Pro-family groups in Maryland have finally announced their intent to file an appeal against a Maryland school board’s support for a homosexual-friendly sexual education program.
The announcement Wednesday was in response to the Maryland State Board of Education’s 17-page opinion paper last month that said it found nothing illegal inside the new curriculum and that the board would not ban it from the Montgomery County school system.
The new policy, which would teach a favorable view of homosexuality and transgenderism as well as how to use a condom, has upset many faith-based and pro-family groups that see the act as indoctrinating children with negative influences. Parents opposed to the curriculum feel that they have a right as parents to decide what their child should learn, especially if it goes against their upbringing.
“I’m impressed with the principled and steadfast opposition by these pro-family groups to this outrageously hedonistic and life-threatening sexuality curriculum,” explained Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which will file the appeal, in a statement. “The Law Center will do everything we can to assist them in their fight.”
The controversial curriculum plans to introduce 90 minutes of course material in to the current health classes. In the fall, both eight and tenth graders would learn about differing sexual orientations and accepting alternative lifestyles. Tenth graders would also watch a DVD on how to correctly use a condom.
The course is mandatory, which many parents disagree to. The state board had explained that although parents do have rights to their children’s upbringing, that “right is not absolute.”
“It must bend to the State's duty to educate its citizens," wrote the state board.
Attorney from the Thomas More Law Center with the assistance of John R. Garza, who has been involved in the curriculum fight for several years, will be taking the state board’s ruling to the Montgomery County Circuit Court where they will attempt to get it overturned.
The lawyers have listed four points that they wish to address that make the curriculum unlawful.
First, it teaches that homosexuality is “innate,” which is still unproven. Second, it teaches that anal sex is just another sexual option without warning students of increased risk to HIV/AIDS. Next, the class may make students with religious or traditional beliefs appear “homophobic.” Lastly, the course teaches that transgenderism is another sexual orientation, but the attorneys argue that it has been classified as a mental disorder.
“This curriculum is full of factual inaccuracies and runs counter to sound educational policy,” said Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Law Center. “It should not be taught in the public school.”
The appeals attorneys will be representing on behalf of pro-family groups Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, and the Family Leader Network during the court case.
The appeals judge may grant that the class be halted until they reach a decision about the new curriculum.
If the Montgomery County Circuit Court should uphold the decision found by the Maryland State Board of Education, representatives from the Law Center have already decided to take the case to the Maryland Court of Appeals.
Pro-family leaders are also worried that if the curriculum passes, it will spread to other counties in the state.
There simply isn't an argument - religious beliefs regarding education are practiced at home. You don't teach a comparative religion course, and omit other religions because you're afraid your child will convert, will you? If you are, then you aren't doing your job as a parent instilling your own PERSONAL family values.
Again, there is no argument. It isn't religious discrimination. Public school is a secular arena, no matter the population of christians, homosexuals, etc. Private schools cater to communities with specific orientation.
I'm not going to simply throw my opinion without offering a compromise, either. I'm an atheist, and I work for a middle school in Montgomery County - this is a concern for me on both fronts. I believe that it is mandatory to teach the health aspects of sexuality - if you don't want your children to know about STD's, then when they get home, feel free to tell them what you want - but certain facts need to be acknowledged for the sake of society. You can't omit information that protects children. You can have it presented to them in a neutral curriculum, and then if you want to teach discrimination at home, that's your choice. I can only hope that you teach tolerance, peace, and understanding, and not to persecute. Didn't we learn anything from the civil rights movement? Should we start having students drink from different drinking fountains?
There are those who teach evolution, but also acknowledge creationism. The decision of belief is as far from the hands of the educator as possible. Kids, especially in secondary education, decided for themselves what they truly believe, as they get older. When they reach college, despite where they go, they are going to learn about sexuality. If they are ill-prepared for what HEALTH (not lifestyle or orientation) dangers exist, then the fault lies within the parent. Since we cannot trust parents to even know, much less decide what to tell their child about STD's, abstaining, or protection, it must be left to the professionals.
Again, this isn't an affront to christianity. If you're that concerned, than you really don't have any faith in your own ability to instill your values in your own children.
Lastly, please know that there are many community members who won't sit and let this appeal happen without letting their voices be heard. It isn't fair to abuse the public school system this way, when the process belongs at home.
Just as if a community of anti-woman, anti-semitic, anti-black, anti-homosexual or even anti-christian parent groups tried to interfere where they truly don't belong (in professional education), they will be met by a righteous society for equality and peace...that tells them that they are not welcome.