Get your kids out of government schools - today's edition

So these people whose exotic sex lives are their main common bond are now such a recognized demographic group that we're going to study their history as such - and if you have your kid in a government school in New Jersey, he or she will be made to study it.

New Jersey has become the second state in the nation after California to adopt a law that requires schools to teach about LGBT history in a move hailed by civil rights groups as a step toward inclusion and fairness.
Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat who promised to promote equality for gay and transgender people during his campaign, signed the bill Thursday. Among those celebrating the news was Jaime Bruesehoff of Vernon, whose 12-year-old transgender child, Rebekah, spoke in support of the bill in Trenton in December.
“This bill is so important for our young people,” Bruesehoff said. “They need to see examples of themselves in the history being taught and in classes they are going to each day. We know representation matters.
“By learning about LGBTQ people who have made amazing contributions to their country, they are seeing possibilities for themselves and hope for the future,” she said.

Not everyone is on board:

Conservative organizations have opposed proposals to teach gay and transgender history, saying such requirements take away power from parents and may encourage kids to question their sexuality.
Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, said he opposed the bill because it infringed on parents’ rights.
“We believe it further erodes the right of parents to discuss this sensitive issue with their children, if in fact schools are going to be promoting and making the claim that this particular person was an LGBTQ member,” he said.

Deo said individuals should be included in lessons based on achievements without discussion of sexual orientation. He noted that New Jersey already has what many education experts consider the strongest anti-bullying law in the country. 

I'm actually not big on any kind of history on the basis of demographic classification. This, for instance, is Black History Month - I think, anyway; isn't it in February? - but I think it's a bad idea. If, in the course of studying history, we celebrate the achievements of heroic, or inventive, or visionary people, shouldn't it be on the basis of them as individuals? Is Joan of Arc's race or sexual orientation the first thing you think about when she comes to mind? The barons who drafted the Magna Carta? Alexander the Great?

And in this case, it's going to perpetuate the notion that there is more future in being a victim than in being a hero. Not the way to form a healthy worldview in a young person.

And what happens the first time a Christian kid raises her hand and says, "Are we going to learn anything about the church's stance throughout history that homosexuality is a sin and that there are only two genders?"

Here's the sentence in this article that will hopefully spur lots of parental action in the Garden State:

The law does not apply to private schools.

It damn well better not, if the word "private" still means anything in post-America.