Montgomery County Public Schools Say Yes to Anal Sex, Homosexuality, Bisexuality, and Transvestitism
ANN ARBOR, MI – A public school district’s program promoting anal sex, homosexuality, bisexuality, and transvestitism as normal sexual variations was recently approved by the Maryland State Board of Education despite strenuous opposition from several pro-family groups. Montgomery County Public School’s controversial sexuality curriculum for eighth and tenth grade students is the result of pressure by homosexual advocacy groups.

In response, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it will assist the pro-family groups in their appeal of the Education Board’s decision to the Montgomery County Circuit Court. The Law Center will be assisted by Maryland attorney John R. Garza who has been involved in the curriculum fight for several years. The Thomas More Law Center and John Garza represent Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, and the Family Leader Network.

According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, “I’m impressed with the principled and steadfast opposition by these pro-family groups to this outrageously hedonistic and life-threatening sexuality curriculum. The Law Center will do everything we can to assist them in their fight.” The pro-family groups oppose the sex program on several grounds: (1) it teaches students that homosexuality is “innate,” which is an unproven theory; (2) it teaches students that anal sex is just another sexual option without warning students of the increased HIV/AIDS risk of anal sex, even with a condom; (3) it labels as “homophobic” children who hold traditional religious or moral beliefs about homosexuality; and (4) it teaches students that transgenderism is just another “sexual orientation,” even though transgenderism has been classified as a mental disorder.

The Montgomery County Circuit Court may overturn the decision of the State Board of Education. The court may also stay the application of the sexuality curriculum while the appeal is pending. If the court affirms the decision of the State Board of Education, the case will be appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals. Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Law Center, who is handling the case, commented: “This curriculum is full of factual inaccuracies and runs counter to sound educational policy. It should not be taught in the public school.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at

Montgomery County Public Schools Say Yes to Anal Sex, Homosexuality, Bisexuality, and Transvestitism

2 thoughts on “Montgomery County Public Schools Say Yes to Anal Sex, Homosexuality, Bisexuality, and Transvestitism

  • really can’t see the logic in this. It’s so typical, though, that the wishes of the majority should be subdued to the wishes of the minority.

    It is an insult to the civil rights movement that this sort of thing should be shoved down people’s throats under the guise of “diversity.”

    It’s apparently a sin to “offend” those who practice alternative lifestyles (“hate crime”), but it’s perfectly OK to offend an entire religious group who do not agree with those lifestyles.

    Please, tell me why are the “feelings” of every religious group in America are not taken into consideration.

    BTW, the Muslim religion is not keen on homosexuality, either, are they? Are any Muslim groups standing up against this?

    I’m with Ron Paul: Prohibit or subsidize seem to be the only two options that Government is capable of comprehending.

  • First let me point out that this article is more misinformation from the Right. The headline “Montgomery Public Schools Say Yes To Anal Sex…” is entirely (and intentionally) misleading and immediately draws the wrong conclusions. The first sentence of the article says that the school district’s “program” is “promoting” anal sex, etc. This of course is bullshit, and if you do some fact-finding, you’ll recognize that right away. It is not a program. It is a single course, namely a Health Education course. This course does not “promote” anal sex, homosexuality, etc. It covers this topic the same way it covers heterosexual sex and heterosexual relationships: in a factual and informative manner.

    More bullshit in the article:

    “I’m impressed with the principled and steadfast opposition by these pro-family groups to this outrageously hedonistic and life-threatening sexuality curriculum…”

    Again, more rhetoric. The inclusion of facts about homosexuality and anal sex in a Health Ed class does not make any curriculum “hedonistic.” And “life-threatening”? This is a joke. You may think it wrong, but anal sex and homosexuality and no more life-threatening than heterosexual sex and relationships.

    The article also states that “this curriculum is full of factual inaccuracies and runs counter to sound educational policy. It should not be taught in the public school.” What are the factual inaccuracies? The article does not state any.

    I’m pretty unsettled by the amount of unchecked material that gets passed around and posted on websites. Butch’s response that this stuff is “shoved down people’s throats” might have been avoided had more reliable information about this subject matter been posted. It’s irritating to have to constantly address lies and half-truths that are being ground out by the Right-wing propaganda machine.

    (Also, Butch, if you have some actual numbers to back up your assertion regarding the wishes of the majority versus the wishes of the minority, I’d be interested in seeing them. In fact, any time you make statements like that, I wish you’d provide some supporting data.)

    Check out this official news report for a better understanding of what’s going on.

    Opponents to this very surprising legislation will no doubt consist of Christian conservatives. Who else has a moral dilemma with homosexuality than the Church? They will whine about how this is entirely contrary to their beliefs and therefore it should be banned. While the Church has managed to marginalize gays for the better part of 2000 years, they are struggling to maintain continuing public condemnation of homosexuality. In this country they will assert that it is somehow a violation of their religious freedom. Well, it is not. Let me quickly dispel the myth that this nation belongs to Christianity.

    My mom loves to tell me during our occasional political bouts that this is a “Christian” nation, that our founding fathers meant for this to be a country of Christians following Christian law. Christianity, she believes as do many religious conservatives, is somehow inherent to our Constitution and integral to our laws. This, however, could not be further from the desires of the men who drafted our Constitution.

    It seems that many people forget the insistence of our founding fathers that church be separate from the state. Consider Thomas Jefferson’s extensive writings on this very topic. For example, he wrote:

    “Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State
    (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).

    What about good old George? Was this colossal founding father devout? To what extent was this great man’s religion a factor in his involvement in the moulding of this country? Hardly any at all. Washington is argued by many to have been a deist. An Episcopal minister and contemporary of George Washington once remarked about our first President:

    “I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges, himself as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more.”

    Still not convinced? Let’s hear it straight from the horse’s mouth. When a group of clergymen complained that the Constitution made no mention of Jesus Christ, Washington replied:

    “I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country.”

    That said, I would argue, as perhaps Washington and Jefferson would, that demands from the Church or any religious group on public schools or other State institutions is fully adverse to their insistence that Church be separate from State.

    Far-right conservatives and libertarians want nothing more than the federal government to be diminished. Federal government intervention into the lives of American citizens is their biggest complaint, yet they don’t complain ifit suits their agenda, beliefs or their constituents. A government used as a tool by a religious group (the Church) to pass religion-based legislation is a theocracy. Yet this is what the Church wants: legislation passed to suit its agenda and beliefs.

    Christian conservatives will argue that since they are paying tax dollars to fund public schools and universities, they should have a say-so in what is taught and practiced there. Okay. But we pay taxes as American citizens, not as Christians, not as religious anythings. Religious groups therefore should not try to qualify their demands based upon their paying taxes, which all citizens must pay, including those who are not religious.

    By passing legislation that accepts/allows the concept of homosexuality into public school curriculum does not in any way prohibit anybody from following their religious beliefs. Still, Christian groups howl and complain that this undercuts their beliefs, that it will brainwash their children. Not true. Homosexuality exists, as do millions of homosexuals and bisexuals. Anal sex exists, is widespread, and is not exclusive to queers. These are facts. It is a weak argument that facts about homosexuality in health classes will encourage people to be homosexuals and have anal sex. Can you prove that that sex education/health classes encourage people to have heterosexual sex? The content of this sort of coursework is factual, detached and even a little off-putting (for some). Eliminating information on anal sex and homosexuality would cause the same problems that elimination of regular sex ed/Health classes would cause: people would be ignorant of the precautions they should take when having it, resulting in bodily damage, infection, or disease. Just as there are people who are sure to try heterosexual sex at a young age, there are people who are going to try anal sex and/or homosexuality at a young age. This is a fact. This is inevitable.

    (Of course some might assert that inevitability does not serve as justification. But again, the numbers are staggering. There are millions of people who are gay. Homosexuality is in and of itself not harmful to society or to the individuals who practice it.)

    Allowing anything to be taught in a school that is contrary to your religious beliefs–whether it’s classes on Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Shinto, you name it–is in no way a violation of your civil rights or of any Constitutional law. Nor is it a violation of your religious freedom. If a Geology teacher says that the Earth is 4.5 trillion years old, an assertion backed up by scientific data, thus a fact, why not homosexuality, also a fact backed up by the existence of, well, millions of homosexuals?

    When teaching a summer course I asked a group of students one time, when a fight occured between some of them about somebody being gay, if they liked boys (the class was all girls). All of them admitted to liking boys, and I asked them if it was by choice. They didn’t know how to respond. Clearly the answer was “No.” Not by choice. They simply like boys. It’s natural.

    Did you consciously make a choice to be straight? My guess is “No.”

    What makes you think that people choose to be gay?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *