By Ed Oliver
October 13, 2000

A federal judge yesterday denied an emergency request to block the Lexington Schools from co-sponsoring a seminar by the Unitarian Church called “Respecting Differences” which gives its approval to the homosexual lifestyle. If granted, the Temporary Restraining Order would not have stopped the event but would have prevented teachers from receiving up to ten hours of professional credits for attending activities scheduled for this weekend.

Stephen M. Crampton, Chief Counsel for the American Family Association which filed the complaint yesterday on behalf of five Lexington residents, told Massachusetts News, “The schools hide behind the so-called ‘wall of separation’ when they disagree with the religious message, but they rush headlong into the very sanctuary of the churches when the message is one they prefer.”

Crampton plans to file an emergency appeal today in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. 

He argued to Judge Joseph Tauro yesterday that Lexington school administrators are attempting to put a stamp of spiritual approval on their policy of training teachers and students to view homosexuality as acceptable. “Why do the schools ask the churches to endorse this activity, but not other things?” Crampton argued. “The evidence is clear that there are all kinds of religious connotations to this.”

His memorandum filed with the court argued that, “Applying the settled law to the facts here shows that the schools’ policy and sponsorship of the program violate the Establishment [of Religion] Clause. As stated above, the schools have actively promoted, sponsored and participated in this essentially religious program, held in large part in the sanctuary of First Parish Church on a Sunday, a day traditionally devoted to worship. 

“In addition, the schools carefully scheduled the program to coincide with First Parish’s special worship service addressing the topic of homosexuality, presumably from a distinctly spiritual perspective. An objective observer could hardly conclude otherwise than that the government has endorsed the religious views of First Parish church and the other churches represented in the program and the panel discussion. The union of the government and religion has rarely been more obvious…

“They have also determined to reward teachers for attendance by providing them 3 hours of Professional Development Points for listening to the religious leaders espouse the government-preferred viewpoint on the issue of homosexuality in the sanctuary of a church.”

Crampton entered into evidence promotional flyers distributed by the schools. He also showed the judge a page from the local weekly paper, The Lexington Minuteman, featuring side-by-side articles by Superintendent Pat Ruane and Unitarian (First Parish) Pastor Helen Cohen. Both articles touted the upcoming pro-homosexual weekend. The pastor wrote that she believes that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality and the church considers them to be equal.

Defending Lexington school officials, Attorney Jordana Glasgow of Palmer and Dodge said the American Family Association was really trying to “squelch the message” of the weekend activities rather than protect the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs. She denied that there was any funding by the schools and said there was no evidence that anything would take place in a church sanctuary. “There is no religious message or content in “Respecting Differences,” she said. 

However, a Boston Globe article produced by Crampton stated that about two hundred dollars was contributed from the state’s safe schools initiative to the event.

Glasgow told the judge, “This is a secular discussion. There is a law in this commonwealth that schools must protect children from discrimination.” 

When asked by Judge Joseph Tauro if all the churches in Lexington were participating, Glasgow said she didn’t know but all were invited. Tauro asked, “What do teachers attend to get credit?” Glasgow answered, “They attend two days.”

Crampton countered that not all churches in Lexington are participating. His brief stated that the schools were seeking to “endorse a particular religious viewpoint on the issue of homosexuality, namely that homosexuality is a valid alternative lifestyle and not sinful.”

He said the Restraining Order would not cancel the event or “squelch” the church’s teachings at all. He said the order would merely cancel school sponsorship of a religious event and nullify the validating effect that official school department approval lends to the church’s viewpoint and vice versa. 

Despite the church-state entanglement, Judge Lauro denied the request for a Restraining Order, ruling that “the weight of the evidence shows this is a secular event,” and he sees no irreparable harm that can come to the plaintiffs.
 

RETURN TO FRONT PAGE