Latest news with #PridePuppy
Washington Post
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Religious parents can't opt out of the existence of LGBTQ+ people
Regarding the June 28 front-page article 'Maryland parents win religious right to shield children from LGBTQ books': Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that parents of elementary school children enrolled in Montgomery County schools must be notified whenever an English lesson includes storybooks such as 'Love, Violet,' 'Pride Puppy!' or 'My Rainbow' that normalize the existence and human experiences of LGBTQ+ people and families. This allows parents to withdraw their children from classes when those books are used.
New York Post
29-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
No more LGBTQ brainwashing — SCOTUS school smackdown revives parents' rights
The Supreme Court on Friday handed down a sweeping victory for parental rights and religious freedom — and dealt a devastating blow to the progressive zealots bent on brainwashing America's children. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, Montgomery County, Md., parents fought their local school board over a policy requiring young children to read books centered on LGBTQ+ identity. The justices ruled 6-3 in favor of the parents, who sought the right to opt their kids out of lessons that undermine their religious beliefs. In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito let the books speak for themselves via color reproductions of their pages. There was no better way to demonstrate that these were not books promoting tolerance and acceptance, but radical attempts at indoctrination. 'Pride Puppy,' part of the district's kindergarten curriculum, includes a word search listing topics detailed in the book's illustrations: drag king, drag queen, high heels, lip ring, lace, leather. Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore. Another book, 'Born Ready,' features a very young child who identifies as transgender. In it, the character's older brother protests, 'This doesn't make sense. You can't become a boy. You have to be born one.' Their mother scolds him: 'Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.' The message is clear: If you want issues of sex and gender to make sense, you aren't a loving person. The school board, Alito wrote, 'encourages the teachers to correct the children and accuse them of being 'hurtful' when they express a degree of religious confusion.' They use the books to do it. At the heart of the case was the claim that parents' religious rights were being violated. But the deeper reality remained unspoken: The school-district progressives weren't simply undermining the beliefs of Muslim, Christian and Mormon parents. They were trying to induct the children of these families into their own ideology — one that dismisses biological reality and enshrines 'love,' as they define it, as the only acceptable truth. The conflict also exposed a stark divide between the progressive activists who run the county school system and the religious, largely immigrant families the district serves. Accustomed to lockstep minority support, leftist county officials were blindsided when the communities they claim to represent pushed back. And when the minority parents protested, the progressives lashed out. The curriculum dispute 'puts some Muslim families on the same side of an issue as white supremacists and outright bigots,' Montgomery County Council member Kristin Mink complained in one contentious public meeting. School board member Lynne Harris disparaged a Muslim student who testified at another meeting, telling the press she felt 'kind of sorry' for the girl and speculating she was 'parroting dogma' she'd learned from her parents. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters The Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded apologies from both officials. When progressives rallied outside the Supreme Court during oral arguments, speaker after speaker insisted the district's policy was about teaching tolerance to children of supposedly bigoted parents. After the ruling came down, the district declared in an email to staff, 'This decision complicates our work creating a welcoming, inclusive and equitable school system.' But if tolerance and inclusivity were truly its goals, the county would have sought to respect the values of religious families. No, the objective was ideological control over every child in the county's schools. The progressive activists' message was brutally simple: Our way or the highway. This is what we do in public schools. If you don't like it, you can pay to educate your kids privately, or homeschool them yourself. Alito flatly rejected that argument. 'Public education is a public benefit,' he wrote, 'and the government cannot 'condition' its 'availability' on parents' willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise.' In addition, he observed, 'since education is compulsory, the parents are not being asked simply to forgo a public benefit.' This case laid bare the hypocrisy of progressive ideology — and the flimsiness of those convictions when challenged. Progressives in Montgomery County had a choice: To respect the religious beliefs of minority families, or to force them to abandon those beliefs and cave to leftist views on gender and sexuality. Or, of course, the district could have dropped its leftist indoctrination mission altogether. Rather than offering an unbiased public education to these low-income, immigrant religious families, school officials told them to leave if they wouldn't comply. Mahmoud v. Taylor revealed the left's true colors on tolerance and privilege. But with its decision, the Supreme Court sent an unmistakable message: Parents' rights are not subject to the whims of progressive activists — and they don't evaporate at the schoolhouse door. Bethany Mandel writes and podcasts at The Mom Wars.
Los Angeles Times
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
The 9 LGBTQ+ children's books targeted in high court ruling upending education policy
Picture books are not usually the stuff of Supreme Court rulings. But on Friday, a majority of justices ruled that parents have a right to opt their children out of lessons that offend their religious beliefs — bringing the colorful pages of books like 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding' and 'Pride Puppy' into the staid public record of the nation's highest court. The ruling resulted from a lawsuit brought by parents in Montgomery County, Md., who sued for the right to remove their children from lessons where LGBTQ+ storybooks would be read aloud in elementary school classes from kindergarten through 5th grade. The books were part of an effort in the district to represent LGBTQ+ families in the English language arts curriculum. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that schools must 'notify them in advance' when one of the disputed storybooks would be used in their child's class, so that they could have their children temporarily removed. The court's three liberals dissented. As part of the the decisions, briefings and petitions in the case, the justices and lawyers for the parents described in detail the story lines of nine picture books that were part of Montgomery County's new curriculum. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor even reproduced one, 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in its entirety. Here are the nine books that were the subject of the case: Pride PuppyAuthor: Robin Stevenson Illustrator: Julie McLaughlin 'Pride Puppy,' a rhyming alphabet book for very young children, depicts a little girl who loses her dog during a joyful visit to a Pride parade. The story, which is available as a board book, invites readers to spot items starting with each of the letters of the alphabet, including apple, baseball and clouds — as well as items more specific to a Pride parade. Lawyers representing the parents said in their brief that the 'invites students barely old enough to tie their own shoes to search for images of 'underwear,' 'leather,' 'lip ring,' '[drag] king' and '[drag] queen,' and 'Marsha P. Johnson,' a controversial LGBTQ activist and sex worker.' The 'leather' in question refers to a mother's jacket, and the 'underwear' to a pair of green briefs worn over tights by an older child as part of a colorful outfit. The Montgomery County Public Schools stopped teaching 'Pride Puppy' in the midst of the legal battle. Love, VioletAuthor: Charlotte Sullivan WildIllustrator: Charlene Chua The story describes a little girl named Violet with a crush on another girl in her class named Mira, who 'had a leaping laugh' and 'made Violet's heart skip.' But every time Mira tries to talk to her, Violet gets shy and quiet. On Valentine's Day, Violet makes Mira a special valentine. As Violet gathers the courage to give it to her, the valentine ends up trampled in the snow. But Mira loves it anyway and also has a special gift for Violet — a locket with a violet inside. At the end of the book, the two girls go on an adventure together. Lawyers for the parents describe 'Love, Violet' as a book about 'two young girls and their same-sex playground romance.' They wrote in that 'teachers are encouraged to have a 'think aloud' moment to ask students how it feels when they don't just 'like' but 'like like' someone.' Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named PenelopeAuthor: Jodie Patterson Illustrator: Charnelle Pinkney Barlow In 'Born Ready,' 5-year-old Penelope was born a girl but is certain they are a boy. 'I love you, Mama, but I don't want to be you. I want to be Papa. I don't want tomorrow to come because tomorrow I'll look like you. Please help me, Mama. Help me be a boy,' Penelope tells their mom. 'We will make a plan to tell everyone we know,' Penelope's mom tells them, and they throw a big party to celebrate. In her dissent, Sotomayor notes, 'When Penelope's brother expresses skepticism, his mother says, 'Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.' ' In their opening brief, lawyers for the families said that 'teachers are told to instruct students that, at birth, people 'guess about our gender,' but 'we know ourselves best.' ' Prince and Knight Author: Daniel Haack Illustrator: Stevie Lewis 'Prince and Knight' is a story about a prince whose parents want him to find a bride, but instead he falls in love with a knight. Together, they fight off a dragon. When the prince falls from a great height, his knight rescues him on horseback. When the king and queen find out of their love, they 'were overwhelmed with joy. 'We have finally found someone who is perfect for our boy!' ' A great wedding is held, and 'the prince and his shining knight would live happily ever after.' 'The book Prince & Knight clearly conveys the message that same-sex marriage should be accepted by all as a cause for celebration,' said Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, a concerning message for Americans whose religion tells them that same-sex marriage is wrong. 'For young children, to whom this and the other storybooks are targeted, such celebration is liable to be processed as having moral connotations,' Alito wrote. 'If this same-sex marriage makes everyone happy and leads to joyous celebration by all, doesn't that mean it is in every respect a good thing?' Uncle Bobby's WeddingAuthor: Sarah S. Brannen Illustrator: Lucia Soto In 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a little girl named Chloe learns that her beloved uncle is engaged to his partner, a man named Jamie. At first, she worries that the marriage will change her close bond with her uncle. But she soon embraces the celebration and the joy of getting another uncle through the union. In the majority opinion, Alito wrote that the book sends children the message that 'two people can get married, regardless of whether they are of the same or the opposite sex, so long as they 'love each other.' ' That viewpoint is 'directly contrary to the religious principles that the parents in this case wish to instill in their children.' Parents ability to 'present a different moral message' to their children, he said, 'is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.' In her dissent, Sotomayor includes the entire book, writing that, 'Because the majority selectively excerpts the book in order to rewrite its story.' The majority's analysis, she writes, 'reveals its failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist. They are part of virtually every community and workplace of any appreciable size. Eliminating books depicting LGBTQ individuals as happily accepted by their families will not eliminate student exposure to that concept.' Jacob's Room to ChooseAuthor: Sarah Hoffman and Ian HoffmanIllustrator: Chris Case 'Jacob's Room to Choose' is a follow-up to 'Jacob's New Dress,' a picture book listed as one of the American Library Assn.'s top 100 banned books of the last decade. Jacob wears a dress, and when he tries to use the boy's bathroom, two little boys 'stared at Jacob standing in the doorway. Jacob knew what that look meant. He turned and ran out.' The same thing happens to his friend Sophie, who presents as a boy and is chased out of the girl's bathroom. Their teacher encourages the whole class to rethink what gender really means. The class decides everyone should be able to use the bathroom that makes them feel comfortable, and makes new, inclusive signs to hang on the bathroom doors. 'After relabeling the bathroom doors to welcome multiple genders, the children parade with placards that proclaim 'Bathrooms Are For Every Bunny' and '[choose] the bathroom that is comfy,' ' lawyers for the parents wrote. IntersectionAllies: We Make Room for All Author: Chelsea Johnson, LaToya Council and Carolyn Choi Illustrator: Ashley Seil Smith 'IntersectionAllies,' written by three sociologists, is a story about characters with different identities, including one who uses a wheelchair, and another, Kate, who identifies as transgender. One page shows Kate in a gender-neutral bathroom, saying, 'My friends defend my choices and place. A bathroom, like all rooms, should be a safe space.' In the majority opinion, Alito describes a discussion guide included with the book that he said asserts: 'When we are born, our gender is often decided for us based on our sex . . . . But at any point in our lives, we can choose to identify with one gender, multiple genders, or neither gender.' The guide asks readers, 'What pronouns fit you best?' Alito wrote. What Are Your Words?: A Book About Pronouns Author: Katherine LockeIllustrator: Anne Passchier 'What Are Your Words' is a picture book about a child named Ari whose pronouns are 'like the weather. They change depending on how I feel. And that's ok, because they're my words.' Ari's Uncle Lior (who uses they/them pronouns) is coming to visit, and Ari is struggling to decide which words describe them. 'The child spends the day agonizing over the right pronouns,' the lawyers for the parents wrote. At the end, while watching fireworks, Ari says, 'My words finally found me! They and them feel warm and snug to me.' My RainbowAuthor: DeShanna Neal and Trinity NealIllustrator: Art Twink 'My Rainbow' tells the true story of a Black child with autism who self-identifies as a transgender girl. Trinity wants long hair, just like her doll, but has trouble growing it out. 'The mother decides that her child knows best and sews him a rainbow-colored wig,' lawyers for the parents wrote. The Montgomery County Public Schools also stopped teaching 'My Rainbow' during the course of the lawsuit. This article is part of The Times' early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to
New York Times
27-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Supreme Court Requires Schools to Allow Opting Out From L.G.B.T.Q. Stories
Public schools in Maryland must allow parents with religious objections to withdraw their children from classes in which storybooks with L.G.B.T.Q. themes are discussed, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday. The vote was 6 to 3, with the court's liberal members in dissent. The case extended a winning streak for claims of religious freedom at the court, gains that have often come at the expense of other values, notably gay rights. The case concerned a new curriculum adopted in 2022 for prekindergarten through the fifth grade by the Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland's largest school system. The storybooks included 'Pride Puppy,' an alphabet primer about a family whose puppy gets lost at a Pride parade; 'Love, Violet,' about a girl who develops a crush on her female classmate; 'Born Ready,' about a transgender boy; and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' about a same-sex union. At first, the school system gave parents notice when the storybooks were to be discussed, along with the opportunity to have their children excused. But school administrators soon eliminated the advanced notice and opt-out policy, saying it was hard to administer, led to absenteeism and risked 'exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families to social stigma and isolation.' Parents of several faiths sued, saying the books violated the First Amendment's protection of the free exercise of religion. The books, their complaint said, 'promote one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender transitioning and focus excessively on romantic infatuation.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Miami Herald
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Queer questions about capitalism aren't right for kindergartners
Opinion Queer questions about capitalism aren't right for kindergartners | Opinion The 'queens' and 'queers' of the kindergarten alphabet book 'Pride Puppy' finally had their day before the Supreme Court. Predictably on Tuesday, the six conservative justices were not pleased with the Maryland school district that made exposure to this and four other LGBTQ+-themed books a mandatory part of the grade-school English curriculum starting in kindergarten. Religious parents in Montgomery County, Maryland objected to what their kids were being exposed to and made a federal case out of it — this one centered on the free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment. As the First Amendment protects my writing, I am a big fan of an expansive reading of the five freedoms it protects — religion, speech, press, assembly and the right to petition the government. But it shouldn't take a coming rebuke from the Supreme Court to get schools to remember that they are only borrowing our kids. Parents' values should be treated with respect. Public schools ought to be a little more modest about how they teach issues that divide us, particularly to young children not yet used to questioning the sanity of the adults around them. If parents don't have the bucks for private school or the time and patience for home schooling, they shouldn't have to hand their kids over for a first grade indoctrination in intersectional feminism. Let's take LGBTQ and religious views out of it. We all know that kids are impressionable. What would you think if kindergartners were required to be exposed to books that presented smoking in a puppy-themed, sparkly and rainbow bedecked light? We'd never do that. Indeed, the Maryland schools intended message of tolerance and support for some kinds of diversity can be widely found on the internet, cable and broadcast and streaming TV, movies and music. But positive depictions of smoking are rare. They can get you slapped with an R rating or raise questions about your broadcast license. We know kids are susceptible to influence from how things are portrayed and we know that some things are only appropriate for an older audience. While most Americans think tobacco is bad for you and most Americans don't think that about being gay, for people who do object, the idea that images and the way things are portrayed to kids can be influential is well-accepted idea. In the coming year, this issue is going to heat up. If you haven't noticed already, the 250th anniversary of the opening battles of the Revolutionary War have already passed. The drumbeat of anniversaries will continue to get louder culminating in a national celebration of the 250th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 2026. Next school year, the nation's pupils will be awash in Revolutionary War pedagogy. Among the leading voices in shaping what they hear is the 1619 Project, an educational K-12 version of which has been adopted by 4,500 schools across the country. Among its more debatable contentions are the claims that American capitalism is intimately bound with racism, that the Revolutionary War was launched, in part, to protect slavery from British-led reform efforts and that the very idea of police in America is descended from patrols engaged in recapturing escaped slaves. These aren't questions of religious orthodoxy that the Supreme Court can sweep in and give parents a right to opt-out of for reasons of religious freedom. Nevertheless, in the lower grades, schools shouldn't be using complicated and contested interpretations of history to encourage impressionable young children to hate their homeland. Leave such debates for the adults and older students who are equipped to interrogate the evidence for themselves and not as likely to take the word of a teacher as gospel. Kindergarteners don't need to know the word queer any more than 1st graders need to critique capitalism or even know the word at all. Public schools should remember these kids are ours and treat us — and our kids — with a little more respect. David Mastio Opinion Contributor, The Kansas City Star Go to X Go to Facebook Email this person David Mastio has worked for newspaper opinion sections since starting as letters editor of USA Today in 1995. Since then he has been the most conservative member of the liberal editorial board at both USA Today and The Virginian-Pilot, the most liberal member of the conservative editorial board at the Washington Times and founding editorial page editor at the conservative Washington Examiner. As an editorial writer, he has covered the environment, tech, science, local business and national economic policy and politics. Outside of the opinion pages, he has been a Washington correspondent for The Detroit News where he covered the intersection of the environment, regulatory policy and the car industry, California editor of the Center Square and a speech writer on trade and economics for the George W. Bush administration. He also founded his own web company called BlogNetNews, which aggregated and reported on the blog conversations across the political aisle focused on local news and politics in all 50 states.
