Two couples are suing a Boston-area public school district, claiming it usurped their parental rights by exposing their sons -- in kindergarten and second grade -- to lessons that included homosexual romance without telling the parents.
The couples, who describe themselves as "devout Christians" in their federal lawsuit against Lexington, Mass., public schools, charged that the small school district violated state law and their civil rights when it taught their sons about a "lifestyle" the parents consider to be immoral and failed to let them know in advance.
"This isn't about gays. It's about human sexuality, broadly," Jeffrey Denner, the parents' attorney, said Friday. He said his clients would be equally disturbed if their young sons were learning about "heterosexual prostitution" in school.
"Age is very important," when deciding when a child should be taught about sexual issues, Mr. Denner said. "Parents should be making the determination" as to when their children should be introduced to such topics, because parents "have the right to make value-laden decisions" on behalf of their offspring.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs accuse Lexington Public Schools and the town of Lexington of breaking the commonwealth of Massachusetts' so-called "opt-out law." The statute requires public schools to notify parents when the instructional curriculum "primarily involves human sexual education or human sexual issues," so that concerned parents can remove their children from class.
Now, these people would have a legitimate complaint if the book had some sort of sexual aspect to it. I believe the people should most certainly be able to opt-out of any sexual teachings that they feel their children shouldn’t be a part of, and the law agrees.
I did a search for the book in question. Nowhere, in any of the reviews, does it mention one thing about sex. It seems that this book is just a fairy tale with the two main characters being gay. To me, this puts the book in the same groups as any other fairy tale.
Perhaps I am way off base here, but any person that sees some sort of sexuality in a fairy tale may have a sexual addiction. I mean, I do not read Cinderella and think that there is this huge sexual component to it. Perhaps I am missing something?
Or maybe… maybe these parents are just lying through their teeth, in order to make the situation appear to be sexual in nature, when it is not. Schools teaching about homosexual sex, without an opt-out option, will surely rally the Christian base.
Perhaps I am just out of touch with reality. Maybe showing families and marriages really is sex. Maybe when my parents were getting married, they were really having sex on the floor of the church. Perhaps Focus on the Family should really be called Focus on the Sex, since family and marriage equals sex.
MEXICO CITY - The United States reacted cautiously on Saturday to a Mexican measure that would make it legal to carry small amounts of cocaine, heroin and other drugs for personal use.
News of the decriminalization did not make the front pages of any major Mexico City newspaper, nor was it discussed in editorials. It was slightly better publicized in the north of the country, where turf wars between rival drugs gangs have caused hundreds of killings along the Mexico-U.S. border, but was still overshadowed by news about immigration.
I think that this is a very good plan. Mexico needs to focus their law enforcement agencies on the drug cartels, not the average Joe smoking some weed on the street. The biggest critics in America will most likely be the Conservatives, rambling on about the potential dangers of drug use. Mention the potential dangers of gun use to them, and explain that by their own logic, guns should be outlawed because they can be potentially dangerous, and watch their heads spin. It’s sort of entertaining.
All were prayerfully making their way to the confessional when two teenagers dressed in black clothes with pentagrams and wearing jet black makeup stormed into the church, stood in the back and gave icy stares.
“I truly think they wanted confrontation,” Novak said.
Unfortunately for the satanic devotees, they picked the wrong two Boswell churches to disrupt Sunday.
An off-duty state trooper from the Somerset Turnpike barracks was at All Saint’s; another was attending St. Andrews Lutheran Church nearby, where the teens shocked parishioners minutes earlier.
In all, state police said three youths – ages 14, 16 and 17 from Stoystown, Acosta and Somerset – were cited for disrupting activities at the two churches. They were charged with harassment and stalking and disorderly conduct through the Somerset County Juvenile Probation department, state police Sgt. Anthony DeLuca said Tuesday.
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Shiite lawmakers met on Sunday, the third anniversary of the fall of Baghdad to U.S. forces, in the first formal step to break the deadlock over Sunni and Kurdish opposition to their choice for a prime minister to head the next government.
But the meeting, held at the insistence of the Shiites' top clerical leadership, failed to produce any breakthroughs, as Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's key allies stuck by their support for him, according to Shiite officials.
I really don’t see any agreements being reached. It is the Shiites’ right to appoint a Prime Minister and I really think that the majority of them want al-Jaafari in the position, despite the wants of other groups.
It’s alright; we seem to be willing to throw our troops into Iraq for…eternity.
Scientists doing climate research for the federal government say the Bush administration has made it hard for them to speak forthrightly to the public about global warming. The result, the researchers say, is a danger that Americans are not getting the full story on how the climate is changing.
Employees and contractors working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with a U.S. Geological Survey scientist working at an NOAA lab, said in interviews that over the past year administration officials have chastised them for speaking on policy questions; removed references to global warming from their reports, news releases and conference Web sites; investigated news leaks; and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether. Their accounts indicate that the ideological battle over climate-change research, which first came to light at NASA, is being fought in other federal science agencies as well.
I see so many Conservatives say the most ignorant things about Global Warming. When people tell me that scientists do not agree that Global Warming is real, it really hits me that there is a break down in communication, somewhere. It is quite evident that the White House doesn’t want the public knowing the truth about Global Warming, and I would suggest that scientists ignore the White House when it does these things. In the end, they can’t control the research.
"You hear about these protesters, but when you actually see them and hear what they are doing, it is more than protesting," said Rep. Michael Rogers, R-Mich., who is sponsoring a bill in the House to restrict protests outside national cemeteries. "They are jeering and taunting and harassing these families and it is pretty vile. We have to do something to let these families grieve peaceably and give them dignity."
Most of the proposed laws, which already have been approved in half a dozen states, require picketers to keep back 300 or 500 feet from churches or funeral homes where services are being held, and they limit the protests to an hour before or after the service.
The laws appeal to popular outrage over the Westboro Baptist protests, and they are easy to endorse for politicians eager to show their support for U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq. But constitutional experts warn that such protest restrictions appear overly broad and are likely to be overturned if challenged in court.
No matter how much you hate the message of Westboro, they still have a right to spread that message through demonstration. Another problem, which the article brings up, is the fact that Westboro will profit out of this. These laws will be found unconstitutional in court, which will provide Westboro with a lot of money through lawsuits.
The solution to Westboro is the same solution for all protests that you don’t agree with; go out and protest louder. Writing unconstitutional laws to control people that you don’t agree with is never a good idea.
The latest counterproposal to a bill by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., would base the chance of citizenship for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. largely on whether or not they were here before a cutoff date. That date has not yet been determined.
Those in the U.S. before the cutoff date, an overwhelming majority, could apply for green cards if they pay fines and back taxes and learn English. Among that group, those who had spent five years in the U.S. would get an easier path to citizenship, with newer arrivals facing more obstacles.
Based on this article, I think that this bill sounds good. I do not understand the need to send immigrants back to their countries if they have lived here for a long time.
I doubt that Conservatives will allow any bill that doesn’t send all immigrants back to their countries and doesn’t allow prosecution of people who help immigrants. I’m not sure either side will ever compromise, so it should be interesting to watch how this all plays out.
WASHINGTON - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texan touched by a lobbying scandal that ensnared some of his former top aides and cost the congressman to his leadership post, won't seek re-election to Congress, a Republican official said Monday.
I only wish all the “ethically challenged” Conservatives would decide that the American government is not the place for their illegal actions.
Leave it up to Delay to interrupt the NCAA Championship game.
"During my last night in captivity, my captors forced me to participate in a propaganda video. They told me I would be released if I cooperated. I was living in a threatening environment, under their control, and wanted to go home alive. So I agreed," she said in a statement read by her editor in Boston.
"Things that I was forced to say while captive are now being taken by some as an accurate reflection of my personal views. They are not."
The hatred and antichristian/anti-American comments by the nutters got noticed in this article as well.
The remarks have drawn criticism from conservative bloggers and commentators, but the Monitor said "Carroll did what many hostage experts and past captives would have urged her to do: Give the men who held the power of life and death over her what they wanted."
I wonder how many of these people will be apologizing. My guess is none. It’s a usual tactic by those members of the Conservative blogosphere. They never admit when they are wrong, and they will totally ignore anything that shows their errors.
Really, I wonder what they are afraid of.
Right Minded is a conservative blog that posted a defense of Maggart’s statements. He gets some props --very, very few-- for at least trying to make an argument. I do not actually believe that he is trying to give wrong information. Honestly, I think that he has a specific position, which causes him to gobble up any research which appears to support it.
Below, I will pick some of his statements and show why they are off base.
Despite this feel-good political correctness, every child needs a mother and a father -- not two mothers and no father, nor two fathers and no mother. There is simply no alternative equal to a home that’s headed by one man and one woman who are committed to each other. This is not a slam on single-parent households, nor even a slam on households that are headed by homosexuals. It’s simply the undeniable reality.
For all intents and purposes, this is a true statement. Children develop best with a member of each gender present in their life. The problem with this statement, however, is that I’m not sure he actually knows what that statement means. I can get into a whole discussion about child development, if this author chooses, but for right now, I’ll simply say that this “optimal” situation can be recreated by having an active role model (not necessarily a parent that lives in the home) of each sex, in the child’s life.
There is a second problem to this reasoning. Ms. Maggart is, in fact, a single parent, herself. I find it quite odd that any mention of “optimal” dual sex households is even brought into the picture here, when Ms. Maggart doesn’t actually provide the “optimal” situation for her children. Also, no one is saying that single parents should not be able to adopt. I’m sorry, but your actual motivation appears nice and bright when you use this reasoning to only comment about homosexual adoption, but never even mention that, using this reasoning, single people should be able to adopt, either.
This is not unsubstantiated discrimination. There is a basis for preventing homosexuals from becoming foster or adoptive parents. A six-year study in Illinois has found that 34% of sexual abuse cases in foster homes were committed by homosexuals, whereas no more than 3% of the general population engages in homosexual sex. Illinois is the first state to disclose such details.
Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute, who analyzed the data presented in a Psychological Reports study this month, nailed it with the statement that "Professional societies are so taken with gay rights they are ignoring the evidence." Dr.
Cameron believes it's likely the Illinois figures reflect the situation among the nation's estimated half-million foster children.
Wow, this must be embarrassing. I don’t even need to get into the fact that the Family Research Institute is an antigay group, because, well, the use of Dr. Cameron’s “analysis” provides enough reasons to not believe this.
Dr. Paul Cameron… where to begin. I know, how about here.
• On December 2, 1983, the American Psychological Association sent Paul Cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped from membership. Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists" by the APA Board of Directors.5 Cameron has posted an elaborate argument about his expulsion from APA on his website, claiming that he resigned from APA before he was dropped from membership. Like most organizations, however, APA does not allow a member to resign when they are being investigated. And even if Cameron's claims were accepted as true, it would be remarkable that the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States (and other professional associations, as noted below) went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual.
There are a lot more things in that fact-sheet. He has also been kicked out of the American Sociological Association, and there was also a court opinion given by a judge, saying about Cameron’s testimony in court, “There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron.” I would quote the rest of the fact sheet, but I have a thing about lifting whole blocks of materials off a website.
So, yes, I’d say that cameron’s analysis should be called into question.
The rest of the article on Right Minded doesn’t deal with facts, simply what others have said about Cameron’s analysis. The lesson in all of this, I guess, is to make sure you research everything you post, even if it supports your beliefs.
I have yet to hear back from Ms. Maggart. Obviously she isn’t going to respond, and obviously I’m going to continue to cover her comments, because I feel her constituents need to know the type of person she is. Once again, truth is always the strongest defense against the far-right.