Even if some news stories describe a legal fight over sex education, attorneys fighting for parents say the heart of the matter is not the explicit nature of books about multiple genders and same-sex weddings.
Rather, the madness in the method is how a Maryland public school district chose to treat parents who objected.
A special series of books was forced on pre-kindergarten and elementary-aged children.
Now, in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, a group of parents from wildly different faiths – Jewish, Muslim and Christian – are united in their pushback against the Montgomery County, Maryland Board of Education.
The lessons were not presented in a sex education class, something parents could see on their child’s schedule, then choose for their child to “opt out" of a lesson they deem inappropriate.
Instead, the district labeled the lessons a part of their Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiative, and DEI was being woven throughout the curriculum at the school, Meg Kilgannon, a senior education fellow at Family Research Council, said on Washington Watch Monday.
“This is an issue of the school not believing this is sex education,” Kilgannon told show host Tony Perkins.
Possibly, it’s also an issue of the school not admitting the lessons are sex education.
The Montgomery County board announced the new “inclusivity” books in the fall of 2022. A year later, it was announced that it would not allow parents to have their children opt out.
One book instructs 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “(drag) queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker, according to Becket Fund, the law group representing the parents.
Parents: It's all about sex
With this type of content, the parents disagree with the school board’s assertion that the lessons are not about sex education.
“The parents are saying, ‘but you’re talking about sex to my children. It is sex education, and I don’t want you to talk to my children about that. That’s my job, and I’ll do it,’” Kilgannon said.
It’s long been debated with courses and lessons of this nature whether parents with religious or other objections should have to have their children “opt out” or whether the content should be presented as an elective class.
“Young children in elementary and preschool were being read books with sexual content in class time, not as a separate sex education lesson from which they had the right to opt out, but let’s say math, science or English. The material was being incorporated into the curriculum of any particular lesson,” Kilgannon said.
The date for a ruling has not been announced, but this is a case that shouldn’t cause much of a struggle for the Supreme Court, attorney Ron Coleman said on American Family Radio Monday.
“The obvious issue is that there’s this gross violation not only of decency and fundamental morality but of the parents’ rights to educate their children as they see fit and not to have their moral teaching at home undermined in such an obvious way,” Coleman told show host Jenna Ellis.
Montgomery County, in the Washington, D.C., suburbs, is the largest school district in Maryland and is one of the country’s most religiously diverse counties, Scotusblog.com reports.
Lower courts have ruled against the parents’ request that while the litigation plays out the county be required to notify parents when the explicit books are being used so that they might have a chance to opt out.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said the parents had presented a weak case that did not show that exposure to the books compelled them to violate their religious beliefs, Scotusblog.com reports.
For the last “10 or 15 years” of similar litigation the Supreme Court has “certainly taken the position” that the sort of material in question in this case doesn’t really matter and “is of no moral consequence.”
In short, Coleman believes the fact that the parents for whom the case is named are Muslim could work to their benefit.
Liberal justice line of thinking
A report by The Associated Press says SCOTUS appears to lean toward favoring the rights of the parents.
Before then, arguments began with liberal justices charting a path toward peaceful coexistence.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked if mere "exposure" to same-sex couples and beliefs would amount to "coercion," wrote Sarah Parshall Perry, of Heritage Foundation, who covered arguments on X.
Eric Baxter, the attorney with Becket Fund representing the parents, pointed to the Court's Obama-era Obergefell case, the landmark same-sex marriage ruling. A promise was made then that people have "decent and honorable beliefs that same-sex relationships are immoral," and those beliefs should be protected.
Justice Elena Kagan jumped ahead, asking if this was about accessing public education in an equal manner. If so, an opt-out option could stigmatize kids on both sides of the argument, she worried.
Even if one side is made slightly uncomfortable, another has had the constitutional right of religious liberty sacrificed, making the religious liberty opt-out necessary, Baxter responded.
Sotomayor and Kagan were the leaders of hostile questioning, Perry reported.
Kagan acknowledged that this subject matter was being taught to children so young that even non-religious parents may object, but she asked, "Where can we draw the lines?"
The lines for an opt-out should be drawn then the plaintiff expresses religious beliefs, shows them to be sincere and that beliefs have been substantially infringed, Baxter responds.
Previously, the Court may have been inclined to bend to pressure from the LGBTQ movement, he speculated.
“By virtue of having Muslim parents, I think the Supreme Court may believe that they can sort of get away with making a ruling vindicating the parents' rights,” Coleman said.
As troubling as the content, so too is the way in which it’s being forced on families, Kilgannon said.
Parents’ voices muted in their own homes
Not only can parents not choose for their children to opt out, but the lack of notification also means they don’t know when the lessons are presented.
Parents are blindsided and unable to counter anything that’s been presented in the classroom.
“These parents have no idea that it's happening unless their child happens to come home and ask them a question which means that someone is presenting a value system to their child, and they're taking it,” Kilgannon said.
The violation of religious freedom is clear, she added.
“We’re talking about elementary school children who are being told things that are contradictory to these parents' faith, to their moral values, in some cases to common sense, and they have no way of addressing this at home with their children after it's done. This is a very significant assault on parental authority.”
