‘Leather,’ ‘Underwear,’ ‘Drag [King],’ – Parents Fighting Books Pushing Sex on Kindergarteners Get Supreme Court Hearing

The times, they have a’changed.

When I was a kid, “Pride Puppy!” would probably be some dopey feel-good PSA cartoon that everybody watched because there weren’t any other channels showing cartoons. The superhero pup would invariably do battle against an evil polluter or property developer, then use his “Super Pride Power” to save the day at the last minute. Don’t forget to recycle, kids! And also buy the “Pride Puppy Super-Action Castle Playset” for $39.99, this week at Toys ‘R’ Us.

In 2025, “Pride Puppy!” is also an intellectual property made for kids. It’s also the subject of a Supreme Court case, thanks to the fact that the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland used it and other “queer-affirming storybooks for use in grades as low as kindergarten,” according to The Federalist.

The county, which has the largest school system in the state, eventually pulled the books, and district and appellate courts have denied a group of mixed-faith plaintiff parents  — “a Muslim family, a Roman Catholic family, and a mixed Roman Catholic–Ukrainian Orthodox family,” the Federalist reported — injunctive relief due to the fact they couldn’t prove their children either had been or would be indoctrinated against their faith by the books.

In January of 2024, the parents appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that “under the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning, parents cannot be heard until after the damage has been done to their children. But there is no unringing that bell — by then, innocence will be lost and beliefs undermined.”

The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, was officially taken up by the court last month and will essentially serve as a test case as to whether parents can opt their children out of pro-LGBT material in public school classrooms.

To underscore just how important this case is, we have to look at “Pride Puppy!” — and how the times have a’changed, and not for the better.

First off, let’s start off with what it definitely isn’t, which is what USA Today described it as in its lede when reporting on the SCOTUS case: “An alphabet primer about children chasing their dog through a pride parade.”

“In addition to helping students explore sentence structure, word choice, and style, the storybooks support students’ ability to empathize, connect, and collaborate with peers and encourage respect for all,” lawyers for the school district said during arguments before the Supreme Court.

Right. So, here are some of the words in the “search and find word list” included in the plaintiff’s filing:

• leather
• lip ring
• green [glitter] beard
• [drag] queen
• [drag] king
• underwear
• intersex [flag]
• Martha P. Johnson [a drag queen and male prostitute, born Malcolm Michaels Jr., who co-founded the group Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries and was known as the “mayor of Christopher Street,” New York City’s famous gay thoroughfare, before his death in 1992]

Can’t tell you how helpful that is. “Pumpkin, have you seen where you put your Martha P. Johnson doll?” I always find myself asking our daughter. “No, it’s not under the leather underwear or the intersex flag, I checked.”

This book, by the by, is marketed on Amazon as being acceptable for preschoolers — meaning 3-t0-5-year-olds. Do normal Americans think “[drag] king” and “[drag] queen” are subjects for 3-year-olds? Or 5-year-olds?

The court filing describes other outrages, including a lesbian romance called “Love, Violet” that was “mandated for fourth graders.” It “describes a child ‘blush[ing] hot’ as she daydreams about ‘galloping off” with a classmate who makes her ‘heart skip.’” The classmate’s name is Mira.

There’s also a book for fifth-graders, “Born Ready:  The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,” about a girl who thinks she’s a boy. The book’s message, as per the filing, is “telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to ‘make sense’ and that students are the best ‘teacher’ on such matters, not parents or other adults.”

Literally all of this contravenes the tenets of every major Judeo-Christian religion and no small number of those that aren’t. Yet, the 4th Circuit Appeals Court wrote in its decision that “simply hearing about other views does not necessarily exert pressure to believe or act differently than one’s religious faith requires.”

Fine, then: Start teaching the Bible in school as absolute Truth and don’t allow parents an opt-out.

After all, students have the freedom to believe or not believe it, right? They’re “simply hearing about other views” that have religiously loaded sentiments behind them. It doesn’t “necessarily exert pressure to believe or act differently than one’s religious faith requires,” according to the court. So, what’s the problem?

Of course, this wouldn’t pass a constitutional smell test, nor should it. Both of these things are value-loaded curricula about religious beliefs. Human history tells us that one of these worldviews leads to humans flourishing, and the other doesn’t, but I won’t even argue about that. All parents are asking for is an opt-out for the one that doesn’t — and the lower courts have asked them to show harm that, like all well-designed indoctrination, is never immediately apparent.

They’re allowing the schools to turn the temperature of the water up and telling the parents to come back to them when the frog is boiled — then maybe we can talk.

In any sane world, “Pride Puppy!” and teachers who read it to kindergarteners would be an outrage. In fact, just the existence of the book itself would be a scandal. Instead, the controversy is whether parents have the right to spare their children from this filth in public schools.

If we don’t change future times to look more like the past — a lot more like the past — God help us all.

Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.