Testimony to Board of Education 1/9/2007

Presentation by David S. Fishback, Board Member, Metro D.C. Chapter of Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) to the Montgomery County Board of Education

January 9, 2007

The Staff's proposal for health curriculum on sexual orientation contains very good material. Absent, however, from its proposal is simple information on the most important question facing children who happen to be gay or lesbian: "If I am homosexual, does that mean there is something wrong with me?"

All mainstream medical and mental health groups have made it clear that "homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or other emotional problem."¹

Gays and lesbians report that if this simple fact had been conveyed to them in middle school, they could have avoided excruciating agony. After he came out, our older son told us that when he was at MCPS and was unaware of the doctors' conclusions, he could never envision a happy life for himself.

In last year's campaign, all of you who were elected agreed that the curriculum should include "the conclusions of every mainstream medical and mental health professional association [that] homosexuality is not a medical or other disorder." http://www.emcq.org/voting2006.htm.

Your Citizens Advisory Committee agreed, overwhelmingly recommending that the lessons include this sentence: "All mainstream medical and mental health professionals have concluded that homosexuality is not a disease or a mental illness."

Yet, the Staff disagreed and did not include the information. According to a press report, a Staff member explained that "If kids ask a question that's outside the scope of what's taught, the teacher is encouraged to tell them to talk about it with a health professional." http://www.examiner.com/a-493541~Sex_education_to_be_voted_on_by_school_board_next_week.html.

So children wondering about the significance of being gay will be left utterly in the dark if too shy or afraid to ask. And if they do ask, then they will be referred to an unnamed "health professional"-- thus implying that gay people are sick. This is cruel and unnecessary.

All that is needed to make the curriculum whole is to include the single sentence from the Advisory Committee and to permit teachers to draw on the entire text of an American Psychological Association publication that is already quoted or paraphrased in other portions of the Staff proposal.² As currently drafted, however, the curriculum does not permit the teachers to draw upon the entire publication. Inclusion of this single sentence and this single teacher resource will not disrupt the prompt piloting of the curriculum that is so greatly needed.³

¹American Psychological Association's Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality. Click here. This publication is attached to this testimony.

² See footnote 1, above.

³ Any litigation fears are unwarranted. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit definitively stated last summer, quoting the United States Supreme Court, that curriculum decisions are NOT subject to the "public forum" requirements involved in the backpack/flyer matter. In Child Evangelism Fellowship of Maryland v. Montgomery County Public Schools , 457 F.3d 376, 381 n. 2, Fourth Circuit stated, unequivocally, that "when the government alone speaks, it need not remain neutral as to its viewpoint. See Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 833 (1995) ('When the University determines the content of the education it provides, it is the University speaking, and we have permitted the government to regulate the content of what is or is not expressed when it is the speaker or when it enlists private entities to convey its own message.')." The opinion may be found at http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/opinion.php. Any new lawsuit would thus be frivolous and MCPS would be able to defeat it with a simple motion to dismiss based on Child Evangelism and Rosenberger.

No judge is going to flagrantly disregard the instructions of the court of appeals to which he/she must answer. CRC and PFOX representatives have made it very clear that they will sue so long as the so-called "ex-gay viewpoint" is not included, even though that viewpoint has been specifically condemned by the American Medical Association. See AMA Statement on Health Care Needs of the Homosexual Population (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/14754.html#6W). The Staff wisely did not include such material, and the CAC overwhelmingly rejected the CRC/PFOX motions to include it. So the lawsuit will be brought, and inclusion of material from the American Psychological Association, which is the same conclusion as those of the AMA, the AAP, and the American Psychiatric Association, will not make any difference to the swiftness of the outcome.