Parental Rights Gone Wrong: Interview with David Parker

Home School Legal Defense Association is a nonprofit advocacy organization established to defend and advance the constitutional right of parents to direct the education of their children and to protect family freedoms. Through annual memberships, HSLDA is tens of thousands of families united in service together, providing a strong voice when and where needed.

Vol. 84, Prg. 6-10
August 11-15, 2008

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When his 5-year-old came home from school with homosexual materials, Dr. David Parker knew he had to respond. But when he asked the school to provide parental notification prior to initiating programs marketing homosexuality to young children, they sent him to jail. Now he’s taking the fight for his parental rights—and yours—to the Supreme Court.

Program Listing:

Click on a program title to listen online and read a transcript

8/11 The David Parker Story, Part 1: Hey Kids, Being Gay is A-Okay!

8/12 The David Parker Story, Part 2: Tolerance…and Jail Time

8/13 The David Parker Story, Part 3: The King…and his King?

8/14 The David Parker Story, Part 4: An Ominous Precedent

8/15 The David Parker Story, Part 5: The Crux of the Case

Guest:

Dr. David Parker
Dr. David Parker is a Judeo-Christian father and parental rights advocate and litigant.

Since 2005, he has been defending his God-given parental rights and religious liberty to guide the moral upbringing of his two young sons in the Lexington Public School. Lexington Public Schools is aggressively pursuing young impressionable children to introduce, normalize, validate, and celebrate homosexuality, gay marriage, and transgenderism behind the backs of parents and against the will of the parents. In response, Dr Parker filed a lawsuit seeking the protection of his constitutional rights in 2005. His case is currently under appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dr. Parker is a medicinal chemist who has worked in the pharmaceutical industry since 1990. He earned a Chemistry/Biology/Physics B.S at University of Delaware, Organic Chemistry Ph.D. at Indiana University, and did his postdoctoral work at Columbia University under a National Institute of Health award Fellowship.

Dr. Parker currently resides in Lexington, Mass. with his wife, Tonia, and two sons.

Wallbuilders Live! Interview (Part Two)

Listen to David Barton, Rick Green, and guest David Parker, a parent who sued a Massachusetts school to defend his right as a parent to be the primary director of his childrens' moral education, discuss his legal battle.



http://www.wallbuilderslive.com/listen.asp?cs=high&mf=wma&fileName=WBLive02-28-08

Wallbuilders Live! Interview (Part One)

Listen to David Barton, Rick Green, and guest David Parker, a parent who sued a Massachusetts school to defend his right as a parent to be the primary director of his childrens' moral education, discuss his legal battle.



http://www.wallbuilderslive.com/listen.asp?cs=high&mf=wma&fileName=WBLive02-27-08

Power Politics - Video Interview (Part 2)

David Parker interviewed by Ari Taube



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8359550520519399695

Power Politics - Video Interview (Part 1)

David Parker interviewed by Ari Taube



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7149552199753943938

Radio Host Threatens Lexington Superintendent

Apr 7, 2008 9:24 am US/Eastern

Radio Host Threatens Lexington Superintendent (WBZ TV)

Reporting Paul Burton
LEXINGTON, Mass. (WBZ) ― An Internet radio talk show host based out of New Jersey has threatened the superintendent of schools in Lexington over the new diversity curriculum in town.

He is urging listeners and readers of his Web site to use force and violence against Paul Ash.

"I'm horrified of this particular Web site," Ash told WBZ. "Certainly I'm disturbed that there's threatening language in there."

The controversy stems from the new diversity curriculum the superintendent will introduce to his kindergarten through fifth grade students next year. The lessons deal with same sex marriages in the context of family.

"In our schools we have gay and lesbian families. This curriculum is not about sexuality at all," Ash said.

"For example, it's a picture book and you turn to a page and you see a family with a grandmother raising a child. You turn to a page you might see two mothers raising a child."

But its enough to anger the talk show host who wrote on his Web site: "I would laugh if concerned fathers donned ski masks and gloves, took a ride over to the this arrogant (expletive) house and knock the living (expletive) out of him."

"I'm disturbed by that. I'm disturbed for my family," Ash said.

"He has to expect that people are going to be extremely angry over what he's doing," said Lexington parent David Parker, who objected to the same-sex curriculum in the past.

Parker said he's not surprised by the threats.

"You can put it under any guise you want but little children don't need other adults asserting sexual proclivities to them and normalizing it and parents are in an outrage," he said.

"We can't be deterred by individuals that are attempting to intimidate teaching children to love one another and respect one another."

Ash says he's also received an angry e-mail from a parent about the diversity curriculum.

Lexington police say they are taking these threats seriously and are taking measures to protect Ash and his family.

BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56894

Dad challenging 'manipulation' of kids'
Their little minds should not be the battleground for culture wars'

Posted: February 20, 20082:53 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A Massachusetts father who was handcuffed and arrested after objecting to teachers and school managers indoctrinating his 5-year-old son in the homosexual lifestyle will be appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn his case because of the "national significance" of the precedent.
"[Unless the case is overturned,] it now would allow teachers in elementary schools to influence children into any views they wanted to, behind the backs of parents, to a captive audience, and against the will of the parents if need be," David Parker told WND.

He and his lawyers, of Denner Pellegrino LLP in Boston, recently confirmed they will be seeking permission to submit the dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court, following an appeals court decision that, as Parker described, allows the "indoctrination" of small children.

"The teachers do not have a constitutional right to do that," he told WND. "That, to me, is the crux of this."

He said the ruling from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals essentially concluded that it is no burden on parents' free exercise of religion to have their children taught ideas at a public school that violate the parents' religious teachings.

"They can just teach the children at home," Parker said the court found regarding parents.
"But that ignores the fact that the most basic free exercise is your teaching your children right from wrong in their formative years," he said. "That is completely being undermined by the rulings of these federal courts so far.

"Teachers are being postured to have a constitutional right to coercively indoctrinate little children [into whatever they choose to teach,]" he noted.

"It's not just exposure to an idea, to the [offensive] books, It's the teacher's manipulating the mind of children to embrace dangerous ideologies, because the teacher happens to believe it's a good ideology.

"It brings these battlegrounds to the psyches and minds of little children," Parker said. "Their little minds should not be the battleground for culture wars.

"Proper boundaries have to be established. This is absolutely of national significance. No parent wants to put their very little children in positions in which they're minds are being used as battlegrounds," he said.

"What the pro-homosexual camp has done is positioned so-called 'gay' rights' to completely trump parental rights and parental authority in public schools," he said.

He said such a plan eventually will cause those schools to "implode," because so many concerned parents will see they have no alternative but to remove their children from public schools.
That's an issue that California already is facing, as WND has reported. There, a coalition of organizations is encouraging parents, and providing resources for them to be able to remove their children from public schools. The coalition's goal is to take 600,000 children from California's public districts, because of a new state law there requiring indoctrination that not only is pro-homosexual, but also affirms bisexuality, transsexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.

"The human secularist religion of the [National Education Association,] buttressed by the power of the state, will now turn public schools into the next secular synagogues," Parker said. "[They say], 'We're just preparing the kids to be citizens.' But it's a religion. It is a devious and evil form of religion."

He said it is the responsibility and right of parents, not schools, to "keep the boundaries."
"That is how you raise children. If you wipe the boundaries away, that's the worst thing for children," he said.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Lexington, Mass., school district can teach children contrary ideas without violating their parents' rights to exercise religious beliefs.
"Public schools," wrote Judge Sandra L. Lynch, "are not obliged to shield individual students from ideas which potentially are religiously offensive, particularly when the school imposes no requirement that the student agree with or affirm those ideas, or even participate in discussions about them."

Lynch's reasoning was based on the Massachusetts Supreme Court's groundbreaking 2003 decision ruling "that the state constitution mandates the recognition of same-sex marriage."
As WND reported in 2006, U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf originally dismissed the civil rights lawsuit by David and Tonia Parker, concluding there is, in fact, an obligation for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.

The case, which has been chronicled extensively by the non-profit advocacy group MassResistance, poses great dangers, Parker told WND, because if homosexuality and bisexuality can be taught by public school teachers to children as young as age 5, there is virtually no topic, up to and including Nazism, that educational precedents would not allow to be taught to young children.

"There is a history of civil rights and First Amendment cases losing badly in the local and federal courts and then winning in the U.S. Supreme Court, including the famous Hurly South Boston Parade case (parade organizers vs. homosexual activists) in the 1990s which won 9-0 after losing 17 times in state and federal courts," Mass Resistance said.

The appellate ruling reflected the same attitude that the trial judge did, Parker said. The appeals court said that if the parents were "offended," they "may seek recourse to the normal political processes for change in the town and state."

The trial judge had suggested the parents could provide homeschool or another alternative as a solution.

The dispute began in the spring of 2005 when the Parkers then-5-year-old son brought home a book to be shared with his parents titled, "Who's in a Family?" The optional reading material, which came in a "Diversity Book Bag," depicted at least two households led by homosexual partners.

The Parkers filed suit against the Lexington school district in 2006 and later were joined by Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, whose second-grader's class was read a story during class time about two princes who become lovers.

Radio Interview - Deconstructing the Homosexual Agenda

On Feb. 4, 2008, David Parker was invited to appear on the Nightside with Dan Rea, an evening call-in talk show on WBZ (1030 AM) in Boston. WBZ is a powerful 50,000-watt station that regularly attracts listeners and callers as far away as Virginia.

David was originally scheduled to be interviewed by himself to talk about his federal Civil Rights lawsuit against the Town of Lexington and the recent First Circuit judgment to uphold the dismissal of that case. David is suing the town over teaching homosexuality in the elementary schools without parental notification or ability to opt-out.

The pro-homosexual group LexingtonCares.org – which was organized in Lexington to oppose (and harass) David Parker – heard the WBZ promotion for the interview during the day, According to the WBZ producer, people representing that group inundated the station with calls demanding that the station allow a representative from Lexington Cares to be there. So the station gave in.

Laura Tully, a member of the group and virulent anti-Parker activist in Lexington, appeared on the show to debate David. Most of the discussion centered around the homosexual programs in David’s son’s elementary school, particularly the introduction to young children of homosexual relationships as normal “families”.

The fireworks started up right away. David hit his stride early and never let up. He intelligently described his position and didn't allow the other side to frame the issue their own way.
Dan Rea, unlike many talk show hosts, is not a conservative. He’s somewhat of a libertarian, with pro-gay leanings – to fit in with his audience that includes many gays and liberals. Rea inherited that time slot at WBZ about a year ago. For many years it was the domain of David Budnoy, a gay “conservative”, who died of AIDS, and recently Paul Sullivan, a liberal, who also passed away. However, Rea is not a knee-jerk liberal, even on this issue, as you’ll see.

David Parker debate on WBZ Radio (87 minutes):
Listen to the full show here.
Download the podcast.

David vs. Goliath

Parents Press Civil Rights Suit Over Homosexual School Books

BY GAIL BESSE
REGISTER CORRESPONDENT
December 16-22, 2007 Issue Posted 12/11/07 at 12:02 PM
BOSTON — David and Tonia Parker have spent their life savings and are ready to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to defend their rights as Christian parents.
The Parkers and another Massachusetts couple pressed forward Dec. 5 with their federal civil rights lawsuit, which will determine whether parents have a say in how human sexuality is portrayed to public schoolchildren as young as kindergarten.
A three-judge panel in the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the religious rights case that has grabbed headlines since 2005.
An array of well-funded national homosexual activist groups are siding with the Lexington, Mass., school system against the parents, who face more than $250,000 in legal costs.
The Parkers and Joseph and Robin Worthlin are appealing the Feb. 23 dismissal of their lawsuit, which contends that the schools violated their constitutional rights by trying to indoctrinate their youngsters with the idea that homosexuality is morally neutral.
The case began when school officials had David Parker arrested for trespassing (a charge later dropped after he spent a night in jail) in a dispute over his kindergarten son being given a book about families with homosexual and "transgender" parents.
In the Worthlins’ case, the book King and King, about a royal same-sex "marriage," was read to their second-grader. That issue was even addressed in a recent Democratic presidential debate in which no candidate opposed the ideological fairy tale being read to 7-year-olds.
The parents had objected to not being informed that these books would be presented to their children.
But Judge Mark Wolf dismissed the suit. He used as precedent a previous court decision that involved a high school assembly, and said that if parents disagreed with the curriculum, they could remove their children from the system.
Wolf ruled that because Massachusetts allows same-sex "marriage," the state has a
"rational interest" in fostering its acceptance.
Parker said this decision was flawed for several reasons, especially as the law mandates a higher level of "strict scrutiny" in cases involving several constitutional rights: in this case, the free exercise of religion, privacy and due process.
Parents’ rights advocate Brian Camenker, director of the Massachusetts-based Mass Resistance, explained the implications.
"If the homosexual movement can get this lawsuit stopped before it can get started, then Judge Wolf’s hideous ruling from the motion to dismiss would stand as ‘case law’ for the whole country.
"In that ruling, Wolf basically says that the state is required to make children believe that homosexuality is normal and natural in order to make them good citizens," Camenker said. "This ruling is poised to be the jet fuel that the homosexual movement needs to push their agenda into every school in America."
His group’s website (massresistance.org) has posted every legal brief filed in the case, which could be decided anytime after Dec. 16.
"If we lose this, we’ll appeal to the Supreme Court," Parker said in an interview. "We maintain that we don’t lose our First Amendment rights because our child is in public school."
More than a dozen groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Anti-Defamation League and the Massachusetts Teachers’ Association, have backed the Lexington schools.
A 50-page amicus brief was also filed against the parents’ appeal by the Human Rights Campaign, Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Massachusetts Women’s Bar Association, Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN), and Parents, Families, and Friends of Gays and Lesbians (PFFLAG).
Their attorney Nima Eshghi argued that public schools should "teach tolerance at an early age, inculcate values, serve as a marketplace of ideas and protect the rights of students to receive information."
Parker’s attorneys responded that parents, not the state, are the only appropriate guardians of their children’s rights.
"For the town to undertake its own instruction and direction regarding beliefs contrary to [the parents’] religion, without notifying parents, is burdensome in the extreme," their response stated.
The Boston law firm Denner Pellegrino LLP, which specializes in First Amendment litigation, is representing the parents.
At the hearing, lawyer Neil Tassel noted, "The parents have never tried to suggest what the school can or cannot teach. All they’re seeking is the right to opt out."
First Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch noted that the law allows for parental notification about sexual health education. However, the schools’ attorney, John Davis, argued that applying the prior notice rule on all classroom discussions would be overly burdensome.
Tonia Parker thought Lynch had good questions for both sides.
"It’s in the Lord’s hands," she said the next day.
Books about same-sex coupling clearly transmit values even if they aren’t labeled sex education, noted Boston lawyer Daniel Avila, who has followed the case as associate director for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference.
"Parents shouldn’t have to check their moral values at the door when their kids enter the public school system," he said later.
Avila pointed out that more California parents reportedly are seeking to home-school since a new state law mandates that teachers portray homosexuality, bisexuality and "transsexuality" in a positive light.
"But in this case, we’re talking about everybody in the jurisdiction of the federal court system, not just parents in California, who’ll be affected if this lower ruling is allowed to stand," Avila said. "Unfortunately, not all parents can afford to take their kids out of public schools, but this is a decision that people may in good conscience be facing in this clash of value systems."

Gail Besse is based in Boston.

http://ncregister.com/site/article/7522/

Stepping Back

Lexington Minuteman July 20, 2006
Guest Commentary

"Stepping Back" by David Parker

I am writing concerning the recent playground incident and guest commentary in the Minuteman paper entitled, "Moving Forward."

With respect to recreating an accurate account of any incident with the testimony of many young children a month later, there are bound to be differences in the exact story. The principal in her "investigation" of the incident attempted to persuade my son to admit that the altercation was just "a game."

She repeatedly asserted, "Wasn't this just a game, Jacob?" She persisted even after he said "no." At some point, my so said, "What kind of a game involves punching me?" She continued, "I'm confused, the aid said it was a game." This technique is called "leading the witness," but my son held firm in the truth. If this is any indication of how the "investigation" was conducted, I have serious concerns over the veracity of the administration's account of the incident. This is an absolute outrage.

When my wife asked the assistant principal about the details of the incident and action taken, she was told, "This is private and personal." However, LexingtonCares issued a press release before the school administration. I guess it was just private from us as parents.

Some have entirely missed the essence of our concerns. At least three children that the school claims did not "participate" at all (there is dispute here), but were in the "observing" crowd, have previously said things to my son to bring him to tears. My wife and I are well aware of what their parents have written and said publicly. It is clear from what these children said to my son, they have been influenced by adults that stand against our views.

Furthermore, the LexingtonCares group knew about the altercation before MassResistance sent out a press release. The story went public on local TV weeks before the press release when I appeared with Laura Tully (of LexingtonCares).

There have been many examples of harmful rhetoric and false accusations. The following excerpt is from Rep. Jay Kaufman's official Web site. It states that these words were read in response to a parental rights rally on the Lexington Green held by supporters of David Parker. I assume these words were read in the presence of the many children that the participating adults brought into the fray:
"I say that teaching your children to hate is not a parental right. It's a parental wrong. Teaching your children that others are lesser souls or should have fewer rights is a parental wrong. Teaching your children that it's OK to feel morally superior or to impose your standards on others are parental wrongs." We are in no way teaching our children this! And wasn't that Tom Griffith and Helen Cohen [school committee members] standing with children at the counter-vigil on parental rights?

The assertion of the School Committee and the superintendent that our allegations of adult influence of the playground incident are "entirely without merit" is self0serving and delusional. There are plenty of facts that MassResistance has brought to light concerning this unfortunate incident and events preceding it that are unsettling and undisputed. There does not have to be a direct "call of attack" by adults on my son to prompt concern here. The deluge of circumstantial evidence should be cause enough for pause and introspection. This is the exact logic used to suspend children from using the term "gay" in a less-than-superlative fashion.

With regard to the assertion of the guest commentary, "some feel that parents who brought the lawsuit against the schools have used their own child and other first-graders to further their agenda," I find this statement highly offensive and ironic. The "misuse of children" referred to is cause for some to look in the mirror.

I acknowledge there is hurt in the community; my family has deeply felt the pain for over a year. I do accept that I should have talked the incident over with the parents of the "perpetrating" child before further external discussion so that they completely understood our concerns. I am grieved to them for my oversight. I acted from the contemplation of the hurt my son and family has endured.

Take a step back and look deeply within yourselves. What have you said about these issues in the presence of children? What was your tone? The demeanor of children can be influenced powerfully by adults. How will they act this out? How will they influence other children?

[Superintendent] Paul Ash has described the incident numerous times as "a playground scuffle." If someone went into his office and punched him in the chest, abdomen, and genitals to the point he fell to the floor, would he describe it as "just an office scuffle?"

Furthermore, Ash has been asked about the validity to the "right wing's claims." Ash replied, "Zero; this is complete bull." Oh really?

Where there is no stepping back in reflection, there will be no moving forward. My right to direct the moral upbringing of my children without undue burden or interference will be secured, so help me God of Abraham.

David Parker is a Lexington resident.