Queer families are people, too
A Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox walk into a courtroom. No, it’s not the start of a joke. It was the beginning of the legal case Mahmoud v. Taylor. In the suit, the parents argued that the local board of education violated their religious rights by adding LGBTQ+ inclusive books to its curriculum without offering the opportunity to opt out. The Supreme Court agreed, saying parents must be able to keep their kids from reading anything that runs contrary to their religious beliefs.
This ruling creates a very broad precedent. According to Chris Wharton, owner of Wharton Law, which specializes in family and probate law focused on LGBTQ+ legal advocacy, “that is why this ruling is so harmful. It basically sends the message that if a parent finds the mere acknowledgement that LGBTQ+ individuals and stories exist to be offensive to their religious views, they can exempt their children from having to acknowledge that existence too.”
As Wharton explains it, SCOTUS doesn’t give specifics on complying with its rulings; it leaves that up to attorneys and lower courts. He says, “It’s almost like a ‘here’s what you can’t do; go work backwards from there’ type of process.” That means attorneys must advise school districts with “LGBTQ+ inclusive” material to have a policy that allows parents to decline that particular book or not even include the subject matter in its curriculum in the first place.
And that can cause greater problems down the road. Theoretically, a parent could opt their kid out of a field trip if there was a gay dad chaperoning, or not allow them to participate in a family portrait art show if another child has two moms.
Wharton says, “A decision that broad is hard to rein in once it is made. What’s to stop a parent from saying that other facts and materials that don’t fit within their religious views – be they scientific, literary, artistic, cultural, or political – should require exemptions?”
Hypothetically, a Hassidic Jewish child could be free from reading Charlotte’s Web since a pig is the hero. A strict Evangelical Christian might demand that his son only have male teachers based on 1 Timothy, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must remain quiet.”
With this ruling, SCOTUS has created a preferred type of parent: those who are so devout that they use religious freedom to rebuke inclusion and invoke bigotry. Two dads who don’t want their kids reading books that feature straight parents have no recourse, nor does a straight parent who wishes to keep their queer teenager from having to endure Romeo and Juliet.
The real danger lies in the fact that Mahmoud v. Taylor could be used for greater discrimination against queer people. Wharton agrees, “I think this ruling allows for the denigration of LGBTQ people as lesser, more ‘objectionable’ than straight people, and any time you have a law that does that, it invites more opportunities for prejudice and discrimination. If our nation stands for the principle that all people are worthy of equal dignity and respect under the law — regardless of whether we agree with them personally — this ruling should be offensive to all Americans.”
This all reminds me of when our son’s pre-K teachers bought a new book for story time: And Tango Makes Three, the true story of two male penguins who raise a chick together. No parents complained. But one classmate announced, “Hey, Tango has two dads, just like Gus! Cool!” Maybe that’s why the plaintiffs objected; their kids might grow up to see LGBTQ+ people as just as people.
You can reach Chris Wharton at whartonlawutah.com
