A few comments

MCPS could remove those controversial materials, or could add even more materials to the teachers resources, but I would like to remind everyone that:

1. The lawyers from MCPS failed to make a case of separating Teacher Resources from
the actual curriculum taught to the kids, and then the Judge failed to see that
difference, and of course, CRC's lawyers were not to make it clear;

2. What CRC(Recall) actually objects to is not Teachers resources, but the fact that the curriculum does not say that homosexuality is a risk, a sin, and a disease; and that the curriculum "fails" to point out that;

3. The other thing they are against is the teaching of condom use. Period. They cite CDCs when its convenient, but the line about "You should use a condom for vaginal, anal and oral sex" is literally a quote from many, many CDC, NIH, and other government, and health sites... But they just want abstinence taught,which is well and good -and in fact taught - but I disagree on an abstinence only approach. In fact, now CRC (Recall) says the old curriculum is PERFECT, but the video "Hope is not a method" in the old curriculum says EXACTLY the same thing about using condoms for all three types of sex. This is all manipulation to scare.

4. I went to that hateful meeting, and what was going on there had nothing to do with the curriculum, and all to do what the so-called "homosexual agenda."

5. They couldn't get the majority of the REAL PARENTS of MCPS to reject the curriculum, and opt their kids out, and when they realized that the battle wouldn't be won in the real arena of MCPS, they needed to go to court backed by the very right wing who would wage any battle in this so called culture war.

6. The pilot for the video was conducted already, and passed without any trouble, they are using it now to help foster their cause. And Weast, like if the video was produced yesterday morning, now suspends its use... Really, it's a very sad position for the school system when they can not even defend their own way of doing business, or support its method of researching and adding materials to the curricula.

I guess we should keep sight of what's the real dimension of this, because the next time it would be evolution, and MCPS would say, "well, let's review more carefully the data available about evolution. Let's halt its teaching for the time being."

Also, I would like to quote directly from the Court, because it also adds to my point of this battle not been won on the merits of the curriculum. As per the court order, once they can figure out the First Amendment issue, then they will have to live with the part of the curriculum that they dislike the most:

Plaintiffs also argue that increased health risks to students once they receive the "pro-gay" message of Defendants constitute irreparable harm. This Court cannot agree. Plaintiffs' argue that homosexual sex is more dangerous than heterosexual sex, and that students at MPCS will be more likely to engage in homosexual sex if presented with the Revised Curriculum. Plaintiffs cite numerous studies demonstrating that gay men are in the highest risk groups for various sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS, HPV, Syphilis, and Chlamydia. Plaintiffs also argue that homosexuals are more likely to have promiscuous,group, or otherwise "deviant" sex with multiple partners.

At the outset, the Court questions the reliability of the studies to which plaintiffs cite, at least one of which was performed in the 1970s. The Court is well-aware that studies on the health risks of a homosexual lifestyle are numerous and, in many cases, contradictory. Indeed, as Defendants point out, many studies conclude that lesbians are in one of the lowest risk groups for a variety of STDs, including
HIV/AIDS. Moreover, the harm that Plaintiffs posit is highly speculative and attenuated. It would require more than a few logical leaps for this Court to find that MPCS students presented with the Revised Curriculum would suddenly choose to engage in promiscuous, unprotected, homosexual sex - adhering to the Revised Curriculum's message of gay tolerance but somehow overlooking the even more forceful
message of safe sex within the confines of a monogamous relationship. This is not the type of "actual and imminent" harm sufficient to demonstrate irreparable injury for the purposes of a temporary restraining order.

For the above-stated reasons, the Court finds irreparable harm to Plaintiffs on the basis of potential restrictions to their First Amendment liberties.