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 6-3victory for parental rights over the ability to withdraw their children from LGBTQ lessons. https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf

...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.

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 Nations 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 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.