Even ‘Opting Out’ Option is a Cop Out and Steals Children’s Innocence

Tuesday’s oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court over controversial LGBT books in Montgomery County, Maryland schools contained numerous spirited exchanges between the justices and lawyers arguing the case.

The conservative majority appears poised to rule in favor of the parents and against the radical school administrators.

Mahmoud v. Taylor centers around the Maryland school district’s insistence on including homosexual propaganda in preschool through 12^th grade language arts reading and instructional materials.

It should be noted they deliberately inserted the books into the language arts curriculum and not health and sexuality teachings because “opt-outs” are allowed in the latter.

Storybooks at the center of the dispute include “Pride Puppy,” “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” and “Prince and Knight.” In that last book, the prince “falls in love” with the knight and not the princess.

Eric Baxter, a lawyer representing the Christian and Muslim parents objecting to the school’s overreach, was blunt when expressing his objection. “You have children of an extremely young age being indoctrinated in a topic that’s known to be sensitive,” he said.

Justice Kavanaugh questioned why school officials wouldn’t allow for students and parents to “opt-out” of the teaching.

“The whole goal, I think, of some of our religion precedents, is to look for the win-win,” he said, “to look for the situation where you can respect the religious beliefs and accommodate the religious beliefs while the state or city or whatever it may be can pursue its goals.”

An attorney for the school district claimed making exceptions for some is a recipe for chaos, and a policy that is next to impossible to manage given limited time and space inside schools.

According to the Oxford-English Dictionary, the use of the term “opt-out” dates to 1962. It means to choose not to do something – as in moms and dads and students choosing not to listen to or read a children’s book that deliberately works to tell them what to think about the acceptability of same-sex relationships and marriages.

The deterioration of public schools is evidenced in the fact that parents in Maryland are not fighting anymore to not have this propaganda in their schools – but rather simply for the right to not have their children partake in the indoctrination.

Given the proliferation of progressives and mainstream acceptance of homosexuality, the “opt-out” route might be the most feasible and winnable way to win the battle – but it’s still a lousy ceding of morality and taxpayer rights.

Moms and dads shouldn’t have to pay for this propaganda, of course, but they also shouldn’t have to explain to their young children why they need to skip a class or book or classroom conversation. In fact, forcing parents to have to “opt-out” is a quiet and subtle win for radical activists. That’s because children talk – and when kids step out of a classroom or stay home, you can be sure they’re being asked or ridiculed by fellow students when they come back.

One of the greatest casualties in this ongoing culture war is the innocence of children. Young boys and girls shouldn’t be thinking about sex or same-sex relationships. They should be thinking about wholesome and inspiring things – like wisdom, kindness, honesty, humility, respect, generosity, and loyalty.

If they learn about puppies, they should be learning about the value and many benefits of dog ownership. If they’re talking about weddings, they should be learning about the importance of it as a sacred union of one man and one women and given examples of couples who have positively changed the world. Want to talk about princes and knights? Teach them about the Middle Ages or the virtues they defended and championed. 

Maryland parents are likely to win their right to “opt-out” by the end of June. Hopefully, the victory will also lead to school board members in Montgomery, Maryland, “opting-out” of running for reelection on the school board.