The following is an article that Neil Tassel, one of my attorneys from the Law Firm Denner, O'Malley in Boston, has submitted to The Lexington Minuteman local newspaper for six straight weeks. The editor, Susan Bushey, has made excuses every week on why the article could not be included. Her last excuse was, "I couldn't open the document". The excuse before that was, "we don't include articles from the outside". She was informed that Neil Tassel is a resident of Lexington. What about telling the truth on your decision of editor's discretion?---"We don't want to tell David Parker's side of the story and make him seem like a loving and compassionate father and human being. "
I wonder why?
After my arrest on April 27th, dozens of scathing articles have appeared in an attempted character assassination which included many lies and much misinformation. I visited the Lexington Minuteman office several times-- Susan Bushey, the editor, refused to talk to me even for 5 minutes. This is our fair, balanced, and non-biased reporting in Lexington. Welcome to our town.
----------------------------------------------------------------
June 6, 2005
Dear Minuteman:
As counsel for David Parker, I wish to clarify numerous inaccuracies which have plagued your paper in recent weeks concerning my client through many letters to the editor. While my nature is to believe that most of these inaccuracies are simply erroneous assumptions, I believe that many are intentional misrepresentations intended to further the political agendas of their proponents.
First of all, Mr. Parker does not hate homosexuals or their families. In fact he is an exceptionally kind hearted man, who is anguished that his arrest has caused any pain to this community through the protests by the Westboro Baptist Church. Mr. Parker urged the WBC by phone and in writing to not bring their unwanted views to Lexington and add to the divisiveness of his arrest. More significantly, he is troubled that parents are telling their children that he hates them, or their families. The complexity of Mr. Parker’s situation is generally beyond the capacity of small children, and as a consequence certain parents seem to be boiling it down to a simple yet erroneous message which is harmful to young children. He wishes this terrible practice would stop. Mr. Parker and his family are happy to belong to a diverse community, and to have his children attend school with all manner of children and families. The position that he wants to separate his children from those raised by gay headed households is simply not true. However, the Parkers are finding it alarming that the definition of diversity does apparently not include people with views such as theirs, or that this town is “no place for hate”, provided that you do not disagree with the norms endorsed by segments of the populace.
Second, Mr. Parker is not against a book. This commonly heard misconception is both rampant and untrue. The book sent home with their son is one which simply that spurred the Parkers into action. To label the Parkers as “book haters” is to try to portray them as book burning extremists which is being done for apparent political gain. The fact is that Mr. Parker, a highly intelligent individual with a PhD, takes specific exception to a belief. That belief, that a gay couple with children is a normal family structure which is beneficial to the ultimate goal of any family—the well-being of the children being reared, is of great importance and the subject of great debate well beyond the scope of this letter. To reduce this significant matter into a simple fear of a kindergarten book is to trivialize, perhaps intentionally, the paramount importance of Mr. Parker’s concerns.
Third, it is common for his opponents to try to obfuscate Mr. Parker’s narrow request to the schools. People argue that if allowed, Mr. Parker’s request would mean such odious things as children being prevented from drawing pictures of their family, discussing their weekends, or having discussion among themselves about homosexuality. All are untrue. The Parkers’ proposal was simple: notify them in advance if there is a planned discussion about homosexuality, and, if an adult becomes involved in a discussion spontaneously begun by a child, then remove their child from the discussion. Simple really. Parker’s concern is that impressionable children will hear for the first time from a respected adult that a homosexual headed family is a normal family structure, and an equally “good” one at that. Regardless of whether one agrees with that premise, that is his belief. It is not borne in hate, but in a concern for his children and a desire to see them equipped to make decisions in a healthy manner.
Lastly, I have also become aware of one particularly paranoid and offensive notion: that Mr. Parker is a shill who brought his family to Lexington to stage this controversy. Without revealing more than necessary about this man’s private life, he was transferred from another state as a result of a corporate merger. I also note, as a result of this move, he left a large home on a private lot and moved to a more modest home on a busy street. Ironically, he came to Lexington filled with optimism for his children to be educated in the noted school system and was willing to sacrifice for that goal. Instead he has had sleepless nights filled with anxiety about his arrest and potential incarceration.
Mr. Parker has asked me to inform the community of certain personal feelings that he has. Mr. Parker’s love for people extends far beyond his own family. That is why he is so concerned about certain choices people make. He believes that disagreement in another's belief system is a freedom Americans still have. Yet many in this town believe that if you disagree with homosexuality, you automatically must be hateful, bigoted, and intolerant. In fact, Mr. Parker’s view of this issue resulted in part from a close personal friendship with a roommate who was a gay man. This man was his closest friend at the time. When Mr. Parker observed him becoming ill and noticed the yellowing in the whites of his eyes, he urged his friend to visit the doctor. He subsequently underwent a preventative series of gamma-globulin shots, so that he too, would not be overcome with hepatitis. The illness of his friend had a profound effect on Mr. Parker’s beliefs.
What the community must realize is that it is not requisite that one agrees with a person’s sexuality to love them. Mr. Parker believes that certain authorities insist that he agree that his children must be taught that gay relationships and transgender transformation are acceptable and normal. When he firmly, albeit patiently, objected and then finally demanded to be notified when and how his own children were to be exposed to these issues, he was arrested and hauled off to jail. The true test of any group's respect and tolerance of differences is how they treat those that disagree with them. The school administration, the school committee, and some citizens, have failed that test. But, Mr. Parker stresses, that they have also failed to bring hate into his heart, despite an earnest effort to characterize him as one brimming with hate. He has not brought hate to this town, but instead, feels that he brought to light the intolerance that already existed - just waiting for the opportunity to expose itself to someone audacious enough to publicly disagree with these individuals beliefs. He is glad to have brought these issues to light and to have added to the diversity of this town.
In sum, I suggest Mr. Parker is a man of great principles. Clearly not everyone agrees with his principles, but he does not desire to impose them on anyone. He only wishes to raise his children in a manner that he feels appropriate and healthy. So important was this goal to him that he was willing to face the full power of the Commonwealth, the power to take his liberty. How many of his antagonists can say that they were willing to do even a fraction for the sake of their children?
Sincerely,
Neil S. Tassel
