After opening statements during today's federal same-sex marriage trial were done, the courtroom turned tense when the religious right's preferred argument angle came into play: the children.
Charles Cooper, attorney for the Proposition 8 sponsors, "argued a different view of marriage, telling the judge that it is 'a pro-child social institution.'" According to reports, "Cooper claimed restricting marriage to opposite-sex unions is justified because the basic purpose of marriage is 'to promote naturally procreative sexual activity in a stable and enduring relationship' that will nurture children."
As paraphrased from Prop8TrialTracker, Berkeley resident Paul Katami, one of the plaintiffs in the case (along with his partner Jeffrey Zarrillo, as well as Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier), responded:
Jeff and I are informed voters. We do the reading. We discuss it all. This punch line again of protecting children is absolutely clear. From what are you protecting children? From harm. But what is the harm? That language is indicative of some kind of perpetration against a child. Separates me from the norm. Makes me part of a community that is perpetrating a threat. That’s why we are here (in court).
Stand Up for Proposition 8 (Yes on Prop 8), an anti-gay propaganda film involving a speeding train coming at the viewer, was also mentioned. The Prop 8 ad erroneously presented same-sex marriage as a movement that will harm people or children.