Just Another Reason to Homeschool

I am kind of having a hard time with this one..... (sorry it's so long too)

Parents in Lexington, MA have been forced to sue their local school because their child’s second grade teacher read a book to the class called “King and King,” about a prince who falls in love and marries another prince. The parents have been told they have no right to get advance notice and no right to “opt out” their child when gay “marriage” is introduced to their seven-year-old child in this way.

PLOT: "On the tallest mountain above (a) town," a young prince still has not married, as is the custom in his kingdom. His mother, a grouchy Queen insists he must find a princess to marry. The prince tells his mom "Very well, Mother.... I must say, though, I've never cared much for princesses." His mother marches princess after princess through the castle, but they fail to interest the prince. After a while along comes princess Madaleine escorted by her brother Prince Lee, who causes the prince to exclaim, "What a wonderful prince!" The prince immediately falls in love with the prince, and they begin marriage preparations at once. The story ends with a kiss between the two kings.

Ok - so this is ok for a seven year old to be read this fairy tale? sexual orientation at this young age.... I mean, I would want to be at least notified that this was part of their curriculum.


So here is the court ruling... Basically everything was dropped.... and it is ok. The parents should have sent the kids to a private school or homeschooled them. Wow.

the First Circuit held that the constitutional right of parents to raise their children does not
include the right to restrict what a public school may teach their children and that teachings which contradict a parent's religious beliefs do not violate their First Amendment right to exercise their religion.
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.
When, as here, federal claims are dismissed at the outset of a case, the related state law claims should usually be dismissed as well, without prejudice to their being pursued in state court. It is particularly appropriate that the state law claims in this case now be dismissed.

Parents do have a fundamental right to raise their children.
They are not required to abandon that responsibility to the state.
The Parkers and Wirthlins may send their children to a private
school that does not seek to foster understandings of homosexuality
or same-sex marriage that conflict with their religious beliefs.
They may also educate their children at home. In addition, the
plaintiffs may attempt to persuade others to join them in electing
a Lexington School Committee that will implement a curriculum that
is more compatible with their beliefs. However, the Parkers and
Wirthlins have chosen to send their children to the Lexington
public schools with its current curriculum. The Constitution does
not permit them to prescribe what those children will be taught.
It should also be recognized that while the Constitution does
not compel the defendants to revise the Lexington elementary school
curriculum, or to permit the Parkers and Wirthlins to exempt their
children from teaching about homosexuality or same-sex marriage, it
also does not prohibit the defendants from voluntarily accommodating
the parents' concerns if there is a reasonable way to do so. Finding a reasonable accommodation may be a challenging task. Allowing parents to exempt their children
from classes primarily involving human sexual education may not injure the value
of those classes for the students who remain. However,
The Supreme Court wrote in Brown, 347 U.S. at 494:
Segregation of white and colored children in public
schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored
children. The impact is greater when it has the
sanction of law, for the policy of separating the races
is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of
the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the
motivation of a child to learn.

Waldo Emerson wrote in his journal, "'I pay the school master, but
'tis the school boys that educate my son.'" James O. Freedman,
Idealism and Liberal Education 63 (1999). An exodus from class
when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be
discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the
children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a
damaging effect on those students. Cf. Brown v. Board of Education,
347 U.S. 483, 494 (1954).
It might also undermine the defendants' efforts to educate the remaining
other students to understand and respect differences in sexual orientation.


So I am thinking that maybe I should read this to my kids and see what they really think? If it is moral and if it follows biblical teaching. If this is ok for kids to read... the age group was 4-8.
We have had the gay discussion before. I suppose the ages for kids to understand this are getting younger and younger, but to be forced to think it is a "fairy tale" ending and that these Kings are going to lead a great life. There is a 2nd book called King and King and family where they go on their "honeymoon" and find an orphaned girl and make her a princess. Can't wait to see what's next..... wow.

.... I just don't like to see sin made so "pretty."