“HOW QUICKLY YESTERDAY’S PLEAS FOR MERE TOLERANCE of sexual behavior ‘outside the mainstream’ can morph into mandates for active approval of that behavior.”

The task force called for vastly expanding the scope of prohibited student speech and conduct. . . . It recommended that students be punished for even one word that another student (especially those in protected groups) could claim to find “humiliating” or “offensive” . . .

This would open the way for what appears to be Safe Schools supporters’ primary goal: mandatory, state-sponsored reeducation on sexual matters for all K–12 Minnesota students. . . . Schools would be required to consult with “community-based advocacy groups” . . .

If the Safe and Supportive Schools Act becomes law, this year or in the future, Minnesota schools are likely to turn for guidance on curriculum and training to OutFront and groups and resources it recommends.

One such resource is the “Welcoming Schools” curriculum, a K–5 anti-bullying program . . .

Welcoming Schools has little to do with bullying and much to do with ensuring that kids as young as age five are taught HRC’s views on sexuality and family structure. In its original form, the curriculum advised teachers not to call students “boys and girls,” on grounds that this can create “internal dissonance” in some children. It called for students to read books like The Sissy Duckling and to be evaluated on “whether or not [they] feel comfortable making choices outside gender expectations.” Kids in grades three to five “acted out” being members of nontraditional families, including families headed by same-sex couples. . . .

GLSEN asserts that “safe” schools need LGBT-“affirming” curricula. “LGBT people, history, and events can be easily inserted into most content areas,” it declares.

In a safe school, for example, science teachers “acknowledge the gay identity of Francis Bacon (creator of the scientific method),” while art teachers identify the artist Frida Kahlo as bisexual. In math class, students analyze “LGBT demographic trends”—for instance, creating charts illustrating the “number of same-sex couples raising children” or the “number of adopted or foster children in LGBT-headed households.”

What’s the point of these sorts of lessons? It’s simple, according to one homosexual columnist. It’s about recruitment:

“Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?” wrote Daniel Villarreal in a 2011 piece that appeared on the popular gay site Queerty.com.

“Recruiting children? You bet we are,” he said.

“We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.”

“And I would very much like for many of these young boys to grow up and start f**ing men,” he said.