A judge has put the kibosh on the Montgomery County sex ed curriculum that had many Montgomery County parents upset.

Diana West points out why making the ruling must have been easy:

“[T]here were two really big red flags. Judge Alexander Williams Jr. called one ’viewpoint discrimination’ because, as he wrote, the new curriculum for 10th graders was supposed to teach that ’homosexuality is a natural and morally correct lifestyle — to the exclusion of other perspectives.’ Also outrageous was the way the curriculum promoted certain religions to the exclusion of others. In touting ’the moral rightness of the homosexual lifestyle,’ the judge wrote, the curriculum suggested that ‘the Baptist Church’s position on homosexuality is theologically flawed,’ and reminiscent of the racial prejudice of the segregation era. At the same time, the curriculum applauded Reform Jews, Unitarians and Quakers for promoting an activist homosexual political agenda. If you’re wondering when religious prejudice or favoritism became a subject fit for the public schools to preach — I mean, teach — the answer is never. And that’s what the court ruled.”

This may have been a relatively clear-cut ruling, but what if…

“[I]magine if the school board had been smart enough to reel in those First Amendment red flags on which this particular sex-ed course was hung out to dry. Would Montgomery County teens be sitting down to become both ’informed’ and desensitized by the course’s instructional video on how to apply a condom to a cucumber? Would these kids be reflecting on their curriculum’s no doubt scholarly treatment of all manner of sexual experimentation? In this hyper-sexualized culture of ours, I’m afraid the answer has to be yes.”