How I relish the peculiarities of the law! The more peculiar we become, the more peculiar we make it. We are best at this task when addressing, through the law, those aspects of our character involving our "naughty bits" as Monty Python used to say (generally, sex), but also whenever we seek to regulate the activities or substances we use to give ourselves pleasure or which provide avenues of escape from our otherwise dreary lives, of the sort which offend the morals of certain of us here in our Great Republic.

This is a relatively short law as laws go, but here is that portion which I think excites the most attention:

"3. A school district may not encourage classroom discussion
76 about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade
77 levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or
78 developmentally appropriate for students.
79 4. A parent of a student may bring an action against a
80 school district to obtain a declaratory judgment that a school
81 district procedure or practice violates this paragraph and seek
82 injunctive relief. A court may award damages and shall award
83 reasonable attorney fees and court costs to a parent who
84 receives declaratory or injunctive relief."

The italics are MINE (sorry, but I've always wanted to capitalize this word when quoting a law or case in a brief or motion, but have lacked the courage to do so).

Now, the lawyer inescapably a part of my being (would Heidegger call that "Being in lawyer"?) wonders the following when reading this model of legislative draftsmanship:
How does one encourage classroom discussion?
Must the discussion take place in a classroom for the law to be violated, and a cause of action arise?
What is "sexual orientation or gender identity"?
Does the fact that the law refers to a "school district procedure or practice" indicate that encouragement (whatever that may be) by a single, "rogue" teacher or other school district employee (a janitor?) wouldn't be actionable? Is it necessary that a policy or procedure, sanctioned by the school district expressly or by implication, as an entity, exist?
What do "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate" mean? Is that left to the courts and the lawyers who litigate claims that are made to decide?
Just what kind of damages are available to a parent in the action created by this law? If it's noted by a teacher that the Sacred Band of Thebes was made up of gay lovers (a matter of historical fact), or that Oscar Wilde was likely gay, for example, what damages are caused and how are they determined? Would expert testimony be required for them to be awarded?

In short, it's a remarkably poor work of legal art. Really, it stinks to high heaven. It's a mess. For that reason alone, it should never have been adopted.

But are there other reasons? I doubt if most of us would think it appropriate to encourage classroom discussion of sexual orientation gender identity in kindergarden or grades 1-3 of elementary school. Then again, it's unlikely such a discussion would arise in those particular grades. Do parents have a legitimate interest in making certain their children under the age of majority don't hear certain words, or learn what other people are in matters of gender or sexual orientation, or the right to sue if they do while in a classroom?

For my part, I think most parents are detriments to education generally, and in fact would prefer their children not be educated at all in elementary or secondary school, except in certain, limited respects, if by "education" is meant anything beyond learning to read, count, and do basic arithmetic; possibly learn to write as well, maybe know some science.

But perhaps that's all we should want schools to teach. Even so, though, do we want or need laws which preclude the use of certain words or topics in schools?