A lot of the discussion about California 's Proposition 8 has focused on what seems “right,” or “fair,” or “compassionate.” Those are all important concerns when making public policy, but they need focus. Fairness or compassion for whom, for example? I suggest that when we are talking about defining marriage, we ought to be thinking about children, not adults.

Read the whole thing. May's op-ed is brief, because he lacks the space to go into much detail, but every point he makes can be substantiated.

California 's Education Code Section 51890 and Parker v. Hurley

For example, May refers to a 2007 federal court decision arising out of Massachusetts . The case is Parker v. Hurley. By 2007, Massachusetts had been living for four years with a 2003 decision by that state's Supreme Court, which, like California 's high court, had discovered that same-sex marriage is a right under that state's constitution.

In Parker , a teacher had taught a second-grade class using a book telling the story of a prince who married another prince, rather than a princess. Some parents complained, asking to be allowed to opt out of such instruction until their children were in the seventh grade. When the school district refused, the parents sued in federal court.

They lost. The opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is right here. It is 43 pages long, but if you read pages 5-11 you will see described the very situation that many concerned California voters and parents fear will occur in our state.

Why? Because like Massachusetts , we have a statute, Education Code Section 51890, which requires:

(Emphasis added.) It is not difficult at all to imagine California schools using the "two princes" story, or one like it, for second-graders here, just as the story was used in Massachusetts .

In fact, the Los Angeles Unified School District has already passed a resolution opposing Proposition 8. If, like me, you wonder why a school district would take a position on a ballot proposition that seeks to define marriage , you might also worry that LAUSD will engage in the same kind of instruction that the Massachusetts school district did in Parker v. Hurley . After all, Education Code Section 51890 does require California schools to teach children about marriage, from kindergarten forward.

Consider the Consequences

These are real concerns, held by responsible, thoughtful, compassionate people who care about what their children are taught, and when it is taught to them. When you see proponents of Prop 8 called "extremists," think about Parker v. Hurley and ask yourself: Is it "extreme" to be concerned about such laws and such court decisions? Is there any reason not to expect similar instruction in California public schools, and similar results from California courts?

A video interview with the parents in the Parker case is here. Watch it and see if you think it's outlandish to believe that without Prop 8, such battles will be part of our future in California.

The fact is, if Proposition 8 is not passed and the California Supreme Court's decision is allowed to stand, there will be consequences. This is undeniable.

What also seems certain is that we cannot be certain what those consequences will be. The Parker v. Hurley scenario is only one of those.