corrente

Big doings up Boston way. One of those winger issues that superficially seems reasonable until everything spirals out of control in the service of their theocratic agenda:

arker and his wife, Tonia, 34, who was also in court yesterday, said the dispute arose because they asked school officials to notify them about classroom discussions about same-sex marriage and what they called other adult themes. They also wanted the option to exclude their boy, now 6, from those talks.

Parker said he met with school officials to gain those assurances and then refused to leave until he got them. Parker stayed at Estabrook School for more than two hours, according to Superintendent William J. Hurley, as officials and Lexington police urged him to leave. Finally, they arrested him for trespassing.

Parker, who refused to bail himself out of jail Wednesday night, said he spent the night in custody to prove a point.

''I chose to stay, which I'm not sure was a wise move," he said. ''But I wanted to see how far they would go for asking something simple." Parker said he wanted to control ''the timing and manner" in which his son learned about ''adult themes."

''This is not about creating a forum for hate . . . for any segment of society," Parker said after his arraignment. ''I'm just trying to be a good dad."

''We're not intolerant," said Tonia Parker. ''We love all people. That is part of our faith."

A handful of supporters of the Parker family appeared at the courthouse yesterday, including Brian Camenker, director of Article 8 Alliance. The group, which opposes same-sex marriage, posted e-mail exchanges between the Parkers and school officials on the matter on its website. Camenker said Parker contacted him in January.
(via Boston Glob)

Interesting that this media event was planned way back in January, isn't it? Too bad these guys are using their son as a political pawn; we saw that already in the Schiavo case, of course.

But who is Article 8 Alliance? Well, we went to their site. And found this:



"Can you believe this man is making your laws..." (Interesting that this exposes the theocratic agenda; the implication is that (some Christians' version) of God should make the laws...)

Well.

So, not about intolerance? Not about hate? Read the caption! Apparently, it's not enough for "this man" to be elected, in a democracy, to make the laws! And apparently "this man" shouldn't be in church, either!

Not about hate? Not about intolerance? Please.