Banned
General:
Some parents and other adults who should stop trying to raise other peoples kids have objected to children reading a book about homosexuality, misreading the whole point of the book entirely.
The idea about comparing penguin love to human love has been found ludicrous by some, which is a pretty good argument because penguins don't have higher brain functions. That being said, "senior penguin keeper Rob Gramzay said that he never saw the pair complete a sex act, but the two did engage in mating rituals like entwining their necks and vocalizing to one another." Co-author Justin Richardson also said “We wrote the book to help parents teach children about same-sex parent families. It's no more an argument in favor of human gay relationships than it is a call for children to swallow their fish whole or sleep on rocks." That being said, the book is also not a call against homosexuality in any way, simply enforcing that families come in all shapes and sizes. Think about that when you read, that humans can learn a lot about forming families.
Specific Cases:
2006
Illinois - Shilo - Parents at Shiloh Elementary School requested the book be allowed checked out with parental permission, but the superintendent vetoed the matter.
Missouri - Moved from children's fiction to nonfiction in Savannah and St. Joseph after parents complained it had homosexual overtones.
Missouri - Rolling Hills - book moved to nonfiction section by Library Director Barbara Read after parent complains of gay themes.
North Carolina - Charlotte - Superintendent Peter Gorman of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools ordered the book be removed from school libraries. A committee reviewed the decision claiming policy on challenged books were not followed.
2008
California - Lodi Public Library - resident challenged, claiming its "homosexual story line that has been sugarcoated with cute penguins
California - Chico - Three parents complained the book was unsuitable for young children. A school committee voted to retain.
Iowa - Ankeny - parents at local elementary school asked it be restricted for parental check out. School board voted 6 to 1 to keep the book in circulation.
Maryland - Calvert County - Parent requested the book be placed in a section for "alternative or non-traditional families". Another parent also claimed the book should be labeled or removed as being too young for sexuality and that when the penguins "slept together," it was referencing sex. The library board voted to retain the book both times.
Ohio - Dublin - Eli Pinny Elementary retained the book after a parent's concern that the book "is based on one of those subjects that is best discovered by students in another time or in another place."
UK - Withdrawn from two Bristol primary schools following objections from parents.
Virginia - Sterling, Loudoun County - Superintendent Dr. Edgar B Hatrick, after parents complaint, removed book from all school libraries despite staff complaints. The book was returned after Hatrick found "significant procedural errors that he believes void the process followed in this matter."
2009
Minnesota - retained in the Meadowview Elementry School in Farmington despite a paren't concern that "a topic such as seual preference does not belong in a library where it can be obtained by young elementary students."
Missouri - North Kansas City - Challenged but retained after parent's complaints about inappropriate "human sexuality education" and "tries to indoctrinate children about homosexuality."
2011 - Minnesota - Rochester - Pulled and removed from Gibbs Elementary School library but later put back after district policy had not been followed. The parent who challenged the book was required to be present when any item was checked out.
2013 - Utah - Marked for removal in the Davis School District because parents might find it objectionable.
2014 - Singapore - National Library Board (NLB) announced it would destroy three children's books with pro-LGBT families themes as they saw the titles as being "against its 'pro-family' stance following complaints by a parent and its own internal review." The decision was eventually reversed pending review.
