Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Where is the line between kids not being exposed to gay characters in books and kids not being exposed to gay people in schools?

AP:

“The stories include a family’s attendance at a pride parade, a girl’s introduction to her uncle’s husband-to-be, a prince’s love for a knight amid their battle against a dragon, a girl’s anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl and a transgender boy’s decision to share his gender identity with his family.”

In this case, I believe the line has been crossed from education to promotion.

Then we need to remove books with a mom and dad, girls liking boys and giving them valentines and boys falling in love with girls while fightings dragon

The seven books mentioned by the plaintiffs didn't even include the book about the uncle's wedding or the prince loving the knight. Those were raised by the defendant's petition. If it was just about books that include all types of families, I don't think anyone cared. But it was beyond that

Some of what's in the plaintiff petition:

Born Ready,” a story about Penelope, a student who identifies as a boy. “Teachers are told to instruct students that, at birth, doctors guess about our gender, but we know ourselves best”;

“Love, Violet,” a story about two young girls and their same-sex playground romance. “Teachers are encouraged to have a think-aloud moment to ask students how it feels when they don’t just like but like like someone”

*I think this book is inappropriate regardless of the sex of the characters. Kindergarten students don't need to be read a book that encourages "playground romance" between two seven year olds.

“Intersection Allies,” a picture book for children to ponder what it means to be “transgender” or “non-binary” and asks, “what pronouns fit you?”

“Pride Puppy,” about a puppy lost at a Pride parade. The book, for pre-K and kindergarten, goes through each letter of the alphabet, describing people the puppy might have met at the parade, inviting student to search for drag kings and queens, lip rings, leather, underwear and other items.

*I think this book was ultimately pulled by the school because it required teachers to teach vocabulary beyond what was in the curriculum.

My son was last in grade school 15 years ago and it’s been almost 50 years for me, but I have zero memory of romances and romantic relationships in the K-5 class.

Why are 5 year old kids being taught about romantic relationships by the teachers? MCPS has lost their minds.

You clearly do not remember being kid. I had a crush on a classmate in preschool. Many elementary school kids have crushes and many children’s book have romance. Did you read Cinderella or watch a similar movie in elementary school?

+1
I laughed when I saw this comment. I was just discussing with my 25 yr old what he remembered from preschool. He said not much, except kissing his "girlfriend" on the playground once. They were 4 years old.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP have you read this lawsuit in its entirety?

I have they will lose .

It is the worst written lawsuit. The lawyers on the side of the religious zealots should lose their license because of how bad they wrote their side.

It is religious garbage. Worse than that they want add religious indoctrination into public schools.

Well of course it is! It's written by religious ignoramuses MAGA dorks. Not intellectuals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Where is the line between kids not being exposed to gay characters in books and kids not being exposed to gay people in schools?

AP:

“The stories include a family’s attendance at a pride parade, a girl’s introduction to her uncle’s husband-to-be, a prince’s love for a knight amid their battle against a dragon, a girl’s anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl and a transgender boy’s decision to share his gender identity with his family.”

In this case, I believe the line has been crossed from education to promotion.

Then we need to remove books with a mom and dad, girls liking boys and giving them valentines and boys falling in love with girls while fightings dragon

The seven books mentioned by the plaintiffs didn't even include the book about the uncle's wedding or the prince loving the knight. Those were raised by the defendant's petition. If it was just about books that include all types of families, I don't think anyone cared. But it was beyond that

Some of what's in the plaintiff petition:

Born Ready,” a story about Penelope, a student who identifies as a boy. “Teachers are told to instruct students that, at birth, doctors guess about our gender, but we know ourselves best”;

“Love, Violet,” a story about two young girls and their same-sex playground romance. “Teachers are encouraged to have a think-aloud moment to ask students how it feels when they don’t just like but like like someone”

*I think this book is inappropriate regardless of the sex of the characters. Kindergarten students don't need to be read a book that encourages "playground romance" between two seven year olds.

“Intersection Allies,” a picture book for children to ponder what it means to be “transgender” or “non-binary” and asks, “what pronouns fit you?”

“Pride Puppy,” about a puppy lost at a Pride parade. The book, for pre-K and kindergarten, goes through each letter of the alphabet, describing people the puppy might have met at the parade, inviting student to search for drag kings and queens, lip rings, leather, underwear and other items.

*I think this book was ultimately pulled by the school because it required teachers to teach vocabulary beyond what was in the curriculum.

My son was last in grade school 15 years ago and it’s been almost 50 years for me, but I have zero memory of romances and romantic relationships in the K-5 class.

Why are 5 year old kids being taught about romantic relationships by the teachers? MCPS has lost their minds.

You clearly do not remember being kid. I had a crush on a classmate in preschool. Many elementary school kids have crushes and many children’s book have romance. Did you read Cinderella or watch a similar movie in elementary school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. What the people who brought this suit don’t understand is that mandating this education was helping their cause, not hurting it. Having the weirdest, most cringe middle school teacher heavy-handedly preaching to kids about how they are mandated to think essentially just has the effect of turning kids in the exact opposite direction.

The younger half of Gen Z — the ones who got these lessons — are sharply more conservative (particularly socially) than their older peers. That is not a coincidence.

Bar the lessons, and you make them cool again. Not that these plaintiffs understand kids, of course.

I think what you’re saying is that you have to pick your battles. Yes, but that is a two way street. Require the lesson and you’ll accelerate parents moving on to private and sectarian schools as well as home schooling—reducing funding to public schools and further eroding support for public schools.

So we should continue to make LGBTQ kids and family hide and pretend they don’t exist? Just so some small population can potentially not do what has been done throughout history, segregate itself until such time as they come to realize, oh these lessons really don’t do anything more than make individuals reflective and tolerant.

Just like religion, don't discuss it in schools. No need. Just stick to academics.

People discuss religion in school. It is unavoidable. History has lots of connections to religion, the puritans moved to America for religiously motivated reasons, the US expanded our west due to religiously motivated ideology, people justified slavery due to religious reasons. Religion is completely unavoidable in school and romance is an unavoidable as well. Are we going to ban middle schoolers from reading Romeo and Juliet too? Should elementary school students be unable to read a fiction book with magic in it because it offends some religions? Allowing religious exemptions for everything because it offends someone is a recipe for disaster. It will make public schools completely unable to teach anything. If you are really that sensitive and can’t handle your children being exposed to anything that disagrees with your worldview send your kids to a private school that follows your religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The MoCo attorney sounded weak in this clip.

If they hadn't removed the opt out option for parents, this case would have never been heard by the Court. OTOH, it would have revealed how radical and unwelcome the lesson was ... even to parents in Montgomery County!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. What the people who brought this suit don’t understand is that mandating this education was helping their cause, not hurting it. Having the weirdest, most cringe middle school teacher heavy-handedly preaching to kids about how they are mandated to think essentially just has the effect of turning kids in the exact opposite direction.

The younger half of Gen Z — the ones who got these lessons — are sharply more conservative (particularly socially) than their older peers. That is not a coincidence.

Bar the lessons, and you make them cool again. Not that these plaintiffs understand kids, of course.

I think what you’re saying is that you have to pick your battles. Yes, but that is a two way street. Require the lesson and you’ll accelerate parents moving on to private and sectarian schools as well as home schooling—reducing funding to public schools and further eroding support for public schools.

Correct. Another unintended consequence will likely be an expansion of voucher programs fueling growth of private education.

Anonymous wrote:The MoCo attorney sounded weak in this clip.

Anonymous wrote:This op-ed was terrific: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/18/opinion/lgbtq-books-supreme-court.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. What the people who brought this suit don’t understand is that mandating this education was helping their cause, not hurting it. Having the weirdest, most cringe middle school teacher heavy-handedly preaching to kids about how they are mandated to think essentially just has the effect of turning kids in the exact opposite direction.

The younger half of Gen Z — the ones who got these lessons — are sharply more conservative (particularly socially) than their older peers. That is not a coincidence.

Bar the lessons, and you make them cool again. Not that these plaintiffs understand kids, of course.

I think what you’re saying is that you have to pick your battles. Yes, but that is a two way street. Require the lesson and you’ll accelerate parents moving on to private and sectarian schools as well as home schooling—reducing funding to public schools and further eroding support for public schools.

So we should continue to make LGBTQ kids and family hide and pretend they don’t exist? Just so some small population can potentially not do what has been done throughout history, segregate itself until such time as they come to realize, oh these lessons really don’t do anything more than make individuals reflective and tolerant.

Just like religion, don't discuss it in schools. No need. Just stick to academics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. What the people who brought this suit don’t understand is that mandating this education was helping their cause, not hurting it. Having the weirdest, most cringe middle school teacher heavy-handedly preaching to kids about how they are mandated to think essentially just has the effect of turning kids in the exact opposite direction.

The younger half of Gen Z — the ones who got these lessons — are sharply more conservative (particularly socially) than their older peers. That is not a coincidence.

Bar the lessons, and you make them cool again. Not that these plaintiffs understand kids, of course.

I think what you’re saying is that you have to pick your battles. Yes, but that is a two way street. Require the lesson and you’ll accelerate parents moving on to private and sectarian schools as well as home schooling—reducing funding to public schools and further eroding support for public schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when in ~2003, anyone opposed to gay marriage was told it wouldn't affect them? The alarmists are not always wrong.

How does it affect you/them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of you arguing that this is about religious freedom and not homophobia are strange. If a school taught a book where the main character eats pork, it would not be offensive to muslim or kosher students because they themselves aren't eating pork. Religious freedom is about what you do, not what the people around you do.

Wrong. The equivalent would be a school deliberately choosing to have teachers read a series of books about eating pork, and then launching a teacher-led classroom discussion about why it’s ok to eat pork, then saying parents can opt out from those lessons, and then rescinding that option under political pressure.

Get it now?

No it’s like reading a book where people are eating bacon for breakfast and asking to opt out because it’s pork.