![how to make anti gay flag how to make anti gay flag](https://static.politico.com/c2/79/c83c06f949e18c53af9740751e85/gettyimages-619309888-1.jpg)
Others prohibit teachers from “promot” 6 6Īriz. primarily responsible for contact with the AIDS virus.” 5 5 state that homosexual conduct is not an acceptable lifestyle. § 85.007(b)(2) (“aterials in the education programs intended for persons younger than 18 years of age must . . . That “homosexuality is not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public,” 4 4Īla. Some of these laws require teachers to instruct students that “homosexual conduct is a criminal offense,” 3 3Īla. Rather, I use these terms to accurately reflect the text of the relevant statutes, which is a necessary step in articulating a facial challenge. By using the terms “anti-gay” and “homosexuality,” I do not mean to downplay the existence of lesbian, bisexual, or transgender people-nor to deny that these laws facially discriminate against lesbians and bisexuals, or that they are applied against transgender people in a discriminatory manner. This Article uses the term “anti-gay,” rather than “anti-LGBT,” because it develops a facial challenge to laws that discriminate against “homosexuality,” the “homosexual life-style,” and “homosexual relationships.” The Article uses the term “homosexuality,” rather than less stigmatizing terms like “same-sex intimacy,” “same-sex relationships,” or “lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities,” because it deals with laws that discriminate simultaneously against each of these aspects of LGBT people’s lives. This Article joins that dialogue by proposing a national campaign to repeal or invalidate anti-gay curriculum laws-statutes that prohibit or restrict the discussion of homosexuality in public schools. Ball ed., 2016) Rebecca Isaacs, Opinion, Op-Ed: The LGBT Movement After Marriage, Advocate (June 12, 2014), Urvashi Vaid et al., What’s Next for the LGBT Movement?, Nation (June 27, 2013), (on file with the Columbia Law Review). Ball, Introduction: The Past and the Future, in After Marriage Equality: The Future of LGBT Rights (Carlos A. Since the Supreme Court’s invalidation of anti-gay marriage laws, scholars and advocates have been debating what issues and strategies the LGBT movement should prioritize next.
![how to make anti gay flag how to make anti gay flag](https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F4b121efc-df23-4004-ae5b-170e00faf507_966x640.jpeg)
![how to make anti gay flag how to make anti gay flag](https://cdn.weasyl.com/static/media/0c/3f/d6/0c3fd68762bee32b019bddc6b3fff0d0e40f0b83dd7e8abb060605dbcc530b4a.png)
Based on a comprehensive survey of federal and state law, this Article shows that anti-gay provisions exist in the curriculum laws of twenty states and in a federal law that governs the annual distribution of $75 million for abstinence-education programs. In the existing literature, these provisions are called “no promo homo” laws and are said to exist in only a handful of states. Anti-gay curriculum laws expose LGBT students to stigmatization and bullying and they are far more prevalent than scholars and advocates have recognized. This Article joins that conversation by developing the framework for a national campaign to repeal or invalidate anti-gay curriculum laws-statutes that prohibit or restrict the discussion of homosexuality in public schools. Since the Supreme Court’s invalidation of anti-gay marriage laws, scholars and advocates have been debating the LGBT movement’s near-term strategies and priorities.