jump to navigation

Massachusetts Same-Sex Marriage Curriculum Unconstitutional? February 27, 2007

Posted by Daniel Downs in children, education, family, law, news, politics, public schools, religion, sex.

Ironic is the state of affairs in the once state of Puritan zeal, namely Massachusetts. I am referring to news about Massachusetts’ determination to indoctrinate all children, beginning in kindergarten, about same-sex marriage. It is called diversity training, and its goal is teach respect the differences of all people. Sounds reasonable enough, right?

Massachusetts law forbids discrimination against all of the human difference like race, religion, gender, and also against sexual-orientation. To accomplish that state mandate, Massachusetts school system developed comprehensive curricula to teach kids to respect and tolerate gays and those of same-sex families. The parents of two kids in Lexington’s Joseph Estabrook Elementary School did not want their impressionable kids exposed that teaching because it contradicted their religious beliefs and values. What they requested from Estabrook was to be notified before exposing their kids the sex-ed classes. They asked for advanced notice so arrangements could be made for their kids to opt out. It was supposedly a school policy, but one the school did not want to honor. Because the school refused to honor their requests, they took the school to court.

On the 23rd of February, US District Court Judge Wolf dismissed the case brought by the parents. One reason he gives for dismissing the suit is as follows:

“In essence, under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy. Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation. Our nation’s history includes a fundamental commitment to promoting mutual respect among citizens in our diverse nation that is manifest in the First Amendment’s prohibitions on establishing an official religion and restricting the free exercise of religious beliefs on which plaintiffs base some of their federal claims. Our history also includes instances of individual and official discrimination against gays and lesbians, among others. It is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students about individuals with different sexual orientations and about various forms of families, including those with same-sex parents, in an effort to eradicate the effects of past discrimination, to reduce the risk of future discrimination and, in the process, to reaffirm our nation’s constitutional commitment to promoting mutual respect among members of our diverse society. In addition, it is reasonable for those educators to find that teaching young children to understand and respect differences in sexual orientation will contribute to an academic environment in which students who are gay, lesbian, or the children of same-sex parents will be comfortable and, therefore, better able to learn.”

What is wrong with this statement? It makes an erroneous equation of our nation’s historic hallmark of ethnic diversity with sexual behaviors. Sexual orientation means the orientation to specific aberrant sexual behavior. Sex is a behavior, not a skin pigment or cultural difference. Behaviors are not amoral. They are either moral or immoral. The two Christian families believe what early Americans believed, the sodomy orientation is immoral and unnatural. That is why laws against that particular sexual behavior were legislated in every state. If you read our nation’s founding document, you will discover why. According to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas,

“The institutions of our society are founded on the belief that there is an authority higher than the authority of the State; that there is a moral law which the State is powerless to alter; that the individual possess rights, conferred by the Creator which government must respect. The Declaration Of Independence stated the now familiar theme: ‘We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.’ And the body of the Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights enshrined these principles.”

Laws of nature, it was reasoned, determined sexuality and proper sexual behavior. Because God is the source of natural law, same-sex marriage (people do get married for sex) was also a breach of divine law.

In the colonial era, the punishment for sodomy was death. In some colonies, even before Independence, legislatures sought to change the penalty. Thomas Jefferson was among law makers who sought make castration the punishment for sodomy instead of death. Whatever the penalty, it remained a felony until the 20th century.

Now, in opposition to legal precedence, the law sanctions what was and still is held as unnatural and evil and therefore illegal. As Justice Douglas pointed out, all men are created equal, but not all behavior. Legislation and interpretations of judges contrary to higher law does not make them lawful.

I believe gays should be treated with reasoned dignity, but not by government sanctioned approval of their life-style behavior. Why should any respect wrong behavior? Rather, the purpose should have been to understand what happened to them, and to find a way to effect healing and restoration. I know of a few who have come out of the gay lifestyle. Every one of them were sexually abused while children. Their behavior was not an orientation it was a bondage driven by repressed fear, shame and self-deprivation. As they grew up, survival and acceptance meant regarding it normal. That is why the real crime is society’s collusion with predators, gay community power brokers, and liberal politicians who have legitimated and perpetuated the problem. America’s public leaders should be seeking to solve the problem not perpetuate it.

One other issue I feel is important. In the often repeated opinion of Judge Wolf, the two parents chose to send their kids to Estabrook. If the parents do not like what the school teaches, they have the right to send them to a private school or teach them at home. Technically, the judge is correct, but actually they do not. If those parents do not have the financial ability, they have no real choice.

Consequently there are only three possible solutions to this problem: (1) Schools must quit serving special interests and stick to teaching kids the basics—history, language arts, math, science, humanities, and the like and family and sex to parents or others. (2) They must teach those matters that align with our nation’s founding ideals, not the 20th century ideals of humanism, which so-called sexual freedom is central. (3) If the previous options are not obtainable, then school vouchers are necessary, and they must be equal to the amount of per pupil costs. The Supreme Court has already ruled vouchers paid to parents do not violate any Constitutional right or law.



1. in2thefray - February 27, 2007

One wonders how the voucher point can be avoided much longer other than through arrogance. There is a federal case pending now about an Ohio couple that want the government to pay for their special ed son to go to a private school as opposed to the Cleveland Public Schools. Excellent post !

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: