What a horrible idea for a bill. Couldn't this be construed to be a ban on any discussion of sex at all? Most high school literature that contained mentions of sex or its ramifications would be illegal - 1984, Catcher in the Rye, The Pearl, Flowers for Algernon, Brave New World, The Scarlet Letter all contain mentions of "sexual orientation."

Our educators have a difficult time as it is... I see no benefit to legislating their discussions in the classroom to such a degree.

"Yes"! It is a Parental matter.

Things that we would not have been able to discuss in class if this bill had been in place while I was in school:

- An incredible amount of literature, ranging from Walt Whitman to Carson McCullers, Oscar Wilde to Lord Byron, Virginia Woolf to Truman Capote. "The Count of Monte Cristo." Shakespeare.
- The philosophies of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. Actually, make that discussion of the entire ancient Greek civilization.
- The impact of the Stonewall Riots and the AIDS epidemic on American history.
- Political and social attitudes towards marriage equality in AP Politics.
- A third of what we learned in Psychology.
- Half of what I performed in Drama class.
- Everything discussed, ever, in Women and Gender Studies.

No Gay-Straight Alliance, which was one of the biggest, most popular extracurriculars at my high school, and which provided a welcoming safe haven for dozens of GLBT students who might otherwise have had nowhere to go.

No more annual one-acts, which were written by students and performed in the spring, and frequently featured gay themes.

Yes, this sounds like an excellent piece of legislature whose far-reaching effects on school curriculum has obviously been well-thought out, and is not at all a knee-jerk response to Tennessee's "Don't Say Gay" bill (which, for those legislators not paying attention, has been crucified in the media and made that state a national laughingstock).

Missouri, once again making me proud.

"Yes"! It is a Parental matter.

We often wonder what does motivate those in Jeff City. Are they ALL crazy? They need to discuss the big problem with unaccredited school students going to ring district that have no room for them and their own district can not pay for these expenses.

This is not about Catcher in the Rye, or Brave New World. This about indoctrination by the Gay Community, that is is ok for For Johnny to have 2 Daddys that sleep in the same bed together as part of the lexicon of thought for Children as they go through school. I read all those books in Highschool , referencing Sexuality whether it be gay or Straight. But the substance of those books were not based on Sexuality. I am not condemming Homosexuality.or Lesbianism. Some of my Friends are Gay. But when 5% of the population is changing correriculm for their own agenda. To make us all quote the "Same" when we are not.. And that from what I see, it is Still better for a Child to live under the roof of a Man and Women as opposed to same sex Families. Yes Yes, I know you will pick out the Families that are abusive to the child. But lets talk about the majority that are Great parents. So I am for this legislation, as opposed to Out come based Education that is controlled by the NEA. The most abusive organization of power in this Country. Look at our Major Cities. Everyone of them has a Crumbling school System. All Contolled by the NEA and the local Unions. This is about money , power and Corruption at the highest level. Lets look at a few St.louis,KC,Chicago, Memphis, D.C Milwaukee. I could name just about every major city. All of them failing our Children. And they say if you give us more money we will be fine. What a joke. The time has come for things to change for the better.

All education is a parental matter, our kids need to be well rounded socially. I don't see a problem with teaching sexual orientation in school Mehlville already has a Gay Straight Alliance Club. This is just another empty bill from a do nothing state government. Keep your religion our of my government and your government out of my bedroom.

Probably another short-sighted effort to turn back the clock

The MO legislature is a complete failure. It looks like term limits strike again. No one with any sense wants to run for election to the MO house or senate and we have lost our institutional knowledge with the start of term limits. It is not just a matter of a few nut cases proposing bills, it is the fact that they are doing nothing to solve the problems of their constituents. They are focused like a laser on right wing ideology to the detriment of anything else.

I think that if we want to continue moving forward as a society, banning any conversation from public schools is a mistake.

Legislating morality; that always goes well! Maybe we should just make them wear a scarlet letter; that works well also! The Nazi party held power for quite a while, huh, maybe I have something here??
Missouri is working its legislative-ass off to become the most backward state in the union. How can a rep from Town and Country be sponsoring this bill?? I thought all of the backward, poorly educated, phobic morons lived in rural areas? I have an idea, don't talk about anything gay and maybe they'll just go away! "Nothing to see here, move along. No one gay here, move along"

Under this bill, it will be ok to bully any gay student at school. What is the sense in this?

Walker is a puppet and a tool you need to get your head of of the GOP butt.

Don't Republicans support freedom and free speech? If so, why are they pushing this bill? Parents can instruct their children in whatever their beliefs and values may be, and the students will bring those values to school. Discussing sexual orientation or gender or anything else shouldn't be an issue if students are firmly rooted in values transmitted in the home and in church or synagogue or mosque. This doesn't mean the children may not change their beliefs or become more open to the lives and experiences of others, but the foundation should be in the home. Stop trying to regulate public and school speech based on vary narrow understandings of human life and experience.

It is not an attack on free speech (because kids don't have such a right), but there (almost) no type of discussion that should be off limits in the classroom—and the type of discussion that should be especially encourages is discussion regarding how kids behave and what their parents and peers and society tells and pressures them to do with their bodies and hearts!

Noel, agree with most of your comment but not that kids don't have a right to free speech. If not, then exactly when does it kick in? an age? level of schooling? At any rate, you're right that no discussion should be off limits in the classroom and I do see this as a limit on speech on something that youth are having to navigate in the real world.

Noel that's right They should be able to explore Necrophilia with a deceased individual. Or how about Beastieality with a local animal. Maybe a little Sado Masochism or Communisim for your soul. Get real, What planet are you on, You clowns will never get it. We have to have rules otherwise chaos insues.. But that is how you like it right. The Occupy movement from what I hear is about to go off on any Tea Party event. Is it going to be the Chicago of 68, or are we civil people, each with a voice. But a voice of Reason in our hearts.

For a second put aside political ideology and party loyalty. Think about the implications of the bill on a practical level. If you do, whether you are a liberal or conservative, the bill makes no sense.
You would have to end the teaching of Psychology and Sociology at the high school. There is no way to teach either without discussing gender roles and sexual orientation.
Educators teaching current events courses would have to ignore student questions related to sexual orientation. This would include ending any student debate or discussion concerning issues that SHOULD be debated and discussed in our democratic system such as gay marriage, hate crime legislation, bullying in schools, etc...
Government/Civics teachers would have to refrain from discussing all court decisions, proposed constitutional amendments, and laws that pertain to gender and sexual orientation. What will a teacher do in an high school government class when the Supreme Court takes up the issue of gay marriage? Tell the students, "Oh, I am sorry, but the state of Missouri forbids me to speak of cases before the highest court in our land"?
4.) History teachers would have to exclude all references to any past cultures in which gender roles differed from the modern western ones. They would not be able to discuss how the Nazis targeted homosexuals during the Holocaust.
Mark F pretends that discussion=indoctrination. He is wrong. By resorting to name calling he confirms the lack of logic in his position.

I propose that we only ban our state representatives from discussing sexual orientation since it is a subject they are obviously not mature enough to discuss.

Good discussion with good points to consider. I support free speech in the classroom at any level. When my son was in kindergarten, his teacher allowed a discussion of blended families because not all kids were from intact, traditional families. A few were from single parent homes and a few had step parents. His worldview was expanded, and we had a discussion at home about it too. However, not all parents agreed with the teacher's choice.

I am more concerned when a teacher uses sarcasm or other poor, interpersonal behaviors as teaching tools. This aspect of middle school has been a surprise to me. The best teaching stance is of a facilitator of discussion to invite all points of view, and I would recommend professional development for that instead of legislation of topics.

In any case, I'd like to share an op ed piece that was in the Washington Post today for some perspective on the topic of free speech. I think the less legislation of speech in the classroom the better. Others in our world are working toward basic rights to have a discussion in their own living rooms or post a comment on twitter without the threat of arrest as is the case in Saudi Arabia, for example.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/steadfast-in-pursuing-a-freer-saudi-arabia/2012/04/20/gIQAoAiUWT_story.html

Correction, the Washington Post Op Ed was published on the 20th.

I think they just bring up issues like this to divide people. The know (or think) that gay people are only 10% of the population, so they can easily pass something like this and energize their base. Since when do we all have to be one-minded, what is wrong with people having a difference of opinions, isn't that what makes us the greatest country in the world? Kids like to participate in adult conversations, and the more talk about things like this could save lives of some gay student that feels so bullied or ashamed of how they feel, when this happens in nature.

This bill is a provides two shining examples of what the US Constitution's 1st Amendment prevents: Government abridging it's citizens' rights to freedom of speech and freedom from religion. I propose a new amendment to the MO Constitution: that before any legislative session begins, all legislators must receive and pass a course in Constitutional law; and if any bill is proposed during that session that clearly violates the Constitution, Missouri and/or Federal, that the sponsors and co-sponsors of that bill would lose their legislative rights and compensation for that legislative session.

Saw this late but want to comment. Why should my kids have to deal with sexual orientation in school. I want my kids to learn what they need to prepare them for college and the work place. Math, science, reading and critical thinking skills. Not issues that classify people on how they have sex. If we are going to allow the teaching of sexual orientation in schools then out of fairness to all groups we must teach about every sexual orientation group including those who like it with animals, multiple partners and other objects human or not. Everyone knows what is right and wrong. What is healthy and unhealthy and what is one person or groups agenda. Anything but the basics of education (reading, writing, math science and the constitution) is only to accomplish some groups agenda.

Why does everyone assume that teachers will promote homosexuality in their comments? How would you feel about a teacher condemning homsexuality in the classroom? Isn't there any wisdom in this proposal? What about providing a peaceful classroom? We have a diverse society. The public school should serve the full range, not just the promoters of the cause of the day.

@Jim Murphy: Lesson One (Corrected version) Can the government force you or anyone to join a religion? No. Then I stand by my original comment; we do have freedom from religion. Deny it or re-word it if you like, that does not make my statement false.

@Dan: Animals or inanimate objects cannot give informed consent, which is one of principle constructs used in cases involving bestiality. Informed consent is also used in cases of statutory rape and incest; that's why states have Age of Consent laws. As far as multiple partners, I think that as well as bestiality and other forms of sexual congress are important matters that need to be discussed; but they are completely separate from the topic of homosexuality; which is what the proposed bill addresses. Right and wrong are important topics as well, but they more of an ethical issue, not a legal one. As far as anything other than educational basics being taught, well that's an agenda for both sides of this topic. Personally I'd rather that the issue of homosexuality be discussed in an open and honest way, so that high school students, no matter what their future plans, can go forward with good information on important issues.

Wow, this is unbelievable....how could any one ever be ok with this bill....you know ten suicides are on the rise? And most of them do it because they are homosexual? So you want to alienate them more?...that's not going help them we need clubs like the gay straight alliance so that they don't feel completely alienated and cast out from society. And who ever mentioned the union conspiracy HAHA get involved! I can tell that you're oblivious to how things work, sorry

WHy can't public schools just do what they were originally intended to do? They were ONLY to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic. They were NOT ever meant to be teaching arts and sports and indoctrinating our children with the views of the liberal insane and unions. Truthfully, Americans lag most in schooling because PARENTS have abdicated their responsibility to: spend time with their children, teach correct moral values, set limits, and encourage academic excellence ABOVE sports or other extracurricular activities. Homeschooling corrects the problems and studies show in every parameter homeschooled students are more sucessful, happier, and more involved in their communities....and they don't have a higher suicide rate because they didn't learn at age 6 that Susie has two daddys!

@Jim Murphy: Jim, I was not citing it incorrectly; as far as the government is concerned we do indeed have freedom from religion. I also recognize that we have freedom of religion. My words were chosen carefully; I am speaking to all taxpaying MO citizens, regardless of their beliefs or non-beliefs. I cited the 1st Amendment the way I did to illustrate one the main reasons that this bill was proposed in the first place: that the sponsor of the bill is using his specific religion (most likely Christian) to force that religions' views of sexuality onto Missouri high school children. My wife and I, as well as a lot of other MO couples do not have children, but our taxes not only help pay for the schools but our state legislators as well. And it's waste of everyones state tax dollars when someone uses their belief system to either create new laws or interpret existing laws that affect people who don't share their beliefs. Creating laws in that way is exactly the opposite of what the Founding Fathers were striving for when they wrote the Constitution.

@ Jim Murphy: Jim, Washington & Jefferson, as well as our other Founding Fathers had lots to say on the subject of religion (Jefferson had his own version of the Bible). If you wish to play the game of cherry-picking quotes that support your viewpoints, I'll play along too, but that would be taking the issue at hand far-afield. As far as how the 1st Amendment has been interpreted for decades, if not centuries, by various courts (including the USSC) the interpretations clearly show that legislators at any level, are not to make law that are narrowly viewed through or tied to their belief system; they can certainly try, but when challenged in the courts those types of laws have been ruled unconstitutional. I'm sure you and others wouldn't like it if a Muslim legislator proposed a Sharia-like law for any part of the U.S. Unfortunately, I fully expect legislators to attempt to create laws that support their religious views. And I'm not asking them to not follow their beliefs; what I am asking of them is that they constantly keep in mind that they are creating laws that are going to affect all citizens of this state, not just the citizens who share the legislators beliefs. And no, I'm not saying that they're wrong if they don't think like me. It might make you feel good to believe I'm saying that, your belief however does not make it true. And since you brought it up, you might reflect on Ben Franklin's quote yourself.