Lawsuit Against Montgomery County, Maryland School Board

Below is the pertinent excerpt from PFOX's lawsuit against the Montgomery County, Maryland Public Schools (MCPS) for its failure to include former homosexuals in its new sex ed curriculum:

11. Appellee’s own non-discrimination policies prohibit disparate treatment and require staff to promote a positive learning environment that holds mutual respect for others. The Additional Lessons treat certain MCPS students differently. Although MCPS has non-discrimination policies that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, blatantly refuse to treat equally ex-gays and those overcoming same-sex attractions. The MCPS Board instructed the curriculum committee to provide teachers and students with comprehensive instruction about human development, including information that “promotes tolerance and understanding towards all people regardless of sexual orientation.” Yet contrary to its own Instruction, MCPS includes homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning and intersexed in the curriculum, but refuses to include reference to ‘ex-gay’ or former homosexual despite the presence of an ex-gay organization on the committee. MCPS approved for inclusion in the Additional Lessons the other sexual orientation groups presented by the other committee members. Its actions are arbitrary or unreasonable.

12. MCPS maintains that Maryland state curricular requirements mandate that it teach “sexual variations,” and that said sexual variations be taught as “sexual orientation.” MCPS instructs students that homosexual orientation is innate and inborn, while refusing to include reference to the ex-gay community despite factual evidence of their existence and repeated appearances before the school board by ex-gays and former transgenders. MCPS tells gays, lesbians, transgenders, and bisexuals that their “sexual orientation” is healthy and normal, while denying the existence of other sexual variations such as those who are ex-gay or attempting to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions or gender confusion. MCPS teaches students that it is normal to change your birth sex (transgender), but that it is not normal to change your unwanted same-sex attractions (former homosexual) because sexual orientation is innate from birth. Appellees refuse to include inclusive information to students that heterosexuals include former homosexuals, despite the presence of an ex-gay group on the committee as representative of the community. MCPS discriminates against former homosexuals while favoring other sexual orientations and relegate ex-gays to second class citizenship. It picks and chooses which sexual orientations to favor, in violation of its own Instruction to the curriculum committee and non-discrimination policies which mandate tolerance and non-discrimination for all sexual orientations, and in violation of state law which requires that sexual variations be taught and not just the ones Appellees favor. MCPS actions are arbitrary, unreasonable, or exceed its statutory authority.

13. The Additional Lessons were adopted, at least in part, for the purpose of eliminating any discrimination or hostility toward people based on their sexual orientation. The Additional Lessons are entitled "Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality" and promote tolerance of homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, crossdressers, and the intersexed. Yet the only sexual orientation in MCPS [Montgomery County Public Schools] which receives no respect or tolerance is that of ex-gays. Three of the curriculum committee members showed outright disrespect and intolerance of the ex-gay community by public emails, statements, and blogs continually written against PFOX and former homosexuals. These committee members continually stereotyped former homosexuals and misrepresented PFOX’s mission to the public, the MCPS Board, and the CAC [Curriculum Advisory Committee]. For example, one of the CAC members, an organization named ‘Teach the Facts,’ compared PFOX’s representation of the ex-gay community to the Klan and child molesters, despite PFOX’s mission of tolerance for both ex-gays and gays. They also helped to organize a picket against an ex-gay conference in Montgomery County last summer where they labeled the ex-gay community a “cruel hoax.” Another CAC member falsely claimed that ex-gays are subjected to ice baths, electric shock therapy, and viewing pornography. Another CAC member, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) continually stereotyped former homosexuals and misrepresented PFOX’s mission. Yet these same members promoted tolerance for gays, the intersexed, crossdressers, and transgenders, and most of their curriculum recommendations on tolerance for their favored sexual orientation groups were accepted by MCPS while Appellants’ recommendations on tolerance for former homosexuals or former transgender individuals were rejected. Nor did MCPS eject the biased and prejudiced members from the curriculum committee, or admonish them in any way, despite Appellants’ objections. Indeed, MCPS blocks student’s access to PFOX’s website on school computers while permitting student access to PFLAG’s website. Thus, Appellants’ viewpoint was not seriously considered, in violation of district and COMAR regulations mandating that the MCPS Board appoint curriculum advisory committees balanced by geographic area, race, ethnicity, gender, and a range of viewpoints; and that local citizen advisory committees broadly represent the views of the community, respectively. In this discriminatory and hostile environment, the recommendations of the CAC were biased and unreasonable.

14. In response to Appellant’s FOIA request, MCPS admits that they have not received any complaints of sexual orientation intolerance or discrimination against gays, bisexuals, transgenders, or the intersexed. But former homosexuals are subjected to ridicule and prejudice within MCPS. Although Appellants and ex-gays repeatedly testified about this discriminatory and intolerant conduct, MCPS refused to include former homosexuals in its “Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality" curriculum. Thus the “Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality” portion of the Additional Lessons does not serve its purpose and cannot be considered curriculum, and therefore is not entitled to deference as such.

The “curriculum” affirms students who consider themselves “gay” or “lesbian” and boys who consider themselves girls, yet it does not even acknowledge the existence of those students or their relatives who identify themselves as former homosexuals or former transgenders. This can only be considered discrimination, pure and simple, and creates a hostile learning environment in violation of state law and district policies. Appellee’s’ message is loud and clear – ex-gays and those overcoming same-sex attractions are not valued and respected in MCPS schools like the other sexual orientation groups the Appellees favors, in direct violation of Appellees own non-discrimination policies and state law. Appellees decision to not include former homosexuals in its “teach respect” curriculum is arbitrary, unreasonable, or illegal.