Groups Seek to Stop New Curriculum
Story in The Post this morning about the CRC et al.’s latest filing:
Three groups seeking to halt the new sex education curriculum in Montgomery County schools filed papers yesterday seeking a court order to prevent the school system from teaching the lessons this fall.
The groups requested a stay in Montgomery Circuit Court so that the lessons, the school system's first foray into sexual orientation as a classroom topic, will not be taught countywide. Absent court intervention, eighth- and 10th-grade health teachers will embark on the new lessons starting in October, said Michelle Turner, a spokeswoman for lead opposition group Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum.
Opponents of the sex education lessons, approved this year by the county school board, turned to the courts this summer after an initial appeal to the Maryland State Board of Education was rejected. The appeal is scheduled to be heard in January.
School board members and education leaders say the lessons are age-appropriate and pedagogically sound. "The Maryland State Board of Education has already considered and rejected the opponents' arguments as having no merit," said schools spokesman Brian Edwards.
It appears that a small group of opponents is intent on forcing Montgomery County public schools to spend thousands more in taxpayer dollars to argue the same points all over again."
Opponents say the lessons promote homosexuality and unsafe sex.
"We're only asking that these individual classes, these units, not be taught," said Turner, whose group is joined in the appeal by Family Leader Network and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays. The Thomas More Law Center, a Christian public-interest firm, is assisting
Court Order Against Sex-Ed Lessons Sought
posted by JimK at 9:52 AM
13 Comments:
better luck next time, TTF
Hey anonymous: are you living in "Cloud Cuckoo-Cuckoo Land?" What a farce...your attempts to impose, by court order, specific religious beliefs into the public school curiculum are going to be swatted down quickly. Here's a tissue for you, crybaby!!
The State Board of Education reviewed the suers' latest legal arguments and found no merit in any of them. Liberty Council refused to help file this lawsuit. The only free legal support the suers found this time is from a "law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians," the law firm that lost the Dover PA Intelligent Design case. The suers cost MCPS $36,000 in 2005 and are planning to cost MCPS tens of thousands of dollars more in legal fees over what? Over a class their kids don't have to take because its *optional!!!*
What a waste. I hope MCPS countersues.
"The State Board of Education reviewed the suers' latest legal arguments and found no merit in any of them."
The State Board isn't the Supreme Court so it's a mystery why TTF somehow thinks it's the forum of final appeal.
Back in 1954, both the local and state boards were fully in favor of violating the rights of students but the Supreme Court stood up for the kids in Brown vs the Board. The same thing will happen here. MCPS will ultimately fail in their quest to force a biased curriculum on the students. The Supreme Court will be friendly to students rights and CRC.
Bet on it- bet on it!
"I hope MCPS countersues."
So does CRC!
Andrea- not anon said:
The Supreme Court will not hear CRC's case. However, maybe they can get together with tbe pants lawyer- people who like to waste court time and public funds.
"The Supreme Court will not hear CRC's case. However, maybe they can get together with tbe pants lawyer- people who like to waste court time and public funds."
There's a constitutional angle. If it's not stopped before, the Supremes will get it.
ooo yeah, and let it happen!
The LaBarbera Award: PFOX’s Regina Griggs
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/05/741
"maybe they can get together with tbe pants lawyer- people who like to waste court time and public funds."
Or in this case, the pants-on-fire lawyer..
"However, maybe they can get together with tbe pants lawyer- people who like to waste court time and public funds."
Nice try...not.
The pants lawyer gained notoriety because of the outrageousness of the monetary damages not the claim.
CRC asks only that the students' rights be protected.
Courts have a way of protecting rights, especially of the young.
Why don't gay advocacy groups try to force their radical agenda on adults rather than kids?
Because they couldn't get away with it. Adults have free speech rights; kids in a classroom setting don't.
"Courts have a way of protecting rights, especially of the young."
That's right, they do. The courts protected the rights of racial minorities over 50 years ago, especially in our nation's public schools when they decided Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954. I expect the courts will continue to expand its protection of rights for minorities to include sexual orientation minorities too, especially in our public schools.
"Why don't gay advocacy groups try to force their radical agenda on adults rather than kids? "
Oh brother. It's time to point out the facts, again.
1. MCPS is not a "gay advocacy group." It is one of the finest public school systems in the nation and the world.
2. MCPS does not force sex education classes on anyone. These classes remain completely optional. Parents and guardians decide whether or not their students will enroll in them.
3. Here's MCPS's "radical agenda":'
MCPS schools and units will be free of incidents involving disrespectful behavior, prejudicial action, hate/violence, and/or illegal discrimination, in particular those based on race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age, marital status, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, physical characteristics, or disability.
http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/departments/policy/pdf/acb.pdf
"2. ...These classes remain completely optional. Parents and guardians decide whether or not their students will enroll in them."
In addition to their outright lies, hostility, and inanity, why are these people not being laughed out of court?
That petition is truly one of the most weakly argued documents I've seen. They are just hoping against hope for an ideological activist judge.
As it turns out, the policy director for Family Leader Network is one of our local meddlers, trying to fly under the radar.
Post a Comment
<< Home