Can you treat someone with "love, kindness, and respect" while simultaneously insisting their identity is so poisonous that it cannot be acknowledged?

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday for Mahmoud v. Taylor, which has become known as the "don't say gay" case, because it's over conservative objections to children's books, taught in Maryland classrooms, that position queerness as a normal fact of life. The arguments involved a lot of legalese about "burden" versus "coercion," or what constitutes a "sincerely held" religious belief. But at the heart of the battle was a more philosophical question, one with an answer that should be self-evident: Is it possible to "respect" someone while trying to erase their existence?

The case illustrates the animating futility at the heart of the MAGA movement: They will never manifest their dream of a past "great" America, when "queer" wasn't a thing.

The case regards a Montgomery County school board's decision to include books featuring same-sex marriage, trans characters and a Pride parade as part of their curriculum. The Becket Fund, a religious right organization, is suing on behalf of parents who want to opt their kids out of lessons involving these books, claiming that mere exposure to the books violates their religious beliefs. The school district's lawyer told the court these books are no different than books portraying women working or soldiers fighting in wars, both behaviors proscribed by some religions. "These lessons are students should treat their peers with respect," he said. Exposing kids to different beliefs is not a mandate that they follow them, he argued, just an education in what the world looks like. 

If the Supreme Court rules for the religious right, "I don't think that explicit bans are likely, in the sense that school districts would forbid students from having certain books," explained Ian Millhiser,........

© Salon