Mahmoud v. Taylor

A Supreme Court Case about LGBTQ-Themed School Curriculum

On April 22nd of this year, just a few weeks ago, the US Supreme Court heard arguments on the question of whether LGBTQ-themed school curriculum violates the First Amendment rights of parents to free exercise of religion. The comments from Justice Alito were absolutely terrifying. A constitutional scholar on the youtube channel, Strict Scrutiny, opined that there was no good reason for the Court to take this case. The law was clear until now that merely being exposed to certain ideas or content does not impose a substantial burden on religion. However, the Court took the case anyway, apparently because Justice Alito wanted to rant and rave about the mere existence of gays.

This case comes before the high court during tumultuous times for LGBTQ+ folks. Florida, Ohio, and at least seven other states have passed “Don’t Say Gay” laws, which bar classroom instruction on gender and sexuality. Over 10,000 book bans have been recorded across the nation during the 2023-2024 school year, and a quarter of those books featured LGBTQ+ people.

At issue in this case are several LGBTQ+ themed books — one titled, “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” written by Sarah S. Brannen and illustrated by Lucia Soto. The question for the Court was whether and to what extent parents of young schoolchildren enjoy a right under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to opt their students out of curricular activities that conflict with their religious beliefs. “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” is about a little girl named Chloe who is upset about her favorite uncle getting married. The overarching theme of the book pertains to Chloe’s fear that Uncle Bobby won’t have as much time for her after he is married, but Uncle Bobby calms her fears. This part of the book, however, does not seem to be the most egregious part. Instead, the alleged insult to free exercise of religion seems to stem from the family’s reaction to the wedding announcement.

In the book, “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” Uncle Bobby makes an announcement at a family picnic:

From “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” written by Sarah S. Brannen and illustrated by Lucia Soto.

In response to Uncle Bobby’s wedding announcement:

“Momma whooped and hugged him! Daddy shook hands with Jamie. Everyone was smiling and talking and crying and laughing.”

That’s it, that’s the whole allegedly egregious part. The family was happy and congratulatory about a gay wedding. This is the part that Justice Alito takes issue with, stating the following:

“Do you think it’s fair to say that all that is done in ‘Uncle Bobby’s Wedding’ is to expose children to the fact that there are men who marry other men? . . . The book has a clear message. And a lot of people think it’s a good message. And maybe it is a good message. But it’s a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don’t agree with. I don’t think anybody can read that and say, well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men. Uncle Bobby gets married to his boyfriend Jamie and everybody’s happy and everything is, you know, it portrays this, everyone accepts this except for the little girl, Chloe, who has reservations about it. But her mother corrects her. No, you shouldn’t have any reservations about this.”

First of all, Justice Alito makes up part of the story line to serve his own homophobic interests. There is no portion of the story where the “mother corrects her” or says, “No, you shouldn’t have any reservations about this.” This part is wholly and entirely fabricated in Justice Alito’s homophobic brain. The reservations Chloe has about the wedding pertain to her fears that her favorite uncle will have less time for her after he gets married. Her reservations have nothing to do with two men getting married.

Further, Justice Alito takes specific issue with the fact that “everybody’s happy” even though “traditional religious beliefs don’t agree with” the message. If I may extrapolate from Justice Alito’s statements, the family should have responded in the following way in order to make the book constitutionally sound. The following hypothetical response would not have violated anyone’s rights to free exercise of religion:

“After Uncle Bobby’s wedding announcement, mother started crying, and father said, “Both of you are an abomination! And you’re going to hell!” Everyone in the family was either crying or was muttering under their breath about how Uncle Bobby and Jamie “were hellbound abominations.” Some people said, “It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” One person quoted Leviticus and said, “If a man lies with another man, they should be put to death.” Some people said, “It ain’t right! It’s unnatural!” Some people got up and left. No one was happy for Uncle Bobby and Jamie, and everyone was concerned about their eternal souls.”

There! Fixed it. According to Alito’s homophobic logic, this small edit would solve the constitutional free exercise clause dilemma in this book (though, it would certainly create other establishment clause issues). Hopefully, this serves to show you how absurd his position actually is. He takes issue with the portion of the story where people are happy about a gay marriage. How dare anyone teach children to be happy about two people loving each other.

In order for children to be prepared to thrive in a modern, diverse world, I believe it is imperative for all children to understand that millions of people celebrate the loving union of LGBTQ+ couples. Sure, their parents can teach them to be hateful bigots at home or in church, but in the real world, a tremendous number of adults support the loving marital unions of LGBTQ+ couples. We are real. We exist. We experience love just as truly as straight people. To hide our existence from children denies them a realistic view of the world. To hide our existence denies children with important tools they will need to thrive in society. Moreover, to hide our existence isn’t fair to us. When someone has a religious belief that “if a man lies with another man, they should be put to death,” well, that’s dangerous territory. This belief is often used to rationalize violence toward LGBTQ+ folks. What exactly can the law justify with the free exercise of religion? If parents can effectively extract all LGBTQ+ affirming curriculum from public schools with an opt-out, how far can they go down this slippery slope?