This booklet was distributed to hundreds of kids (middle school age and up) at Brookline High School, Brookline, MA, on April 30, 2005. It was written by the Boston-based AIDS Action Committee, with help with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and the Boston Public Health Commission. Photographs of the Event.
The following appears on Bryce Lauritzen's Facebook.
Let me tell you the real truth about the education argument in regards to Prop 8. Superintendent Jack O'Connel said "our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage" in recent television commercials. That is partially true. The issue here is a play on semantics. Schools are not REQUIRED to teach anything about marriage. However, that does not mean they CAN'T teach anything about marriage. Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention is an optional program to be taught in the state of California. Schools are not REQUIRED to teach sex education, but CAN teach sex education. In fact, 96% of all California Schools instruct the course Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention (see CDE website). If schools do implement sex education, they must follow Education Code Section 51930. This law says:
"51930. (a) This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the
California Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention
Education Act.
(b) The purposes of this chapter are as follows:
(1) To provide a pupil with the knowledge and skills necessary to
protect his or her sexual and reproductive health from unintended
pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
(2) To encourage a pupil to develop healthy attitudes concerning
adolescent growth and development, body image, gender roles, sexual
orientation, dating, marriage, and family."
So yes, schools are not REQUIRED to teach sex education or marriage. However, for the 96% of California Schools which teach sex education, they MUST follow the above curriculum goals. So big deal right? A teacher could say your religion may disagree or your family may not believe this, right? That would fix the problem. Wrong. California Education Code Section 51933 states:
"(d)(1) Instruction and materials may not teach or promote religious doctrine. (d)(2) Instruction and materials may not reflect or promote bias against any person on the basis of any category protected by EC Section 220."
This is the real issue now. So California schools are not required to teach sex education, but if they one of the 96% of schools that do teach it, you must teach about marriage. Well why not leave the marriage part out? If it controversial, then don’t teach it. Read:
"If comprehensive sexual health education is taught: Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."
Furthermore, you can't give the argument that religion may disagree. You must as a teacher give equal rights to both heterosexual and homosexual marriages. If you favor either in any way, you are discriminating, violating hundreds of laws on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
If you would like to look up these laws, please feel free at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/se/hivinstruction.asp.
So what does this all mean? No one is lying about marriage being taught in schools. In fairness to both sides, commercials saying marriage WILL be taught in schools are not accurate. However, Superintendent Jack O'Connel’s statement was not accurate either. Marriage, including gay marriage, will be taught in schools which choose adopt sex education programs. According to current state law and education guidelines, there is really no way to dispute that.
An argument I have heard once people have been informed of this is that parents can opt out of areas of curriculum they disagree with. That is true to an extent. Parents may choose to opt out of sexual health if they want. However, most parents want their students to learn about sexual health, just not homosexual marriage and homosexual sexual relations. I believe that society should dictate what is taught in schools, not individuals who are bending the truth, like Superintendent O'Connel.
Another question people have yet to answer me is this: Why would the California Teacher’s Association (to which I am a member) donate 1.3 million if Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools? Is there a hidden agenda? My guess is yes, especially when you look at current events. A field trip was taken in San Francisco to a lesbian wedding. Yes, the parents did consent, but for the other two students’ parents who did not, what did their student do in class when the teacher and all the other students were gone? They lost education time due to a lesbian wedding. Also a Hayward School recently had a “Coming Out Day” for kindergarten students. Prop 8 has to do with education.
Superintendent also says that Prop 8 says nothing about education. Well the letter of the law (“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California”) does not, but the implications sure do. Again, he is using semantics to stretch the truth.
How will Prop 8 fix this? Prop 8 will say to law makers, teachers, and Superintendent O'Connel that this state defines marriage as “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California. When 96% of schools teach sex education, they will NOT be lawfully able to teach that homosexual is identical to heterosexual marriage.
I don’t want my future children taught that homosexual marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. I have biological, social, and religious reasons to believe this. I have that right as a parent to request that my children, nieces, and nephews are not taught different morals in school than at home. You may not agree with me, but I have a right to defend my beliefs.
Note: Watch out for the following web site, it is a " NO ON PROP 8 " site with goal of gathering information on Mormon donations for the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. The site encourages people to identify known Mormons on the list. It is believed the list will be used for harassment purposes.