Sexual Materials in Public Schools


Sexuality deals with some of the most intimate and sensitive human behavior. It is the exclusive right of parents to make decisions regarding the manner and timing of sex education for their children. Traditionally, public school programs have aided parents by teaching anatomy and abstinence until marriage (also called “ATM”), leaving any further discussion of sexuality to happen in the home.

In recent years, some national organizations have attempted to replace traditional sex education with “medically accurate” curriculum better known as “Comprehensive Sex Education” or CSE. The aim of CSE is to teach students to practice “safe sex” and assumes adolescent sexual activity is a foregone conclusion.

Furthermore, there has recently been a push to normalize and even promote homosexual feelings and activities within public school curricula.

Issue Analysis

Abstinence until marriage instruction equips teenagers with strategies to avoid or at least delay premarital sexual intercourse.

  • Studies show that these programs are working and provide an alternative to programs that assume teens will engage in sexual activity.[1]
  • Research continues to reveal that abstinence education combined with parental involvement is the best defense against teenage sexual conduct.

In Arizona, control over sex education materials is given to local school districts with basic guidelines provided by state law and the Board of Education. Empowering the administrators, teachers, and parents of each school district to make curriculum decisions provides the local control needed to ensure parents are able to direct how sex education is taught in school.

Seeing the need to preserve parental control of this critical issue, Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) worked with the 2010 Arizona Legislature to pass the Parents’ Bill of Rights to ensure that no child in Arizona will participate in sex education classes without the parent’s written permission. The law also requires that parents be notified in advance of materials dealing with sexuality in classes outside of sex education so that the parent may opt the child out of that material.

Among advocates of homosexual behavior, there is a deliberate, concerted effort to use public school curriculum to influence and indoctrinate children into embracing homosexual behavior as a viable “lifestyle” option. In fact, nine states now require that any sex-education curricula provide a discussion of sexual orientation that is “inclusive.”[2] Students who voice opposition to this view are ridiculed or punished, discouraging them from expressing their sincerely held moral or religious beliefs.

More recently, advocates of homosexual behavior have used legitimate incidences of bullying in public schools as a tool to advance their political agenda through in-class education on homosexuality. Closer scrutiny of statistics reveals that while school bullying is a public concern, it results from risk factors that apply equally to all students, not just to students who identify themselves as homosexual.[3]

Sex Education in Arizona Schools

Parents prefer abstinence-centered education over “Comprehensive Sex Education” at a margin of two to one.[4] Honoring this preference, Arizona has always given each school district the ability to control its own curriculum, including sex education. In the past, legislation has been introduced to force school districts to adopt a program of instruction that conforms to “medically accurate” standards like those supported by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

While the title sounds reasonable, implementing these standards would dramatically undermine the rights of parents, school administrators, and teachers to choose how they teach sex education. Further, 66 percent of parents think the importance of the “wait to have sex” message ends up being lost when programs demonstrate and encourage contraception use.[5]

One of the CDC’s stated desires is to reach the goal set by the Department of Health and Human Services to increase the number of males and females aged 15-19 who use condoms at first intercourse.[6] The CDC maintains that comprehensive sex education is the main route to achieve this misguided goal.[7]

While the specifics of sex education curriculum are generally left to local school districts, state law does place some requirements on districts that choose to offer those programs.

  • Arizona law requires that all sex education curricula in grades seven through 12 include instruction on laws relating to sexual misconduct.[8]
  • If the school district decides to provide HIV/AIDS instruction, the curriculum must be grade appropriate, medically accurate, promote abstinence, and it cannot promote homosexuality or portray homosexuality as a positive lifestyle.[9]

In 2010, CAP worked with the Arizona Legislature to pass the Parents’ Bill of Rights. Signed into law by Governor Brewer, the bill increased parental involvement in sex education by:

  • Prohibiting school districts from providing sex education to a student unless the school has obtained signed, written permission from the parent.
  • Requiring that parents be notified in advance of sexual materials that appear in curriculum other than sex education and allowing parents to withdraw their children from that portion of instruction.
  • Providing a method for parents to learn about clubs and activities that are part of the school curriculum as well as extracurricular clubs and activities approved by the school.

In addition to requirements in state law, the Arizona Board of Education has provided guidelines that sex education curriculum must follow. All materials presented in class must emphasize self-control, responsibility, and promote honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.[10]

The Board of Education’s rules reinforce the Parents’ Bill of Rights and direct schools to emphasize abstinence and the potential for sexually transmitted diseases brought on by promiscuity. The rules require that instruction discussing sex do the following:[11]

  • Stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are mature adults.
  • Emphasize that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only method for avoiding pregnancy that is 100 percent effective.
  • Stress that sexually transmitted diseases have severe consequences and constitute a serious and widespread public health problem.
  • Include a discussion of the possible emotional and psychological consequences of preadolescent and adolescent sexual intercourse and the consequences of preadolescent and adolescent pregnancy.
  • Promote honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.
  • Advise pupils of Arizona law pertaining to the financial responsibilities of parenting, and legal liabilities related to sexual intercourse with a minor.

Abstinence Education in Arizona Schools

In June 2003, the Arizona Department of Health Services released its report evaluating abstinence until marriage programs after five years of experience with them.[12] Among the findings:

  • Program participants who were virgins at the completion of the program had a 95 percent abstinence success rate at follow-up.
  • Sexually experienced counterparts had a 52 percent abstinence success rate at follow-up.
  • Live birth rates among program participants were lower than comparable state rates.
  • The Abstinence Only Education Program positively influenced both the risk and protective factors related to the long-term outcomes of pregnancy and sex before marriage.

In recent years, the benefits of abstinence education have continued to be evident. In 2009, the decade long trend of decreased teen pregnancies in Arizona continued to record lows among every demographic.[13] While there have been some improvements in the last decade, STD infection rates among Arizona youth have remained somewhat unpredictable, showing the need for continued vigilance by parents.[14]

According to a 2010 survey by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, the effort to reduce teen sexual activity still begins and ends in the home.[15] Eighty percent of teens say that it would be much easier to delay sexual activity if they were able to have open and honest conversations about sex with their parents.[16]

In the same survey, most teens said that parents have the most influence on their decisions about sex.[17] School curriculum can never fully replace these important conversations that happen in the home, but these statistics indicate that far more teens are willing to learn about and discuss abstinence than is often assumed by proponents of CSE.

In 2010, an American Medical Association medical journal, Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, published a study that showed a single eight-hour abstinence course reduced youth sexual activity by one‑third in the two years following the class.[18] With just one day devoted to the importance of abstinence and personal responsibility, the results were seen for years afterward.

In Arizona, the Board of Education requires that sex education courses in high school place an emphasis on personal responsibility, abstinence until reaching mature adulthood, and abstinence as the only 100 percent effective way to avoid pregnancy.[19]

In recent years, the federal government has provided the states with only one dollar for abstinence education for every four it spends on comprehensive sex education.[20] However, the health care reform act passed by the United States Congress, and signed by President Obama in 2010, reinstated $50 million per year in Title V abstinence education funding through 2014.

These matching monies provide a boost to the current abstinence education programs financed by the state lottery fund.[21] The Title V funds may only be used for programs that fit within what are often referred to as the “A-H Guidelines.” To qualify for funding under the A-H Guidelines, a program must:[22]

  1. Have as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity.
  2. Teach abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children.
  3. Teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems.
  4. Teach that a mutually-faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity.
  5. Teach that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.
  6. Teach that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society.
  7. Teach young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances.
  8. Teach the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

In fiscal year 2012, Arizona received $1,179,375 from the federal government for abstinence education programs.[23] In 2011, $1,094,361 in lottery funds were spent by Arizona on abstinence education contracts. Also for fiscal year 2011, the federal government awarded Arizona $1,120,928 for a comprehensive sex education program called Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP).[24]

The federal government also awards some money through the PREP program directly to community organizations. If Arizona refused to take the federal money from the PREP program, the federal government would award it all directly to community organizations, which could include groups like Planned Parenthood.

Sexual Materials in School Libraries

In Arizona, the books and materials in public school libraries are controlled by the governing board of each school district.[25] Parents must be vigilant to monitor the materials that their children are checking out of school libraries and be cognizant of their right to review them. In May 2011, an eight-year-old checked out a book titled Lovingly Alice from her Phoenix school library only to find out that it included graphic, grossly inappropriate sexual content.[26] When the young girl’s mother reviewed the book, she complained to school officials, who immediately pulled the book from the library shelf.[27]

Nationally, recent instances of sexual materials making their way into school libraries have highlighted the need for continued awareness on the part of parents:

  • At a junior high school in Quitman, Texas, the book Vegan Virgin Valentine was pulled after a parent complained about the book’s graphic language, which includes nonchalant discussions about teenage sexual encounters and a character exchange encouraging sexual activity.[28]
  • Parents in Conway, South Carolina, were shocked to learn that the book Push, which contains extremely vulgar language and descriptions of physical and sexual abuse of a 16-year-old by her parents, had been made available on middle school bookshelves.[29]
  • In Tennessee, the Cheatham County Director of Schools removed a memoir of a homosexual from a middle school library that documented losing a same-sex partner to AIDS and used profane language detailing past promiscuity.[30]
  • Twenty-five parents signed a petition asking a Utah school district to put the book “In Our Mothers’ House,” which advocates for gay parenting, behind the shelf after a kindergartener checked it out. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) immediately filed a lawsuit demanding the book be available to be checked out without parental knowledge and for children of any age.[31]

The recent growth of technology in schools has created a new opening for explicit materials to invade the classroom. Recently, the ACLU commenced a nationwide campaign called “Don’t Filter Me” that threatens public high schools with lawsuits unless they remove web filters blocking sexually explicit material relating to homosexuality.[32] If schools comply with their demands and remove these filters, students of all ages would be exposed to an array of offensive and harmful sexual content while in the classroom.[33]

Fortunately, Arizona’s children have been protected by a CAP-supported bill that became law in 1999 which requires that public schools use internet filters to block material that is harmful to minors, including nudity and sexual content.[34] In 2012 CAP worked with legislators to pass a law that further ensures children in public schools and libraries will be better protected from exposure to online pornography, requiring that online filters be installed.[35] However, work still remains to ensure this law is implemented in every school and that effective filters are being used. There is no substitute for parental oversight in monitoring this issue.

Homosexuality in Public Schools

Among advocates of homosexual behavior, there is a deliberate, concerted effort to use public school curricula and activities to promote the lifestyle to children. Even more alarming is the move to present homosexuality to ever younger students.

A recent opinion piece by Daniel Villareal in the online pro-homosexual magazine Queerty conceded that the movement’s activists are indeed targeting children. Mr. Villareal’s statement was candid:

Recruiting children? You bet we are … why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach children about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?[36]

When Massachusetts legalized same-sex “marriage” in 2004 by judicial decree, children in kindergarten, first, and second grades at public schools were required to read story books promoting same-sex relationships. One book, called King and King, is being used as a mandatory assignment in first-grade classrooms in some school districts. The colorfully-illustrated book features a prince who “doesn’t like princesses” and ends up marrying a prince, complete with a kiss at the end of the book.

Parents who objected to exposing their children to this message at such a young age were left with no recourse when a court ruled that since same-sex “marriage” is the law of the land, the schools had the right to promote same-sex relationships to children.[37]

The school board in Provincetown, Massachusetts, approved a measure in the late 1990s to teach pre-school children about homosexuality.[38] This same school board made news in 2010 when they voted to make condoms available to all elementary and secondary school students without parental consent.[39]

In California, the effort to force homosexuality on young children led to the passing of a law in 2011 that now mandates instruction to positively promote gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans. SB 48 requires that children as young as six years old receive an education that admires homosexuals, gay “marriages,” and supports lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, intersex, and questioning political groups.[40] All of this instruction is required without parental notification or the ability to opt out of the curriculum.

Sadly, California’s flagrant disregard for parental rights regarding sexuality in public schools does not stop with SB 48. The 2013 California legislature passed AB 1266 requiring that students from kindergarten through senior year be allowed to play on sports teams of the opposite sex, utilize opposite-sex bathrooms, locker rooms, and all other “facilities” based entirely on the child’s proclaimed “gender identity” rather than their biological sex.[41] The bill was signed by Governor Brown, meaning that the law of the land in California now allows boys to shower with girls. The right to one student’s transgender “identity” or expression will now supersede other students’ discomfort and rights to privacy.

There is no shortage of information made available to teachers and school officials about how to include discussions of homosexual behavior in their lessons. For example, the National Education Association has published a guide for school officials that encourages teachers whose curriculum does not already include homosexual issues to “[f]ind appropriate ways to mention a GLBT-related person, issue, or event in the context of a literature or social studies lesson or when creating a hypothetical word problem or scenario.”[42]

Presenting complicated concepts like sexuality to young students is extremely problematic and should be left to parents to decide how and when their children learn about these issues. When homosexuality is presented to prepubescent children, they are told in class that if you like the same sex more than the opposite sex, you are homosexual. For young children who quite naturally prefer playing with members of their own sex, such a statement can be misleading and lead to tragic consequences for children who do not yet have a genuine understanding of sexuality.

Even in school districts where discussions of homosexuality have not infiltrated the curriculum, advocates of homosexual behavior have sought more and more ways to desensitize children to homosexuality and undermine beliefs about sexual norms that parents may be teaching at home. Three key ways include student organizations, anti-bullying programs, and teacher training.

Student Organizations

The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (“GLSEN”) organizes Gay-Straight Alliance student clubs in public schools nationwide.[43] The federal Equal Access Act, which allows students to form extracurricular groups around any set of beliefs or interests, generally protects the rights of students to form these groups, although there remain some questions about the need for parental consent and how much sexual content is included in the clubs.

Student clubs organized around sexual behavior have varying missions, but generally seek to support, advocate for, and educate others about homosexual behavior and “transgenderism.” The clubs often have innocuous sounding names or acronyms. In one West Valley school district, a student group was called “Club SODA,” where “SODA” actually stood for “Sexual Orientation Diversity Alliance.”

There are currently at least 96 Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) or related groups in Phoenix and Tucson area schools and school districts according to GLSEN’s student organizing website.[44]

  • In 2001, GLSEN began sponsoring a nationwide “Day of Silence,” encouraging students to take a vow of silence to protest bullying against students who identify themselves as homosexual.
    • The Day of Silence is intended to pressure schools into supporting student efforts to promote homosexual behavior on campus, such as the formation of a Gay-Straight Alliance, as well as training school faculty and staff to address bullying of homosexual students.[45]
    • In response, Focus on the Family now sponsors the “Day of Dialogue” to encourage student-initiated conversations that lovingly communicate the message of Biblical sexuality.[46]
  • In 2007, GLSEN advocated for “Gender Bender Day” in several Iowa high schools in order to encourage boys to dress as girls and girls to dress as boys.[47]
    • The event was eventually canceled after a large outcry from parents of children in the school, but the incident caused many of those parents to pull their students and send their children elsewhere.
    • In 2006, a California school attempted to hold a similar “Gender Switch Day,” but this event was also canceled after a large backlash from concerned parents.[48]

Anti-Bullying Programs

Recently, media coverage of school bullying has led many states to reform how school bullies are treated and how their actions are reported. Advocates of homosexual behavior have seized upon this legitimate problem as a way to push their political agenda on public schools.

Bullying is a serious problem, and all children should be protected from bullying. Efforts to create safe schools are necessary and commendable. Bullying is wrong because of the actions of the bully, not the characteristics of the victim. Policies should focus on prohibiting bullying of any child for any reason, not based on a list of the victim’s characteristics spelled out in the policy.

Groups like GLSEN often claim that students who identify as homosexual or transgender are more likely to be bullied, citing slanted studies that show that high percentages of students who identify themselves as homosexual reporting some form of harassment at school. However, reputable studies show that bullying is a much more widespread problem that nearly all students face. The American Psychological Association reports that a full 70 percent of all middle and high school students reported being bullied at some point.[49] The same study showed that only 27 percent of students reported being bullied for not conforming to sexually stereotypical behavior.[50] The results indicate that the phenomenon of bullying and intimidation needs to be addressed, not that homosexuals are singled out for harassment.[51]

By pushing to include characteristics like “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” in anti-bullying policies, groups like GLSEN have an avenue to introduce programs that promote homosexual behavior and seek to silence students whose religious or moral beliefs differ with their agenda. Advocates of homosexual behavior can use anti-bullying policies that single out “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” for special protection to implement mandatory diversity training, anti-harassment programs, and homosexual-themed curricula.

Teacher Training

GLSEN also provides “gay tolerance” training to public school teachers and training for students and teachers to form GSAs in their schools. Every year, GLSEN sends a booklet called “Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth” to public schools nationwide.[52] Among other things, this booklet encourages schools to communicate to their students that homosexual behavior, particularly homosexual experimentation among adolescents, is normal and should be embraced.[53]

A public records request of Mesa Public Schools by Center for Arizona Policy revealed nearly 400 pages of materials and lesson plans provided to teachers and administrators by GLSEN.

For example, the GLSEN materials encouraged educators in Mesa Public Schools to “use inclusive, affirming, gender-neutral language when referring to sexuality and human relationships in every-day speech …” and to say words like “‘lesbian,’ ‘gay,’ ‘bisexual,’ ‘transgender’ each day in a positive way.” Teachers were also asked to “use inclusive language that implicitly allows for LGBT possibilities,” always substituting “parent” for “mother” or “father,” or using “spouse,” rather than “husband” or “wife.”

Arizona Law

Under Arizona law, parents have the right to opt their children out of any instruction or material that they believe is harmful.[54] This includes materials that question the family’s beliefs or practices with regard to sex, morality, or religion.

Parents need to be attentive to the curriculum and programs being taught in their children’s schools. Arizona law requires public schools to allow parents to access instructional materials currently used by or being considered for use by a school district.[55] While schools are required by law to notify parents in advance when sexuality is being discussed,[56] there is no substitute for parental vigilance in ensuring that their children are not exposed to harmful ideas or indoctrination.

CAP is committed to carefully monitoring the Arizona legislature and ensuring that any anti-bullying legislation that would further the homosexual agenda is strongly opposed and does not become Arizona law. We need only to look to our neighbors to the west in California to gain an understanding of the harm this type of policy can do to parental rights, the innocence of children, and society as a whole.

Current Arizona law does not carve out protected classes as it relates to bullying, but Arizona does require schools to have a policy on dealing with bullying and the statute leaves it to the local school districts on how to craft such policies.[57] Because of this, it is imperative that parents remain vigilant and attentive to the policy adopted by their child’s school.

Resource for Parents

Visit for more information on what to do if advocates of homosexual behavior are seeking to infiltrate your child’s school. The site also offers a model bullying policy if your school district is considering adopting or modifying their policy.

Talking Points

  • Parents always have the right to protect their children from exposure to sexual materials in school. Schools cannot force children to be subjected to sexual materials. The CAP-supported Parents’ Bill of Rights ensures that parents must first provide signed consent for their child to take sexual education courses. If sexual materials are presented in other classes, parents have the right to opt their child out of these projects.
  • Parents’ rights do not end when class begins. Parents are best suited to discuss issues regarding sexuality with their children, and Arizona law explicitly protects their rights to do so without school interference.
  • Simply put, abstinence until marriage education works. Abstinence until marriage instruction equips teenagers with strategies to avoid or at least delay premarital sexual intercourse. In part due to abstinence until marriage curriculum in 2009, the decade long trend of decreased teen pregnancies in Arizona continued to record lows among every demographic.


Children in public schools are increasingly being exposed to sexual materials, and Arizona law gives parents important rights to help protect their children’s innocence. Public policy in Arizona must continue to preserve the right of parents to be the final arbiter of what sexual materials their children are exposed to in the classroom.


© January 2014 Center for Arizona Policy, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication includes summaries of many complex areas of law and is not specific legal advice to any person. Consult an attorney if you have questions about your specific situation or believe your legal rights have been infringed. This publication is educational in nature and should not be construed as an effort to aid or hinder any legislation.

[1] Hannah Boen, Study shows more young people are abstaining from sex, Abilene Reporter-News, March 4, 2011, available at

[2] Sex and HIV Education, Guttmacher Institute (Sept. 2013), (last visited Sept. 24, 2013).

[3] Jane Brody, Gay or Straight, Youths Aren’t So Different,, January 3, 2011, available at

[4] Abstinence Works 2011, National Abstinence Education Association (2011), (last visited Sept. 24, 2013).

[5] Id. at 7.

[6] Family Planning, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2011), (last visited Sept. 24, 2013).

[7] Teen Pregnancy: The Importance of Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (last visited Sept. 24, 2013).

[8] Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-711.

[9] Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-716.

[10] Ariz. Admin. Code § R7-2-303(A)(3) (2010).

[11] Id.

[12] Abstinence Only Education Program: Fifth Year Evaluation Report (Rep.), Arizona Department of Health Services (2003).

[13] Teen Pregnancy and Birth in Arizona, 2010, Arizona Department of Health Services (2010), (last visited Sept. 24, 2013).

[14] Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) Among Arizona Youth, Office of HIV, STD, Hepatitis Services (2010), (last visited Sept. 24, 2013).

[15] Bill Albert, With One Voice 2010 America’s Adults and Teens Sound Off About Teen Pregnancy, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy (2010), available at

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Christine Kim, Abstinence Education Effective in Reducing Teen Sex, Comprehensive Sex Ed Not, The Heritage Foundation, February 1,2010, (last visited Sept. 24, 2013).

[19] Ariz. Admin. Code § R7-2-303(A)(3) (2010).

[20] Kim, supra note 18.

[21] Will Humble, Teen Pregnancy Prevention Resources in AZ, AZ Dept. of Health Services Director’s Blog, (last visited Sept. 24, 2013).

[22] 42 U.S.C. § 710.

[23] Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, ADHS, (last visited Oct. 4, 2013).

[24] Personal Responsibility Education Program, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, (last visited Oct. 4, 2013).

[25] Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-362.

[26] Eugene Scott, Mother’s complaint prompts Paradise Valley school officials to remove book,, May 17, 2011, available at

[27] Id.

[28] Layron Livingston, Book controversy in Quitman,, Nov. 16, 2010, available at; Carolyn Mackler, Vegan Virgin Valentine (2004).

[29] Vicki Grooms, Parents fume over book in Horry County schools, Myrtle Beach Online, Mar. 1, 2011, available at

[30] Cynthia Williams, AIDS Book Pulled From School Library After Complaint,, Feb. 17, 2011, available at

[31] Nineveh Dinha, Davis School District sued over same-sex parenting book flap, Fox13news, Nov. 13, 2012, (last visited Sept. 24, 2013).

[32] Candi Cushman, Don’t Let the ACLU Bully Your School Into Removing Web Protections for Kids,, Aug. 4, 2011, (last visited Sept. 24, 2013).

[33] Id.

[34] Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 34-501 and 34-502.

[35] Id.

[36] Ron Prentice, Queer Sexuality – Straight from the “Horse’s” Mouth, California Family Council, May 25, 2011, available at

[37] Parker v. Turley, 514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008).

[38] Alan Sears & Craig Osten, The Homosexual Agenda (2003).

[39] Susan Donaldson James, Condoms for Kids: Tempest Brews in Artsy Provincetown, Massachusetts, ABC News, June 24, 2010, available at

[40] S.B. 48, 2011-2012 Sess. (Cal. 2011).

[41] Assembly Bill No. 1266, 2013-2014, California legislature.

[42] Robert Kim, Strengthening the Learning Environment: A School Employee’s Guide to Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues (2006).

[43] Who We Are, Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network, (last visited Sept. 24, 2013).

[44] GSA Clubs in Phoenix, AZ, (2013), (last visited Sept. 24, 2013); GSA Clubs in Tucson, AZ, (2013), (last visited Sept. 24, 2013).

[45] Day of Silence, Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network, (last visited Sept. 24, 2013).

[46] Frequently Asked Questions, Day of Dialogue, 2011, available at (last visited Sept. 24, 2013).

[47] Bob Unruh, Cross-dressing day sparks school exodus, World Net Daily, November 28, 2007, available at

[48] Id.

[49] Sandra Graham, Bullying: A Module for Teachers, American Psychological Association, (last visited Sept. 24, 2013).

[50] Id.

[51] Sprigg, P. (2002). Steering Them Wrong: How Schools Push Kids to Accept a Pro-Gay Dogma. Family Policy, 3.

[52] Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth, available at

[53] Id. at 3 (“This is particularly relevant during adolescence because experimentation and discovery are normal and common during this developmental period.”).

[54] Ariz. Rev. Stat §§ 15-102 (district schools) and 15-113 (charter schools).

[55] Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-730.

[56] Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-102.

[57] Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-341(A)(37).