[adriand]

> What, exactly, should the school be teaching the kids in that moment

How about this: "There are lots of different types of families, and among those many types, there are ones where there are two moms or two dads, and that's okay". [1]

> and how would this law prevent it?

IANAL but according to this analysis [1], 'Classroom “instruction” could mean eliminating books with L.G.B.T.Q. characters or historical figures. But “classroom discussion” is broad. That could discourage a teacher from speaking about gay families with the whole class, even if some students have gay parents.'

In other words, precisely the scenario I just described. This is a gag law that prevents educators from having the kind of conversation that should have happened in the library at my wife's school.

1: The first part of this lesson is a simple fact, and the second part ("that's okay") is a value judgment, but given that gay marriage is legal in FL and constitutionally protected, and that same-sex couples can, for instance, adopt children, that value judgment seems to be not just ethical but legally enshrined.

2: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/what-does-dont-say-gay...

[teakettle42]

> How about this: "There are lots of different types of families, and among those many types, there are ones where there are two moms or two dads, and that's okay".

“That’s okay” is non-neutral moral judgement that exceeds the teacher’s purview.

“People are different in many ways; in this classroom, we treat everyone with respect regardless of our differences” is a content-neutral restriction on speech that does not exceed a teacher’s purview.

> IANAL but according to this analysis [1], 'Classroom “instruction” could mean eliminating books with L.G.B.T.Q. characters or historical figures.

The law is not tied to any particular sexual orientation (or gender “identity”); if that analysis were true, the law would also eliminate books with straight characters or historical figures.

> The first part of this lesson is a simple fact, and the second part ("that's okay") is a value judgment, but given that gay marriage is legal …

“That’s legal” is a statement of fact; it’s very different than “that’s okay”.

[adriand]

We could easily get into semantic or philosophical weeds here, but maybe instead of that, let me ask you: is it okay? Is it okay that this particular five-year-old has a mama and a mami? And if that’s okay, why should it be a crime to say that?

[teakettle42]

I’m not really sure what “okay” means as a metric, and I couldn’t say whether it’s “okay” or not — so I withhold judgement.

If I were to discuss this with my children, it would be a very nuanced topic.

It’s certainly not a public school teacher’s remit to indoctrinate children within the teacher’s own moral framework.

“It’s okay” would be just as inappropriate as “it’s not okay”, in this context.

[rayiner]

In a pluralistic society like ours, religious freedom and pluralism demands something of schools here. Article 18.4 of the UN convention on civil and political rights states: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...

> 4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

This is not a simple matter of “inclusiveness.” The nature of men, women, the purposes of marriage, is a fundamental moral and religious concept. In my part of the world, it has nothing to do with “two people who love each other” but is instead a fulfillment of Mohammad’s exhortation to get married and have children as a central moral obligation of life. It’s deeply intertwined with what God’s purpose is for us on earth.

The reason people want to talk about this in school is to counterbalance the influence of the world’s largest religion and alter the moral views of children on a question central to religious morality. The very reason they want to do it is why it’s not a legitimate purpose of instruction in public schools.

NB: As a convert to mainline Protestant Christianity, I happen to think it’s okay. Most people in the world, including the world’s fastest growing religion and the religion followed by the fastest growing minority group in the US, do not think it’s okay.

[shadowgovt]

> The very reason they want to do it is why it’s not a legitimate purpose of instruction in public schools.

The interface between church and state in the US is always friction-filled, because the separation of church and state creates an immediate contradiction: we must separate people's faith-based morality from the conduct of the government, yet we recognize that morality is an inextricable part of every individual.

In this case, these children are growing up in a society with laws that recognize the dignity and value of every one of those families. One parent, two parents, four parents, same-gender parents, different-gender parents... Regardless of the lessons children learn at home, it's the responsibility of the school to teach them that the law and the culture they're living in consider those families all equivalently correct.

So it's clear for the state (via the school) to have a say in this. That leaves the question on the table "is kindergarten too early for that say," and I'd argue it's not because kindergartners already have to interface to the society and sometimes have questions on these topics. My largest concern with this law is it badly ties the hands of educators if such questions come up organically. And that does a disservice to every student in their care, and harms the state's interest in educating its citizens about life in the state.

(To be more clear: when I say "badly ties the hands," I don't mean to imply there should be no constraints. Rather, the enforcement mechanism of opening up private lawsuits creates a situation where what should be a collaborative process, the education of children, is structured adversarially; the law doesn't encourage collaboration, it gives parents a cudgel to try and beat school systems with. That's bad law because it creates perverse incentives counter to the goals of the education process. Parents, too, have a vested interest in their children learning how to live in their society; how well do we imagine that will go if the process is "If I don't like what you're teaching, I will harm you financially?").

[rayiner]

> The interface between church and state in the US is always friction-filled, because the separation of church and state creates an immediate contradiction: we must separate people's faith-based morality from the conduct of the government, yet we recognize that morality is an inextricable part of every individual.

The American notion of "separation of church and state" refers to pluralism, not secularism. It's a nation founded by groups of religious nuts who sought to create a system where we could leave each other alone. We're not a country like France where there's a secular "civic religion" into which everyone must be socialized: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/12/france-...

> In this case, these children are growing up in a society with laws that recognize the dignity and value of every one of those families.

Our laws require equal rights and equal treatment in various contexts: government services, employment, etc. They don't say anything about "value" because in a pluralistic society people have different values.

> Regardless of the lessons children learn at home, it's the responsibility of the school to teach them that the law and the culture they're living in consider those families all equivalently correct. So it's clear for the state (via the school) to have a say in this.

Law, culture, and morality are separate domains. Americans share law. They don't necessarily share culture or morality. Public schools can teach about the law and behavioral expectations. But they aren't permitted to intrude into the domain of what's "correct"--i.e. moral right versus wrong: "The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions."

Asserting that schools get to socialize kids into "culture"--whose culture?--is the off ramp where you lose lots of parents. (Note that this law has strong public support in Florida, from a population that also strongly supports same sex marriage.) What’s the scope of this principle? What other aspects of sexual morality do teachers get to tell kids about? When I got married, my (Bangladeshi American) mom told my (white American) wife: "You know, we don't get divorced." There's lots of things that Muslim Americans accept as legal and part of white American culture over which they maintain distinct moral standards in their own families and communities. I suspect though I can’t be sure that Hispanics in Florida are in a similar boat. Pluralism requires respecting those boundaries.

[shadowgovt]

> The American notion of "separation of church and state" refers to pluralism, not secularism

It's both. Agnostic or atheistic belief is one of the many faiths understood to be supported and protected by the separation of church and state. If a person can have faith in one god or many gods, they can have faith in none. It isn't French-style, but in a country where, for example, interracial and same-sex marriage is legal (in direct contradiction to the teachings of several religions), there are times where the state must step in to protect its citizens from having their rights stripped by organizations acting as a formal or informal arm of religion, so it can sometimes look like a state-sponsored secular faith.

The question is complicated and has gone the other way too; some religious ceremonies of native American cultures involve the use of psychedelics that are federally banned. Most Christian churches' celebrations of their covenant with God involve the imbibing of alcohol by people under the age of 21. In some cases, federal lawsuits have been involved to determine when the state is overstepping its authority to impose behavioral constraints on people.

> Our laws require equal rights and equal treatment in various contexts: government services, employment, etc. They don't say anything about "value" because in a pluralistic society people have different values.

In my mind, dignity and value are synonymous and the law definitely protects the dignity of those families. I'm unaware of a non-synonymous way to treat those terms, but if there is one I agree with your take on the law.

> "The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions"

The United States has never recognized the UN's full authority over its own laws or the interpretation of same. In the case of that quote, it's sourced from the ICCPR. The ICCPR was adopted by the United States with a declaration and proviso that fundamentally give it no force of authority here (https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/text_blocks/28885). In other words, the ICCPR is, at best, a declaration of morality and has no force of law, so if the US shares no morality or culture, you can't use it in this context to make an argument about how the US should act.

... which highlights the problem with the logic that the US shares no morality. Of course it does. We figure out what our shared morality is via the process of democratic election, debate, and construction of our law. That law reflects the shared morality of its people, which grows from our separate but overlapping faiths.

> whose culture?

The culture decided upon through the interaction of the school board and the election of the board by the people. With an overlap of the federal Department of Education. It's a complicated process, but it's there. There's definitely a culture to a school; without one, one cannot explain any proviso of any student handbook.

> pluralism requires respecting those boundaries

It absolutely does, and if a kid came home crying because their teacher told them they were living in sin with two fathers at home, that would be a major breach of trust on the part of the educator and we already have processes in place for dealing with that. But if the kid comes home crying because one of their classmates has two dads, the teacher said that's okay and the parents had told that kid it isn't? Then we have a clash of religion and the consensus culture of the country, and the school is correct in terms of its duties to teach students how to live in this country. For the law is clear, and the law is a reflection of the consensus morality. In this place, in the public square, in the streets, workplaces, and halls of government, it is okay to have two dads. This does not impinge on what one's heart says is okay.

My faith has an old saying, passed down from its prophet, which sums up this dichotomy nicely: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's."