Just spotted it myself. I blame robertliguori, for simulposting. 
Only…
Here, the Washington Post says:
Now I’m confused. What did the judge see that TwoTrouts did not see?
I’m just as confused. What I saw was fairly innocuous. I guess we will never know, as they are not going forward with this in the school system. I have to agree that throwing religion into a sex-ed curriculum is a recipe for disaster, especially during these times.
I notice the judge isn’t actually quoting anything but offering his own description of the material. I am not willing to take the judge’s word for it that the curriculum “paints certain Christian sects… as unenlightened and Biblically misguided.”
That sounds like it may be a slanted characterization of the curriculum. I’d like to see what it actually says.
The judge’s opinion, including excerpts from the “supplementary material” of the cirriculum.
Thank you, manhattan. That clears up my confusion. The controversy actually erupted over the supplmentary material and not the video. FWIW, here is a link to the description of the currcula we were given.
The judge quotes directly from the curriculum in the opinion.
Hmph. This is why you hit ‘preview post’ and then scroll down the page before you submit.
OK, I read the material in the curriculum and just as I suspected, the judge is full of shit in his quoted characterizations. The curriculum does not say that some denominations are “unenlightened” or “Biblically misguided,” nor does it make any comment on which views are “theologically sound.” It only says that there is a diversity of opinion and that not not all Christians or Biblical scholars believe that homosexuality is a sin. That’s an objective fact. What’s the problem?
It also stresses tolerance and compassion. I see no issue there. The judge seems to find it objectionable that the curriculm states that homosexuality is not a choice or a disorder but those are objective facts as well.
I can’t see anything in the supplemantary material that isn’t objective fact and nothing it says about religion is an opinion.
Hasn’t anyone thought of the kids? A cucumber? What’s the matter with using carrots? I guess it could’ve been worse had they chosen to use a chinese eggplant or zucchini.
If the next generation of young males grows up feeling very inadequate - or the young female coeds develop into size queens, don’t say I didn’t warn you.
I definitely don’t get how the judge reached the conclusion he did regarding the free-speech claims. As I understand it, his argument is that the curriculum materials are not viewpoint-neutral and are therefore an unconstitutional government regulation of speech.
But regulation of whose speech? Curriculum materials are regulations of what the teacher says in the classroom, and neither of the plaintiffs claim to be representing any of the teachers, just the students. So how do the plaintiffs have standing to claim that their free-speech rights are being violated?