When you insist upon imposing your values upon other people's children, other people will return the favor. 

Consider how we got into this mess.  When it first started, the public school system was run by small communities.  Within small communities, it is relatively easy to decide what values children will be taught. In a small community, the school is the least of your troubles.  So dissatisfaction is easily resolved.  Where people cannot conform, they pick up and leave. 

Unfortunately, our public school system did not remain a small locally owned and run operation. Now we have big government and all its attendant headaches.  Now we have a Gordian Knot.  What value system -- what religious values should we teach our nation's children?  How do we please everybody?  Who decides?  Whose hand rocks the cradle? Who rules the world?

Can we untangle this knot?  Should we try?  It is too complicated, too dangerous, and way too much trouble.  Why don't we decide it is none of our business?  Why don't we let the parents decide? Let parents choose the schools their children attend.

the values of this "PFOX" group.

Back in the 1950's, segregation was the norm in the south.  They insisted that these were their community norms, and eventually the rest of the country was sufficiently fed up that we got the Federal government involved.

So then the question is how much latitude should a local community have in setting standards?  Clearly some, but if a community goes so far as to deeply offend and embarrass the rest of the nation, then there does need to be some way to enforce a collective community norm through the Federal government.

Currently, we have four different levels of government running our school system.  We have the School Board, the County Government, the State Government, and the Federal Government.  What a confused mess!  Currently, what the local community and the parents think does not matter much.  What organized groups like PFOX think, however, does.

When it does not have to be so, why anyone would want the government to run anything is beyond me.  How many good examples can you think of a well-run government programs?  How hard is it for Raising Kaine to trash the Bush administration?

On the other hand, commercial and nonprofits also have their issues.  Commercial and nonprofits do require regulation, don't they?  Some people will buy and sell anything.  Some people will abuse children.

The point of freedom is to allow people to do what they think is right so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.  A government-run monopoly school system is directly contrary to free choice. Since we already have schools run by commercial and nonprofits organizations, we also know this government-run monopoly school system is totally unnecessary. 

Go back to the problem.  We need to help poor people educate their children.  Why does that require the government to own and operate schools?  We don't know how subsidize the education of poor children?  Since when?

Doesn't PFOX have a first amendment right to pass out the literature if PFLAG has the same access? Unfortunately you can't censor one message while encouraging another. If PFOX wants to meet and promote its message, as the first amendment provides them that right, they have every right to. Of course that comes with the caveat against harassing people.

That is an interesting question.  If everyone has a right to pass pamphlets out to children, then where does that right end?  I think surely there must be some limits.  I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say.  The Supreme Court did though rule recently that a student does not have a first amendment right to display a banner: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."  If school administrators are allowed to control the message in this instance, where does that power end?

They're bigoted and all about "converting" people from what their nature - God if you will - made them.  What possible place does that have in our schools?  In contrast, PFLAG is a  support group for people who are persecuted by the PFOX'es of the world.  No comparison.

People in the left leaning blogosophere were outraged when the Supreme Court ruled against a student with a pro-marijuana shirt. The first amendment, unfortunately, gives people the right to say hateful things. Perhaps you could prevail on the argument that first amendment rights in schools are limited when the speech causes disruption of the educational atmosphere. I don't think, though, that passing pamphlets meets that standards.

to limit distribution of hate speech or other offensive materials?  The KKK can distribute literature freely?  How about pornography?  Where do you draw the line?

because it is illegal to pass it out to minors. Furthermore minors are too young to look at porn. That issue could be argued successfully as causing disruption to the school. The KKK is a difficult issue. On the one hand you could argue that their presence alone is disruptive. However, I don't think that passing out fliers meets that standard. If they were attacking and screaming at minorities and gays it would be. Just passing out a flier doesn't seem to violate the first amendment.

What does the ACLU think about this?

This is like an anti-Muslim group being able to distribute literature along with the Muslim Students Association.  Or an anti-Semitic group being able to distribute its literature along with Hillel or whatever.