News :: Blog
Federal appeals court throws out Lexington case by Ethan Jacobs
staff reporterFriday Feb 1, 2008 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit handed down another defeat to the four parents suing the Lexington school system for including LGBT-related books in the elementary school curriculum. David and Tonia Parker and Rob and Robin Wirthlin, who had children in Lexington’s elementary schools, argued that the use of books like King and King and Who’s in a Family in the classroom represented an unconstitutional effort to indoctinate their children to accept homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Judge Sandra Lynch, writing for the three-judge panel that heard the case, disagreed:
"On the facts, there is no viable claim of ’indoctrination’ here. Without suggesting that such showings would suffice to establish a claim of indoctrination, we note the plaintiffs’ children were not forced to read the books on pain of suspension. Nor were they subject to a constant stream of like materials. There is no allegation here of a formalized curriculum requiring students to read many books affirming gay marriage. ... The reading by a teacher of one book, or even three, and even if to a young and impressionable child, does not constitute ’indoctrination.’"
The court upheld the dismissal of the case by District Court Judge Mark Wolf.
Jeffery Denner, attorney for the Parkers and the Wirthlins, told the Associated Press that the families may appeal to the Supreme Court.
The ACLU of Massachusetts, which filed an amicus brief in support of Lexington, released a statement from ACLU attorney Sarah Wunsch praising the ruling:
"The courts have rightfully found that parents can’t control which books are used in school just because they are in conflict with their personal religious beliefs. School administrators and teachers can take heart from this and not be afraid to use materials that show diverse families just
because a handful of parents might object."
Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), which also filed an amicus brief, also released a statement in favor of the ruling. GLAD attorney Nima Eshghi wrote that not only are schools entitled to use LGBT-inclusive materials but that those materials serve an important public purpose:
"We’re delighted that school systems remain free to include
age-appropriate material featuring a wide variety of families, including those with two moms and two dads. As a result, gay and lesbian parents and their children can feel safe and supported in their schools, and all children can learn about the true diversity of the society we live in."
Ethan Jacobs can be reached at ejacobs@baywindows.com
|
|
|
