Among today’s Supreme Court rulings, two stand out because they recognize and affirm the dignity and protection of children. One ruling determines that parents do not have to allow their children to be exposed to harmful gender ideology and LGBTQ+ lifestyle lessons in schools while the other protects children from pornography.

In Mahmoud vs. Taylor, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of parents who wanted to opt out their children from instruction and stories that involve LGBTQ+ lifestyles and gender ideology. The parents called into question five “LGBTQ+ inclusive” books that were taught in grades K-5.

At first, the Montgomery County Board of Education gave the opt-out option to parents based on religious “beliefs and practices.” But after the board realized that most of the parents wanted to opt out, it claimed that the opt-out was interfering with instruction and the learning environment. (One would think that the education board would get the hint that nobody wants what they’re trying so hard to sell.)

The usual argument that the public schools proponents have is that parents can take their children and either send them to a private school or homeschool them. Rightfully so, this argument was not good enough for SCOTUS. The ruling states: “It is no answer that parents remain free to place their children in private school or to educate them at home. Public education is a public benefit, and the government cannot 'condition' its 'availability' on parents’ willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise.”

If indeed parents have these two things as an option, they should not have to pay school taxes. In other words, they should have school choice. But that is not the case with most public schools, which have no incentive to improve education. Public schools will receive the tax dollars no matter what pedagogy they choose to employ. Shouldn’t parents have more say? In addition, why should children as young as 5 or 6 years old be made aware of any LGBTQ+ experiences and gender ideology in the first place? This is certainly not the diversity they should be burdened with because it only creates existential confusion, especially if the parents live and affirm traditional values.

Pedagogy in public schools need not involve religion in any way, but at the same time, it should exclude sexuality, and later, sex education. These are matters for the family unit to discuss, should it choose to. The invasion of privacy and the emotional need that the public school creates are burdensome and misplaced.

In another case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas, the Supreme Court ruled against the “representatives of the pornography industry,” who argued that the requirement to submit and upload one’s ID when viewing porn was a violation of free speech. The State of Texas is limiting the distribution of porn to minors by imposing such a regulation. Although, of course, nothing is foolproof, it represents at least another barrier for the minors to access pornography. One of the most significant issues with online porn (unlike print magazines or even pornographic films) is that it involves child exploitation, which may include human trafficking. It goes beyond “simple” consumption of porn but touches on human slavery.

In any case, if one must show identification at an actual brick-and-mortar pornography store to purchase materials, then it should be of no issue to do the same for online porn. The irony of this situation is that online porn was meant to be entirely anonymous, faceless. Going to the porn store meant exposure (no pun intended), but now the online world of depravity has proven to be anything but anonymous.

This is not only a cultural issue but a spiritual one. People don’t want to feel shame if they are consuming porn; they want the transgression to be normalized to feel at peace with the decision to watch porn. But there is a reason pornography should stay in its category, namely, in the sphere of transgression and obscenity. It is the only way that we will be able to make a distinction between order and chaos.

These two cases have much in common, not just because the rulings have affirmed that children deserve a life of order, goodness, and authentic learning. They are also cultural indicators of what has happened in America, namely, the spiritual corruption of children. There has been a push to destroy the innocence of childhood through disordered views of sexuality (this is particularly true of transgender movement) and even things like climate change. One sows existential confusion, the other radical fear. Neither belongs in the minds and souls of children. Today’s SCOTUS rulings affirm that.