Contact: Scott K. Fish, 207-458-7185; StandForMarriagemaine.com

MEDIA ADVISORY, Oct. 16 /Standard Newswire/ -- The following statement can be attributed to Marc Mutty, chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine, the official campaign of Yes on Question 1:

"It was a foregone conclusion that the Attorney General, an ardent supporter of same-sex marriage, has taken the position that there will be no change in public school curricula if Question 1 fails and LD 1020 takes effect.

"Ms. Mills has long supported LD 1020, the gay marriage legislation. Nearly a week before she released her opinion, she told a local television reporter that she was 'appalled' by our ads, which do nothing more than point out the real consequences to school children and parents if a new legal definition of 'any two will do' marriage replaces the union between a man and a woman.

"In her capacity as Maine's Attorney General, Mills testified in support of it before the Legislature's Judiciary Committee at the LD 1020 public hearing on 4/22/09, saying, in part, 'I speak as someone who is now charged with enforcing Maine's civil rights laws, and hopes that passage of LD 1020 will make my job so much easier.'

"Her legal opinion has not even a shred of pretense of independence or objectivity.

"The request for and her opinion itself is nothing more than the classic lawyer scheme of creating a straw man argument simply for the benefit of striking it down. The opinion poses a position that our campaign does not advocate - that LD 1020 affirmatively changes the curricula to require instruction on gay marriage. That is not our position. Our position is that no change to Maine's curricula is necessary in order for homosexual marriage to be taught in our schools. Further, that homosexual marriage is taught in other states where it has been legalized. When they study the facts, Mainers will see right through Ms. Mills' opinion for what it is: a shameless political ploy by supporters of homosexual marriage.

"There is no getting around the fact that gay marriage has been taught in Massachusetts and California. There is no denying that the author of the 'Who's in a Family' book that discusses homosexual relationships and is currently used with young children in Portland said, 'The whole purpose of the book was to get the subject out into the minds and the awareness of children before they are old enough to have been convinced there's another way of looking at life.' And it is a fact that the Maine state-government sanctioned LGBTQ Youth Commission suggests that gay advocates be placed in every school and every school building, giving greater influence to the gay rights structure that already exists through the Gay Straight Alliance and the Gay, Lesbian Education School Network.

"Yes on Question 1 has shown - and our opponents have been forced to acknowledge - that existing curricula ALREADY create an opportunity for teaching about same-sex relationships under the guise of 'safe schools' instruction. We know, for example, that the Portland schools already show films on gay relationships. What is to stop them from showing films about homosexual marriage if it becomes legal?

"Quite simply, the issues we have raised in this campaign were the very same issues raised by many at the single public hearing on LD 1020; none of our arguments are news to our opponents. They had ample opportunity to blunt our concerns by expressly prohibiting same-sex marriage from being discussed in public schools, but they did not do so.

"It is irrefutable that there is nothing in LD 1020 that prevents our children from being taught about same-sex marriage. Maine Department of Education spokesman David Connerty-Marin confirmed that point earlier this month when he told a Maine reporter, 'There's nothing in Maine's standards that requires or encourages teaching on that topic and there's nothing that prohibits it either.'

"We have demonstrated how it could be taught in schools, and that it HAS been taught in other states that have legalized gay marriage. It's a shame that Maine's top lawyer is using her good office for such a transparent political stunt."