Judge Slams Parents as “Bigots” for Opposing Gay Curriculum
Alameda, CA – A judge today slammed parents as "bigots" for seeking to excuse their elementary-age children from controversial pro-homosexual curriculum. The parents are being represented in court by Pacific Justice Institute.
PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider argued in Alameda Superior Court today on behalf of parents seeking to enforce a provision of the California Education Code that gives parents the right to opt their kids out of health education. Alameda Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch lambasted the parents, repeatedly insinuating that they are bigots and insisting there can be no homosexual indoctrination because people are born that way. The judge equated a view contrary to his own with creationism and called both false.
The legal battle over Alameda's anti-bullying curriculum has intensified in recent weeks. Leading up to today's hearing, attorneys for the school district grilled parents in depositions about their religious beliefs. Parents were asked numerous questions about church attendance, sermons they had heard against homosexuality, and whether they were aware that the Bible had been used to defend racism and oppression..
PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider commented on today's hearing, "We believe that this ruling against parents is inconsistent with the Education Code, and we are looking forward to continuing this battle until opt-out rights are restored on appeal, or the curriculum is changed." Snider emphasized that the parents who filed suit support comprehensive anti-bullying instruction; however, they oppose the current elementary curriculum that focuses almost exclusively on homosexuality. School records released by Alameda Unified School District show that bullying based on race and gender is far more prevalent in AUSD than sexual orientation harassment.
PJI President Brad Dacus stated, "Most parents do not want their first through fifth graders bombarded with pro-homosexual messages at school. If LGBT advocates really want to stop name-calling and bullying, they should start with themselves."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Although it holds that homosexual indoctrination is about as realistic as creationism (not at all), I don't see where any ruling was made. In fact, I bet this all comes from some deposition or pre-trial hearing of complaints.
Just more hollow rabble rousing...
I really don't see that this is a pro- homosexuality statement that the school is making. It's an anti- bullying message they're trying to get across. Do the parents think its "ok" for their kids to beat up the "gay kid"?
How can you honestly decide one way or another?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
"Anti- bullying " does not equate to "pro-homosexual." The OP is attempting to reframe the argument as one about freedom of parents to have their child not be "taught about homosexuality ," when in fact, the school is not teaching kids "about homosexuality." Rather, the school is attempting to fulfill its obligation to keep children safe and protected at school, and one of the ways it does so is by teaching children that it is unacceptable to bully others because they are "different," whether because of race , religion , gender, sexual orientation, etc.
Rhetoric is like that.
What one person would call a speech on forgiveness by turning the other cheek, another person would call religious proselytism.
We don't even know the curriculum, but you defend it?
I think the law was on the parents' side. As noted in the OP, the state law gives them the right to opt their child out. I'd prefer, were it me, to have the choice.
But that's the parent in me talking.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
I'm pretty familiar with the type of curriculi which schools use for anti- bullying programs of this nature. Do I know this specific one? I dunno. But I find nothing objectionable in the suggestion that children should understand that there are same-gender couples out there and that there are people who might be attracted to their own gender, and that it is not okay to victimize or bully these people.
That's an a-ok message in my book , and I have a hard time imagining a presentation of that message which I would find unacceptable. And I'd be offended by others finding that particular message unacceptable. There is no need to describe sex acts or "educate kids about homosexuality " in order to teach them that some families have two moms or two dads, or that some people might fall in love with someone of their own gender, and that it's not okay to bully them or their kids because of that fact.
Is forcing those parents to either let their kid be taught those subjects or face truancy charges. While I don't think such subjects should be banned from schools , neither do I think it reasonable to force the teaching against the parents will. That judge is going overboard.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Parents should be able to stop the school from teaching their kids not to bully other kids?
You should have the right to demand that your child not be taught whatever you wish.
Suppose the shoe was on the other foot. Suppose it was an "anti- bullying class that teaches to show kindness to others, 'just like Jesus did'. Imagine being an atheist hearing this.
Ignore the fact that laws are in place to protect from this because you are also ignoring the "provision of the California Education Code that gives parents the right to opt their kids out of health education ."
Suppose the judge said that you were a heathen and "[t]he judge equated a view contrary to his own with [ evolution ] and called both false."
Then suppose you were bombarded with unrelated attacks, like these parents were. Adjust the narrative to one that you would find particularly unrelated, inflammatory and politically hostile:
"Leading up to today's hearing, attorneys for the school district grilled parents in depositions about their religious beliefs. Parents were asked numerous questions about church attendance , sermons they had heard against homosexuality , and whether they were aware that the Bible had been used to defend racism and oppression."
Place yourself in their shoes and tell me you'd like it... Unless you are too busy needlessly defending a sexual orientation that is not under attack here. A sexual orientation which was actually wielded like a sword of oppression against these parents by heterosexual officials and an overly politically correct judge.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Your example doesn't work. It is possible to teach kids not to bully minority groups without making reference to religion . It is not possible to teach kids not to bully minority groups without making reference to minority groups.
Yeah, I support parents rights to opt their kids out of school entirely. I support the right to home school. But if you are going to send your kids to public school, then there needs to be some kind of reasonable allowance for the school to fulfill its duty of protecting ALL of the children in its care from harassment or bullying by other students .
Attorneys have the right to ask whatever they want in depositions. That's the nature of a deposition. That's why people bring their own attorneys along to the deposition to tell them what they should and should not answer. Don't forget that the reason these parents were being deposed was because they brought suit against the school district, not vice versa.
Now, if the school was attempting to teach anti-bullying against religious groups, I would fully expect them to mention Christianity, Islam, Judaism and a variety of other religions as represented in the student body. In that case, they would have every right and reason to mention religion. But not using any particular religion as the justification for why children should not bully.