Coalition urges 9th Circuit to uphold parental rights

A coalition of 17 states, lawmakers and advocacy organizations has filed 12 friend-of-the-court briefs urging the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold that parents and teachers have constitutional rights to know about their children despite public school gender policies.

The briefs were filed in Mirabelli v. Bonta, a case involving California’s “Parental Exclusion Policies,” which the Thomas More Society led as counsel for a class of parents and teachers challenging the policies.

In December, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez issued a permanent injunction blocking the policies, saying that parents have the right to know and public schools cannot socially transition students’ gender while withholding that information from their parents.

The 9th Circuit, which is based in San Francisco, later stayed the injunction. In March, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the stay in a 6-3 decision***

California has continued its appeal, and Thomas More Society filed an answering brief at the end of August urging the 9th Circuit to affirm the injunction. According to the Thomas More Society, California is continuing to argue that parents do not have a right to know about their child’s gender identity unless they specifically ask.

“California’s response to the Supreme Court is not nuanced,” the brief stated. “In doubling down on exactly the same arguments the Supreme Court rejected, California’s audacious request is that this Court override the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case.”

“The Supreme Court already told California that its gender secrecy policy cannot stand.” *** “[O]ur Constitution places the burden on States to respect fundamental rights, not on citizens to claw back the right to parent their own children after their express demands are flatly rejected. The decision below inverts this constitutional reality,” the states' brief said.

Thank you for referencing that article thegagline.

Parents in this California example are protected from their 1st Amendment (1A)-ignoring activist state government for the following reason imo.

From related threads...

Consider that, since the ratification of 14th Amendment (14A), 1A religious protections limit INTRAstate schools in the following way imo. Mark 7:1-13 for example, particularly verse 13, shows that Jesus reprimanded the religious leaders of his time for driving a wedge between parents and their children with unscriptural rules, nullifying the "Honor your Father and Mother" Commandment by doing so.

So juvenile delinquency aside, if religious authorities don't have a scriptural basis to interfere with parental authority, then neither can state governments easily breach such authority imo, parents' right to protect their children from pro-LGBT activist state actor indoctrination reasonably found under the umbrella of constitutionally protected religious expression imo, at least for Christians.

On the other hand, it's good that parental rights are not expressly constitutionally protected since some "parents" do not deserve to be parents imo.

Yes, “spare the rod and spoil the child.” But also heed that Ephesians 6:4 teaches us that the Holy Spirit led Apostle Paul to warn fathers not to exasperate their children.

Also consider that even if faith-based parents are a local voting minority, they still have 1A religious expression rights over their children from activist state actors who are allegedly deliberately trying to weaken the Christian family unit.

14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
18U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom [all emphases added], willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. —18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
14th Amendment, Section 3: No person shall [all emphases added] be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

In fact, if this were a better world, the federal Congress would have California lawmakers and governor removed from their offices under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for interfering with parental rights protected under the umbrella of religious expression imo

14th Amendment, Section 3: No person shall [all emphases added] be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

But in this troubled world, it's entirely up to G+d-fearing patriot voters to "Section 3" corrupt, free-ride state and federal lawmakers up for reelection by voting them out of office in this midterm election year.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.