Alameda Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch is Queerty’s favorite person today. Might he be yours? Charged with overseeing challenges from parents who don’t want their kids to be forced to learn about LGBT tolerance, Roesch found a cute name for such people responsible for the upbringing of human beings: “bigots.” Adorable!
You you’ll recall, California’s Alameda Unified School District, outside Oakland, is trying to implement Safe School Community Lesson 9, which would have K-5 students treated to six, 45-minute lessons a year about queers. You know, so the region doesn’t create new generations of hate. But some parents didn’t like that, so with conservative legal group Pacific Justice Institute, some 20 parents filed suit demanding they be able to opt their kids out of this brainwashing.
It didn’t go so well: “PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider argued in Alameda Superior Court [yesterday] on behalf of parents seeking to enforce a provision of the California Education Code that gives parents the right to opt their kids out of health education. Alameda Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch lambasted the parents, repeatedly insinuating that they are bigots and insisting there can be no homosexual indoctrination because people are born that way. The judge equated a view contrary to his own with creationism and called both false.”
No decisions yet, but we can see where this is going: Awesometown.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
terrwill
Unfortnuatley if Judge Awesome was in Florida we know
where he would be headed: to the unemployment line……
Keith Kimmel
Someone should send this judge a medal.
andy_d
Mr. Kimmel:
It should be the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize.
Mark from NM
actually Andy, let’s take Obama’s and give it to the judge – he deserves it much more.
Gary
If only all our government was so clear-headed….
ChrisM
Amazing, this is the attitude that all of our nation should have adopted by now.
Jacob
Exactly! I like this judge lol :o) We need more of them! 😛
N Waff
==========================
Great example of Judge Frank Roesch demonostrating anti-christian bigotry.
==========================
I forgot, the message of “inclusion” is for all except Christians, who need to be legislated against their will into submission.
Larry
Another dumb ass Judge thinking he knows best. I sure would pay a lot of money for just two minutes alone with that idiot.
Attmay
Christian to Smart Person Translation:
Anti-Christian bigotry: Telling the truth about the evils perpetrated in the name of Christianity
hyhybt
#8: Claiming there is, or can be, such a thing as “homosexual indoctrination” is not a matter of being Christian, but of, at best, being willfully and deliberately ignorant. And of course ignorance is what schools are supposed to cure.
pyxbiz
California state law clearly stipulates that parents can remove their children from any public school lessons which make them uncomfortable, including and especially for religious reasons.
Judge Roesch totally ignored the law he was appointed to uphold. This is called “legislating from the bench.” Because of this ruling, the state needs to start proceedings to have him disbarred.
This should have nothing to do with what the judge’s personal opinions are. He was put in his position to enforce ALL laws equally, not simply those laws he likes. If a law, such as the law in this case, is not something he personally likes, he still has no right to junk it due to his individual attitude.
If the people running this blog don’t like the parental-removal law, then advocate to get it changed. But don’t cheer when a judge breaks the law on a whim.
How would you feel if a judge ignored a law to rule against you in a case in which you clearly had the law on your side? You’d be furious! But in this double-standard world, you think it’s delightful when someone ELSE is unfairly punished.
This is the road to totalitarianism. And you are in favor of it. Unbelievable.
Mark
Hey pyxbiz, a few points:
1. You say “California state law clearly stipulates that parents can remove their children from any public school lessons which make them uncomfortable.” While it’s true that parents can always pull their kids out of school for whatever reason they want at any time, that’s not what this was about; it was about being notified in advance so they can opt out. California law permits that for health (i.e. sex) education; not anti-bullying activities.
2. The judge did not ignore the law. The law does not entitle parents to be notified in advance whenever there is something some parent could conceivably object to coming up. Because this is not about sex ed, the judge did not apply the sex ed opt out provision. He demonstrated pretty straight forward fidelity to the law actually. Don’t like the law? Change it. Don’t fault a judge for applying it.
3. The judge is a judge and therefore not a member of the bar and therefore cannot be disbarred.
4. “Road to totalitarianism”? Really? Did you put an extra spoonful of crazy in your coffee this morning?
CJ
I’m all for teaching tolerance for EVERYONE in schools, but when boys and girls can still get “cooties” they’re too young to learn about any sort of sexual orientation. =\
Alison
I highly disagree with this judge and shame on everyone who supports him. I have 3 sons and do not let any of them take any kind of sex education in school. I simply believe that sex is too wonderful a gift to turn into a textbook topic. I try to encourage my children to ask questions and guide them to the information they need to be healthy, sexual adults. There is no religious reasoning. Just a strong belief in the role of parents and their obligation to be involved in their childrens lives. I have often joked that since it wouldn’t bother me if my children were gay, other than due to the cruelty of others, I would probably have a breakdown when one comes home telling me he is involved with the GOP. I must say also that, although we all have people we can’t stand, we should be teaching children that you can dislike anyone you want for any reason but you have no right to project your feelings unjustly onto somebody else. This in your face attitude being pushed on people is only going to create hate and misunderstanding.
Gay guy from New York
This was implemented because of violence being perpetrated against GLBT people, and also because GLBT youngsters were being driven to suicide as the result of the bigotry all around them.
Since it’s a safety matter, you can not opt your children out of it any more than you can opt them out of fire drills!