No public school teacher or administrator shall be required to participate in any such school programs that violate his religious beliefs."

While the bill aims to head-off all discussion of what it terms "alternative sexual behaviors" the effect is clearly to prevent almost all discussion of sexuality without a clear "opt-in" from the most theocratic of parents who still have their children in the public schols. Here is the list of would-be outlawed discussion topics:

The term "alternative sexual behavior" means homosexuality, bisexuality, lesbianism, transsexuality, transgenderism, cross-dressing, pansexuality, promiscuity, sodomy, pederasty, prostitution, oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, polygamy, polyandry, sex re-assignment treatments, "bondage and discipline", sado-masochism, bestiality, and similar behaviors. It also includes issues and relationships deriving from those behaviors, including but not limited to "sexual orientation", and alternative family, parenting, and marriage constructs.

The brilliant theocractic element of this bill that most impressed Our Distinguished Panel of Judges -- is that it makes any and all discussion related to these things, by any public school official at any time -- subject to prior theocratic veto!  As a pratical matter, this would mean, for example, if a question came up in literature class about the homosexuality of 19th-century American poet Walt Whitman, the teacher would be unable to answer it without first having obtained the "op-in permsission of all of the students parents in advance.  Thus, discussion among those opting-in would be delayed by the time it would take to hear from everyone, including the theocrats who opt-out. It would also mean, that if  teachers of any theocratic persuasion, happened to find discussion of the homosexuality of Walt Whitman a violation of their theocratic conscience,  they would not be obliged to discuss it.  (Perhaps, they might have to consult their pastor first to see if it would be alright.)  But it is more likely of course, that literature classes would no longer include Whitman. (Mission accomplished!)

This bill is clearly intended to fundamentally disrupt all teaching related to sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular, especially since such matters as "bestiality, and similar behaviors" -- are probably not likely to come up very often, except perhaps in the more agricultural areas of the state.  On the other hand, if the subject of the Catholic priest pedophilia scandal happened to be in the news, the provision requiring a note from all parents in order to discuss "pederasty" would effectively prevent the discussion of what students already learn about it in the state's newspapers and on television. Also precluded would be any spontaneous class discussion of matters of certain Massachusetts state laws, such as those protecting gay and lesbian civil rights -- or discussion of same sex marriage, even though the Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that marriage equality is protected by the state constitution -- and is something some students would even be eligible for.  

But the focus of the interest of Our Distinguished Panel of Judges was that the bill clearly provides limitless opportunities for the most theocratic among us to be able to use children as proxies to wage theocratic guerilla war on the curricula --  not to mention particularly non-theocratic teachers. If teachers happen to discuss the marriage equality isses that are often in the news without seeking the permission of say, 30 sets of parents; or answer a question in sex-ed class about masturbation -- they might be subject to official sanction. This brings warmth and gladness to the hearts of theocrats everywhere -- who all understand, of course, that the public schools are Satanicly inspired institutions in so far as that they seek to prepare children for life as citizens of a democratic pluralist society -- the very antithesis of theocracy -- and therefore must be destablized by all means possible. Indeed, pioneering theocratic strategist Robert Thoburn, author of The Children Trap, has specialized in theocratic education strategy for a generation. He once wrote that the goal "is not to make the [public] schools better." Rather it is to "hamper them" and ultimately "to shut down the public schools."  This proposed legislation is clearly well within that grand tradition, throwing monkey wrenches into the system to make it unworkable.

But alas, opponents of the bill were savvy about its implications (much discussed at Blue Mass Group. For example:

Gay rights advocate, Tom Lang testifying against the  bill  noted, according to a report in Bay Windows, that it would

"essentially require that schools wallpaper over the history of LGBT people and their lives unless parents gave their approval to include them. He said teachers would have to discuss figures such as Gertrude Stein, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo and British World War II code-breaker Alan Turing while steering clear of their homosexuality and the impact that had on their works and their lives. He said the silencing of discussion about LGBT people would extend into topics where sexuality figures centrally, such as the Holocaust.

"A trip to the Holocaust memorial would be fine unless a teacher includes homosexuals among the list of the six million Jews, Gypsies, dissenters and social outcasts murdered by the Nazis in their death camps," said Lang.

One of the bill's main backers, Brian Camenaker of  the anti-gay rights group, Mass Resistance also testifed at the hearing on the bill. Bay Windows reported that Camenker argued

"not only in favor of the restrictions on discussions of homosexuality and other "alternative sexual behaviors" but also disputing the persecution of gay men by the Nazis.

"Being Jewish myself with many relatives from Eastern Europe, I was able to study the Holocaust and not have to deal with homosexuality." said Camenker. "One of the things that the gay movement is trying to do that drives parents crazy is to push that subject into the public school system."

Rep. Alice Wolf (D-Cambridge), a member of the education committee and one of the lead proponents of [a competing] health education bill, challenged Camenker's views on history, arguing that it would be appropriate to include discussions of homosexuality in discussions of the Holocaust.

"That's just a factual historic thing. You don't have to have an agenda to talk about the fact that although the Jewish population was the largest population, six million who were killed, there were others killed for other reasons, among them homosexuals, and I just want to make that clear," said Wolf.

While the bill seems unlikely to pass, Our Distinguished Panel of Judges wishes to highlight the shrewd tactics and boldly theocratic sensibilities of our honorees, and their dramtatic demonstration that the theocratic movement is not only alive and well in Massachusetts, but decidedly bi-partisan.  

Hearty congratulations to our Theocrats of the Week:  

Democrats:  Rep. Bruce Ayers (D-Quincy),  Rep. Thomas Calter (D-Kingston), Rep. Robert Coughlin (D-Dedham), Rep. Stephen DiNatale (D-Fitchburg), Rep. Paul Donato (D-Medford), Rep. Joseph Driscoll (D-Braintree), Rep. Christopher Fallon (D-Malden), Rep. William Greene (D-Billerica).

Republicans:  Rep. Jay Barrows (R-Mansfield), Rep. Vinny deMacedo (R-Plymouth), Rep. Lewis Evangelidis (R-Holden), Rep. Paul Frost (R-Auburn), Rep. Susan Gifford (R-Wareham), Rep. Robert Hargraves (R-Groton), Rep. Brad Hill (R-Ipswich), Rep. Donald Humason (R-Westfield), Rep. Jeffrey Perry (R-Sandwich), Rep. George Peterson (R-Grafton), Rep. Elizabeth Poirier (R-North Attleborough), Rep. Karyn Polito (R-Shrewsbury), Rep. Richard Ross (R-Wrentham), Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Hanson), Sen. Scott Brown (R-Wrentham), Sen. Robert Hedlund (R-Weymouth), Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester)

Our Distinguished Panel of Judges hastens to add, that any legislators who become co-sponsors of the bill, shall be included as one of our Theocrats of the Week.