SCOTUS Poised to Defend Parental Rights
Time to Ban LGBTQ and Sexualization of Children
SCOTUS Poised to Uphold Parental Rights in Curriculum Opt-Out Case:
Time to Ban LGBTQ and Sexualization of Children
In June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to rule on Mahmoud v. Taylor, a pivotal case involving parental rights to opt their children out of public school curricula featuring LGBTQ-themed materials. Early indications suggest the Court’s conservative majority will rule in favor of parents, reinforcing their authority over their children’s education. This case, stemming from Montgomery County, Maryland, challenges the school board’s removal of opt-out options for lessons on sexuality and gender identity, impacting children as young as three. A ruling for parents would reaffirm a long-standing constitutional tradition prioritizing parental rights—a tradition that should extend to all parents, not just those with religious objections.
The Court’s history on parental rights is clear and robust. In Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the Court recognized parents’ liberty to “establish a home and bring up children” under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) solidified this, affirming parents’ rights to direct their children’s education by choosing private schools. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) went further, ruling that parents’ “fundamental interest” in guiding their children’s religious and educational upbringing trumps state interests, allowing Amish parents to opt out of compulsory schooling. Troxel v. Granville (2000) underscored that the “liberty interest” in the care, custody, and control of children is “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests.” These precedents demonstrate that parental rights are nearly absolute, rooted in the Constitution’s protection of family autonomy, and have been overwhelmingly upheld.
This case should not hinge on religious objections alone. All parents, regardless of faith, must have the right to opt out of curricula they deem harmful. Montgomery County’s inclusion of books like My Rainbow, depicting transgender experiences, raises serious concerns. These materials often diverge from the Judeo-Christian values that shaped America’s founding—values centered on traditional families with a mother and father as the bedrock of society. Introducing young children to concepts of gender fluidity can sow confusion, particularly when over 90% of gender dysphoria cases resolve naturally by puberty, according to studies like those cited by the American Psychiatric Association. Encouraging children who do not struggle with gender identity to experiment risks leading them down a painful path of mental health challenges, including depression and anxiety, which studies show afflict many who pursue gender transition. Schools must protect children’s innocence, not expose them to ideologies that normalize a serious mental illness.
The broader issue is the state overstepping into the sacred domain of family. Public schools should not be platforms for promoting non-traditional family structures or comprehensive sex education that conflicts with foundational values. Materials on LGBTQ identities often present these as normative, ignoring the traditional family model that has sustained societies for centuries. This is not education—it’s indoctrination. Parents, not schools, should decide when and how to introduce such topics, ensuring their children’s moral and emotional well-being.
A favorable SCOTUS ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor is a critical lifeline for Californians, who are suffering under severe parental rights violations imposed by state laws like the California Healthy Youth Act and FAIR Education Act. These laws force-feed children LGBTQ-related materials in subjects like social studies and history, banning parents from opting out. This prohibition—mandating exposure to gender and sexual orientation topics without guaranteed notification—strips parents of their constitutional authority to guide their children’s upbringing. Shockingly, these policies defy the will of 80% of Californians, who polls show oppose such curricula without parental consent. The SCOTUS ruling could restore these fundamental rights, ensuring parents, not the state, decide what their children are exposed to, safeguarding their innocence and family values against California’s overreach.
The Supreme Court’s likely ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor will be a victory for parental rights, but Congress must go further.
Let’s call for a federal ban on comprehensive sex education and LGBTQ non-traditional family materials in public schools. These topics belong in private homes, where parents and guardians can choose supplemental educational materials aligned with their values. Public classrooms must remain neutral, focusing on core academics, not ideological agendas. Let’s protect our children’s innocence and preserve the family’s rightful role in their upbringing.
Monthly Membership, Donate Here>>
Give a Generous One-Time Donation Here>>
Don’t Miss Out on Our 2025 America First Celebration Half-Off Discount for New and Returning Subscribers for a Limited Time!
WE DEPEND ON YOUR SUPPORT! With your annual subscription, RECEIVE YOUR FREE COPY of my NY Times Bestseller, ‘Because They Hate,’ while supplies last. You are delivering REAL RESULTS with your support!
For years we've heard how the children in the US are falling way behind in education, yet we have sick people forcing lgbtq filth down the throats of our children which is what is destroying them. We keep hearing about the major health problems, especially depression, and that goes in line with the lgbtq training. Sick mind, sick body. Several years back I read about Arizona's fight to get the lgbtq filth stopped and they found that a lady politician who was pushing it hard in her community also happened to be the owner of the local porn shop. Grooming children to be sexual perverts is not training them up in the way we should have them go and when they are old, they will not soon part. Go to the jails and prisons and you will find the rapists, pedophiles, and many other criminals all have porn, thus sexual immorality in common. This is what the left wants for our children so they can easily control and manipulate them for their profit. Look at the Soviet Union. They threw out God and adopted gross sexual immorality. The land was filled with prostitution and whoredom. The rich gave them all the booze and drugs they wanted to go along with their whoremongering. They went into bankruptcy 7 times in their 70 year of rule. The residual effect remains to this day. In 09 I listened to a radio broadcaster interviewing a Russian man who was bragging about all the wonderful bread they have in Russia. At the end, with sadness he said but that's the only good food we have, I wish we had other good foods. After the tsunami hit Japan in 11. a man was sitting on the ridgeline overlooking the wreckage complaining, I used to have a nice home and business, now I'm reduced to eating a piece of bread. Proverbs 6:26 by the means of a whorish woman a man shall be driven to a piece of bread. Both examples I've given speak of people being driven to a piece of bread and it goes right back to whoredom. I'm not chastising the women, I'm chastising the men who want women to commit whoredom with them. Read Proverbs 5, the adulterous woman, Proverbs 7 the harlot. These scriptures play out constantly and people whine life isn't fair. Wrong, we reap what we sow. My wife was constantly comitting adultery. I've lived through Proverbs 5 because of it, that's how I know the scripture is true. She gave birth to a boy and the doctor mutilated her on the delivery table. She bled 2qt's of blood internally that night. I was still scripturally blind, but I fully understood it was because of all the adultery she had committed. The child threw up every meal till the age of 7, trying to commit silent suicide. The judgment against King David for comitting adultery, then murder was the death of the child. That boy was born into judgment of his father (whoever he was) and his mother. 24 scriptures which say I shall visit the iniquity of the father unto the 3rd and 4th generation of them that hate me. That boys parents hated god, their vile lifestyle proved it. Had they succeeded in killing me, the boy would have died for sure. I know the judgment of God because I've lived through so much. Sampson married a Philistine because God was looking for a fight with them. Her father gave her to another man, and later he went to the prostitute Delilah and he ended up a slave to the Philistines who took hot coals and burned his eyes out making him blind. The only woman I ever had a love for was taken from me shortly after we met and given to another man. The woman I sadly married used vile means to bring me down and into her clutches. That put me with the Marines for 20 years. I died to the church, the world, came home at the age of 40 and for the first time in my life, I began working for my ex, only for the sake of the 2 children. By 7 years, the eye Dr said I was going blind fast and needed to stop welding and find a different living. The tear ducts in my eyes were burned out and they were on fire. I wrote my ex saying its over, its final, its complete, I will never work another day for you, I'm breaking my marital vow. Now, 2 decades later my eyes still sting a bit, by the Grace of God I can still see. I refuse to date let alone remarry knowing that it will only be a repeat of my past. Judgment is real. May God bless us with a victory over this lgbtq nonsense and give the parents the right to help direct the future of their children.