In 2009, it was Barack Obama who reminded us, following his election, that “elections do have consequences.” A group of Maryland parents is finding out that these words are truer than ever. A Maryland court ruled on Thursday that parents don’t have a “fundamental right” to prevent their children from reading books with LGBTQ content at Montgomery County Public Schools. This is despite their claim that the material violates their religious beliefs. The district maintained an old policy that allowed parents the option to opt out of their children from reading such material. Originally, the district stated that parents will be notified whenever materials are used in class. However, in March the district announced the policy was rescinded. Parents with children in district schools would no longer receive notification.
Parents of all religious backgrounds and faiths came together to support the cancellation of this policy. They shared a common goal: to be able to influence what their children are taught. In July, parents and children protested in front of Montgomery County Schools offices to express their opposition. No opt-out was to be implemented for the school year 2023-2024. In her ruling, Judge Deborah L. Boardman, appointed by Biden, stated that parents had attempted to reinstate the opt-out policies.
The right of parents to opt out of public school curriculums that conflict with their religious beliefs is not a right fundamental.
Boardman denied parents an injunction preliminary that would have allowed the opt-out for when school begins on August 28. In her ruling, she continued to state:
The policy of no-opt-out does not force parents to stop teaching their religion, engage in conduct that would be against their religious beliefs, or change their religious beliefs. It may be that the policy encourages parents to talk with their children about the issues raised in the stories, but this is not against the parents’ religious beliefs. Parents are not forced to violate their religious beliefs for the sake of public education.
This policy does not just affect older children. It also impacts younger ones. This policy is not only for older children. As early as pre-K, children are exposed to materials that refer to gay pride parades and gender transition. The material is used up to the eighth grade.
Parents are retaliating against the LGBT propaganda that is being forced on their children. This fight begins very early. Parents at a Massachusetts middle school protested Pride Month in June. In Connecticut, children aged eight, nine, and ten were shown videos that celebrated gender identity, before receiving “puberty kit” kits to take home. Parents are taking action even in the ultra-liberal state of California. Huntington Beach High School students had to watch a video about pride in math class. If they were “inappropriate,” the teacher threatened to have them attend Saturday school for a whole year. Does “inappropriate” mean disagreement? In North Hollywood, parents kept their children out of school to attend a pride event. In the Connecticut elementary school’s case, the video and the puberty kits had been created without the knowledge of parents. Judge Boardman may be faced with another question. Should parents know that their children’s religious beliefs are being challenged?
Parents have more choices when it comes to their children’s education, despite the Department of Education’s best efforts and the willing accomplices of their unions who don’t even try to hide the fact that the Department of Education is figuring out ways to sneak topics such as gender identity into the classroom without parents noticing. One option is to “opt out” of public schooling.
In 2024, the issue of parental input in public school classrooms is certain to be on the ballot, and this time, there will be consequences.
