the Democrat-controlled House has displayed exceptional arrogance.  Congress apparently believes it has carte blanche authority to nullify any constitutional provision which it finds bothersome.  In this case, they’ve drawn a black line through the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.”  

ENDA contains an extremely weak religious exemption which might partially protect some religious organizations but would leave many others — such as Bible bookstores and many Christian schools — entirely unprotected.  It would additionally crush individual business owners’ guaranteed First Amendment rights.