Supreme Court Expected to Side with Parents Over Public Schools
During oral arguments this week, the U.S. Supreme Court seemed inclined to side with parents seeking to opt their children out of objectionable LGBTQ-themed curriculum in public schools. The central question in the Maryland case Mahmoud v. Taylor is whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children into instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.
“Children do not become wards of the state by merely attending public schools,” said Mat Staver, founder and chair of Liberty Counsel. “Parents have the right to direct the education and provide for the welfare of their children. The First Amendment does not allow government schools to require families to sacrifice their religious beliefs for their children to attend school. It is unconstitutional to coerce parents into subjecting their children to propaganda that is antithetical to their beliefs. Parents must be given adequate opportunity to review any instructional material and must be given the ability to opt their children out of instruction that violates their faith.”
A coalition of parents from various religious faiths, including Christian and Muslim, challenged a policy change from the Montgomery County Board of Education that no longer requires parents to be informed when the themed instruction will occur, nor allows them to opt their children out. The LGBT instruction includes more than “22 LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks infused with radical gender ideology.
The books are used for instruction in pre-K through eighth grade classrooms, where some are taught to children as young as 3 years old. The parents seek to block the cancellation of the opt-out policy by arguing that this instruction interferes with their religious beliefs on gender and sexuality, as well as their constitutional right to direct the upbringing and education of their children.
Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that teaching this curriculum without any ability to opt out compels affirmation of repugnant beliefs, degrades the purity of children, and imposes a penalty on religion by making public education contingent upon lessons that burden parents’ faith. The Supreme Court is expected to rule no later than the end of June.
–Dwight Widaman
