In the wake of a Friday Supreme Court ruling which allowed parents to opt their children out of obvious liberal propaganda regarding human sexuality in the classroom, yet another Democrat decided to say the quiet part aloud about how they feel about your kids and public education: How dare you think the kids don’t belong to the schools?

In an interview with CNN after the 6-3 decision came down, Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, where the case originated, said that the implications of the decision were “breathtaking” and warned that allowing your young children to opt out of explicit, age-inappropriate instruction regarding LGBT issues would lead to bad educational outcomes.

Just so we’re clear what we’re talking about first: The case involved a series of Montgomery County, Maryland, parents from diverse religious backgrounds who objected to books like “Pride Puppy!” and “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” being read to kids as young as pre-K.

“Pride Puppy!” is an alphabet primer about a puppy who goes through a gay pride parade, featuring such words as “leather,” “lip ring,” “green [glitter] beard,” “[drag] queen,” “[drag] king,” and “intersex.”

The district originally provided an opt-out for parents but took that option away after too many parents requested their children be let out of class due to their disagreement with the curriculum, according to The Hill. After a series of ping-ponging lower-court decisions, the case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, was heard by the Supreme Court in April. The decision was among the last set of cases handed down by the court this session.

“Like many books targeted at young children, the books are unmistakably normative. They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion.

“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,” he added.

The school board said that the decision “complicates our work” in creating “a welcoming, inclusive, and equitable school system,” according to CBS News.

“It also sends a chilling message to many valued members of our diverse community,” school officials said.

Cue Raskin, who popped up on Friday afternoon to say he was shocked about the implications of parents dictating how their children were taught by the school system they pay to employ.

“If you can opt out of mandatory classroom readings because it offends your religious objections, you can do it because it offends your philosophical beliefs, your political beliefs, your moral beliefs, or what have you, and the court basically says, ‘We’ll deal with all that down the road,’” Raskin said.

“You’re going to have a lot more cases where people are saying ‘Our family doesn’t believe in evolution. So we don’t want our kid to be in class when evolution is taught,’” he added.

The implications, he said, were “breathtaking.” He’s saying this as if it were a bad thing.

In a separate statement issued to the media, he similarly railed against the decision in familiar terms.

“Donald Trump and his Administration have continued to target and attack LGBTQ+ Americans in the most scandalous fashion. In this moment of persistent cruelty to minorities, I stand with every young person, parent and family member who feels vulnerable in the face of these chill winds. Montgomery County is one of our nation’s most diverse and welcoming communities, and we will stand strong to see that it remains so,” Raskin said.

“Whatever you think of opt-out policies at the local level, today’s decision is of the most dubious constitutional reasoning and opens a gigantic Pandora’s box. Can students opt out of science classes where the theory of evolution is taught if it conflicts with their family religious beliefs in creation-science?” he continued.

“There are religions that oppose medical science, surgery, psychiatry, interracial marriage, monogamy, woman’s suffrage, the right of gay people to marry, and so on. All of them will now be able to flood the courts with claims that particular curricular teachings and books offend their sincere values and their children should not be exposed to the offensive doctrines.”

First, let’s be clear: The operative case here is Wisconsin v. Yoder, in which the court decided that parents ought to be able to opt out of “discrete instruction that deliberately seeks to confound their religious values.”

To say that this and other LGBT-centric curricula weren’t doing that is farcical on its face; nobody is teaching “Pride Puppy!” and the book of Leviticus back to back.

Secondly, the number of followers of religions that oppose “medical science, surgery, psychiatry, interracial marriage, monogamy, woman’s suffrage,” and things of that nature are relatively few.

The number of religious followers — particularly those who follow Abrahamic monotheism — that believe in holy texts which specifically outlaw same-sex relations, meanwhile, is fairly substantial. In fact, when our country began offering public schooling, it was almost universal.

Expect freak-outs like Raskin’s to be the norm for the next week or two, because the Supreme Court is forcing Democrats to say the quiet part aloud: They really do believe your child is property of the government when it comes to their schooling. Disagree, and that sentiment is “breathtaking” to some Democrats.

Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.