Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Religion & Law Blogs -> Mirror of Justice
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Religion & Law
: Mirror of Justicenew parental rights decision
By Richard Myers
On January 31, 2008, the First Circuit decided Parker v. Hurley. Here is a link to the opinion. The court rejected a variety of constitutional claims by parents who complained that their very young children (kindergarten-2d grade) were exposed to books that portrayed same-sex marriage in a favorable light. The parents asked for notice and an opportunity to opt-out. The opinion (which is lengthy) viewed this as basically a re-run of the Mozert case. The court's main reason for rejecting the claims was that the plaintiffs hadn't pleaded a "constitutionally significant burden." Mere exposure to offensive ideas does not state a claim.
This ruling is nothing new but it still seems to me quite wrong. The idea that there is no burden seems hard to believe. The court seems to admit that the school's choice of books has deeply offended the plaintiffs' sincerely held religious beliefs. The court means that this isn't a cognizable "burden." But the court can only reach this conclusion by understating the impact that the plaintiffs assert (the case was decided on the pleadings and so the court had to accept the plaintiffs' allegations). That deficiency also seemed true in the Mozert case where the court had to redescribe the plainitffs' claim. The courts just don't seem to believe it when parents say that their religion prohibits exposing their children to certain books.
The problem here is that parents do not have sufficient control over the education of their children. It doesn't seem adequate to say that "exposure to the materials in dispute here will not automatically and irreversibly prevent the parents from raising" their children.
This ruling is another instance where the constitutional doctrine departs from Catholic social teaching. That teaching emphasizes parental control over education and also the need for parents to have sufficient resources (vouchers?) to choose the type of education they desire.
Richard M.
Full post as published by Mirror of Justice on February 03, 2008 (boomark / email).
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Cumulative Voting
Protecting minority shareholder interests
The Civil Rights Act of 1871
Law bans discrimination enacted under color of state law
State Will Statutes
State Differences in Last Will and Testament Checklist
Discrimination
Federal laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability
Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause
Rally Rights
Gettysburg Borough awards arrested protester $22,500 civil rights settlement.
Civil / Human Rights
alleging violations of basic human and civil rights.
Google Sued for Violating the Privacy Rights of Millions of Americans
Google Sued for Violating the Privacy Rights of Millions of Americans
Becker County
Faces Civil Rights Class Action by Inmates and their Attorneys
Windsor Healthcare Management
allegedly provided substandard care and neglected the rights of its senior residents.
Employment
Employee rights including labor law, harassment, safety, unpaid overtime, discrimination and union disputes.

ADF: Montana judges decision is path to destruction of parental rights
Case Law Development: Poverty Not A Basis for Termination of Parental Rights
Mont. former same-sex partner gets parental rights
Theorizing The FLDS Case: Should Texas Terminate Parental Rights
M.E.C. v. Com., Termination Of Parental Rights (Ky)
Sperm Donor Takes Case to Supreme Court Seeking Parental Rights








