Disrupting ‘cisnormativity’ or honoring parents’ wishes – that’s the choice.
The Supreme Court hears arguments today (April 22) on whether parents may opt out of public-school messaging designed to advance radical progressive trans ideology. The case is Mahmoud v. Taylor and gives further lie to the notion that there is no more progressive effort, and a strident one at that, to denigrate, oppress, and otherwise ruin traditional Judeo-Christian and Muslim religious teachings, culture, and values. Will parents have to put up with it, as the lower courts have said, or will the conservative-leaning Supreme Court put a stop to it?
The best place to turn first when looking at an upcoming Supreme Court case is the “Question Presented,” which states the issue the Justices will be deciding. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, it is, “Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out?”
This story has been widely covered by those with agendas — as these headlines suggest – from both sides of the ideological divide:
“Justices take up Maryland parents’ challenge to LGBTQ books in schools”
“What’s at Stake in Mahmoud v. Taylor: The Right to Raise Your Own Child”
“The Supreme Court threatens to bring ‘Don’t Say Gay’ to every classroom in America”
What’s the truth? Don’t take it from either party, but the Supreme Court itself, which preceded its question presented with the following facts:
“Montgomery County Board of Education requires elementary school teachers to read their students storybooks celebrating gender transitions, Pride parades, and same-sex playground romance. The storybooks were chosen to disrupt ‘cisnormativity’ and ‘either/or thinking’ among students. The board’s own principals objected that the curriculum was ‘not appropriate for the intended age group,’ presented gender ideology as ‘fact,’ ‘sham[ed]’ students with contrary opinions, and was ‘dismissive of religious beliefs.’ The board initially allowed parents to opt their kids out — but then reversed course, saying that no opt-outs would be permitted and that parents would not even be notified when the storybooks were read.”
This incident presents the perfect reminder that separation of school and state is the ultimate answer to freedom of conscience and choice for parents and students. Meanwhile, the battle rages on. By this author’s count, more than 70 individuals and organizations have filed amicus, or friend of the court, briefs to weigh in on the issues and advise the Court how to rule. No surprises were found, with conservatives and church groups arguing for accommodating parental demands, while progressives and self-appointed LGBTQQIA+ leaders contend the state is free to propagandize the students whose attendance they compel.
What will the Justices say? The composition of the Court trends conservative, but it’s not near impossible to imagine how a plurality could find the Maryland schools acted within the bounds of the law. This longtime Court observer prescribes the following, which is good for all sides to a case: If you expect to be disappointed with the ruling, at least your expectations will be met or exceeded.
Read more on the issues discussed in his article:
Liberty Vault: Supreme Court Cases
Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.
