The U.S. Supreme Court released a widely expected, but devastating ruling, Friday, in Mahmoud v. Taylor. In a move that equates to soft censorship, paves the way for expanded and more restrictive book bans, and stigmatizes LGBTQ people, justices voted 6-3 in favor of a preliminary injunction for a small group of parents in Montgomery County, Maryland seeking to opt-out their children from school-approved materials including picture books with LGBTQ characters.
The Court ordered Montgomery County Public Schools to notify the plaintiff parents in advance whenever one of the children’s books in question or a similar title is used, and allow them to exclude their kids from that instruction. The district testified about the negative impact this a-la-carte public education system had on learning environments and taxpayer resources. Although the decision is not a final ruling, justices “strongly suggested” the plaintiffs will win their case.
Speaking with MSNBC’s Chris Jansing, GLAAD CEO and President Sarah Kate Ellis called the ruling “undemocratic” and “unAmerican.”
View this post on Instagram
“The Supreme Court decided a long time ago that separate is not equal in the classroom, and now is prioritizing the rights of a small group to segregate LGBTQ families,” she said. “We’re in every school, in every classroom, in every community, in every workplace and in every family. And so this is about pulling us out of that and using religion as a weapon to do that.”
Of the nine titles named in the case, two were co-published by GLAAD and Little Bee Books: Prince & Knight and Uncle Bobby’s Wedding.
Nine LGBTQ-inclusive children’s picture books were named in Mahmoud v. Taylor.
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor summarized the latter title, which tells the story of a young girl who is concerned her uncle will have less time to spend with her after he marries his boyfriend.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, claimed that Uncle Bobby’s Wedding “presents a specific, if subtle, message about marriage.” Alito had mistakenly claimed during the case’s oral argument that the young girl in the book was objecting to her uncle’s pending marriage to a man, an error that had to be corrected by Justice Sotomayor.
In his decision, Alito wrote that marriage equality is “accepted by a great many Americans” without stating the actual number is near 70 percent, according to a recent Gallup poll. He argued the book contradicts “the religious principles that the parents… wish to instill in their children,” but failed to note that two-thirds of Christians oppose using religion as a basis to discriminate against LGBTQ people.
Sotomayor, in her dissent, included pictures showcasing the book in its entirety and encouraged readers “to go directly to the source,” as “the majority selectively excerpts the books in order to rewrite its story.”
Images above from Uncle Bobby’s Wedding by Sarah S. Brannen
In her dissent to the ruling on Mahmoud v. Taylor, Justice Sonia Sotomayor summarized the children’s picture book Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, to highlight its family-friendly introduction to LGBTQ topics.
Sotomayor warned the ruling will have “grave consequences” on LGBTQ children and society at large. Quoting a 1987 opinion describing public schools as “at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny,” she expressed that idea “will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs.”
The dissent also noted: “The majority’s myopic attempt to resolve a major constitutional question through close textual analysis of Uncle Bobby’s Wedding also reveals its failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist. They are part of virtually every community and workplace of any appreciable size. Eliminating books depicting LGBTQ individuals as happily accepted by their families will not eliminate student exposure to that concept.”
View this post on Instagram
By siding with the plaintiffs, Sotomayor concluded that the Court is constitutionalizing “a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators. That decision guts our free exercise precedent and strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society. Exposure to new ideas has always been a vital part of that project, until now. The reverberations of the Court’s error will be felt, I fear, for generations. Unable to condone that grave misjudgment, I dissent.”
Following the ruling, the authors and illustrators named in the case reaffirmed their commitment to LGBTQ representation and intellectual freedom.
“We created our books for all children. We believe young people need to see themselves and families like theirs in the books they read; this is especially true for LGBTQ+ children and LGBTQ+ families. And all children need to learn how to share their classrooms and communities with people different from themselves. Books can help them understand one another and learn to treat each other with acceptance, kindness and respect.
“We know there are families and educators across the country who are committed to creating inclusive classrooms that meet the needs of the diverse groups of students in their school districts. We are with them in spirit as they work to ensure that all students are seen and supported.
“We will continue to support LGBTQ+ families and children everywhere and advocate for the right of all students to read freely.”
