On the Home front Supreme Court case Education vs Morality vs Parents

1. 85

   tsmogposted 2 days ago

   Some have kept up with the supreme court seeking to rule in the case involving a Maryland school district is Mahmoud v. Taylor. This case centers on parents' right to opt their children out of elementary school lessons that include LGBTQ+ themed storybooks, which they say conflicts with their religious beliefs. The school board initially allowed opt-outs but later reversed that policy. (Why?)
   
   Pick and choose your choice from a Google University landimng page for the search phrase 'Maryland case Supreme Court'.
   https://www.google.com/search?client=fi … reme+court
   
   Have a gander at a well written newsletter from rightwing Daily Caller.
   IDENTITY CRISIS written by Amber Duke, Senior Editor (Apr 24, 2025)
   
   "Hey y’all, welcome back to Unfit to Print!
   
   In Tuesday’s edition, we talked about brewing ideological conflicts within the Trump administration. Today, we’re tackling the same issue but on the other side of the aisle..
    
   IDENTITY CRISIS
   
   Left-wing ideologues are arguing to the Supreme Court this week that parents should not be allowed to opt their children out of mandated LGBTQ story time in public schools. Parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, have for years asked for the opportunity to pull their children out of lessons that violate their religious beliefs. The school district has repeatedly told them no.
   
   One of the books being used in a pre-k curriculum is called “Pride Puppy!” The book is a play on traditional ‘ABC’ learning books, but features a puppy who gets lost at a pride parade. It has images of transgender adults with children, drag queens, and messages like “the future is intersectional,” “trans rights are human rights,” and “queer pride.” The “word search” section of the book asks children to find words like “intersex,” “green [glitter] beard,” [drag] king,” and “leather.”
   
   The left has argued for years that children should be exposed to LGBTQ curriculum in the classroom and public libraries because it can help confused children sort out their own identities.
   
   How do they expect us to believe that three-year-olds can discern adult questions about gender and sexuality when the Democratic Party — at the ripe age of 197 — cannot figure out who it wants to be?
   
   The Democratic Party is in a civil war over “woke.” As the party conducts its 2024 post-mortem, various factions on the left cannot decide if the problem is that the Democrats leaned too hard into wokeness or if they didn’t lean hard enough.
   
   High-profile party leaders are sprinting away from the unpopular policies they embraced as recently as six months ago. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore is delaying a California-esque electric vehicle (EV) mandate (although naturally he places the blame for the failed policy on Trump). House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said on a recent panel, “We definitely have to be clear that we believe that we should have a secure border. That's first and foremost.” He punted on the deliberate failure of Biden to police the border, instead describing the prior administration’s response to the crisis as “slow.” California Gov. Gavin Newsom is insisting that he believes men shouldn’t compete in women’s sports, doesn’t support the use of the term “Latinx,” and thinks defunding the police is “lunacy.”
   
   This is all well and good, but some members of the Democratic Party and, most notably, its wildly progressive base, aren’t on board with its whitewashing of history.
   
   Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has said that he thinks the problem in 2024 is that Democrats actually weren’t passionate enough about defending their woke position on cultural issues.
   
   “We let them define the issue on DEI, and we let them define what woke is," Walz said last month. "We got ourselves in this mess because we weren't bold enough to stand up and say ‘you damn right we're proud of these policies. We're going to put them in, and we're going to execute them.’”
   
   Other nationally recognizable Democrats are similarly refusing to toe the new “moderate” line. Maine Gov. Janet Mills is balking at the Trump administration’s attempt to keep boys out of girls’ sports, while Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Boston Mayor Michelle Wu have refused to cooperate with deportations of illegal aliens.
   
   Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel found himself in the middle of the Democrats’ identity crisis when he sat down for an interview with Jennifer Welch, a progressive podcaster. Emanuel implied that the Democrats are too focused on identity-based issues, prompting an angry outburst from Welch.
   
   “That is such bullsh*t! That is total bullsh*t! That is buying into the right-wing media narrative and I’m so sick of Democrats like you selling out and saying this,” Welch asserted.
   
   It turns out when you spend a decade cultivating a base of hardcore radicals with deeply entrenched woke beliefs, trying to pivot to a more reasonable, strategic position isn’t going to go over too well.
   
   This has some Democrats’ openly embracing a new moniker — ”dark woke.”
   
   “Dark woke,” as far as I can tell from a New York Times article, is about applying the word “woke” to an attitude rather than a set of policies. Rep. Jasmine Crockett yelling about Marjorie Taylor Greene’s body shape? Dark woke. Cursing in campaign ads? Dark woke. Sen. Cory Booker droning on the Senate floor for 25 hours about democracy? Dark woke.
   
   Perhaps “dark woke” is a way to keep the label beloved by progressive activists while abandoning the toxic policies with which it’s associated. Yet the party errs again in thinking this makes them “cool” or gives them “edge,” as the NYT suggests, especially as support among young people for the Democratic Party craters.
   
   Democratic strategist Doug Schoen further posited that “dark woke” won’t work because the party needs real solutions to problems facing Americans instead of “crude” and “rude” attacks on their opponents.
   
   The party may be able to temporarily, messily glue together the left-wing base with the party establishment long enough to survive the midterms. But does anyone truly believe “dark woke” is the answer to the profound identity crisis facing the Democratic Party and its deep unpopularity with the American people?
   
   ********************
   Identity can be a strange bed fellow don't you think?
   
   Anyway,
   
   Thoughts, criticisms, accolades and commentary?

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Sharlee01posted 2 days agoin reply to this

      My, a lot to unpack--- My Thoughts, all of which is my opinion.
      
      The issue of mandating LGBTQ curriculum in schools, particularly for young children, raises important questions about parental rights and the role of schools in shaping children’s values. It’s worth noting that many parents believe it is their responsibility, not the state’s, to decide what their children are exposed to, especially when it comes to sensitive topics like gender and sexuality. The argument for parental choice is rooted in the idea that education should complement, not override, family values and beliefs. It’s not about rejecting diversity or inclusivity, but about ensuring that parents have the right to make decisions that align with their own moral or religious principles.
      
      At the same time, those in favor of these curricula argue that early exposure can help foster understanding and acceptance of different identities, which is essential in a diverse society. However, when it comes to very young children, many question whether they are capable of processing such complex concepts. After all, we don’t teach them about topics like politics or economics at this age, so why should we push such advanced subjects about gender and sexuality?
      
      In the context of the Democratic Party’s identity crisis, it seems that the party is struggling to balance its progressive base with more moderate or conservative values that many Americans hold dear. The debate over "woke" policies is a reflection of this tension. For instance, while some Democrats continue to push for progressive cultural policies, others are stepping back, realizing that these positions may not resonate with the broader electorate. This inconsistency within the party not only makes it difficult to move forward with a unified agenda, but it also undermines trust with the American public, who are looking for practical solutions to pressing issues, like the economy, healthcare, and national security—rather than endless debates about identity.
      
      Ultimately, the "dark woke" label reflects a deeper struggle within the Democratic Party: how to move beyond ideological purity and address the needs of a diverse electorate, many of whom are growing tired of cultural battles taking center stage over issues that affect their daily lives.
      
      I derived my thoughts not from the media but from C-SPAN.
      https://www.c-span.org/program/public-a … ent/658604

      replyreport
      1. 85

         tsmogposted 2 days agoin reply to this

         "It’s worth noting that many parents believe it is their responsibility, not the state’s, to decide what their children are exposed to, especially when it comes to sensitive topics like gender and sexuality."
         
         I agree while notating society today exposes children of all ages to some or all of LGBTQ+ concepts/identities unless they don't watch TV, movies, or have a smart phone and access to social media sites. How many TV commercials do they have of gay couples. For example with pharmaceuticals being advertised. Interesting as I think about that it seems I don't see lesbian commercials. Why?
         
         Thanks for the C-span link. I saw the table of contents and bookmarked it for between naps.
         
         As far as the Democrat party having a multiple personalty disorder (DID) I feel the same about the Republican party.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sharlee01posted 2 days agoin reply to this

            I think we are pretty much on the same wavelength...
            
            You're right—there does seem to be a noticeable number of pharmaceutical or insurance commercials featuring gay male couples, and far fewer with lesbian couples. Is it accidental? Advertisers are making strategic choices based on what they think will resonate—or at least not alienate—the largest possible audience.
            
            It could be, Gay male couples are often portrayed because, in the eyes of many marketers, they represent a “safe” version of diversity: often shown as clean-cut, affluent, and non-threatening. It’s like they’re checking a diversity box without pushing too many boundaries. Do they see-- Lesbian couples, on the other hand, still seem to be underrepresented, maybe because of lingering social discomfort in certain viewer demographics, or simply outdated stereotypes.  Great question.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Kyler J Falkposted 2 days agoin reply to this

               "Gay and bisexual men have disproportionately high rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), particularly gonorrhea and syphilis, compared to heterosexual men. In 2023, almost half of reported cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis were among adolescents and young adults aged 15-24. Additionally, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionately impacted by STIs."
               
               "Gay and bisexual men have a disproportionately higher HIV prevalence compared to the general population, with roughly 1 in 6 expected to be diagnosed with HIV in their lifetime. This risk is further exacerbated for Black gay and bisexual men, who have a lifetime risk of 1 in 2, and Latino gay and bisexual men, with a lifetime risk of 1 in 4."
               
               Other-than-heterosexual men are their primary consumer base. Lesbians represent, at most, 6.7%. Pandering to them would not be marketable. All of the literature on STI and STD transmission rates is centered around gay, bisexual, and heterosexual men. Lesbian couples tend to have low transmission rates of all infections and diseases.
               
               As for the identity politics behind it, it is as you say. When I took a broad marketing course, we were specifically taught that lesbian representation alienated the market. People are averse to lesbians by a wide majority for a wide variety of reasons, even myself, I find homosexual men more socially attractive than homosexual women.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Sharlee01posted 2 days agoin reply to this

                  Thanks for laying that out so thoroughly—it's clear you've thought about this a lot and brought in some solid data. I hadn’t considered the marketing angle in terms of transmission stats and consumer targeting, so that was eye-opening. The social perception part is definitely complicated, and it’s interesting (and kind of sad) how different groups are received so differently in media. Appreciate your perspective—it gave me more to think about.

                  replyreport
   2. 80

      Kyler J Falkposted 2 days agoin reply to this

      Simple solution: Make LGBTQIA+ initiatives into an elective course. You can dedicate an entire elective course to the topic, and you can call it an exercise in cultural studies. Plenty of kids (mostly juniors and seniors in high school, arguably the best time to introduce new, contentious topics prior to college) would elect to take the course, or it would show there is a disproportionate disinterest in the topic and it isn't necessary to begin with.
      
      However, young children do not need to receive these sorts of educational endeavors in a compulsory manner unless they are actively being groomed by adults. At no point in my younger life, until 7th grade, was sex even on my mind outside of abuse I faced from adults. I was content to hold hands with and kiss friends and acquaintances among my peers, but the complexities behind the matter of sex and gender would've only served to confuse me if someone sat me down and forced me to listen to lectures on the matter.
      
      It wasn't until my freshman year of high school that we were given the opportunity to have a say on LGBTQIA+ in a questionable educational way, and this is despite most of us being vividly aware and accepting of its presence. It was a pretty big time around 2010 for the repeal of Prop. 8 and everyone wanted to discuss it. My English teacher at the time warned us that he wasn't permitted to discuss the matter, but he asked the class if we would like to discuss it and so we did.
      
      He had the same discussion with each of his classes, and was subsequently fired when we had a riot in the school centered around the discussion. Desks went through windows, children were taken to the hospital for injuries, and for a couple hours it was chaotic bliss interrupting our daily schooling. We were most disappointed that the news didn't cover the goings-on, as it spread to our secondary school and a riot broke out there as well resulting in the firing of two teachers who were passionate about the matter.
      
      Support was disproportionately in favor of repealing Prop. 8, but those in favor of the proposition were quite vocal and violently supportive of it.
      
      LGBTQIA+ education has its place in modern education, but it is an underwhelming minority that is truly confused about their sexuality and gender, and need it as a compulsory subject.
      
      At most 5.5% of the high school children in the US are trans, at most 9% are homosexual or identifying as homosexual.
      
      By those same metrics, if we are to make education on the matter compulsory as opposed to viewing it as aberrant, you'd be increasing the workload on the majority of students for the sake of educating them on the wants of aberrations. I will always defend the majority against aberration that tends to cause more controversy and turmoil in my communities than it does in the way of uniting people.
      
      It also pays to mention that the majority would never even consider these issues if it weren't thrown in their faces daily, and I struggle to determine what level of awareness and sensitivity is truly needed in the matter outside of basic human decency. Basic human decency seeming to once again represent the majority, as opposed to the vitriolic minority among the human race.
      
      We should all keep in mind that compulsory topics could be equated to force as opposed to invitation, and force equates to tyranny more often than not. Everyone should be given the choice (invitation) to opt in or out of whatever they so choose, but they should also be made aware that there are consequences to their actions. The only way to enforce LGBTQIA+ standards is by way of forcing it upon the overwhelming majority.
      
      If they want my outright support for these topics as compulsory education courses, they will need to include thorough discourse on the many ways in which the LGBTQIA+ community rallies around the grooming of children and the mediums which they use to accomplish this goal. Discord, 4chan, Reddit, Omegle, Snapchat, Roblox, Facebook, Instagram, isolating vulnerable targets during pride events... the list for mediums which organized grooming groups utilize to groom young children continues to grow. Every point must have an equally passionate counterpoint, and I'll throw my support in.
      
      As for everything else mentioned, too much to unpack at once.

      replyreport
   3. 80

      Credence2posted 2 days agoin reply to this

      "Some have kept up with the supreme court seeking to rule in the case involving a Maryland school district is Mahmoud v. Taylor. This case centers on parents' right to opt their children out of elementary school lessons that include LGBTQ+ themed storybooks, which they say conflicts with their religious beliefs. The school board initially allowed opt-outs but later reversed that policy."
      
      Your points are well taken and I have cause for concern for even some of the values of my cherished Left
      -------
      There is a point where children are too young to be engaged in the culture wars, when I certainly don't like the proselytizing any of my kids to right wing religious dogma. The existence of LBgTQ is a fact without advocacy for their lifetyles. I would not want public schools to treat religion in any more than a clinical manner.
      
      If you want more specific details, leave that to the parents, churches, etc. But, you can't keep a shroud on people forever as if they are not going to learn the realities of the world, I would give high school students greater discretion on selecting topics of discussion and independent inquiry without the school openly being an advocate.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         tsmogposted 2 days agoin reply to this

         "I would not want public schools to treat religion in any more than a clinical manner."
         
         Good point!

         replyreport
2. 60

   Willowarborposted 2 days ago

   Where does the "opting out" end?  And will it lead to every single child in a 40+ classroom ending up with a uniquely tailored curriculum?  How is that even manageable.
   
   What if my religion says that a woman belongs in the home not in a job/career?  Can I opt out of Mrs Jones? 
   
   What if I have a problem with Muslims and my child is set to enter Mr. Hassan's classroom? 
   
   And I haven't even hit curriculum concerns.... The opt-outs are endless

   replyreport
   1. 85

      tsmogposted 2 days agoin reply to this

      Thanks for sharing. With jest, I am opting out.
      
      At this time I am on the parents side of the issue with an aim at preschool through 6th grade. I waver on middle school. High school I would accept. Post secondary is open range.

      replyreport