Supreme Court Rules that Public Schools Cannot Preach the Gay/Trans Agenda to Children Without Alerting Their Parents and Allowing Them an Opt-Out

You probably remember this dispute. Maryland, as deranged a progressive cesspit as there is, insists on teaching kids to be gay in grade school. Not middle school, grade school.

Initially, they permitted parents an opt-out of Lessons In Homosexuality, but then reversed themselves, denying parents that opt-out. It seems too many parents wanted to opt their children out, and that defeats the whole point of their gay and trans grooming.

Also, they said they couldn't just excuse kids when they were going to give lectures about changing your gender, because these lectures could come at literally any moment and who could plan for when teachers were going to start grooming children?

Which leads to a question that should be asked and answered: Just how often are teachers engaging in grooming behavior such that they cannot even say when the groomings will begin and end? Maryland's position seems to be that teachers are going to groom children nigh-constantly, so it's too much of a bureaucratic chore to excuse children every time a groomer teacher wants to tell them that gender is infinitely mutable and just "assigned at birth" as a guess by a bigoted doctor and isn't it wonderful to have gay sex?

The Court rejected these arguments, and found that bureaucratic convenience did not overrule the protections of the First Amendment, which guarantees parents the right to decide their children's religious upbringing.

And note that all parents are forced to pay for public school and also that schooling until age 16 (or whatever) is compulsory, so parents cannot just "remove their children from school," as -- guess who? -- Ketanji Brown Jackson asserted in oral arguments.

Public schools in Maryland must allow parents with religious objections to withdraw their children from classes in which storybooks with L.G.B.T.Q. themes are discussed, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday.

The vote was 6 to 3, with the court's liberal members in dissent.

The case extended a winning streak for claims of religious freedom at the court, gains that have often come at the expense of other values, notably gay rights.

The case concerned a new curriculum adopted in 2022 for prekindergarten through the fifth grade by the Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland's largest school system.

The storybooks included "Pride Puppy," an alphabet primer about a family whose puppy gets lost at a Pride parade; "Love, Violet," about a girl who develops a crush on her female classmate; "Born Ready," about a transgender boy; and "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," about a same-sex union.

At first, the school system gave parents notice when the storybooks were to be discussed, along with the opportunity to have their children excused. But school administrators soon eliminated the advance notice and opt-out policy, saying it was hard to administer, led to absenteeism and risked "exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families to social stigma and isolation."
Parents of several faiths sued, saying the books violated the First Amendment's protection of the free exercise of religion. The books, their complaint said, "promote one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender transitioning and focus excessively on romantic infatuation."

The parents said they did not seek to remove the books from school libraries and classrooms but only to shield their children from having to discuss them. (The school system has since withdrawn two of the seven books, including "Pride Puppy." In court papers, officials said the books had been re-evaluated under standard procedures but did not elaborate.)

Jonathan Turley notes there is more sharp argument between the justices, with the conservatives rebuking the "Wise Latina" Sotomayor and Ketanji "I don't understand why there's so much legalese in the law" Brown Jackson.

Jonathan Turley @JonathanTurley

...We have our fourth opinion. It is Mahmoud v. Taylor, by Justice Alito. Huge 6-3 victory for parental rights over the ability to withdraw their children from LGBTQ lessons.

...Another sharp exchange between the justices. Alito goes after Sotomayor's characterizations: "We similarly disagree with the dissent's deliberately blinkered view that these storybooks and related instruction merely "expos[e] students to the 'message' that LGBTQ people exist"

...For those of us who wanted a robust defense of parental rights, there are some strong lines, including: "We reject this chilling vision of the power of the state to strip away the critical right of parents to guide the religious development of their children. Yoder and Barnette embody a very different view of religious liberty, one that comports with the fundamental values of the American people."

...There was also an implied push back on Justice Jackson stating in oral argument that parents can simply take their children out of schools -- a rather callous position for many families who have no other financial choice...

...From Alito: "According to the dissent, parents who send their children to public school must endure any instruction that falls short of direct compulsion or coercion and must try to counteract that teaching at home. The Free Exercise Clause is not so feeble. The parents in Barnette and Yoder were similarly capable of teaching their religious values "at home," but that made no difference to the First Amendment analysis in those cases."

...The Court includes pictures from these books to drive home these points...

The pictures begin at page 42 of the opinion, in an Appendix to the decision.

Leftist always lie about everything, but this is one of their favorite lies: Claiming that books that show boys giving men blowjobs are just about "acknowledging that homosexuality exists." They refuse to acknowledge the pornographic illustrations, and, when you try to show them at school board meetings, they tell you you're out-of-line because they don't allow explicit images in their meetings.

The images here do not show boys giving men blowjobs, but they are very blatantly gay groomer propaganda.

Those aren't necessarily the worst images -- I just picked those two at random.

Totally not preachin' and groomin':

Dress as whatever sex you like, and use whatever bathrooms feel right today:

If you can't read the text of that totally-not-grooming page:

Some may be confused that a kid like me
Can wear what I want and be proud and carefree.
My friends defend my choices and my place
A bathroom, like all rooms, should be a safe space.

No, no sexual-political messaging for kindergarten-aged children here, nope, none at all!

I can't even imagine the images in "Pride Puppy" might be-- even the school admitted that that one was over-the-line and had to withdraw that one.

From the Court's conclusion:

The Board's introduction of the "LGBTQ+-inclusive" storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents' rights to the free exercise of their religion. The parents have therefore shown that they are likely to succeed in their free exercise claims. They have likewise shown entitlement to a prelim- inary injunction pending the completion of this lawsuit. In the absence of an injunction, the parents will continue to be put to a choice: either risk their child's exposure to burdensome instruction, or pay substantial sums for alternative educational services. As we have explained, that choice unconstitutionally burdens the parents' religious exercise, and " '[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.' " Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U. S. 14, 19 (2020) (per curiam) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U. S. 347, 373 (1976) (plurality opinion)). Fur- thermore, in light of the strong showing made by the parents here, and the lack of a compelling interest supporting the Board's policies, an injunction is both equitable and in the public interest. The petitioners should receive preliminary relief while this lawsuit proceeds. See Winter, 555 U. S., at 20. Specifically, until all appellate review in this case is completed, the Board should be ordered to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.

So much legalese in that! So much dry technical reasoning!

Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley

...The dissenting justices again raise apocalyptic predictions for the nation by allowing children to opt out of LGBT readings: "The result will be chaos for this Nation's public schools. Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent's religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools.

Oh, so it's all about the teachers and poor beleaguered educrats, huh?

Oh wait, no it's not: Children may be harmed by being robbed of learning about how wonderful gender transitions are:

The harm will not be borne by educators alone: Children will suffer too. Classroom disruptions and absences may well inflict long-lasting harm on students' learning and development."

Below, an example of why the liberals may have a point: Many "teachers" seem to have taken the job exclusively for purposes of sharing their Trans Journey with their state-compelled captive audience of children:

Also possibly related:

Love is love, H8r.

Supreme Court Rules that Public Schools Cannot Preach the Gay/Trans Agenda to Children Without Alerting Their Parents and Allowing Them an Opt-Out&bodytext=You probably remember this dispute. Maryland, as deranged a progressive cesspit as there is, insists on teaching kids to be gay in grade school. Not middle school, grade school. Initially, they permitted parents an opt-out of Lessons In Homosexuality, but...&topic=world_news"> posted by Ace at 01:10 PM

| Access Comments