(The Center Square) 性视界传媒听The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision Friday, sided with parents in opting-out their children from school curriculum with LGBTQ storybooks.听
In the case Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court recognized parents have a constitutional right to opt their children out of, for religious reasons, content such as storybooks that push LGBTQ ideology.
性视界传媒淲e have long recognized听the rights of parents to direct 'the religious upbringing' of their children,"听Justice Samuel Alito听听in the court's opinion. "And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.性视界传媒
Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred.
性视界传媒淕iven the novelty of its 性视界传媒楲GBTQ+-inclusive性视界传媒 curriculum and no opt-out policy, if any party is pressing a progressive child rearing process in this litigation, clearly it is the [School] Board,性视界传媒 碍补惫补苍补耻驳丑听. 性视界传媒淪uch an unprecedented curriculum cannot 性视界传媒榦verbalance性视界传媒 the parents性视界传媒 性视界传媒榣egitimate claims to the free exercise of religion.性视界传媒櫺允咏绱綕
This issue arose in 2022 when Montgomery County, the largest school district in Maryland and one of the most religiously diverse counties in the country, reversed its policy on letting parents opt-out their children from LGBTQ-related lessons.
The seven 听originally purchased for the 2022-23 school year were听"Born Ready," "Intersection Allies," "Love, Violet,"听"My Rainbow," "Prince & Knight," "Pride Puppy!"听and听"Uncle Bobby性视界传媒檚 Wedding"听性视界传媒撎all with LGBTQ characters and themes.
The district性视界传媒檚 associate superintendent for curriculum, Niki Hazel, explained the district decided to buy those books due to previous storybooks not fully representing all diverse families in their school district.
性视界传媒淭he books used in its existing ELA curriculum were not representative of many students and families in Montgomery County because they did not include LGBTQ characters,性视界传媒 Hazel in a U.S. Supreme Court declaration.
Following parents' frustration with reversing this opt-out policy, the Montgomery County Board of Education claimed these opt-outs were too difficult to manage and that it was too hard to find alternative activities for the excused students.听
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said this decision will isolate students from a diverse education.听
性视界传媒淭oday性视界传媒檚 ruling threatens the very essence of public education ... That decision guts our free-exercise precedent and strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society,性视界传媒 听Sotomayor. 性视界传媒淭he reverberations of the Court性视界传媒檚 error will be felt, I fear, for generations. Unable to condone that grave misjudgment, I dissent.性视界传媒澨
Eric Baxter, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the group representing the parents who were the plaintiffs in the case, said Friday's decision restored common sense in America.听
性视界传媒淭his is a historic victory for parental rights in Maryland and across America. Kids shouldn性视界传媒檛 be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents性视界传媒 permission,性视界传媒 Baxter . 性视界传媒淭oday, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents 性视界传媒 not government 性视界传媒攈ave the final say in how their children are raised.性视界传媒澨
Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president and legal fellow at Defending Education, said the court's decision should have been unanimous.
性视界传媒淚n what should have been a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court in Mahmoud v. Taylor upheld by a 6-3 vote the rights of religious parents to opt their children out of LGBTQ themed curriculum," Perry said in a statement to The Center Square. "In a straightforward application of its earlier decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Court wrote that it had long recognized the rights of parents to direct 'the religious upbringing' of their children, and that policies that interfere with the religious development of children violate the Constitution. Storybooks like those at issue in Mahmoud convey normative messages on sex and gender, and those messages can and often do conflict with the beliefs of parents and their children.性视界传媒
Maryland parents Friday praised the court性视界传媒檚 decision.
性视界传媒淭he Supreme Court sent a powerful message today: Parents do not take a back seat to anyone when it comes to raising their kids. I am deeply grateful to have been part of this historic triumph for parental rights nationwide,"听听Grace Morrison, one of the Catholic plaintiffs.听
