State education officials in Maryland have rejected a plea from 270 Montgomery County area physicians to require the local school board to include factual information about sex in a new curriculum that establishes homosexuality as “innate” and features a 45-minute lesson on how to use a condom.
The physicians and other opponents of the new home-grown curriculum first had asked the Montgomery County Board of Education, then the state board, to include a warning about anal sex that is critical to student safety – as issued by the Office of the Surgeon General and the National Institutes of Health.
The local board first rejected the request, and now the same response has come from the state board. The two boards also dismissed a long list of other concerns that had been raised about the sex education.
Leaders in the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays organization said homosexual advocates on a school board curriculum advisory committee are using the curriculum to advance their agenda for the public schools.
“In order to pander to these forces, sound education doctrine will now be turned on its head in Maryland,” said Regina Griggs, executive director of PFOX. “The MBOE has taken the preposterous position that questioning children can now be taught that they are ‘born that way’ until science proves otherwise ‘with a preponderance of evidence.'”
“Millions of dollars and three decades of research have failed to prove that homosexuality is innate or that change is not possible,” said Griggs. “After our expert testimony and briefs, it became obvious that science failed to justify the Montgomery County Public Schools’ biased and anti-ex-gay curriculum. Because they know that what they want to teach is not factual, MBOE instead claims that teaching children to ‘respect differences in sexuality’ of transgenders, transsexuals, homosexuals and cross-dressers is a ‘civic virtue.'”
“But if that respect is for ex-gays or an individual’s choice to not embrace homosexuality – then teaching respect is not necessary, according to the MBOE ruling,” said Griggs. “So much for so-called ‘respecting diversity.'”
The state board agreed that parents must be allowed some input into their children’s upbringing.
That right, however, “is not absolute,” the state board concluded. “It must bend to the state’s duty to educate its citizens.”
Montgomery County parents have been battling their local school board over the addition of the promotional lessons for homosexuality since 2004, when they won a delay in the courts after the school board announced plans to impose the curriculum.
The state board admitted there would be differing viewpoints on the description of homosexuality as innate, but that didn’t matter in its decision-making process.
The new lessons are intended for eighth-graders, and will focus on “respecting” differences. They adopt the language and points of emphasis employed by those promoting homosexuality.
Tenth-graders will be taught about making announcements about homosexuality, and using a condom.
A spokeswoman for the local board, Patricia O’Neill, said a “minority” had tried to stop the curriculum “and create discord across the community through misinformation…”
A local group, Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, and others had told the state the curriculum’s demand for “non-judgmental” language violated the rights of religious parents who believe homosexual behavior is wrong, but their concerns were dismissed.
The organization has announced plans for a federal lawsuit.
Parents – and the long list of doctors – had objected to the text as inaccurate, unscientific and discriminatory. They are concerned that the inaccuracies in the curriculum could pose a danger to students who will not be told of health risks associated with certain sexual behaviors.
The state board, however, had an answer for that concern.
“The answer to concerns about the accuracy of the lessons is that … children need not be exposed to the three additional lessons. The parents need not give consent for their children to attend those classes,” the board said.
WND has documented a number of earlier cases in which educators have been shown to be promoting a homosexual lifestyle to children.
WND had reported California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, under whose supervision hundreds of thousands of children are being educated, has used his state position and taxpayer-funded stationery to praise a “gay” pride event that has been used in the past to expose children to sexually explicit activities.
That drew vehement objections from several, including Priscilla Schreiber, the president of the Grossmont Unified High School District governing board.
“I am outraged that a person in this high-ranking elected position would advocate an event where diversity is not just being celebrated but where pornography and indecent exposure is being perpetrated on the young and innocent children of our communities,” she said.
WND also covered the issue when officials in Boulder, Colo., held a seminar for students where they were told to “have sex,” including same-sex experiences, and “take drugs.”
Another school event promoted homosexuality to students while banning parents, and at still another, WND reported school officials ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a “gay” indoctrination seminar after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.