It has long been understood that Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM) would quickly abandon any attempt to oppose same-sex marriage by touting "traditional" ones. This tactic would not work in California, as Karen Ocamb made clear in Swiftboating Same-Sex Marriage in Maine. Frank Schubert, the man behind the No on Prop 8 campaign who is now working with S4MM and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), provide this analysis that you can watch here (scroll to the 8:20 mark) and Part 2 here):
What we found was that for most Californians, they were very tolerant of gay relationships, they had no problem with people being gay, having committed relationships and a gay lifestyle whatsoever. They didn't see how gay marriage affected them per se, it wasn't their issue, it wasn't something they cared to think about, it wasn't something they wanted to talk about - it was an uncomfortable subject generally for them to even get their arms around.
That being said, if they came to understand that their initial perception might be challenged - that there's more to gay relationships than simply the two individual adults, that there are potential consequences beyond those two. If you could get them to think of that, then they would be willing to entertain disallowing gay marriage.
---
We raised doubts, we raised arguments about things that could happen.
Fear. The only tactic that the opponents of equal marriage has is fear, and they will play it over and over again. It doesn't matter a jot if their claims are true, but whether they will be perceived to be true. Schubert repeats the meme, "You have to accept gay marriage whether you like it or not," without having to prove that there is any real impact on individuals opposed to it.
And the biggest nightmare of them all, the one that plays on ignorance and latent bigotry, is that children will be "indoctrinated in the gay lifestyle" at school.
If you ask someone to actually describe how a child would be so indoctrinated, you will not receive a direct answer, because there isn't one. And therein lies some of the genius of the campaign, because much more frightening is something that cannot be defined.
The teacher featured in the ad, Charla Bansley, was a guest speaker at a S4MM rally on 29 August 2009. She is also the State Chair for Concerned Women for America, which has as its mission statement "to protect and promote Biblical values among all citizens - first through prayer, then education, and finally by influencing our society - thereby reversing the decline in moral values in our nation."
The case cited in the ad, Parker v. Hurley, was brought by David Parker, Tonia Parker, Joshua Parker, Jacob Parker, Joseph Parker, Joseph Robert Wirthlin, Robin Wirthlin, and Joseph Wirthlin, Jr. (the same Wirthlins that appear in the new ad). These parents argued that their children were being "indoctrinated" by the public school system.
Here is part of the ruling from Judge Mark L. Wolf of the 1st District Court of Massachusetts that denied the plaintiff's case:
Parents do have a fundamental right to raise their children. They are not required to abandon that responsibility to the state. The Parkers and Wirthlins may send their children to a private school that does not seek to foster understandings of homosexuality or same-sex marriage that conflict with their religious beliefs. They may also educate their children at home. In addition, the plaintiffs may attempt to persuade others to join them in electing a Lexington School Committee that will implement a curriculum that is more compatible with their beliefs. However, the Parkers and Wirthlins have chosen to send their children to the Lexington public schools with its current curriculum. The Constitution does not permit them to prescribe what those children will be taught.
It should also be recognized that while the Constitution does not compel the defendants to revise the Lexington elementary school curriculum, or to permit the Parkers and Wirthlins to exempt their children from teaching about homosexuality or same-sex marriage, it also does not prohibit the defendants from voluntarily accommodating the parents' concerns if there is a reasonable way to do so. Finding a reasonable accommodation may be a challenging task. Allowing parents to exempt their children from classes primarily involving human sexual education may not injure the value of those classes for the students who remain. However, as Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote in his journal, "'I pay the school master, but 'tis the school boys that educate my son.'" James 0. Freedman, Idealism and Liberal Education 63 (1999). An exodus from class when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students. Cf. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 494, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954).[1] It might also undermine the defendants' efforts to educate the remaining other students to understand and respect differences in sexual orientation.
Parker, et. al., lost on appeal to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals (link), and I encourage you to read it. From it:
First, as to the parents' free exercise rights, the mere fact that a child is exposed on occasion in public school to a concept offensive to a parent's religious belief does not inhibit the parent from instructing the child differently. A parent whose "child is exposed to sensitive topics or information [at school] remains free to discuss these matters and to place them in the family's moral or religious context, or to supplement the information with more appropriate materials."
---
The parents here did in fact have notice, if not prior notice, of the books and of the school's overall intent to promote toleration of same-sex marriage, and they retained their ability to discuss the material and subject matter with their children. Our outcome does not turn, however, on whether the parents had notice.
Turning to the children's free exercise rights, we cannot see how Jacob's free exercise right was burdened at all: two books were made available to him, but he was never required to read them or have them read to him. Further, these books do not endorse gay marriage or homosexuality, or even address these topics explicitly, but merely describe how other children might come from families that look different from one's own. There is no free exercise right to be free from any reference in public elementary schools to the existence of families in which the parents are of different gender combinations.
Joey has a more significant claim, both because he was required to sit through a classroom reading of King and King and because that book affirmatively endorses homosexuality and gay marriage. 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. That was the point of why that book was chosen and used. 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.
Public schools are not obliged to shield individual students from ideas which potentially are religiously offensive, particularly when the school imposes no requirement that the student agree with or affirm those ideas, or even participate in discussions about them.
DIRIGO BLUE is available as an