California officials must quickly confront a rewrite of state policy in the wake of a Supreme Court decision on Friday to support LGBTQ+ characters and families who select children from lessons on Pro-LGBTQ+ themes.

The case included a new “LGBTQ Inclusive” storybook for pre-kindergarten to fifth grade in Montgomery County, a suburb of Washington. The potential implications go far beyond the storybook, touching on California’s approach to education.

California law requires students to learn and provide age-appropriate educational materials at all grade levels that they describe and incorporate. “Roles and contributions” Among other things, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender Americans.”

In some important respects, California’s approach to LGBTQ+ inclusion appears to be untouched. When representing his parents before the Supreme Court, Eric Baxter, a lawyer with the Beckett Fund for Religious Freedom, said “I am not opposed to books on the shelf or in libraries. I have no right to tell the school which books to choose.”

Under the Supreme Court decision that appears to follow this reasoning, California’s learning goals may not change. And they may still maintain a mandatory policy for local school boards. However, lessons that include LGBTQ will no longer require material for certain families who oppose the content.

When opposed to Maryland parents, Maryland Board of Education lawyer Alan Shaunfeld argued to the judiciary that the goal of the storybook is to “promote mutual respect.”

However, Judge Samuel Alito, who wrote for the High Court and the majority of the Sixth Commander, concluded that district practices are a form of indoctrination attempts that could contradict constitutionally protected religious beliefs.

For example, he wrote that while many Americans oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, “the storybook is designed to present an opposing perspective to young, impressive children who may undoubtedly accept the moral message conveyed by teacher guidance.”

This reasoning aside, the ruling could leave much of California’s approach intact, but it will not be forced to learn the state’s intended message through content that includes LGBTQ.

This domination raises scores for related issues, such as how opt-out applies at different ages.

Please note that state guidelines are second graders“By studying the stories of “diverse collections of families” that include lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender parents and their children, you can find yourself and your own family in history, and learn about the lives of your peers and historical struggles. ”

Elementary school storybooks are one thing, but what about social studies in high school?

California Education Code That’s necessary Social science teaching includes the roles and contributions of “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.”

Due to previous experience in the Maryland area, new road rules can be difficult to manage. The school system originally allowed families to opt out of lessons with LGBTQ-themed storybooks, but so many families did so, and their policies were reversed.

“Given the diversity of religious beliefs in this country, the myriad interactions that occur every day in public schools may expose children to messages that contradict their parents’ religious beliefs,” Judge Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent. “The outcome is a disruption to public schools in this country.”

How far the objection can go is another question for California.

A group of parents in Los Angeles protested the story book, which briefly stated, “some children have two dads.”

The LA Board of Education essentially ignored their objections, and then board Jackie Goldberg read the entire picture book aloud on the TV Board’s Board of Education.

“Amazing book,” she said after closing the cover. “I recommend it.”

Strong response

Reactions to the Supreme Court decision have arrived promptly from many quarters, including President Trump.

Cecilia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the decision “a dramatic break from decades of precedent.”

“For the first time, parents who have a religious dissent have the authority to choose and choose from the secular public school curriculum, and can interfere with the district’s legitimate educational objectives and the ability to run schools without confusion.

Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy, chairman of the Louisiana Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, praised the decision. Students should not be forced to learn about gender and sexuality subjects that violate family religious beliefs. ”

LGBTQ+ rights supporters have spoken of another attack from political rights.

“The decision is another wolf in sheep’s clothes from the court that has lost all the plot to separate the church and state,” said Kimberly Innes McGuire. Impulse (Unified for reproduction and gender equity). “The objections of a small number of religious fundamentalist oppositions are used to override the curriculum of selected schools by a comprehensive process promoted by educators and experts. This ruling could allow petty biases of either parent to degrade the available education.”

But Julian Fleischer, a Murieta-based lawyer who defends the faith and freedom of legal groups, called the decision “a victory for religious freedom.”

“Parents, not the nation, are great for making decisions about what a child is being taught, especially on sensitive issues, including gender and sexuality,” Fleischer said. “The government does not own our children, and this decision is justly reflected not only in the sacred and legal rights of parents who direct their children’s religious education. Families should not be forced to choose to participate in public education in good faith, held religious beliefs.”

Sexed Ed’s precedent

There is a clear precedent for the opt-out approach: sex education.

In Sex Ed in California, the curriculum needs to recognize that people have different orientations and involve same-sex relationships, teach about gender identity, and explore the harms of negative gender stereotypes.

At the same time, California, like almost every other state, allows parents to opt out of sex education classes for their children. In California, it meant that families already had options to avoid LGBTQ+ content.

However, at least up until now, parents have not been able to oust their children from LGBTQ+ content as a standalone topic other than Sex Ed.

A divided religious community

The Maryland case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, was pursued by a group of Muslim, Catholic and Ukrainian orthodox parents. They said the book contradicts the religious and moral views it taught children.

A federal judge and the Fourth Circuit refused to intervene. Those judges said that the “free movement” of religion protects people from being forced to change their actions and beliefs, but neither of them were in question in school cases.

The issue divided the religious community in California, including within the Muslim community, an important constituency pursuing the Maryland incident.

“If LGBTQ+ theme books are an excuse for their desire to opt out, wouldn’t the books about black, Jewish and Muslim children and their traditions be included to “opt out” at a later date? ” said Ani Sonneveld, the founder of Muslims for Progressive Values, which was part of Amicas’ filing in a lawsuit against the Los Angeles-based opt-out.

“We are not theocratic, so discrimination should not be permitted in the name of religion.”

Orange County-based Sheikh Tarik Ata said he supported “parents’ rights to guide their children’s moral and religious education.”

“As a member of the American Muslim community, we will honour our core values ​​– religious freedom, family and various beliefs to guide this Supreme Court’s litigation stance,” said Ata, director of the Islamic Shura Council in Southern California, which issues guidance on religious issues to the Muslim community.

“In our tradition, parents are responsible for the spiritual development of their children. When the classroom introduces topics that are deeply contradictory to belief, families should have the right to make choices without penalties or stigma.”