Atty Says School Threatened, Punished Boy Who Opposed Gay Adoption

View Comments (28)

• Public education on display and it spiral downward. From the article, the superintendent went way out of bounds by threatening a 15 year old. He attempted to use his position of authority to intimidate this young man into silence. When that didn’t work, he reverted to the liberal mind set. He attacked him personally.

  The parents have ever right to demand that the superintendent resign immediately. The pro homosexual agenda is being shoved down the throats of the young and when it is vomited back out. They get all pissy about it.

  Yes the article was written for a school paper, with the encouragement of the sponsor. So the school had an idea of this young man’s position and should have accepted the fact that he wrote his op-ed from the heart and his beliefs. Where is the tolerance from the left? (rhetorical question)

• The boy who wrote an op-ed opposing gay adoptions was censored, threatened with suspension, humiliated and called ignorant by the superintendent. Why can’t there be any opposition to the homosexual agenda--it seems that’s what the school paper wanted?

  It makes sense to think the boy was setup to be attacked and used as tool to suppress any opposition to the homosexual agenda.

  Who is bulling who?

  • I have to agree. It seems calculated that there is at least one pair of gay people who adopted a child who goes to the same school (and in the same year I believe) as the boy. This subject just happens to be up for a editorial piece for some unexplainable reason, after all it is not a hot topic right now. Then he writes it and then the gay pair just happens to be reading their kid's newspaper? Did the kid bring it up to their attention? How come they are not tolerant and teach tolerance to their kid? How come they felt it was appropriate to complain about a newspaper editorial piece in the first place?

    Then the predictable bullying happens by the administrators and there is no mention by them that they at least UNDERSTAND that he was writing a con piece to counter the pro piece. It is almost as if the assignment is not even taken into consideration at all! It is as if he wrote the piece himself without any prompting at all.

    I have to wonder if these gay parents have some clout in the school if they are part of boards or know board members. I wonder if the powers that be wanted to flesh out students via this piece who would agree with the con piece in order to mark them or else use this boy as an example to tell others that "this will happen to you if you come out of the closet of dissent against the homosexual agenda". If that is the case they were preparing for oppressive measures (persecution) against their own students. That is scary to think about. Who knows who put this in motion and the reasoning behind it?

    They probably didn't count the boy has balls (and his parents) and got a lawyer in there. If the boy wins his case, (and if this was a set up) the person or people involved would have strengthen the constitution in the school and embolden those students (and parents) who are not buying into the agenda, which of course is not what they wanted to do. They shot themselves in the foot and weakened their position.

    If this was a set up it was badly played. I feel bad for the boy but he is strong and he will live through this just fine. It is the adopted child of the gay couple that may suffer some serious embarrassment and the gay parents did not protect him when they complaint. They were selfish and arrogant and it is the child that now will be marked. Sad business all around.

• I've long thought that so-called gay marriage and gay adoption are more about the mainstreaming and acceptance of the lifestyle than about marriage and adoption. The real goal is to get people to shut up who dissent. And they'll pursue charges of bullying and hate speech if necessary to achieve silence.

  • Yep. Regardless of how one feels about it, it is NEVER okay to use government and power to quell dissenting voices. If a dissenting voice promotes violence (which was not what the kid was doing), society is there to shun that voice and choose peace instead. This among other things makes me believe that homeschooling is the only option for my child if I cannot find or afford a proper private school.

  • Wxactly! 5 thumbs up for you!

• Once again proves that Liberalism is a mental disorder. Decry homosexuality, and it's a hate crime, indorse heterosexuality, and the pillow biters will fight tooth and nail to suppress it.

• Kimmy,

  You're right, the student wrote his anti-gay adoption column as part of a point-counterpoint op-ed piece in the student newspaper---he was asked to write it. He was expressing his opinion, agree or disagree, he has that right. Despite this, the superintedent saw fit to bully, threaten and insult the offending student.

  It's ironic, all schools have anti-bullying policies, apparently they don't apply to teachers and adminstrators.

  • Right it is ironic that it is okay to bully some but not the others. It is almost a socialistic regime.

    • You all missed the point.
      The purpose of this exercise was to get both sides to agree on gay adoption! Point, counterpoint aside, when you receive an assignment like this, you are expected to "see the light" during your argument and come out on the side of the "opressed and downtrodden".

      • right on poppaJ.

• I dont understand something. He either was specifically asked to write the counterpoint to the argument OR he volunteer to do so AFTER a call for someone to write the counterpoint was made.

  So he did...

  What is the problem?

  :-/

  If he was asked was he set up by someone? If he volunteered was the call for someone to write the counterpoint a set up? If you ask and you receive what you asked what's the problem? Someone complained? So? Did someone complain about pro-gay adoption point of view? Did a Christian parent said I disagree with the pro-gay person's opinions? Yes? No? No right?

  So who is the bully here and who is the ignorant one? Certainly not the boy. He did what whe was asked to do or what he volunteered to do as per request. If a family complained that is too bad, he (the kid) and his gay parents need to deal with it. If a Christian had complained about the pro-gay position, I would have said be quiet freedom of speech, it seems that did not happen though. Those that scream for protections over their rights because they are outside the normative section of society are the ones that tend to be the most negative and most anti-rights for everyone else of them all.

  • That is exactly my point, Kimmy. He followed the assignment he was given. They couldn't very well have the same side supported by both. If he had refused the asssignment, he would have been in a world of trouble for THAT! The kid is screwed no matter what he does or doesn't do! SO WRONG!

    • That is why I feel it was a set up. If it wasn't then the administrators have not read the Constitution lately.

      • Likely they have NEVER read it!

• There is no shortage of predatory homosexuals that have cleverly placed themselves in areas of opportunity, where they will have access to vulnerable youth - including our schools. When they achieve sufficient status, they quickly surround themselves with enablers. When anyone or anything gets out of line, they work tirelessly to gain the upper hand and restore the order that allows them to continue their predation.

  • huh, you got a dt for that. must be a shirt lifter around somewhere.

    • There are homosexual pedofiles, and there are heterosexual pedophiles. I don't think one can lump all homosexuals to gether and assume they are also pedophiles.

• Superintendant Carlson is in need of First Amendment sensitivity training, he needs to understand the First Amendment applies to everyone, including 15 year old Christians. It doesn't matter that the student was for or against gay marriage or that his opinion was well or poorly written, what matters is he was expressing his opinion---and his right to express an opinion is protected by the First Amendment.

  Public schools are terrified by free speech, at least by free speech they disagree with. If the story is correct, Carlson should be fired for his unconscionable, bullying actions.

  • Expressing an opinion is not allowed in public schools, unless the opinion is left wing propoganda that is approved by the teachers union and ACLU.

• “form of bullying "

  Is that what this whole current obsession with "bullying" really is? Code for gay-bashing?

  • When the gay moffia goes after someone, you see real bullying. They go for blood.

• "After the op-ed was published, a gay couple whose child attend s the high school, complained."

  I know someone who teaches in a pubic, er public school. She says basically the administration is scared shitless of parents calling up and complaining about anything. For example, school policy is no cell phones in school so teachers confiscate them. If a parent complains, they give it back, apologize to the parent, yell at the teacher (for following school policy) and then go hide in their offices. Some are probably worse than others in this regard, but here you have a combination of liberal state, politically-favored folks offended, member of the politically-disfavored the offender and apparently a HIGHLY politically-sensitive administration running things, so this is what you get.