[jyl]

Coming into this discussion late - my two cents:

The key point here is that the court was ruling on whether the action by the school was prohibited by the constitution, not whether it was wise, appropriate, stupid, etc.

The court is saying that the constitution does not give individual parents a right to control what their children are taught in school regarding sex or presumably other subjects.

You should see that the contrary ruling would be impractical. Each parent could demand that the school teach or not teach a particular thing, based on that parent's personal belief. What Mul and Len might want their children to be taught is likely to be different from what Superman and Todd might want, and so on. You basically couldn't teach sex education in that situation - and as the precedent is further applied, you'd have trouble teaching anything that even one parent finds controversial: history, biology, civic studies, etc.

I think the parents in this case have a remedy, and that is to vote out the school board and/or otherwise apply political pressure. The remedy is not the constitution.

Some people have a tendency to assume that whatever they find objectionable should be legally prohibited by "the Constitution". Then they turn around and complain about a litigious society and clamour for strict constructionist judges.