Controversy Over Teaching About Same-Sex Marriage in Public Schools
“The Child is not the Mere Creature of the State”: Controversy Over Teaching About Same-Sex Marriage in Public Schools
Charles J. Russo, Ed.D., 232 Ed. Law Rep. 1 (2008)
(An excerpt is below. To view the full text, please use Westlaw, Lexis, a law library or alternative source.)
Debates over instruction about human sexuality in public schools are typically controversial since they pit two conflicting sets of interests against one another. On the one hand is the right of parents “to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.” As the Supreme Court reasoned in Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary (Pierce), this understanding is based on the notion that “the child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” On the other hand, recognizing that “education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments,” state-level public officials delegate their plenary power to elected local school boards and their appointed administrators to establish appropriate curricular content.
A recent dispute arose over instruction dealing with issues of human sexuality [FN6] in Massachusetts in Parker v. Hurly (Parker). In Parker, two sets of parents unsuccessfully challenged the actions of educational officials who used curricular materials that encouraged their elementary school-aged children to have respect for persons who are gay and couples in same-sex marriages. The First Circuit affirmed the rejection of the parents’ allegations that school officials violated both their rights to the free exercise of religion and to raise their children as they saw fit in providing instruction on topics with which they had religious differences.
In light of the issues that arose in Parker, the remainder of this commentary is divided into two substantive sections. The first part reviews the First Circuit’s analysis in Parker. The second section discusses Parker’s wider implications for educators and parents, culminating with recommendations on how they can deal with disagreements over curricular content and control. The commentary rounds out with both a brief postscript and a conclusion.