Contesting recent "No on 8" ad comments made by state school officials, Prop. 8 campaign supporters say a ruling in the California Education Code refutes opponents' claims that gay marriage will not be taught in schools if the measure fails.

According to "Yes on 8" proponents, schools would be required to teach the validity of same-sex unions under the diversity clause --- CEC 51932(b) --- which stipulates that "instruction or materials that discuss gender, sexual orientation, or family life and do not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions" is not subject to the parental notice and opt-out laws.

As elaborated in a guide produced by the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Transgender Law Center for public school attorneys, "parents are not entitled to prior notice and the opportunity to opt their children out" of diversity education programs which do not include sexually explicit content (i.e. discuss the human reproductive organs and their functions.)

A recent "Yes on 8" ad highlights a 2006 Massachusetts court case where federal judges ruled that, because same-sex marriage was legalized in the state in 2003, schools had no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children. "That's a big concern to parents," said Bill May, state chair of Catholics for Protect Marriage.

In a letter addressed to Jack O'Connell, state superintendent of public instruction and Ted Mitchell, president of the California state board of education, Andrew Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, asks the school officials to correct recent statements to the media that California law does not require public schools to educate children about marriage.

Statements that "public schools are not required to teach about marriage" (by O'Connell) and "there is nothing in California state law that would require the teaching of marriage in any of its forms" (by Mitchell) are disproven, said Pugno, by information posted on CDE's own website.

A study posted on the CDE website notes that 96 percent of California school districts voluntarily provide classroom instruction under the California Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Act.

While Education Code 51933 notes that school districts are not required to provide comprehensive sexual health education in kindergarten through grades 1-12 under the Act, they must "teach respect for marriage and committed relationships" if they do so. The CDE's checklist for instruction under the Act confirms that instruction about marriage is required for the school district to be in compliance with the law.

Statements to the media by the state school superintendent and board of education president about marriage curriculum in public schools is "at best a semantic attempt to mislead the voters, and it does not refute the assertion in 'Yes on 8' advertising that gay marriage will be taught in public schools," said Chip White, spokesperson for "Yes on 8."

"As public officials," noted Pugno, "it is their duty to be truthful and transparent as it relates to all aspects of California's education law. Regardless of personal views and feelings about gay marriage, the public has the right to be informed of the effects gay marriage will have on California's school children."

"For parents concerned for the training of their children, the rights of parents to object to curriculum requirement in public schools for mandatory anti-discrimination programs equalizing the moral equivalencies of same-sex and traditional marriage, currently in jeopardy, may simply be abolished," said William Bassett, professor emeritus of law from the University of San Francisco in a paper titled "New Marriages --- New Parties," posted on the California Catholic Conference website.

According to Bassett, the California Supreme Court, which legalized same-sex marriage in a 4-3 decision on May 15 of this year, had no jurisdiction to "weave out of whole cloth an entirely new relationship" and overturn the limitation on traditional marriage between one man and one woman as approved by the voters with the passage of Proposition 22 in 2000.