It is significant that this book does not simply refer to same-sex marriage as an existing practice. Instead, it presents acceptance of same-sex marriage as a perspective that should be celebrated. The book’s narrative arc reaches its peak with the actual event of Uncle Bobby’s wedding, which is presented as a joyous event that is met with universal approval. See id., at 300a–305a. And again, there are many Americans who would view the event that way, and it goes without saying that they have every right to do so. But other Americans wish to present a different moral message to their children. And their ability to present that message is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.
Alito, J, for the majority in Muhammad v Taylor.
I am the product of sixteen years of Catholic education. So as a child I was not subjected to the idea that one who is in love with another who is of the same sex is entitled to respect and autonomy. Then in college I read that a kiss is just a kiss, as Louis Armstrong of Queens sang.
But Neil Gorsuch and the other five Catholics on the Supreme Court think teaching public school children that same sex couples are entitled to tolerance and respect is a violation of the parents' right to teach their children otherwise. Of course it is no such thing - you can still teach your children whatever you want. Demonstrating the idea that respect for other visions is an example of liberty and justice for all is just that. It mandates nothing about one's personal intimate conduct.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor - of the Bronx - was educated at Cardinal Spellman High School - named after the conservative prelate who led the New York Archdiocese. She drew a similar conclusion. Dissenting, she began:
Public schools, this Court has said, are “‘at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny.’” Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578, 584 (1987). They offer to children of all faiths and backgrounds an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society. That experience is critical to our Nation’s civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs. Today’s ruling ushers in that new reality. Casting aside longstanding precedent, the Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to “subtle” themes “contrary to the religious principles” that parents wish to instill in their children.
- GWC
Mahmoud v. Taylor - SCOTUS, June 27, 2025
During the 2022–2023 school year, the Montgomery County Board of Education (Board) introduced a variety of “LGBTQ+-inclusive” texts into the public school curriculum. Those texts included five “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks approved for students in kindergarten through fifth grade,***
The parents assert that the Board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks—combined with its decision to withhold notice and opt outs—unconstitutionally burdens their religious exercise. At this stage, the parents seek a preliminary injunction that would permit them to have their children excused from instruction related to the storybooks while this lawsuit proceeds.
To obtain that form of preliminary relief, the parents must show that: they are likely to succeed on the merits; they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; the balance of equities tips in their favor; and an injunction would be in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 20. The parents have made such a showing. (b) The parents are likely to succeed on their claim that the Board’s policies unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise...
No comments:
Post a Comment