莱克星顿诉讼案考验最高法院关于 LGBTQ+ 课程的裁决
【中美创新时报2025年11月14日编译讯】（记者温友平编译）在对最高法院最近一项裁决的考验中，一位家长起诉莱克星顿公立学校，要求免除其子女参加 LGBTQ+ 主题的课程和阅读，他声称这些课程和阅读违反了他的宗教信仰。《波士顿环球报》记者凯蒂·穆奇尼克对此作了下述报道。
该诉讼于 10 月 17 日在美国地方法院提起，此前最高法院裁定，如果课程中包含 LGBTQ+ 主题故事书，而这些故事书违背了家长的宗教信仰，则家长有权选择不让孩子参加此类课程。
“我们认为，这确实对家长向孩子灌输宗教信仰的能力构成了同样的直接威胁，”代表莱克星顿这位家长的马萨诸塞州家庭研究所律师萨姆·惠廷说。“鉴于之前的判例，我们感到惊讶的是，学区没有采取更灵活的措施，因为我们认为最高法院的那个案例与本案的事实非常相似。”
莱克星顿学区的律师表示，最高法院的裁决给公立学校带来了一项新的义务，官员们仍在研究如何落实这项义务。他否认学区在满足家长要求让孩子停止学习相关课程方面存在拖延，并补充说，决定哪些课程材料违反了家长的宗教信仰可能非常耗时费力，学区一直在“尽心尽力”地解决家长的担忧。
“莱克星顿和其他学校一样，都在努力平衡尊重家长意愿和履行为学生提供公共教育的义务，”律师道格·路易森说。“市面上有很多教材，并非每个人都能以相同的方式理解或解读，因此，即使是理性的人，对课程材料也可能存在分歧。”
这场诉讼是围绕 LGBTQ+ 问题教育而持续进行的文化战争的一部分，这场战争可以追溯到 2004 年马萨诸塞州首次将同性婚姻合法化。
最高法院的裁决源于穆斯林、罗马天主教和乌克兰东正教家庭对马里兰州蒙哥马利县公立学校提起的诉讼。在“马哈茂德诉泰勒案”中，最高法院以6比3的投票结果裁定，该学区拒绝允许家长让孩子退出他们认为有争议的课程，违反了美国宪法第一修正案中的宗教自由条款。
据《莱克星顿观察报》上周报道，莱克星顿发生的这起新诉讼再次激怒了这个郊区社区，此前该社区就曾就此问题进行过法律诉讼。2008年，一名上诉法官驳回了部分家长提起的诉讼，这些家长反对他们的孩子在小学接触有关同性家庭的书籍。
为避免泄露其子女（就读于约瑟夫·埃斯塔布鲁克小学幼儿园）的身份，这位来自莱克星顿的家长在诉讼中仅以艾伦·L.的化名出现。他由美国法律与正义中心和马萨诸塞州家庭研究所代理，这两个基督教法律组织曾参与过其他涉及宗教家庭权利的案件。除了要求学校停止相关课程外，这位家长还要求赔偿其子女接触到的两本他认为违反其宗教信仰的书籍。诉状称，其中一本用于健康课程，另一本用于社会研究课程。
这两本书，一本名为《家庭，家庭，家庭！》，另一本名为《欢迎所有人》，都描绘了LGBTQ+家庭的插图。诉讼称，这些插图暗示“所有家庭安排在道德上都是同样可以接受的”。苏珊娜和马克斯·朗创作的《家庭，家庭，家庭！》一书中，描绘了两只公鸡和它们的小鸡，并配有文字：“有些孩子有两个爸爸。”
莱克星顿学区总监朱莉·哈克特拒绝置评。
当地 LGBTQ+ 骄傲组织 LexPride 的主席 Valerie Overton 表示，莱克星顿在近 20 年后再次卷入同样的争论，这令人失望。
她说：“这关乎承认并尊重我们学校系统中所有不同类型的人。我认为我们不应该回避这一点，我们应该彼此承认对方的存在。”
第一修正案倡导者表示，莱克星顿案是学校在执行最高法院马哈茂德案判决时面临的障碍的一个例子。
“马哈茂德给我们留下的挑战之一是，学校如何管理退出权？”杜克大学法学教授理查德·卡茨基说道，他曾就此判决撰写过文章。
总部位于华盛顿特区的“美国政教分离联合会”首席执行官雷切尔·拉泽表示，如果公立学校无法满足大量学生的退出请求，最终可能会取消所有学生的课程内容。该联合会反对最高法院的裁决。
“学校将面临大量要求——其中许多要求是由像美国法律与正义中心这样的基督教民族主义法律团体带头提出的——要求豁免儿童阅读提及 LGBTQ+ 群体、宗教或种族少数群体，或不符合某一狭隘宗教信仰的书籍、课程和其他材料，”Laser 在一份声明中说。
总部位于奥兰多的保守基督教律师事务所“自由律师团”（Liberty Counsel）的创始人马特·斯塔弗（Mat Staver）表示，他预计各学区将不得不改变他们的教学内容。“自由律师团”支持马哈茂德案的判决。
“坦白说，我认为大多数学校一旦必须遵守马哈茂德案的规定，教室基本上就会空无一人，”斯塔弗说，因为很多家长都会选择让孩子不参加部分课程。“我不认识多少家长愿意让孩子在幼儿园就学习各种性行为，或者学习变性。”
杜克大学教授卡茨基表示，他预计莱克星顿的案例将取决于该学区是否充分允许家长自主决定是否让孩子退出学区。但他预计其他学区也会面临更多挑战。
“这真是一个棘手的难题，我们将为此争论不休，”卡茨基说。“我们之前的解决方案是行之有效的，但法院却剥夺了它。”
根据投诉，在学年开始前，莱克星顿的一位家长艾伦·L.要求审查并让他的孩子退出多元、公平和包容（DEI）以及健康课程。学区以他的请求范围过广为由拒绝了他的请求，并要求他进一步解释。随后，他与学区就课程细节以及让他的孩子退出某些课程的请求进行了争论。
他反对课程内容，投诉称该内容“将LGBTQ关系和身份正常化和颂扬，违背了他家人的信仰”。怀廷表示，他希望此案的判决能够明确，解读课程内容究竟是学校的责任还是家长的责任。
题图：4月22日，在马哈茂德诉泰勒案审理期间，支持LGBTQ+权益、反对禁书的抗议者聚集在最高法院外举行示威活动。图片来源：Anna Moneymaker/Getty
附原英文报道：
Lexington lawsuit tests Supreme Court’s ruling on LGBTQ+ lessons
By Katie Muchnick Globe Correspondent,Updated November 13, 2025
Protesters in support of LGBTQ+ rights and against book bans demonstrated outside the Supreme Court on April 22 during the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor.Anna Moneymaker/Getty
In a test of a recent Supreme Court ruling, a parent is suing Lexington Public Schools to have his child excused from LGBTQ+-themed instruction and readings that he claims violate his religious beliefs.
The suit, filed on Oct. 17 in US District Court, comes on the heels of a Supreme Court decision that held parents have the right to opt out of lessons featuring LGBTQ+-themed storybooks if they go against their religious beliefs.
“We do think that this poses that kind of same direct threat to the parent’s ability to instill his religious beliefs in his child,” said Sam Whiting, a lawyer from the Massachusetts Family Institute representing the Lexington parent. “We’re surprised that the school district has not been more accommodating in light of that precedent, because we feel that Supreme Court case is just so similar on the facts to this case.”
A lawyer for Lexington schools said the Supreme Court’s decision creates a new obligation for public schools that officials are still figuring out how to implement. He denied the district stalled on fulfilling the parent’s request to remove his child from those instructions, adding that deciding which curriculum materials violate a parents’ religious beliefs can be labor intensive and that the district worked “diligently” to address parent concerns.
“Lexington, as well as other schools, are struggling with respecting the decision and respecting the wishes of parents while balancing their obligation to provide public education to students,” attorney Doug Louison said. “There’s a lot of material out there that not everyone sees or interprets the same way, and so reasonable minds can disagree on the course materials.”
The lawsuit is part of an ongoing culture war over instruction on LGBTQ+ issues, dating to the first legalization of gay marriage, in Massachusetts in 2004.
The Supreme Court ruling came in a lawsuit by Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox families against the Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland. The 6-3 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor found the district violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment by refusing to let parents take their children out of objectionable lessons.
The new lawsuit in Lexington, reported by the Lexington Observer last week, has roiled the suburban community, which had a previous legal battle over the issue. In 2008, an appeals judge dismissed a suit brought by parents who objected to their children seeing books about same-sex families at their elementary school.
The Lexington parent is named in the lawsuit only as Alan L. to avoid identifying his child, a kindergartner at Joseph Estabrook Elementary School. He is being represented by the American Center for Law and Justice and the Massachusetts Family Institute, Christian legal organizations that have been involved in other cases involving the rights of religious families. In addition to opting out of instruction, the parent is seeking compensation for his child’s exposure to two books he said violate his religious beliefs. One was used in the health curriculum, and the other in social studies, according to the complaint.
The books, one titled “Families, Families, Families!,” the other, “All are Welcome,” depict illustrations of LGBTQ+ families, which the lawsuit says implies that “all family arrangements are equally morally acceptable.” “Families, Families, Families!” by Suzanne and Max Lang shows two roosters and their chicks, with text that reads, “some children have two dads.”
Lexington School Superintendent Julie Hackett declined to comment.
Valerie Overton, president of LexPride, a local LGBTQ+ pride group, said it is disappointing for Lexington to again become involved in the same debate almost 20 years later.
“This is about acknowledging the existence and being respectful of all the different kinds of people who exist in our school system,” she said. “I think it is not something that we should opt out of, that we acknowledge each other’s existence.”
First Amendment advocates said the Lexington case is an example of the obstacles schools face implementing the Supreme Court’s Mahmoud decision .
“Part of the challenge that Mahmoud leaves us with is, how do schools administer the opt-out rights?” said Richard Katskee, a Duke University law professor who has written about the decision.
Public schools could end up removing content for all students if they cannot accommodate the influx of opt-out requests, said Rachel Laser, chief executive of the Washington, D.C.-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which opposed the Supreme Court ruling.
“Schools will be inundated with demands — many of them spearheaded by Christian Nationalist legal groups like the American Center for Law and Justice — to exempt children from books, lessons and other materials that mention people who are LGBTQ+, religious or racial minorities, or don’t otherwise conform with one narrow set of religious beliefs,” Laser said in a statement.
Mat Staver, founder of the Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, a conservative Christian law firm that supported the Mahmoud decision, said he anticipates school districts will have to change what they teach.
“I think frankly what will happen in most schools when they have to comply with Mahmoud is that classrooms will be essentially empty,” Staver said, because so many parents opt out of parts of the curriculum. “I don’t know many parents wanting to have their kids in kindergarten taught about different kinds of sex acts or that you can change your gender.”
Katskee, the Duke professor, said he expects the Lexington case to be decided based on whether the district sufficiently allows for parents to make decisions about opt out. But he anticipates more challenges in other districts.
“That’s a really hard puzzle, and one that we’re going to be fighting about,” Katskee said. “The solution that we used to have was workable, and the court took that away from us.”
Before the school year began, the Lexington parent, Alan L., asked to review and opt his child out of DEI and health curriculum, according to the complaint. The school district denied his initial request for being overly broad and wanted clarification. He then parried with the school district over details of the curriculum and requests to opt his child out of lessons.
He objected to content, which the complaint said “contradicts his family’s faith by normalizing and celebrating LGBTQ relationships and identities.” Whiting said he expects the decision in this case to clarify whether it is the school’s responsibility or the parent’s responsibility to parse the curriculum.
