Charting a Sane, Middle Course on Gay Marriage and Education

Lately there's been a lot of fear among right-wingers about the possible consequences for public education if Proposition 8 (the California Marriage Amendment) fails. This fear was sparked primarily by court battles in Massachusetts over the reading of the novel King and King as part of a second-grade public school curriculum. The book is about a prince who, rather than falling in love with a princess, falls in love with her brother. At the end of the book the two are married and kiss on the lips. Parents wanted the option to pull their kids out of class during the reading of the book, and also wanted the school to notify them in advance before such material was taught. The ensuing court battle hinged on the question of whether the reading of the book constituted "indoctrination". According to one conservative news source,

"It is a fair inference that the reading of King and King was precisely intended to influence the listening children toward tolerance of gay marriage," the court admits. "That was the point of why that book was chosen and used."

However, in the appeals court's opinion, this doesn't mean the children were being indoctrinated with anything. "Even assuming there is a continuum along which an intent to influence could become an attempt to indoctrinate, however, this case is firmly on the influence-toward-tolerance end. There is no evidence of systemic indoctrination. There is no allegation that Joey was asked to affirm gay marriage. Requiring a student to read a particular book is generally not coercive of free exercise rights."

This is a curious ruling. I have to wonder what the court would have ruled had this been a novel that sympathetically presented a particular religious tradition. Would the reading of it be ruled a mere influence-toward-tolerance of that religious belief? Or would it be ruled to be religious indoctrination? I think that the two issues should be treated the same way, because marriage is fundamentally a religious matter. I also think it's absurd that parents should not be allowed an opt-out option.

Anyway, the question everyone is asking is whether this could happen here in California. If Proposition 8 fails, will our children be subjected to secularist indoctrination in the schools? The answer is complicated. Public schools are required by a clause in California law (one that ironically was probably the work of the Christian right) to teach respect for marriage as part of sexual education. If gay marriages are considered just as legal as heterosexual marriages, this clause could be interpreted as a mandate to teach the moral legitimacy of both kinds of marriage. The Proposition 8 crowd is taking advantage of this situation to whip up a frenzy of fear among conservative parents by convincing them that a no-vote on Prop 8 is a yes-vote on public school indoctrination.

But let's set aside the fear for a moment and consider this issue carefully and dispassionately. California public schools do have the right to initiate tolerance or diversity training without prior notice to parents. But California parents also have opt-out and prior-notice rights when it comes to sex, family, and health education that conflicts with their religious beliefs. According to the California Safe-Schools Coalition,

California Education Code § 51240 provides that parents may opt their children out of health, family life education, and sex education that conflicts with religious training or beliefs). Section 1555 provides that parents of children in grades k-12 must receive written prior notice of any instruction on sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS, human sexuality, or family life. Section 51820 provides that parents must receive notice and may opt their children out of venereal disease education classes.

On the other hand,

Diversity or tolerance education programs that focus on preventing verbal harassment, threats and violence against students are not “sex education” or “family life” programs within the meaning of the California Education Code. Parents do not have a right to receive notice about or to opt their children out of such programs.

In other words, schools can do diversity training that teaches children not to hate homosexuals, but they cannot do gay-family-education without allowing parents an opt-out right. The situation is similar in Massachusetts. The reason the court ruled in favor of the school there was that King and King was judged to be diversity training rather than family education.

I think that the California legal code on the subject is basically acceptable. I want parents to have the right to educate their children about marriage and sexuality, but I do not want parents to have the right to train their children to be hateful or intolerant toward homosexuals. I have serious reservations, however, about ruling King and King to be diversity training, especially when it was read to a second-grade classroom. I think the Prop 8 crowd has good reason to be irritated with such a ruling. But let's not go too far, here. The answer is not to infringe the religious rights of gay people by denying them the right to marry altogether. Rather, the answer is to pass legislation prohibiting certain kinds of "diversity training" for children below sixth grade and prohibiting schools from making judgments about the morality of certain kinds of marriage in the classroom. We need to chart a middle course, not a reactionary, extremist course. I strongly encourage California voters not to give credence to ProtectFamily.org's new ads and their insistence that a "no" vote on Prop 8 is a "yes" vote on indoctrination. There are better ways to "protect marriage" than to infringe upon the rights of others.