California Education Code section 51933 dictates that any school district that provides comprehensive sexual health education must teach “respect for marriage and committed relationships”; that the instruction “shall be appropriate for use with pupils of all… sexual orientations”; and that the instruction “may not reflect or promote bias against any person on the basis of any category protected by Section 220” (which includes sexual orientation).

In addition, if the sponsors of the No on 8 campaign have their way, parents and children will be denied the protection of current California laws requiring prior parental notification of sex education content and the right to excuse children from offensive instruction. This has already happened in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage was also imposed by a bare 4-3 majority of that state’s Supreme Court. Massachusetts parents recently sued when they were told that children as young as kindergarteners would be taught about same-sex marriage, and that parents would not be given prior notice of such instruction or the opportunity to excuse their children from it, despite a Massachusetts statute requiring notice and a right to opt out (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71, § 32A).

Three of the biggest sponsor organizations of the No on 8 campaign – the Anti-Defamation League, the Human Rights Campaign, and the ACLU – filed briefs urging the court in Massachusetts to reject the parents’ claims and to deny their right to receive prior notice and to excuse their children from offensive instruction. The court ruled against the parents, as it was urged to do by those organizations. Those same organizations are now helping pay for deceptive advertisements assuring parents that legalized same-sex marriage will not result in their children being taught about same-sex marriage in the public schools (read more).

Another sponsor of the No on 8 campaign has advised California school districts that parents do not have a right to receive prior notice of instruction regarding same-sex marriage or to opt their children out of such instruction. The National Center for Lesbian Rights has published a document entitled LGBT Legal Issues for School Attorneys. This document argues that classroom instruction that covers same-sex marriage without explicitly discussing “human reproductive organs and their functions” is not subject to California’s parental notice and opt-out laws.

Unless Proposition 8 passes, almost all California schools will be legally required to teach same-sex marriage on an equal footing with traditional marriage. Once same-sex marriage is incorporated into the public school curriculum, organizations now opposing Proposition 8 will argue that parents have no right to receive prior notice of, or to opt their children out of, that instruction.

Vote YES on Proposition 8 to protect children from indoctrination and to preserve parents’ right to direct the moral upbringing of their children.

Further reading:

My school district will teach gay marriage and Jack O’Connell knows it!
by Mike Spence
Mike serves on his local school board, and is President of the CA Republican Assembly

A more detailed discussion of the No on 8 sponsors’ efforts to enforce mandatory public school instruction regarding same-sex marriage.
by Kurtis Kearl