Friday, May 06, 2005

What the Hell? A federal judge ruled that a Maryland school district's sex-ed curriculum was unconstitutional. The reason? Because it doesn't include the religious perspective about homosexuality, namely condemning gays to burn in hell.

No, the judge ruled, the curriculum merely presents homosexuality as something that exists and doesn't attach any moral definition to it.

How the hell can a judge pull something off like that? I want to know where in the Maryland or U.S. constitutions it says that religious points of view must be presented when school curriculum explains a subject that has nothing to do with religion.

If the school district tried to put in religious messages, that would be unconstitutional, violating the separation of church and state. If the school district wanted to include information about the controversy surrounding homosexuality, that would be odd but acceptable, although that should be left to the elected school board.

I think we have proven that there are activist judges on both sides. I haven't taken a side on the whole filibuster issue, just because I think both Republicans and Democrats are incessant whiners. But with more instances like this, I'll be advocating that we need a constitutional amendment assuring that no judge can be confirmed without two-thirds approval of both houses, instead of just consent from the Senate.