The right-wing groups trying to revoke marriage equality in California have been making the fictitious claim that unless Proposition 8 passes, schools will be required to teach young children that marriage of same- and opposite-sex couples is equivalent–and that this is a bad thing.

They cite the state education codes that require teachers to instruct children about “respect for marriage and committed relationships” and “the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood (Sections 51933 and 51890).”

As the No On 8 campaign points out, however, Prop 8 does not mention anything about education. Furthermore, California law gives parents the right to prohibit their children from being taught anything about health and family issues at school.

What needs to be emphasized in the back-and-forth on this issue, however, is that regardless of the curriculum, children will learn in schools about the marriage of same-sex couples, because the children of such couples are in schools.

Even during the tender years of preschool and kindergarten, our children, like all others, will talk about their families in class and drag their parents to school plays and soccer games.

The ultra-right is attacking the curriculum because it sounds better than attacking our children. Those supporting Prop 8 in California, for example, also bring up a Massachusetts case in which two sets of parents tried to stop their children’s school from reading LGBT-inclusive picture books in the classroom. The plaintiffs tried to argue that they have a constitutional right to be notified when schools discuss ideas that are offensive to their religious beliefs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, upholding a lower court ruling against the couples, asserted that since same-sex couples can marry under Massachusetts law, “it is entirely rational for its schools to educate their students regarding that recognition.” They added that if children are sometimes exposed to (but not forced to agree with) concepts that offend a parent’s religious beliefs, the parent can always teach the child otherwise. The plaintiffs this year appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected the case.

 The right-wing now says that unless Californians pass Prop 8, their children will be taught about the marriage of same-sex couples over the objections of the parents, just as in Massachusetts. They ignore that Massachusetts law does not require children to agree with or even participate in discussions about marriage equality. No On Prop 8 notes, too, that the laws of the two states are different: “Unlike Massachusetts, California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don’t agree with.”

If this California law gives comfort to parents worried about the implications of marriage equality on the curriculum, so be it. No On Prop 8 is correct to remind people of their rights here.

No matter how much control parents have over what their children hear as part of the curriculum, however, they will still not be able to eliminate discussion of same-sex couples from schools.

What happens, for example, if a child mentions “when my mommy and mama took me to Disneyland”, and another student asks about her family structure?

Should the teacher, knowing that some parents would object to having their children present at such a discussion, quickly prompt a child of opposite-sex parents to talk about his or her summer vacation instead? What message is that sending? How is that hindering a child’s ability to participate in class and learn?

It is a very thin line between giving parents the right to pull their children out of discussions of subjects they feel are inappropriate, and restricting the free speech of children who bring up those subjects because they pertain to their own families.

The media has also been buzzing for the past couple of weeks about a San Francisco first-grade class who surprised their lesbian teacher by showing up at her wedding. A parent had suggested this field trip and school administrators agreed it was a “teachable moment.” The Yes on Proposition 8 coalition then sent an e-mail to its mailing list on October 13, stating, “These young, impressionable children were taken from the classroom, where they should have been learning reading, writing and math, to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony. This is what anti-family forces have in mind when they apply Section 51933 in the classroom.”

What they do not mention, however, is that the San Francisco Chronicle (10/11/08), in its coverage of this event, spoke with 6-year-old class member Chava Novogrodsky-Godt, and reported, “Chava’s mothers said they are getting married in two weeks.”

Yes, that’s right. Never mind the field trip; there’s someone from a same-sex family in their midst every day. I think there’s a good chance Chava will be bringing in pictures of the wedding for show and tell, not for political reasons but because she is happy and proud of her family’s celebration.

 Is Yes on 8 going to try and stop her from doing so, or require parents to sign a permission slip allowing their children to stay in the room at the time?

What if marriage equality is revoked? Yes, there would be no more risk that schools would talk about same-sex couples getting married, but it would not stop children from talking about their same-sex parents being married in the committed, albeit non-legal sense. It would not stop children from talking about “When my dad and papa were married, before Prop 8.”

With a little Internet searching, too, an industrious middle schooler could easily find which of her or his peers’ parents supported Prop 8 and took rights away from her or his family. Do we really want to divide the school community in this way?

Teaching about LGBT families in schools is not a matter of an abstract, outside agenda being forced into the curriculum. It is about teaching respect for the diversity of family structure that exists there in the classroom, and making all students feel welcome.

Yes, parents in California may have the right to remove their children from discussions of topics they feel are inappropriate. Unless the right-wing wants to expel our children, though, discussion of LGBT families will go on in schools. Our children, without any political agenda, simply wanting to share their lives, will make it so.

With the fate of Prop 8 still unclear, it is their voices that give me hope for the future.

Dana Rudolph blogs on Mombian.com.