Lexington, USA - At the center of a federal lawsuit filed last week by two sets of Lexington parents over the discussion of homosexuality in public elementary schools is the question: Do parents or public schools have the final say in deciding what morals, values, and principles should be taught to children, and at what age should those lessons take place?
As in many similar debates before it, the parents -- David and Tonia Parker and Joseph Robert and Robin Wirthlin -- have raised the issue of religious freedom. The Parkers and the Wirthlins are described in the lawsuit as devout Judeo-Christians who believe that homosexuality is immoral behavior that goes against the ''laws of the God of Abraham." They say that teachers and administrators are indoctrinating children to believe that homosexuality is acceptable by exposing children to gay-themed storybooks and other lessons in a compulsory school setting.
Invoking religious freedom in the debate can be dicey, some legal observers said. State law guarantees equality to gays and lesbians, including the right to marry.
''I think it's going to be a difficult litigation primarily because it's coming out of a state that has adopted same-sex marriage," said Mathew Staver, president of the Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit litigation, education, and policy organization in Orlando, Fla., that is dedicated to advancing religious freedom and traditional family values.
''Schools will argue it's just following state law. That's a strong argument for the school, and that should be a wake-up call to the other 49 states of what would happen if they legalize same-sex marriage."
The last major federal case in Massachusetts that attempted to grant parents more rights in public education on the basis of religious freedom failed. That case, which attracted considerable media attention, centered on a 1992 assembly at Chelmsford High School on sex education. During the assembly, presenter Suzanne Landolphi of Hot, Sexy and Safer Productions Inc. told graphic jokes about genitalia and other sexual topics to warn students about the dangers of AIDS.
Three students and their parents filed a $3.5 million lawsuit against Landolphi and the school. They argued in their suit that the mandatory assembly promoted premarital sex, which is ''condemned by the Holy Scriptures," and violated the parents' ''sincerely held religious values regarding chastity and morality . . . thereby infringing upon the plaintiffs' right of free exercise of religion."
But the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in upholding a lower court ruling, said in October 1995 that their civil rights were not violated, even though officials probably should have allowed students to skip the assembly.
''You can't tailor public education for each child to meet what parents want based on their personal moral or religious beliefs," said Sarah Wunsch, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, talking about how the Chelmsford decision might apply to the Lexington case. ''Education would grind to a halt."
Brian Camenker, of the Parents' Rights Coalition in Waltham, said there is a major difference between the two cases. In 1996, just a few months after a federal judge shot down the Chelmsford case, the Legislature passed the parental notification law, which requires school districts to notify parents about sex education lessons so they can pull their children out if they want. Camenker and the Lexington parents argue that the notification law should apply to discussions about same-gender parents and gay marriage, contending the talks encompass sexuality issues and not just family structures, as Lexington school officials assert.
Camenker's group is pushing for an amendment that would broaden the state notification law to discussions of homosexuality, and Camenker said he believes the lawsuit by the Lexington parents could help build momentum for passage, just as the Chelmsford case did with the original law. The Chelmsford case took place during a time when schools were starting to deal with controversial measures such as condom distribution to combat the spread of AIDS.
''The Lexington lawsuit gives a whole new light to that bill," Camenker said. ''Everybody can't do what the Parkers and Wirthlins did and go into public court."
Lexington started incorporating same-gender parents into classroom discussions of families about seven years ago in recognition that gays and lesbians had children in the school system and were volunteering in classrooms. School leaders said they want the children of gay and lesbian parents to feel comfortable talking about their families without fear of name-calling or ridicule. Sometimes the topic of same-gender parents can come up as early as kindergarten when a child might draw a picture of his or her two mothers as part of a social studies unit on families.
But the Wirthlins objected on April 6 after their son's second-grade teacher at the Joseph Estabrook Elementary School read to the class ''King & King," a fairy tale that depicts two princes falling in love and marrying. A year earlier, David Parker, whose son was then in kindergarten at the same school, was arrested for trespassing when he refused to leave school grounds until administrators promised to excuse his son from classroom discussions about same-gender parents. Parker's son had brought home a ''diversity book bag" that included ''Who's in a Family?" a book that shows pictures of same-sex parents and other types of families.
In both cases, the parents felt their children were too young to be taught about gay marriage or same-gender parents and that the teachings went against their religious beliefs.
Joseph Robert Wirthlin said, ''I feel disappointed it had to come to this. We don't want to be here, but our children deserve better."
Then he asked: ''Do parents know their children better or do school systems know their children better?"