Friday, October 06, 2006

Mad Dad's Whining Lawyers

Up in Concord, the papers are flying in the Mad Dad case. Both the vindictive foursome filed a rebuttal to a motion to dismiss and a bunch of good guys filed a amicus, friend of the court, brief.

Regular readers know about the case. In pseudo-bucolic Lexington, a young boy's father was shocked, shocked to find that the optional diversity reading kit he was to review and consider for his child showed cartoon homosexual couples engaged in such sexually loaded duties as doing homework with a child and helping a kid wash the family dog. (Pardon me while I allow my heart rate to return to normal.)

He staged a sit-in at the school to protest not being notified of any planned or spontaneous conversation in kindergarten or elementary school that would even mention homosexuals or that their marriages were legal here. Shocked, shocked, I say.

He tucked his apparently obedient uxorial unit figuratively under his arm, got another couple to join in a law suit claiming all manner of civil wrongs to his civil rights. Their lawyer is from Jeffrey Denner, whose stated practice areas are not the sort most of us would mention, much less advertise with pride. We don't know who's paying any bills, but can surmise.

Regardless, the hysterics over at MassResistance have done us all a favor by posting both briefs. We grabbed both the rebuttal to the dismissal motion and the amicus brief. We'll get to those in detail and make some comments here, after we work on the California same-sex-marriage decision.

Unfortunately, appeals courts rarely support dismissal motions. They are being asked for interpretations of law and generally like to hear all the arguments. So, this one could well drag on for some time after the District Court judge considers dismissal motion, rebuttal and amicus.

Note: The amicus brief is by groups that just gall the anti-gay folk no end -- the Massachusetts ACLU, the Lexington C.A.R.E.S. parents folk, and (gasp) the Lexington and Massachusetts teachers associations.

Stated simply, the defendants -- school officials -- hold that the Mad Dad has no case. He wasn't wronged. He has no right to have curriculum tailored to his religious beliefs; rather, he can do what other outliers do, enroll his kids in a private school that suits him. The school officials are doing their required duty and can't be sued for that. The state law requiring notification and opting out of sex education classes doesn't apply where mentions of the reality of same-sex marriage are made in passing.

We'll post on the rebuttal. It appears to be a keeper. We recommend that you download and save the PDF file. On a cold evening before the fire, you may need a chuckle.

To be analyzed and posted...

Tags: , , , , ,


Anonymous said...

i've only read the Statement part of the Mad Dads rebuttal, but 2 things jump out immediately.

1st, both sets of plaintiff parents made their little children plaintiffs. If this is necessary due to some aspect of the law, let me know. If not, I think it's sad to drag your children into a lawsuit. Making them pawns of bigotry isn't bad enough?

2nd, para 2 says that the plaintiff famillies a) practice a faith that defines marriage as a HOLY union bet'n man+woman; and b) they believe as deepest matter of faith that other forms of 'marriage' are antithetical to God's purpose for this sacred covenant. Wow, careful now. One might nterpret either of those statements to mean that they don't believe in CIVIL marriage at all. Only holy matrimony. I hope the judge checks them carefully for signs of civil marriage, because somehow I don't believe they stopped with just the reverend's blessings!

Looking forward to your through analysis.

David Parker said...

You write:"...rather, he can do what other outliers do, enroll his kids in a private school that suits him."

What a "Jim Crow" attitude? What a vulgar accusation...So you support segregation.

Let the Crows' Crow for in the end, they shall eat Crow!

David Parker

David Parker

David Parker said...

I wrote two responses so far, but it appears the "blog author" wants to edit the other side of the issue. You write about me, you slander me....but you don't have the courage to face truth.

David Parker

massmarrier said...

Well, that's a gigantic and illogical leap.

We'll deal with these as we get to the coverage of the various briefs.

Anonymous said...

I think Mr. Parker should ask his lawyers what the real definition of "slander" is. This doesn't seem to be close to this legal layman.