This is an archival story that predates current editorial management.
This archival content was written, edited, and published prior to LAist's acquisition by its current owner, Southern California Public Radio ("SCPR"). Content, such as language choice and subject matter, in archival articles therefore may not align with SCPR's current editorial standards. To learn more about those standards and why we make this distinction, please click here.
Yes on Prop 8 has 'Candy' for Trick-or-Treating Parents
As parents take their children trick-or-treating tonight, savvy proponents of Prop 8 will be handing them a little election postcard reminding them to Vote "yes" on the initiative. And because the campaign is focusing on children and said nuggets are present at the moment of tonight's message, it's time to look at this summer's court case about the legal wording of the proposition ballot arguments.
Proponents wanted to say that gay marriage teachings would be required in schools on the ballot guide, but since that was false, Judge Timothy M. Frawley ruled on August 7th that would be a "false and misleading" statement:
Petitioners [No on Prop 8] also challenge the proponents' [Yes on Prop 8] argument that teachers "will be required" to teach young children about gay marriage. The Court agrees with Petitioners that this statement is false and misleading, and should be amended. As Petitioners have established, current state law does not require school districts to teach anything about marriage or same-sex marriage at any grade level. Moreover, for those school districts that choose to include instruction about marriage as part of a health education curriculum, Education Code § 51240 requires that they allow parents to excuse their children from any such instruction conflicting with the parents' religious or moral convictions. (Cal. Ed. Code § 51240.)
Nevertheless, the ballot arguments can be rewritten as an accurate statement of the law and therefore do not need to be deleted. The argument can be made not false or misleading by amending the language to provide that state law "may" require teachers to instruct young children about marriage, and that teachers "could" be required to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage. Accordingly, the Court shall issue a writ compelling Respondent to make the amendments set forth in attached Exhibit "A."
So how does the Yes on 8 campaign get away with saying children "will" be taught about gay marriage, a false and misleading statement (unless they can truly see into the future)? It's simple. Here in America we have the First Amendment and free speech--say as you will.