Rachel Abrams

OK, so that sounds like it's either a cute story about a girl and her uncle where the fact that he's marrying another man is sort of incidental to the story itself or to the parents who are objecting to these books. It sounds like they are reading this as an overt message of support of a gay marriage and therefore something that they feel should not be anywhere near a classroom.

OK, so that sounds like it's either a cute story about a girl and her uncle where the fact that he's marrying another man is sort of incidental to the story itself or to the parents who are objecting to these books. It sounds like they are reading this as an overt message of support of a gay marriage and therefore something that they feel should not be anywhere near a classroom.

So these books have obviously now found themselves in front of the Supreme Court. Take me to the oral arguments on Tuesday. How did they start?

So these books have obviously now found themselves in front of the Supreme Court. Take me to the oral arguments on Tuesday. How did they start?

And just explain that distinction.

And just explain that distinction.

So what does the lawyer for the parents say about this distinction? How are they viewing this?

So what does the lawyer for the parents say about this distinction? How are they viewing this?

Right. Basically, the actual reading to the child, the fact that that is more active is sort of the distinction here.

Right. Basically, the actual reading to the child, the fact that that is more active is sort of the distinction here.

Can I just ask, why does the school require these books to be read to begin with? Like, why are they actually part of the curriculum?

Can I just ask, why does the school require these books to be read to begin with? Like, why are they actually part of the curriculum?

Got it. So the kids are actively reading these books or they're being read to them. How do the justices determine whether the contents of the books themselves actually qualify as coercive to the kids?

Got it. So the kids are actively reading these books or they're being read to them. How do the justices determine whether the contents of the books themselves actually qualify as coercive to the kids?

My new favorite book.

My new favorite book.

Watch out, Hunger Caterpillar.

Watch out, Hunger Caterpillar.

Yeah, exactly. This is not the Talmud. Like the idea that the Supreme Court justices are arguing over the meaning of a book for children this small is just it's really kind of incredible.

Yeah, exactly. This is not the Talmud. Like the idea that the Supreme Court justices are arguing over the meaning of a book for children this small is just it's really kind of incredible.