Lawsuit challenges use of gay-themed storybook
Two couples who say a suburban school district undermined their parental rights by giving out and reading storybooks with gay themes without telling them first have filed a federal lawsuit against school officials.
The couples claim the officials broke state law, violated their civil rights, and were trying to teach their children about a lifestyle they consider immoral.
Lexington school superintendent Paul Ash said the schools have no agenda and have done nothing illegal.
Last month, Joseph and Robin Wirthlin objected when a teacher read a storybook about two princes who fall in love to their son's second grade class without notifying them.
[DIY News post format]
Okay, where do I even begin. This one's pretty clear cut for me, so the first thing I did before writing this up was to investigate. We're talking about white, upper-middle class looking Christian (can there really be any question as to their political affiliation?)
people here, in Lexington, Massachusetts. Marinate on that for a minute before jumping to the obvious.
I was first interested in the questionable book itself. The name given to said atrocious scourge of literary filth is Who's In A Family?
by Robert Skutch. You can see a hi-res cover shot of the book
as well as read an excerpt
on its Amazon.com listing. Fairly innocuous so far. Surely there had to be more going on than what appears here in a book that explains how some children are raised in single parent homes, some by grandparents, some by traditional opposite sex parents, some by multiracial parents, some by
Kate & Allie/My Two Dads/Full House/Different Strokes
same-sex parents, you get the idea. There's even a lesson plan offered by Scholastic
, in case there were questions about how to present this book.
What? Nothing sexually charged or remotely explicit? Are you fucking kidding me with this? You mean there's no hidden issue of Honcho
in there? No copy of The Homosexual Bible (Queen James & New Testament versions)
cleverly wrapped in that watercolor & chalk cover? No Damron
in case little Heather wants to book an Olivia Cruise
for Mommy & "Mommy's friend"
? None of that? Then WHAT.THE.FUCK???
My guess is that rather than take an opportunity to have someone else open a door for you as a parent, these ballbreaking bastards want to stifle any possible conversation feasible that might serve to illuminate. Here we have a golden
opportunity for parents to sit down with their children and have an open, honest discussion about their own values and morals in relation to subjects like these that like it or not DO EXIST in the world. I suppose it would be one thing if a children's book was read in a public school that was oriented around families and more specifically around parents, even say exclusively heterosexual parents, and gave descriptions of sexual contact between the heterosexual consenting adult parents. Clearly, that is inappropriate. I personally wouldn't want my own children subject to such things, so we agree on that much of it. The reality herein is that in no way does this book address any kind of sexual issue OR politic, so I'm flummoxed as to how one takes issue with it. Is it really such a big deal to educate children on the different ways that families are made? Is there some kind of assimilation going on that is trying to legitimize behavior that some may find inappopriate? For that, you have to go to her royal uptightness, Michelle Malkin
, and see just how we should feel collective shame for the treatment of this one particularly honorable, responsible parent. Responsible in this case being an unwillingness to simply keep his child home rather than subject them to questionable education practices and use that time to have the kind of conversation I alluded to earlier. Oh no - responsible, involved parenting according to Malkin is creating a scene at the school rather than opting for the obvious choice of keeping the child home on a day when subject matter didn't met their moral and ethical standards for propriety. Bear in mind, there is a lengthy email exchange between this parent and the school (see here)
that leaves little in the way of doubt as to the school's position from a legal standpoint, yet it came to the moron getting arrested via his own stupidity. Plenty of Christian schools, and if you're that serious about it then there's always homeschooling, fucknut.
So we have to remove the issue of sex, which I agree would be inappropriate in an elementary school setting, even if it were about something
as controversial as what
heterosexuals might do with Mr. & Ms. Privacy. The larger issue for me is this constant push to sanitize everything possible into this neat, populistic, homogeneous bubble. Because THAT
is the real world we ALL
live in, no? Ignore it and it doesn't really exist? That's a fine way for parents to ensure that once their children get exposed to inevitable instances where they're forced to think for themselves, they'll come to realize just how completely full of shit Mom & Dad were. Many of those values will take a leap out of the first window, and they'll be lucky if resentment for the years of stifling doesn't come in to replace the chasm that will be left. Don't act like you you don't know what I'm talking about, this is all of us!
These "responsible parents" are the ones churning out children that play violent video games and have no respect for themselves, but hey - at least they've been told that two loving, responsible parents that don't happen to look a thing like Ozzie & Harriet
are not a 'real' family. I call bullshit on that, if for no other reason than Ozzie & Harriet are completely mythological, always have been, and always will be. At no time in history was a family such as that one really normal or even common, for that matter. Many of you reading this don't even know who the fuck they were historically, and that's for good reason - because they never really existed even metaphorically for fuck's sake. My guess is that the average American family looks a lot more like Roseanne
, historically. And you know what? That's fine with me. That I could deal with, I'd have done a Menendez brothers on the Nelsons had I been David or Ricky, if for no other reason than the fact that all that toile upholstery would be enough to get me acquitted on an insanity plea. Let's face it, you were a lot more protected under the afghan that graced the back of Dan & Roseanne Conner's sofa than you ever would have been under Harriet Nelson's apron.