These parents took their children out of school. The Supreme Court is trying to ask why.

Inter-infidelity groups of parents say they force elementary school students to participate in instruction that contradicts their religious beliefs about sex and gender.

A group of Maryland’s largest school districts hopes the Supreme Court agrees.

The Montgomery County Board of Education sparked a fire in March 2023 when parents notified their parents that they would no longer be able to pick up students from instruction that includes books on gender and sexuality.

The list of LGBT-themed storybooks was added to the pre-kindergarten to fifth grade district curriculum in November 2022. The story focuses on children whose pronouns change “like the weather” by saying, “What is your word?” And “Love, Violet,” a story about the romance of the same-sex playground.

At the time, the county assured parents that they retained the right to exclude children from lessons on such materials. The policy changes that came in a few months later retracted that right and urged local parents to appeal to diverse faiths.

“The initial amendments have long been recognized to protect parents’ rights to direct religious education and child development. The government is not allowed to effectively interfere with that,” Mike O’Brien, a lawyer with the Beckett Fund for Religious Freedom, told the Epoch Times.

O’Brien will have that argument on behalf of his parents on April 22nd, when their case takes place before the Supreme Court, in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor. They are seeking a restoration of their right to direct and protect their children’s religious beliefs, O’Brien said.

Angry crowds containing messages such as “parent rights issues” and “educational education” occurred regularly outside the board’s public meetings, where parents expressed their frustration.

“Inclusivity is important, but it is equally important to respect and respond to the cultural and religious values ​​of diverse families,” Christian Mother Salem Peter told the board at a June 27, 2023 meeting.

“The introduction of sexual behaviors and preferences at an early age raises legitimate concerns for our parents. They should have the freedom to decide when and how to address those topics based on our cultural, religious and personal beliefs.”

The Board of Education defended policy changes as a step towards inclusivity, citing the potential stigma that certain students could feel if certain students were exempt from LGBT-themed activities.

Sayed Wasti, a local Muslim mother who ousted her child out of school due to faith-based bullying, said the board’s concerns seemed unilateral.

“We are scared to say that we are failing as a society that is concerned about serving the emotional and physical well-being of one community while ignoring the same needs of other communities,” I said at the same school board meeting.

“Every child deserves to feel safe, respected, valued and seen. …You accept people’s beliefs about their gender identity. But why, why do you alienate others because of their religious beliefs?”

Wacity isn’t just a Montgomery County parent who has separated their children from public schools.

Jeff and Svitrana Roman, orthodox Romans of Roman Catholic and Ukrainian respectively, removed their son from school when the lower court rejected a request to hold off policy changes for the district. Muslim parents, Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat, additional plaintiffs in the suit felt compelled to do the same.

But not all families are in a position to release their children or send them to private schools, O’Brien noted. “It’s not just an option, financially and resource-wise, for the majority of parents.”

People who kept children in public schools are still waiting for the court to intervene, he said.

Located just north of Washington, Montgomery is home to about 1 million residents in Maryland’s most populous county.

“What parents are looking for here is nothing new,” O’Brien said. “What’s new is Montgomery County’s true extreme approach to cutting parents out to impose unilateral ideological guidance on issues that come at the heart of their ability to cut parents out and convey their faith.”

The school board argued that it would not burden religious practices because district curricula would not force students to change their beliefs, and the lower court affirmed.

“There is currently no evidence that the board’s decision not to allow opt-out would force parents to turn religious beliefs or behaviors at schools or elsewhere,” a panel in the Fourth Circuit denied the parents’ request for temporary restoration of their previous opt-out policy.

The majority pointed to “threadbear” records of how the book is used in schools in drawing that conclusion.

However, O’Brien attributes the vague and diverse expressions of the board to the vague and diverse expressions of how the book is implemented.

However, O’Brien said the board “recognized in its own written statements that teachers should use this direction in court and in its own documents.”

As evidence, he pointed to internal guidance that provided teachers how the district should respond to objections raised by students and parents over LGBT materials.

In one example, the teacher was encouraged to “disturbate” students who oppose same-sex relationships by saying, “In reality, people of gender can prefer the person they like.”

Premium Pick

Meanwhile, when parents ask why their children should learn about such topics at school, the teacher replies, “Pupils are already learning about gender and sexuality identities in countless ways,” and “more tolerant, inclusive, and embracing the school environment teaches all children to recognize and resist stereotypes.”

The memo cited “many concerns” raised by teachers, principals and community members regarding the age, purpose and purpose of the book in the curriculum. The teacher also found that the responses proposed by the guidance were “embarrassment” and “dismissal” of the student’s religious views.

Similarly, the only dissenting judge, A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. has discovered that board direction and the ban on opt-out is a constitutional issue. He effectively required the board to choose to “violate religious beliefs or advance public education for children.”

Quattlebaum also had problems with the board’s claim that such a compromise was part of sending children to public schools.

“The board’s discussion adopted by the district court really sees parents’ religious objections to texts that are less important than the board’s goals to improve inclusion in the LGBTQ+ community,” the judge wrote. “But this is exactly a type of value judgment about parental religious claims that the court should not do.”

High Court to decide

As the Supreme Court quickly gets heavy, external parties line up to participate in the debate.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defends the Montgomery Board of Education’s policy as “religious neutral” in that it applies to all faith policies, regardless of the reasons for objection.

“Religious freedom is essentially important, but public schools do not force students to exempt students from secular lessons that do not align with family religious views,” said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Religious and Confession Freedom Program.

By allowing students to opt out of such lessons, Mach said, “preparing students to live in a multidimensional society to wreaking havoc in public schools, get basic curriculum decisions, scream about divisiveness and confusion, and undermine the core objectives of public education.”

On the other side, John Barsh, senior adviser and vice president of Alliance Defense Freedom, said parents have “a fundamental right to make decisions” about the education and development of their children, saying “government officials may not be a second guess.”

“Today, many school staff act as if their job is to replace parents and their beliefs. “Our constitution prohibits schools from having a uniform view of sexuality and gender. This is a hotly debated view that will confront the religious beliefs of families and transform children into lifelong medical experiments and patients.”

When the court hears arguments from both sides, the arguments echo outside the court walls as attendees at the opposing rally hear them.

For the client, O’Brien said he hopes the decision is quick.

The Supreme Court will issue its judgment by the end of June, when its term ends.