The Center for Garden State Families consistently opposes any material in government schools that is sexually exploitative, graphic, and age-inappropriate at any time for any instruction. We have consistently opposed any material or instruction in New Jersey government schools that excludes parents and legal guardians from knowing about what is being taught to the children under their care. The Center for Garden State Families has opposed outside organizations and agendas that seek to groom children into behaviors and lifestyles that have proven and are well-documented to bring harm.
We opposed what we dubbed the Grindr bill—also known as the Freedom to Read Act. Although the bill was initially introduced with over 21 pages and then was whittled down to 11, nothing changed in that piece of legislation. Nothing. The bill remained dangerous, excluded parents, and put the power in the hands of the government to decide what material could be restricted or banned for minors. Any other position was nonsensical. The bill that passed the New Jersey Assembly Education Committee allows school-aged children to read and explore books that tell them how to get engaged with LGBTQ hookup apps like Grindr and books that graphically detail oral anal and vaginal sex.
The American Library Association and the NJEA (teachers' union) supported the bill. Thus, New Jersey once again put its school-age students in danger.
But just to the south of us in Maryland, where the same violence against parents and families was taking place, parents filed a lawsuit.
According to Wikipedia, in November 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland approved several LGBTQ-inclusive children's books as supplemental curriculum for its language arts program.[3] One book was added for each year from pre-kindergarten through fifth grade. Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) teachers were not required to use any of the new materials.[4]
At first, the schools notified parents before the books would be used, and accommodated requests to have their children excused; then, in March 2023, the school district changed the policy, no longer allowing opt-outs "for any reason".[5] Lawyers for the school system said the "growing number of opt-out requests gave rise to three related concerns: high student absenteeism, the infeasibility of administering opt-outs across classrooms and schools, and the risk of exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families to social stigma and isolation."[2] MCPS said it decided to stop the opt-outs because it was receiving too many requests not based on religion.[6] Please note the Position of the Center for Garden State Families is all things in the LGBTQIA – XYZ plus plus plus disorder is itself a faith-based assumption. There remain no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biologic etiology for any of these ideations. This is a developmental gender identity disorder. Developed not innate, acquired not inborn. The largest human genome study ever done was the Ganna study using 477,000 sets of human genomes.
A group of parents sued Montgomery County's school board and Superintendent Thomas Taylor.[7] The lead plaintiffs, Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat, were Muslim and had a son in elementary school. They removed their son from public school after the federal district court sided with Montgomery County in August 2023.[8] Additional plaintiffs were Chris and Melissa Persak, who were Roman Catholic and had two elementary-age children, Jeff and Svitlana Roman, who were Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox and had an elementary-age son, and parents-rights group "Kids First".
On Tuesday, April 22, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the landmark case Mahmoud v. Taylor, that could redefine the boundaries between public education, religious liberty, and parental rights. At issue is whether families in Montgomery County, Maryland, should be allowed to opt their children out of classroom lessons that include books with LGBTQ themes. The Montgomery County school district has cleverly woven LGBTQ themes into multiple subjects and curricula. This has made it difficult for educators to handle the large number of opt-outs that were coming to them in this very progressive part of the Washington DC Metro area.
This sounds like New Jersey law P.L.2019,c.6 passed in 2019, requiring the history and contributions of disabled and LGBTQ persons to be included throughout the entire curriculum in middle and high school. There is no option to opt your children out of the lesson being taught on the developmental sexual identity disorders of LGBTQ etc. It is of significance to note that the history and contributions of disabled persons are not included in any curriculum in any school district in the state. Only LGBTQ etc. have been accommodated by the law.
According to CBN News: The controversy that brought about Mahmoud v Taylor began in 2022 when the Montgomery County Board of Education approved a list of storybooks with LGBTQ themes to be included in the language arts curriculum for elementary students. Among them: My Rainbow, which features a Black transgender girl, and Uncle Bobby's Wedding, a story about a gay uncle getting married.
Some parents say the school district violated their constitutional rights by eliminating the option to opt their children out of those lessons.
Attorneys representing the parents argue that public schools routinely accommodate student absences or adjustments for a variety of reasons and should do the same here.
"Petitioners deserve complete preliminary relief in a system where students are daily opted in and out of the class for multiple reasons," said Eric Baxter, an attorney for the parents.
But the school district contends that allowing opt-outs based on religious objections would create logistical chaos and undermine inclusive education.
"A constitutional requirement to provide opt-out for anything someone finds religiously offensive means public schools must find alternative classrooms, supervision for young students, and substitute lessons each time a topic arises," argued Alan Evan Shoenfeld, attorney for Montgomery County Schools.
During Monday's hearing, the justices pressed both sides with probing questions about where to draw the line between personal belief and public instruction.
Justice Samuel Alito raised concerns about imposing views that may conflict with traditional religious beliefs. "It's a message that a lot of people who hold onto traditional religious beliefs don't agree with," Alito said, referring to the content of the books.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the basis for some of the parental objections. "Is looking at two men getting married, is that the religious objection?" Sotomayor asked.
Baxter responded, "It would depend on the individual beliefs of the clients."
Justice Alito also asked about the age of the children exposed to the books. "What are the ages of the children who are involved here?" he asked.
"These books for kids in Montgomery County can start as early as age 3," Baxter replied.
Justice Neil Gorsuch raised another key issue: whether the parents' concerns stem from legitimate religious beliefs or something else. "It isn't based on hostility to some sincerely held religious beliefs?" Gorsuch asked.
Justice Elena Kagan inquired about the possibility of compromise. "I'm just curious if you think lines can be drawn and where they would be drawn," she said.
Montgomery County officials have maintained that the books in question share common themes with classic children's literature, such as love, family, and acceptance, and that managing individualized opt-outs is simply not feasible.
Lower courts have sided with the school district, but the Supreme Court's ruling, expected by the end of June, could have sweeping implications for curriculum standards, parental rights, and the intersection of faith and education in classrooms across the country.
The outcome of this case may set a national precedent, potentially redefining the balance between public education and religious liberty.
We at the Center for Garden State Families hope that this decision will restore parental rights and authority in education in the United States and nullify laws like NJ's Freedom to Read Act.
.png)
.png)
