CHANGE MY LOCATION
Montgomery schools fire back in sex-ed battle
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: Montgomery County
Montgomery County (Map, News) - Plans to teach controversial sex education courses to eighth- and 10th-graders this fall should be allowed to continue despite an attempt by conservative groups to block the lessons, according to Circuit Court documents filed this week by Montgomery County Public Schools.
The motion, filed Monday, is the latest salvo in a continuing battle between the Board of Education and Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays and the Family Leader Network. The groups contend that the lessons promote religious intolerance because of how they teach about homosexuality.
The county’s latest response turns on a technicality. It argues that a request made earlier this month by the groups seeking to block the new lessons from starting is “fundamentally flawed” because the groups had asked the court to stay the former curriculum.
“Our argument makes it pretty plain and pretty clear that we believe the opponents have no basis to win a stay in this case,” schools spokesman Brian Edwards. “We don't believe that there are merits in their arguments.”
A hearing date has not been set, Edwards said Tuesday.
The revamped curriculum is now “status quo,” according to court documents. The county Board of Education approved the curriculum after field testing in several schools this spring. The state board upheld the county’s decision in August. The groups are now appealing that ruling and say the block is necessary because a hearing on the appeal is not planned until January.
CRC lawyer John Garza told The Examiner on Tuesday that he had not yet read the county's motion.
cmabeus@dcexaminer.com
Comments from Examiner Readers
10:53 AM MST on Thu., Sep. 20, 2007 re: "Parents ask judge to obstruct lessons on homosexuality until appeal in ’08"
Report as inappropriate
9:39 AM MST on Sun., Sep. 9, 2007
re: "Parents ask judge to obstruct lessons on homosexuality until appeal in ’08"
Report as inappropriate
2:46 PM MST on Fri., Sep. 7, 2007
re: "Parents ask judge to obstruct lessons on homosexuality until appeal in ’08"
Report as inappropriate
1:39 PM MST on Fri., Sep. 7, 2007
re: "Parents ask judge to obstruct lessons on homosexuality until appeal in ’08"
Report as inappropriate
12:50 PM MST on Fri., Sep. 7, 2007
re: "Parents ask judge to obstruct lessons on homosexuality until appeal in ’08"
Report as inappropriate
10:17 AM MST on Fri., Sep. 7, 2007
re: "Parents ask judge to obstruct lessons on homosexuality until appeal in ’08"
Report as inappropriate
5:15 AM MST on Fri., Sep. 7, 2007
re: "Parents ask judge to obstruct lessons on homosexuality until appeal in ’08"
Report as inappropriate
4:58 AM MST on Fri., Sep. 7, 2007
re: "Parents ask judge to obstruct lessons on homosexuality until appeal in ’08"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
Your reporter needs to familiarize him/herself with proper terminology in sexuality education. To use the term "sexual education" to describe it is antiquated, uninformed and in some cases, biased. The proper terminology when referring to such a curriculum of instruction is "sexuality education, which is much broader than "sexual education," which implies "sexual instruction." Sexuality educators (especially those in school settings) almost never engage in "sexual instruction" (which is teaching people the proper ways to have sex). Teaching about homosexuality as a concept does not represent "sexual instruction." Please use more accurate and non-biased terminology in your future articles, so that readers are not reinforced in their fears and misconceptions about this topic. Thank you.
145 agree | 117 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Well I think it is just plain silly. If I had recieved these lessons when I was in school, I would have been so afraid, or ashamed of who I am. I would not have wasted so many years, fighting what I feel inside, down the very core of me. To all the parents out there, who either disagree with homosexuality, or of it being taught, I understand. But kids are going to find out about it some other way, why not give it to them in a frank, understandable manner, so that they may better understand themselves or classmates who are homosexual.
170 agree | 132 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I know I'm only echoing what has already been said. So we're dealing with people for whom it isn't enough that they have a right to decide what is and is not taught to their children. They insist on having authority over what is and is not taught to other people's children. Unbelievable! Of course, what it boils down to is they're determined to try (as futile as it is) to ensure the very notion of homosexuality never even enters their kids' minds. Too bad they can't deal with the very real fact that at least 10% of their "Christian" kids are already gay/lesbian and another 10-15% are already bisexual. How many of them will committ suicide because of their parents' churches' primitive thinking and dogmatic teaching.
148 agree | 155 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I guess these parents are afraid their teenagers might hear the real truth in the locker room instead of misconceptions that lead to conceptions. Our teens all need to be taught the scientific facts of life, but I've noticed that these parents are against science being taught in any classroom.
157 agree | 157 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
If the parents do not want their children to attend the classes, just opt out! the kids can go in another class. But OH No! the religious fanatics want to completely control everything that is taught so that no one else has any other opinion. Are not the churches that way about everything? Its kind of like bad tv shows you dont like you can change the channel or turn it off but dont tell me what to watch!
190 agree | 135 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Thank GOD for rational parents!
154 agree | 106 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Garza complained the curriculum is “blatant discrimination against certain religious groups” and "flies in the face of most religions in the United States." Every cheeseburger and pork product served at school violates Jewish religious dietary law. Every uncovered head violates Islamic law. It is not the public school's responsibility to provide religious instruction and I don't believe most parents want their public schools trying to teach their kids religion. With denominations splitting up and rearranging themselves, religious instruction should be left up to the parents and the faith they choose to teach their children.
168 agree | 164 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The three main points are inaccurate. 1. The curriculum states “Sexual orientation is innate and a complex part of one's personality.” It does not single out homosexuality. 2. The "status quo" curriculum (which is supported by the groups that filed suit) also mentions anal sex in virtually the same way. The film made in 1993, "Hope is Not a Method" states "whether you’re having vaginal, oral, or anal sex, condoms should be used to protect both you and your partner." This advices is the same as that given by the CDC. 3. The curriculum states , “People sometimes stereotype others based on their beliefs. Just as stereotyping others based on sexuality is not an acceptable behavior, stereotyping others based on personal beliefs also is not acceptable.” Mr. Porter is right. This case has already been decided and found to lack merit. These anti-tolerance groups should stop wasting taxpayer money with their frivoulous lawsuits.
172 agree | 97 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree