Sex education in Maryland

Oh...my...gosh. I had heard that there was a new sex education program in Montgomery county Maryland that was pro-homosexual, and that they were not giving parents as much say in whether or not the program got implemented.
I had not idea. Here is Oxblog on the subject:

I'm adamantly pro-gay rights, but should public school teachers be taking an official position on what is or isn't a sin? Will we promote understanding by teaching children that those who oppose gay rights are just as bad as racists? But what's really crazy about all of this is the way the WaPo's front page article leaves the impression that irrational conservatives are objecting to the new curriculum for no good reason. To be fair, the article briefly mentions the opinion of a judge who dismissed most of the conservatives' arguments as unfounded but "...said he was disturbed by references to specific religious denominations in the teachers' guide and what he characterized as a one-sided portrayal of homosexuality." Hmm. That's a pretty vague way to describe a sex-ed curriculum with a clear-cut theological agenda.

Eugene Volokh, a law professor from UCLA, has words for the school district of Montgomery county.

A. The curriculum involves the public school unconstitutionally taking a stand on theological questions (as the court correctly held). B. The curriculum contains at least one factual error, and quite possibly others. C. More importantly, the curriculum is chock full of unsound reasoning, the very sort of thing we shouldn't be teaching kids.

Volokh has examples. He also notes that the case has already been in federal court, and here is the result.
Here's the part that everyone is posting on their site. Normally, I would just link to this, but it's so offensive, I just have to reprint it here.

Myth: Homosexuality is a sin.

Facts: The Bible contains six passages which condemn homosexual behavior. The Bible also contains numerous passages condemning heterosexual behavior. Theologians and Biblical scholars continue to differ on many Biblical interpretations. They agree on one thing, however. Jesus said absolutely nothing at all about homosexuality. Among the many things deemed an abomination are adultery, incest, wearing clothing made from more than one kind of fiber, and eating shellfish, like shrimp and lobster.

Religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression. Less than a half a century ago, Baptist churches (among others) in this country defended racial segregation on the basis that it was condoned by the Bible. Early Christians were not hostile to homosexuals. Intolerance became the dominant attitude only after the Twelfth Century. Today, many people no longer tolerate generalizations about homosexuality as pathology or sin. Few would condemn heterosexuality as immoral — despite the high incidence of rape, incest, child abuse, adultery, family violence, promiscuity, and venereal disease among heterosexuals. Fortunately, many within organized religions are beginning to address the homophobia of the church. The Nation Council of Churches of Christ, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Society of Friends (Quakers), and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches support full civil rights for gay men and lesbians, as they do for everyone else.

Any Christians out there will immediately suffer whiplash from their heads spinning around at this statement, FROM A GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION!!!
Has there EVER been a case of a public agency so blatantly defying the establishment clause than this? I don't think I've ever heard of one.

Not surprisingly, the Washington Post, in a front page article, made this seem like the conservatives and Christians of the county in question are ignorant, right wing nuts, and that they are just using this issue to further their cause.