MO Politician Defends “Don’t Say Gay” Bill: “Meant To Protect Moral Values”

Many of the recent articles on HB 2051 have shifted focus away from the true intent of my legislation, which is meant to protect the moral values that are most important to Missouri families. In a time when our public schools continue to struggle financially, we want their focus to be solely on core education issues such as math, science and reading; and not on topics that are better left for discussion in the home at the discretion of parents.

“It’s also important to point out that my bill does not target a particular sexual orientation but instead says instruction or materials related to any sexual orientation should not take place in our public schools. This would not prohibit a student struggling with his or her sexual identity from talking to a school counselor or cause any of the other issues that have been misreported by the media. Instead it would simply ensure the focus of our public schools is on the curriculum parents expect their children to learn when they send them to school each day.”

—State Rep. Steve Cookson (R-Fairdealing), defending his sponsorship of HB 2051— Misouri’s proposed “Don’t Say Gay” bill. House Education Committee Chairman Scott Dieckhaus (R-Washington), has said the measure will not get a hearing. Photo: Missouri House of Representatives

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #don'tsaygay #education #missouri stories and more


  • Gary Indiana

    “instruction or materials related to any sexual orientation should not take place in our public schools.”

    In that case, English classes will have to be totally restructured. Romeo and Juliet references a the heterosexual orientation aggressively.

    They should probably also ban female professors from going by “Mrs.” or wearing wedding rings, as that strongly implies a sexual orientation.

  • jason

    I think we need a bill to protect us from kooks like Steve Cookson.

    Surely high school students should be able to get educational material on sex, including sexual orientation. Where else are they going to get it from. Their parents?

  • cam

    These are the same B.S. excuses that people who protested American Bandstand for allowing blacks and whites to dance together used. Morality.

  • Danny

    I’d have a hell of a lot more respect for bigots like this guy if they’d just have the balls to admit that they are wasting taxpayer resources because they just don’t like the gays. They should just be honest and say “gay is icky”. Still wouldn’t make it right, but do they really think we can’t see right thru what they are doing?

  • Alex

    If their moral values are so against it they sure do actively go out of their way to be a part of it. If they truely wanted to pretend it doesn’t exist they would just do that. But making a bill and trying to get petition votes and so on means they are making this a big part of their life. It goes back to closed minds need to come with closed mouths.

  • MiKem

    What about the AMERICAN Morals of Freedom of Speech, Equality, and Liberty??????

  • Marty Joplin

    Thanks for taking a stand for MO HB 2051. It is not gay-bashing, it simply halts the constant proliferation of indoctrination that has been coming down the channels for so long long.

  • Spike

    Why would there be a need to ‘protect’ one’s moral values?

    The Christian Taliban at it’s best. Legislate away the gays.

  • Andy

    Marty, I think you got it wrong. We have at Queerty are by and large very PRO-gay. We are (mostly) opposed to HB 2051. The inclusion of Sen. Cookson’s quote was meant to illustrate the insanity of the arguments for the bill.

  • O

    @Marty Joplin: inverse projection much? the biggest indoctrination of children that i see comes in the form of religion.

  • Mk_Ultra_Again

    Isn’t this the equivalent to burning books?

  • Marty Joplin's Mother

    Please excuse my little Marty. He was breech birth and I told his dad that we shouldn’t have had sex so close to Marty’s delivery date. I guess that is why my little Marty is sooooo anal retentive now.

    It’s alright Marty. You don’t have to keep your head up your butt anymore to protect that frightened little orifice. It’s safe. You can come out now.


  • Dmitriy

    @Marty Joplin:

    Yes of course let’s continue to “debate” whether gays are worthy of being part of the fabric of humanity, afterall it’s not as though we actually make up 19% of reported FBI hate crimes in 2010 while making up 3-5% of the population or anything like that…let’s just debate some more whether you need to educate your children not to kill us

  • Jakey

    @Gary Indiana: Exactly, this rule would be broken in five minutes with the mention of a heterosexual couple. You couldn’t even study literature with that kind of restriction, so so much for the basic school topics. It’s a totally unenforceable, ridiculous regulation if actually followed as written…not that this jerk cares, since he would only be interested in enforcement if a school mentioned something other than heterosexuality.

    I am weary of this stupid attitude where homosexuality is a strictly sexual topic, but heterosexuality isn’t. People who find it easy to hear about a boyfriend and girlfriend and not immediately think about the details of how they fuck, but can’t think of anything else when they hear about a boyfriend and boyfriend, need to realize that THAT’S THEIR PROBLEM and not an issue with the topic itself.

  • Adam

    @Jakey: amen

  • Adam

    The act as written permits discussing sexual orientation only as it pertains to the scientific study of human reproduction. Since the only sexual act that leads to reproduction is heterosexual intercourse, the act plainly DOES “target a particular sexual orientation.”

    That being said, I may have found the silver lining in all of this. If teachers by law can’t discuss anything related to sexual orientation without talking about the science of human reproduction, tomorrow’s students will literally be talking about sex all day, everyday.

    You just taught your sixth graders that song about the six wives of Henry VII? You’re now legally mandated to give them a sex talk.

    That word problem you assigned in elementary school has Susie buying jelly beans for Tommy, the boy she’s sweet on? Not unless it’s accompanied by “The Miracle of Life” video.

    Just read a book to your kindergarten class where daddy gives mommy a kiss? Sure hope those 5-year-olds are ready to hear about f*cking.

  • Sherry

    Thank you for expressing my sentiments also. It is NOT gay-bashing. It is about protecting the children from the proliferation of sexual morals and convictions of people other than their family, parents, or clergy. Some of you people really think parents are not the appropriate ones to have these talks with their children. Then I think you are the sick and misled population.

  • Adam

    @Sherry: Why do you read this blog?

  • pj


    she reads this blog to counter a.h’s like you…. it’s that simple!

Comments are closed.