![iawa man sentenced to 16 years for setting gay flag on fire iawa man sentenced to 16 years for setting gay flag on fire](https://thewashingtonstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Flag-Rainbow-Pride-Gay-Background-Anthem-Backdrop-678x381.jpg)
![iawa man sentenced to 16 years for setting gay flag on fire iawa man sentenced to 16 years for setting gay flag on fire](http://www.freedomfightersforamerica.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/4_july_independence_day-1.34690114.gif)
Ball, Introduction: The Past and the Future, in After Marriage Equality: The Future of LGBT Rights (Carlos A. Since the Supreme Court’s invalidation of anti-gay marriage laws, scholars and advocates have been debating what issues and strategies the LGBT movement should prioritize next. Applying Equal Protection to Curriculum and Funding Laws.The State’s Authority to Regulate Public Schools.UNCONSTITUTIONALITY: A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.JUSTICIABILITY: PRIOR ADJUDICATION AND ONGOING ENFORCEMENT.The Adoption of Abstinence-Until-“Marriage” Laws, 1996–2016.The HIV Epidemic Triggers a Wave of Anti-Gay Curriculum Laws, 1986–1996.The Country’s First Anti-Gay Curriculum Law, 1978–1986.HISTORY: ANITA, AIDS, AND ABSTINENCE UNTIL “MARRIAGE”.TYPOLOGY: IDENTIFYING ANTI-GAY CURRICULUM LAWS.The second, available here, contains audio recordings of Louisiana and Texas legislative proceedings that the author cites throughout the piece. The first, available here, contains Utah school district policy documents referenced in footnotes 338–340 and in Table C. The author cites materials available in two supplementary data sets. Challenging anti-gay curriculum laws is a necessary and important step toward establishing the legal equality of LGBT people and creating a safe environment for LGBT students in the nation’s public schools. Yet federal and state officials will retain the legal authority to enforce these laws unless and until courts enjoin them from doing so. Grounded in moral disapproval and anti-gay animus, these laws plainly violate the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees under the Supreme Court’s landmark rulings in Romer v. Based on a comprehensive survey of federal and state law, this Article shows that anti-gay provisions exist in the curriculum laws of twenty states and in a federal law that governs the annual distribution of $75 million for abstinence-education programs. In the existing literature, these provisions are called “no promo homo” laws and are said to exist in only a handful of states. Anti-gay curriculum laws expose LGBT students to stigmatization and bullying and they are far more prevalent than scholars and advocates have recognized. This Article joins that conversation by developing the framework for a national campaign to repeal or invalidate anti-gay curriculum laws-statutes that prohibit or restrict the discussion of homosexuality in public schools. Since the Supreme Court’s invalidation of anti-gay marriage laws, scholars and advocates have been debating the LGBT movement’s near-term strategies and priorities.