Florida's Supposed "Don't Say Gay" Law

I was on a couple of podcasts about this, taking the view that the law—which restricts "classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity … in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards"—doesn't violate the First Amendment (or likely any other part of the Constitution). I think we had an interesting, constructive, and friendly conversation on each:

1. On The Dispatch, with Gabriel Malor, moderated by Declan Garvey.
2. On The National Constitution Center's We The People, with Joshua Matz, moderated by Prof. Jeff Rosen.

Comments

[BravoCharlieDelta]

UN Declaration of Human Rights
Article 26 (3)
Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Democrats insist on violating our human rights when they target our children for their social engineering. It should be a crime and they should see justice for it.

These people target children with their indoctrination because they can't win over functioning adults.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's the same way gays procreate, liberals procreate by targeting children.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Mayor Pete was able to procreate.

[shawn_dude]

Is this all the GOP has these days? Rehashed 1970s bigotted stereotypes?

I can see the FOX News viewership rising up and shaking their walkers at their cable TV screaming "YES! Finally, someone is listening to me!"

[Krychek_2]

But conservative social engineering and indoctrination is fine, right? It’s only bad when liberals do it?

[AmosArch]

Literally nothing leftoids claim the bill will do is actually in the bill including and especially their moniker for it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Partisan insults and allegations without citations?

Another solid opening remark from Amos.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Ad hominem insult is the very thing which will persuade everybody. Try another.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Amos used the term "leftoid." That is a partisan insult. Check.
He also claimed "literally nothing" that is claimed to be in the bill is in it. He did so without any citation whatsoever. Check.

Your inability to comprehend short sentences is unmatched.

[AmosArch]

You want examples of people bloviating about things this bill doesn't even do just look up the other threads about this topic.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I want you to prove that "literally nothing" that "leftoids" have said is in the bill is actually in it.

You're not trying to weasel out of your absolute and partisan remark, are you?

[AmosArch]

I already told you but since you are apparently terminally lazy here is an example https://reason.com/volokh/2022/04/14/thursday-open-thread-78/?comments=true#comments where they are implying that people will be forbidden about talking about their family lives.

[Da5id]

This statement is too broad. What the bill will do in practice is open to question. I'm in general a fan of parents rights to control the raising/education of their children, and not horrified by the bill. But I can see that the murky aspects of it could chill speech that shouldn't be covered.

But the use of "Don't say Gay", without even a "so-called" or "critics call it" qualifier is a glaring example of media bias. It is on par with calling one side on abortion "pro choice" but declining to call the other side "pro life". These tendentious framings of issues shouldn't be anywhere near a news story, but that isn't the world we live in alas.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What is the argument that it does violate the First Amendment?

[Krychek_2]

That it’s a content based restriction on speech.

[AmosArch]

A school curriculum is not a public soapbox. If lessons on the 75 genders for kindergartners must be let in because someone wants it to why not a semester on creationism or Anarchist cookbook week?

[David Nieporent]

It's government speech, though. See Garcetti.

[Krychek_2]

I didn’t say I agreed with the argument. I was just answering the question of what the argument is.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I guess I was wondering if there was an argument that couldn't be definitively refuted in three words.

[Josh R]

The podcast offered a non-trivial argument why it may violate the Equal Protection clause and Title IX. Eugene said that instruction that whites are superior does not violate the Constitution because the state can further whatever beliefs it wants in K-12. However, it is at least non-trivial that such instruction unlawfully discriminates on the basis of race, and if so, this law in its intent or application unlawfully discriminates on the basis of sex.

[swood1000]

this law in its intent or application unlawfully discriminates on the basis of sex

The law says that children K-3 will not be instructed with respect to "sexual orientation” or “gender identity." Could you clarify the discrimination on the basis of sex?

[Josh R]

In Title VII, discrimination on the basis on sexual orientation or gender identity is discrimination on the basis of sex.

[swood1000]

But if there is no instruction concerning sexual orientation, what person is being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation?

[Josh R]

I said:

it is at least non-trivial that such instruction (whites are superior) unlawfully discriminates on the basis of race, and if so, this law in its intent or application unlawfully discriminates on the basis of sex

It's possible that when the law is applied, it will result in teaching straights are superior. For example, there may be a successful lawsuit if a teacher assigns a K-3 reader that features a same-sex couple but not a similar reader with an opposite-sex couple. Or, there may be evidence presented that the intent of the law was to promote straight superiority.

What I found interesting is that Eugene said teaching straight (or white) superiority does not violate the Equal Protection clause (and he may be correct). He did not comment on whether it violates Title IX. Either way, it is one non-trivial avenue for challenging the law.

[swood1000]

It's possible that when the law is applied, it will result in teaching straights are superior. For example, there may be a successful lawsuit if a teacher assigns a K-3 reader that features a same-sex couple but not a similar reader with an opposite-sex couple.

The example you provide (a successful lawsuit) would not even be noticed by children in the K-3 grades, so would not teach them anything. If they learned anything from that it would be their parents teaching it to them.

Is a societal preference for heterosexuality discriminatory toward homosexuals? Is a preference for two-parent families discriminatory toward one-parent families? Some make the argument that society should prefer heterosexuality because it promotes the continuation of society and low birth rates have become problematic. Would such an argument imply that single people are inferior?

Do you think that it’s legitimate for parents to insist on the right to teach their K-3 kids about these subjects? If so, how would a state go about mandating that?

[Josh R]

The example you provide (a successful lawsuit) would not even be noticed by children in the K-3 grades, so would not teach them anything.

They may or may not notice, but many people would. And I think they would conclude straights are being preferred.

Is a societal preference for heterosexuality discriminatory toward homosexuals. Is a preference for two-parent families discriminatory toward one-parent families? Would such an argument imply that single people are inferior?

Yes, yes and with regard to raising children, yes.

Do you think that it’s legitimate for parents to insist on the right to teach their K-3 kids about these subjects? If so, how would a state go about mandating that?

It's legitimate for parents to insist that subjects are taught or not taught (majority rule). Whether or not majority rule violates the Constitution is debatable. So too is whether the majority should assert its will at the state, school district or classroom level.

[swood1000]

They may or may not notice, but many people would. And I think they would conclude straights are being preferred.

So, if third party Joe Blow knows that the state prefers heterosexuality, has he been harmed? What is the injury?

Yes, yes and with regard to raising children, yes.

So, if a teacher, in a later grade, expresses her view that two-parent families are best for children, you think it is debatable whether or not this violates the constitution?

Whether or not majority rule violates the Constitution is debatable.

Suppose, in a later grade, a student is told that prostitution is not a good career choice. Do you think that it is debatable whether or not that violates the constitution since it disfavors prostitutes?

Suppose the schools system adopted the rule that in K-3 no textbook will depict parents of any kind. Is it still discriminatory?

[Josh R]

So, if third party Joe Blow knows that the state prefers heterosexuality, has he been harmed? What is the injury?

A parent is not a third party and at least some of know of the lawsuit and suffer the indignity of being treated as a second-class citizen.

So, if a teacher, in a later grade, expresses her view that two-parent families are best for children, you think it is debatable whether or not this violates the constitution?

Given that rational-basis review applies, almost certainly it does not violate the Constitution. Ditto for your prostitution and no-parents hypotheticals. In contrast, there could be discrimination on the basis of sex with Florida's law which triggers intermediate scrutiny.

[swood1000]

Given that rational-basis review applies

Ok, but this begs the question. Should rational basis review apply to discrimination on the basis of sex but not discrimination against prostitutes? Or let’s take the person who is an exhibitionist and likes walking naked in the park. Why shouldn’t that person be entitled to the same constitutional protection as the gay couple? What is the distinguishing principle?

[swood1000]

I meant to say: Should rational basis review apply to discrimination against prostitutes but not to not discrimination on the basis of sex?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure it's a good argument - I have strong policy issues, but am not the sort to Constitutionalize everything - but that language is vague in a couple of ways:
'or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate'
'instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity'

Does saying Sally has 2 moms count as instruction on sexual orientation? Unclear!
What is age appropriate? Unclear!

This is compounded by allowing parents to sue over how *they* would interpret the above.

The argument from a 1A perspective (as I understand it) is that this kind of unclear boundary is exactly the kind of tactic used to chill speech, and that this bill impermissibly chills teacher's speech in areas beyond what would be permissible for the state to regulate.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's certainly no less clear than the objectively reasonable hostile work environment language you guys love so much, and that's actually regulation of private speech.

[Sarcastr0]

I have no idea about that body of law, other than it's a lot better developed than this.

This thing over here is bad.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Bad, and "unclear" are relative terms. As I demonstrated, it's no less clear than other laws that pass muster.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I have no idea about that body of law,"

I'm fully aware of that, I've read your comments on it on other posts.

[Sarcastr0]

You have not convinced me that long-standing hostile work environment is a similar regime to this new state law such that vagueness operates in the same way.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I have no idea about that body of law, other than it's a lot better developed than this.

That's as funny as your avid defense of Netflix's Cuties where you admitted that you hadn't even seen it, but were qualified to argue and educate others about what it did/didn't contain based on your having "read the synopsis".

You're a parody of a joke.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Does saying Sally has 2 moms count as instruction on sexual orientation? Unclear!

And if that counts as instruction on sexual orientation, then so does saying Sally has a mom and a dad.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, but given that the portents are the one implementing...

[swood1000]

this bill impermissibly chills teacher's speech

According to the ACLU, “What [teachers] say or communicate inside the classroom is considered speech on behalf of the school district and therefore is not entitled to First Amendment protection.”

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Stick with the bigots. It fits.

[Cheerio]

EV is a prominent and widely-respected legal scholar, even when he takes controversial positions. On this, however, his constitutional analysis is quintessential mainstream.

Gaslight better.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prominent and widely respected? By Federalist Societeers, sure. The Heritage-Olin-Bradley-Republican world, no doubt. The carefully cultivated class of strident conservative commenters this blog attracts and lathers, certainly.

Mainstream America and mainstream, strong American academia? I doubt it. I think most leading professors and deans would assign him to the Eastman-Hewitt-Vermeule-Wax-Blackman-Heriot-Barnett grouping. Publishing in separatist journals, annoying their deans (except at a few clinger schools), misappropriating strong schools' franchises, appeasing bigots of essentially all stripes, engaging in polemical and hypocritical partisanship, advising and enabling the wrong side of history and the losing side of the American culture war.

[Cheerio]

I didn't say widely "agreed with," as of course he's known as a right-libertarian in legal academia which is dominated by the left. But he is widely *respected* for his intellect and reasonableness, even among most who disagree with him.

Although, of course, on the particular issue of this thread, his analysis of the constitutionality of the particular legislation is indeed mainstream. (Note, the analysis was merely of the constitutionality -- not the merits. Serious lawyers of course understand the difference.)

[Doug Heffernan]

I was glad that for the first time on an episode of the "We the People" podcast, the volokh guy had a decent audio connection and/or microphone. That alone improved the episode.

The volokh guy mentioned early on that the gays (and lgbtq, etc.) are a minority of the population. And he also said many times that this issue must be left to the political process.

Minority populations, especially when they are despised by a significant percentage of the religious population, or even the general population, don't fare well under being "left to the political process". But that is the volokh guy's view, as he sure as heck stuck to it.

The other guy in the episode is gay, so obviously the raw emotion of how he personally felt effected by all of this was pretty raw and overshadowed some of his arguments. But he did pretty well.

This seems like a big bag of political leveraging to me. No one was instructing kindergarteners on how to be lesbians. But this issue plays well with religious conservatives (voters), so there you have it.

Although the news just broke today that 41% of math textbooks were rejected for being too gay. Seems to be pretty crazy stuff, but I haven't seen the gay math textbooks yet myself in order to judge for sure.

[AmosArch]

Nobody gives a crap if you want to bang another guy. Or at least those who do are a much tinier less active portion than you care to admit. Go ahead and do what you want in the privacy of your own life. All we object to is forcing your opinions on us. People hate the (activist) groups not because they are gay or trans or whatever. But far more for the forced indoctrination, targeting of children, canceling of heretical opinions, taxpayer funded giveouts, ripping up the constitution etc etc but above all because they are liars and snakes without the courage to present their beliefs honestly.

You are an inquisitor wearing the cloak of a downtrodden victim.

[Doug Heffernan]

I just gave my off the cuff remarks after listening to the entire episode. Neither participant had especially strong arguments in my view. I just mentioned that any minority, for example, some categories of taxpayers, don't fair well in a numbers game (the political process) and their rights have to be protected by other means if they are to be protected at all.

I don't pretend for a second understand all of the gender identity stuff and all of the numerous variants. It all confuses me to no end. But if at least some of those identifies are real things, I can imagine how it might be a frightening place to be (identified as such) vis-à-vis the broader society and how to exist within it.

[bernard11]

Nobody gives a crap if you want to bang another guy.

BS. Apparently quite a lot of people do.

All we object to is forcing your opinions on us.

You prefer to force your own opinions on others, it seems.

[FivebySixThree]

targeting children is on purpose because they are impressionable at younger ages and far more likely to trust the adults in their life, especially the teachers.

if an adult tried these conversations outside of school they would likely be arrested for targeting children. Hence they use teachers so as to protect themselves from valid criticism

When you co opt those in position of power and trust then all sorts of malfeasance is possible and very much likely

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Although the news just broke today that 41% of math textbooks were rejected for being too gay."

On the bright side, that means that 59% of the books were actually teaching math.

Because of course there's no gay math and straight math.

[AmosArch]

Almost all my classes must have been subjected to political interference according to the geniuses on Twitter that Doug is apparently referencing since we usually only had one textbook.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Volokh will find a way to come down on the side of the book-banners. The Republican book-banners, that is.

[Cheerio]

Did I miss the part where conservatives were trying to impose traditional views here? Doesn't this bill simply mandate neutrality (in the form of silence) on these issues?

Granted, silence is not the only way to achieve official/state neutrality. Another option would be to teach that we live in a pluralistic society where different people have different belief systems, etc. But that's probably better for the higher grade levels.

[Josh R]

Considering this law addresses a problem that doesn't exist, it is preposterous to say it mandates neutrality. Instead, it's red meat for the base.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Of course this is red meat for the downscale culture war losers. Just look at the Volokh Conspiracy today. Violent blacks. Masks. Gays. Sticking it to the advanced states on taxes. It’s a clinger-lathering superfecta (with a scant academic veneer, of course).

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Sticking it to the advanced states on taxes."

It's you guys that want the rich to pay more taxes, Arthur, remember?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Open wider, clinger

[TwelveInchPianist]

You want some more syrup, lesser?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

All your betters require is your continuing compliance.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Hope you like the taste of "compliance" with syrup.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don't understand the syrup point. I don't need to. You just need to keep toeing the line established by your betters.

[Cheerio]

"Just look at the Volokh Conspiracy today."

He doesn't control what's in the news. And in most cases, his posts do not opine as to the policy merits. Regarding the racial issue, his analysis was far more thoughtful and nuanced than the reflexive reactions...

To the extent he does wade into policy, it's hardly social conservatism (e.g., you may recall he was a fairly early supporter of gay marriage rights).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He carefully curates which developments are mentioned and which are ignored.

He is entitled to do so.

Others are entitled to remark concerning the partisan, misleading, hypocritical cherry-picking.

[Cheerio]

"Considering this law addresses a problem that doesn't exist..."

So, no school districts in Florida were attempting to teach progressive views on controversial social issues to lower-elementary school children?

[Josh R]

Examples with citations please.

[Brett Bellmore]

For those who think there isn't a real problem.

Y=X+2
3x+6y=12
Angelou was sexually abused by her
mother's ______ at age 8, which shaped her
career choices and motivation for writing.
a. (0,2) boyfriend
b. (4,6) brother
c. (-3,-1) father

Mind, I still think the law poorly drafted. Like that's unusual...

[Stephen Lathrop]

What would make that a real problem Brett, would be if it was in any approved curriculum anywhere. Because it was in fact an aberration which someone snuck into class without authorization (grade level obviously 8th-grade or higher by the look of the math), and then got quickly thrown out and denounced officially, this is just you baiting people with stupid internet stuff.

By the way, one more example where none was needed that publishing without editing degrades the public life of the nation. Do you have any suspicion Brett that the web page reporting that crap was served up to you particularly, because algorithms already had you pegged as a sucker for stuff like that?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, it was an aberration. Snuck into multiple classrooms. Rape is an aberration, and we have laws against it. Murder is an aberration, and we have laws against it.

Why are we supposed to not have laws against this particular sort of aberration? Maybe because some people don't want it to be an aberration?

But the Florida law is still badly drafted to deal with the real problem here.

[Josh R]

But the Florida law is still badly drafted to deal with the real problem here.

Bingo! But it was drafted that way on purpose as red meat for the base. Also, the real problem was solved in your example at the local level, so perhaps no law is needed at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But it was drafted that way on purpose as red meat for the base."

Or maybe Hanlon's razor applies, and the drafter was just an idiot.

It was solved locally because the parents found out about it, and only because they found out about it.

I think the upsurge in complaints about CRT, grooming, and other disturbing activities in schools is largely a result of video-schooling during the pandemic accidentally boosting transparency, and resulting in parents finding out what was going on. And the concern is that as the schools return to in person teaching, they return to reduced transparency, (Maybe even enhanced opacity!) and WILL be able to get away with it.

[Josh R]

It takes totally clueless parents not to know what is in the child's homework. I ain't buying it. It is far more likely it is rare because it is rare. And stop with the grooming charge. It's QAnon bat-shit crazy.

[Brett Bellmore]

See the 54 Math Textbooks Rejected by Florida Department of Education

"The Florida Department of Education on Friday announced that they'd rejected dozens of math textbooks that included references to Critical Race Theory and for having other issues that don't meet their standards.

...

In addition to references to CRT, the books were rejected for inclusions of Common Core and the unsolicited addition of Social Emotional Learning (SEL) in mathematics, according to the department."

Looks to me like the majority were rejected for being lousy textbooks, or for incorporating approaches such as common core that Florida doesn't want in their classrooms.

[Brett Bellmore]

From another source: Florida Rejects Math Textbooks, Citing ‘Prohibited Topics’

"Florida has rejected 42 of 132 math textbooks proposed for use in public school classrooms because they “incorporate prohibited topics or unsolicited strategies” including social-emotional learning and critical race theory, according to the state’s Department of Education.

...

At a Monday news conference, Mr. DeSantis highlighted the presence of “social and emotional learning” material in the rejected elementary school textbooks. “Math is about getting the right answer,” he said. “And we want kids to learn to think so they get the right answer. It’s not about how you feel about the problem.”

A review of sample content from one publisher whose elementary school textbooks appear to have been rejected, Big Ideas Learning, showed lessons intended to build self-awareness, self-management, responsible decision-making and social awareness and relationship skills."

Apparently Florida's government would prefer that their math textbooks build math skills.

[JasonT20]

That’s a lot of “appears” and “apparently” when it would have been fairly easy for DeSantis’ people to actually cite the problems directly from the offending textbooks in a way that everyone could see for themselves. I think that they promised at some point that the textbook review process would be transparent. Kind of hard to take that seriously when (as far as I can tell) they haven’t even listed which books were rejected and for what specific problems.

The Florida GOP has f’d up education here in so many ways that it stopped being funny (if it ever was) a long time ago. How much mileage they can get out of culture war issues is about the only question they have asked about the issue for the last 20 years.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would honestly prefer more detail myself. However, if a state is adopting uniform textbooks, it's inevitable that there will be a lot of rejections, and most of the expressed reasons for rejections were pretty straightforwardly related to educational philosophy and perceived quality.

I provided the above link because it actually identifies the rejected textbooks, so that people can go hunt them down and decide for themselves.

[JasonT20]

I provided the above link because it actually identifies the rejected textbooks, so that people can go hunt them down and decide for themselves.

Except that I've "reached my limit of free articles" and can't see this information at the NY Times. Besides, shouldn't the information be on Florida's DoE website somewhere? Where did the NY Times get this information?

However, if a state is adopting uniform textbooks, it's inevitable that there will be a lot of rejections, and most of the expressed reasons for rejections were pretty straightforwardly related to educational philosophy and perceived quality.

Again, the claims that the rejections are related to educational philosophy and perceived quality is subject to our trust in the accuracy of those claims coming from a highly politicized state education leadership. The 'nothing to see here' cronyism regarding conflicts of interest is bad enough. And while the Florida GOP is up in arms about supposed 'indoctrination' of children in CRT, the 'LGBTQ+ agenda' or whatever else, they, of course, think it only right and just to indoctrinate children into religion using public money. (Florida's voucher system with essentially zero accountability) Or for appointed education officials to be straight-up science deniers that would prefer teaching kids that humans and dinosaurs lived together before the Flood than facts and the theory that has been the core organizing principle of biology for 150 years.

As I said, I could go on all day with facts showing how the Florida GOP has played up culture war battles in public education with their rhetoric, all while finding ways to help their friends (and sometimes their spouses) profit from state education spending, and looking to weaken teacher's unions as a way to weaken the Democrats that teacher unions support.* Actually caring about the children in the schools and their success in life never gets as much of their attention and efforts as those two things.

*By the way, why would our unions support Republicans given how much effort they put into undermining our ability to help children?

[JasonT20]

What "sexual orientation[s] or gender identit[ies]" can school personnel or their proxies not give "instruction" on? The Florida GOP didn't pass this law so that parents could object to stories being read in K-3 classrooms where Susie picks out a pink dress to wear for her first day of school, to the approval of her Mommy and Daddy. But a story where her two mommies tell her that it is perfectly fine if she wants to wear blue pants would be inappropriate "instruction" into being lesbian or trans, in the minds of the sponsors and supporters of this legislation.

The efforts by the culture warriors to make this about "anti-grooming" or just about leaving such things to parents are completely disingenuous. They clearly only want to suppress discussion of gender issues or sexual orientations that they don't like.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I don't think it goes as far as you suppose. I think it's just a way to build push-polls and raise political money.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But a story where her two mommies tell her that it is perfectly fine if she wants to wear blue pants would be inappropriate "instruction" into being lesbian or trans, in the minds of the sponsors and supporters of this legislation.

There you go. When the statute doesn't actually say what you claim it says, pretend to be a psychic.

[JasonT20]

I'm not pretending to be psychic. Normally, I would agree that trying to mind-read intentions and beliefs in the actions of politicians is about one's own biases more than those of the politicians being criticized. But it doesn't take any psychic abilities here. You can see it in how they talk about the law. DeSantis' spokesperson referring to it as an "anti-grooming" law is even more divorced from the law's text than what you think about what I am saying. Sexual orientation only has anything to do with child sexual predators in the minds of anti-gay bigots.

The law is clearly intentionally vague about what it is prohibiting because to be as explicit as what you see spokespeople and legislators and supporters among the voting population saying would turn off people in the middle on the issue as well as make it hard to defend in court.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Why can’t we just teach children that everyone deserves dignity and respect and should be treated as if they do and leave it at that?

Why do we insist on sexualizing (and racializing) very small children? Why must they be indoctrinated in everything (including patriotism and rekigion).

Our insipid culture war lead by our insipid political zealots and promoted by our insipid media. The government has no business in any of that bullshit anyway beyond protection of rights, but we elect idiots who can’t leave us be. And apparently the education programs at our universities have become indoctrination factories. All this bullshit is so fucking stupid.

Declining to teach gender identity to5 year olds isn’t denying anyone’s existence, it’s just being discreet.

[JasonT20]

Why can’t we just teach children that everyone deserves dignity and respect and should be treated as if they do and leave it at that?

Does it teach children that everyone deserves dignity and respect if you can't talk about some people in honest and open ways? If we, as teachers, can't talk about people being gay, whether they are people we know personally, people in history or popular culture, or characters in fiction, then that denies those people the dignity and respect that they deserve. If you don't want kids being told that gay people exist and live full lives, including that they get married to someone they love, then that is what you are doing - denying them equal dignity and respect.

If you don't believe that the law does that, then I will expect you to say so if some parent sues a school and teacher because they have students read a story that includes gay characters (but says no more about their sex lives than any other story does about the sex lives of heterosexual characters). This is what I want to see. I want to see the people defending this law explain exactly what would be prohibited and what would be okay, and how what they object to regarding gay or trans identity issues would play out under the law if it was otherwise the same but involved straight, cis-gendered people instead.

[Valkanis]

The problem is that there is no way to answer what is "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate" in regards to homosexuality. There is no objective evidence, at all, anywhere, that it is in any way harmful to anyone, including children, of any age. There's also no evidence that children become gay because their teachers talk about homosexuality. As in, no evidence, at all, anywhere. Its completely made up. The only "concern" is that a certain percentage of eligible voters want to enforce their religious beliefs on every student and parent in the state. This, of course, is impossible to quantify or define objectively.
Therefore, this section is utterly meaningless. All mention of the existence of gay people is developmentally appropriate at any age. No rational argument can be made otherwise, impermissible appeals to religious authority notwithstanding. So, really, any lawsuit under this should be dismissed immediately.