On Tuesday evening the first anti same-sex-marriage ad from the ‘No’ campaign was aired on national television. In the 30-second-long commercial, three women spoke about their concerns with how the Australian school system could change if marriage equality is legalised.
Here, we break down and fact-check the claims that were made in the commercial.

"School told my son he could wear a dress if he felt like it."
The first concern raised in the anti same-sex marriage ad comes from Victorian mother Cella White, who says that Australian schools are now relaxing their dress codes and allowing boys to wear skirts and dresses - traditionally seen as girl's clothing - should they wish to.
This claim was also raised by White in 2016 when she appeared on ABC's Q&A program and said she had since removed her son from the school in question. The school, however, adamantly denies that any message of that kind was ever relayed to students.
Given that school uniform regulations and dress codes are set by school councils, not state or federal governments, this claim from White could well be true, however, what is not noted is that parents are entitled to petition decisions made by the school council.
No issue was raised in the ad about girls wearing pants and shorts - traditionally seen as boy's clothing.
Top Comments
Update: everything said and stated in this ad, has been confirmed by other parents, it is well known in the school. It's on record that the mother of 4 contacted the Education Dept about this practice last year.
The ad is not fiction, it's a dangerous reality.
On the contrary. Everything stated has been DENIED by other parents. She has no one from the school community supporting her or her lies, and the Education Department dismissed her complaint as nothing but lies. That, is the reality. The ad is pure fiction. Dangerous fiction and she deserves every bit of condemnation she is getting.
I honestly don't understand why you would choose not show this ad against SSM on the site.
I cannot see any compelling reason against SSM in the ad itself which are easily explained by a polite discussion - why not just publish it and debate it?
I don't really think it's worthy of debate but honestly, they went so far as to outline exactly what was said in the ad in order to debunk it anyway. To go through all that and then say " but we're not publishing the ad" is bizarre to say the least.
Thats the last thing I need, this ad blaring through my speakers on autoplay every time I open the bloody page!