The Montgomery County, Md., school board in a meeting
A coalition of parents and concerned citizens has filed a motion in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Md., seeking an order halting a public school sex curriculum seen as “gay” indoctrination, because it provides “scientifically flawed and politically biased” information.
“The Montgomery County Board of Education claims that teaching children to ‘respect’ transsexuality, homosexuality and cross-dressing is a ‘civic virtue,'” said Regina Griggs, the executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays.
“But they refuse to teach respect for ex-gays or a child’s right to not embrace homosexuality,” she said.
The organization joined with Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and the Family Leader Network in filing the request for the stay of the program targeting middle school and high school students in the district.
The organizations said the local board, headed by Nancy Navarro, adopted the curriculum that teaches anal sex as unexceptional and “intentionally excludes” warnings issued by the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health of the high medical dangers related to those behaviors.
“The curriculum also teaches students that homosexuality is ‘innate,’ a controversial and unproven theory advanced by gay advocacy groups serving on the Montgomery County School Board’s curriculum advisory committee,” the groups’ statement said.
“This is hypocrisy in the extreme. The Montgomery County School Board reappointed those curriculum advisory committee members who openly denigrate ex-gays and want to deny equal access to any information about leaving homosexuality provided by the ex-gay community. The board itself needs to learn respect for diversity,” Griggs said.
Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, a prominent public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Mich., is assisting PFOX and the pro-family groups in their lawsuit against the school board.
The challenged curriculum was developed in-house by the Montgomery County Board of Education, and not only is inaccurate, but it could expose children to life-threatening diseases by failing to provide sufficient warnings about alternative sexual behaviors, according to White.
“This curriculum is full of factual inaccuracies and runs counter to sound educational policy,” he said. “It should not be taught in the public school.”
White said parents also should be alarmed by the teaching of “sexual variations.”
“The students are introduced to anal sex, which has a much higher risk rate of [various] infections,” he said. “It’s endangering the lives of students.”
“It’s not the school system that’s going to be taking care of them,” said White. “It falls on parents, because the school did not do its job.”
The family groups had protested to the local board to no avail, and then were given no assistance when they expressed concerns to the state education board. They asked that the material at least include a warning about anal sex that was issued by the Office of the Surgeon General and the National Institutes of Health, but their requests were denied.
That leaves the program material, “the result of pressure by homosexual advocacy groups,” subject to a legal challenge, the Law Center said.
The pro-family groups also had raised objections over the material’s teachings that children who hold traditional religious or moral beliefs about homosexuality are “homophobic.” It also teaches transgenderism is just another “orientation,” even though that has been classified as a mental disorder.
White said the door was left wide open for a challenge.
“One of the issues is that they didn’t follow the proper state procedures in passing this curriculum and also that this curriculum runs contrary to what is required through the state code,” White said.
WND earlier reported that the Maryland Board of Education had rejected the local groups’ appeal regarding the curriculum.
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 promoters of homosexuality.
Tenth-graders will be taught about making announcements that they are homosexual and how to use a condom.
WND has documented a number of earlier cases in which educators have promoted a homosexual lifestyle to children under their charge.
WND 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 used in the past to expose children to sexually explicit activities.
That drew vehement objections from several educators, 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 in which 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.