Alternative Sex To Be Taught In Maryland Schools

A public school district's program promoting anal sex, homosexuality, bisexuality, and transvestism as normal sexual variations was recently approved by the Maryland State Board of Education despite strenuous opposition from several pro-family groups. Montgomery County Public School's controversial sexuality curriculum for eighth and tenth grade students is the result of pressure by homosexual advocacy groups.
In response, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it will assist the pro-family groups in their appeal of the Education Board's decision to the Montgomery County Circuit Court. The Law Center will be assisted by Maryland attorney John R. Garza who has been involved in the curriculum fight for several years.
The Thomas More Law Center and John Garza represent Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, and the Family Leader Network.
According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, "I'm impressed with the principled and steadfast opposition by these pro-family groups to this outrageously hedonistic and life-threatening sexuality curriculum. The Law Center will do everything we can to assist them in their fight."
The pro-family groups oppose the sex program on several grounds: (1) it teaches students that homosexuality is "innate," which is an unproven theory; (2) it teaches students that anal sex is just another sexual option without warning students of the increased HIV/AIDS risk of anal sex, even with a condom; (3) it labels as "homophobic" children who hold traditional religious or moral beliefs about homosexuality; and (4) it teaches students that transgenderism is just another "sexual orientation," even though transgenderism has been classified as a mental disorder.
The Montgomery County Circuit Court may overturn the decision of the State Board of Education. The court may also stay the application of the sexuality curriculum while the appeal is pending. If the court affirms the decision of the State Board of Education, the case will be appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals.
Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Law Center, who is handling the case, commented: "This curriculum is full of factual inaccuracies and runs counter to sound educational policy. It should not be taught in the public school."
from Life Site

Board of Education Approves New Sex-Ed Curriculum

The Montgomery County Board of Education approved new sex-education lessons yesterday for the eighth and 10th grades that teach what it means to be homosexual but say little about how people become gay, resisting pressure from a divided community to define homosexuality as nature or nurture, right or wrong.
Approved by a unanimous vote, the lessons mark the first time Montgomery schools will introduce the topics of sexual orientation and homosexuality. The materials, including a new 10th-grade condom-demonstration DVD, will be field-tested in a handful of middle and high schools in spring, barring intervention by the courts.
Some school board members said they expect a lawsuit from the same community groups that persuaded a federal judge to halt a version of the curriculum in spring 2005. U.S. District Judge Alexander Williams Jr. found that the curriculum presented one view of homosexuality, "that homosexuality is a natural and morally correct lifestyle," to the exclusion of all others.
"I believe we will be sued. That's okay. . . . Bring it on," said board member Sharon W. Cox (At Large).
Leaders of the protest groups said yesterday that they would consider their legal options and signaled that they have the same objection to the new curriculum as to the old one: They say it offers one viewpoint, favorable toward homosexuality, anal sex and premarital sex. Observers on both sides have predicted that "viewpoint neutrality," or lack thereof, would eventually form the basis of a lawsuit.
"Absolutely nothing is allowed to be said that is negative about homosexuality," said Ruth Jacobs, an infectious-disease specialist and member of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, which, with Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, sued to block the curriculum in its first incarnation.

Defenders of the previous curriculum hailed the new one, which explores the range of sexual orientations and gender identities, defines harassment and discrimination and teaches tolerance regardless of sexual orientation. Board of Education President Nancy Navarro applauded the group's 8 to 0 vote, which, in the face of potential litigation, "sends a message that we stand firm on the balanced approach that we have taken with these revisions."
About 15 opponents of the curriculum appeared at the board meeting, carrying signs that read, "Children's health before political agendas" and "Not viewpoint neutral."
The opposition groups say that if lessons on sexual orientation are taught at all, they should include perspectives that homosexuals can change, that transgenderism is a mental disorder and that anal intercourse is dangerous. One representative from each of the two opposing groups sat on a 15-person advisory committee that recommended dozens of additions and changes to the curriculum.
Others on the committee lobbied the school board to insert stronger statements in the curriculum in support of gay, lesbian and transgender students. Yesterday, that campaign narrowed to a request that a single sentence be added to the lessons, instructing that mainstream medical and mental health organizations have concluded that homosexuality is not a disease or a mental illness.
The suggestion divided board members, who split 4 to 4 on a motion by Patricia O'Neill (Bethesda-Chevy Chase) to instruct teachers to provide the statement upon a student's request.
School Superintendent Jerry D. Weast reminded board members that the curriculum, written by his staff, had been built on specific academic objectives and tailored to "circumscribe our liability."
from The Washington Post / Daniel de Vise