patrick.net

Sen. John Kennedy just made Democrats squirm by reading "Gender Queer," a book that parents can't remove from school libraries due to a new Illinois law

Illinois became the first state to "ban book bans" this summer, signing legislation that would prevent parents from protesting and removing books from school libraries.

Often the books that are supposedly "banned" are really just removed from libraries because they contain pornographic material that Democrats think is totally appropriate for kids.

Today, the Illinois secretary of state came to the US Senate to explain this anti-parent act and was faced with Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana, who decided to read from the super-graphic book "Gender Queer," which we've reported on at length.

[We cannot include the video here as it is too graphic for younger readers] ...

Oh, it's very uncomfortable hearing those words from a senator?
Then why are you allowing KIDS TO READ THEM?

Lefties are, for some reason, dunking on Kennedy, saying he's totally out of his mind for reading this in front of the Senate in DC.

Kennedy is talking about sex acts in front of Congress! How disgraceful! That [checks notes] belongs in school libraries!

And Yes the US is approaching third world math and literacy proficiency.

As Cameron points out, these books aren't the exception. He's not just cherry-picking here. Scholastic makes a concerted effort to promote groomer books - I'm sorry, LGBT books - to kids.

An old-west style showdown is ambling down Minnesota’s legal sidewalks. The Sahan Journal ran an article yesterday headlined, “St. Louis Park parents threaten legal action over LGBTQ books.” Corporate media has a blackout on the story. Maybe the blackout is because St. Louis Park Somali muslim parents are threatening legal action.




St. Louis Park’s devout Somali muslim community is a ‘vibrant and growing part’ of the city's population. Earlier this year, national media celebrated that Nadia Mohamed became America’s first Somali-American mayor. I doubt they’re celebrating now.

St. Louis Park’s muslims mainly hew to Islamic teaching that homosexuality is immoral, and they don’t like it much when woke schools give their young children books graphically depicting homosexual acts. So far, this story sounds a lot like other similar ‘book banning’ stories over the last couple years, like Moms for Liberty’s famous/infamous efforts to limit atypical sexualized content in public schools.

But the Somali parents are taking the argument all the way to its logical endpoint, setting up a vast, unpredictable battle. It is an argument that Christian parents have, for whatever reason, so far avoided making, possibly because of the implications if an eventual Supreme Court decision went the wrong way.

But let’s start at the beginning.

Years ago, St. Louis Park elected several gay school board members. Since then, the district libraries have swollen with material that most parent consider gross if not outright revolting. Gay parents argue that every grocery magazine cover glorifies heterosexual content, and nobody complains about that, so giving school kids cartoons showing little boys performing oral sex on each other is only fair.

“Love is love,” they claim.

(For the record, that is a demonic lie. Sex is not love, and love is not sex. Just ask the entrepreneurial, fifth-wave feminists on OnlyFans. But I digress.)

So six Somali families hired The First Liberty Institute, a conservative, Texas–based law firm that has litigated several high-profile First Amendment cases, like defending a high school football coach fired for praying on the field after games, a cake shop owner who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, a Muslim inmate denied a religious meal, and a Jewish family trying to place a religious symbol on their relative’s grave in a government-owned cemetery.

So far, First Liberty’s lawyers have only sent the school district a demand letter, but the remarkable part of the story is the legal theory they’re arguing.

A 1993 Minnesota law requires school districts to provide a “parental curriculum review” process. Under the law, districts must allow parents to review instructional materials and, if parents object, schools must “make reasonable arrangements with school personnel for alternative instruction.”

That language could not possibly be more clear.

The Somali parents want the school district to follow the law. They want some reasonable arrangements for their children to receive alternative instruction, instead of cartoon manuals instructing kids how to have gay sex. They just wanted to opt-out:

“It is disheartening that these books were introduced to our children without our knowledge or consent, leaving us with no recourse to opt out,” (a woman named Ilhan told the St. Louis Park school board). “Our request is simply to be informed in advance when materials related to sexuality and LGBTQ identity are included in the curriculum, along with the option to exempt our children from those specific lessons.”

But school board members, advised by compliant staff lawyers, argued that the Minnesota Supreme Court has never interpreted the plain language of the curriculum statute in light of more recent Minnesota laws, like its Human Rights Act, which — to them — seem to conflict with each other, because the HRA bars discrimination against gay students.

In the school board’s view, allowing muslim students to opt-out of gay material might hurt some gay students’ feelings, which would would be catastrophic, thereby unconscionably discriminating against gay folks writ large. Just like Nazis. (Except for Ukrainian Nazis, those are the good ones.)

This is where the stakes in the conflict got turned up to Spinal Tap’s famous Number-11 setting. The Somali muslim parents carefully and respectfully invoked their Constitutional religious liberty. As Ilhan explained, handily wielding the awkward woke vocabulary:

“We wholeheartedly respect the importance of affirming LGBTQ identities, but we are troubled by the way these books have been presented to our children,” Ilhan said. “The manner in which they have been taught appears to exceed the boundaries of affirmation, urging every child to delve into their own understanding of gender and sexuality. This approach, we believe, directly conflicts with our deeply held religious beliefs.”

The reason this argument is so very stakes-raising is that, by invoking the U.S. Constitution, they bypassed all the potential arguments over any conflicts between parents’ rights under Minnesota’s curriculum statutes and the state’s Human Rights Amendment preventing gay students from potentially getting their feelings hurt.

Unless this gets resolved soon, out of court, the dispute tees up the final conflict — over school textbooks — between the rights of religious parents under the First Amendment and the rights of gay secular parents under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. After 9/11, democrats adopted muslims into the party’s Neo-marxist coalition of victim groups. So black Somali muslims currently wear suits of political armor (that Christian parents lack) and the case can proceed on the merits, without all the usual character assassination and bad-motive-imputation.

Much can be learned from these Somali parents’ strategies. I’d put this story squarely into the ‘counter-revolution’ category. Will the Supreme Court find that muslim parents’ deeply-held religious convictions trump the potential for gay students to get hurt feelings when other kids aren’t required to read LGBTQ+ material in public schools?