The Prop 8 tweeters have been going strong all day (and the Courage Campaign and FDL are still live-blogging the trial). Margaret Talbot highlights one of the more tortured arguments coming from anti-marriage equality activists:
This afternoon, during the cross-examination of the psychologist Letitia Anne Peplau in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial, the Alliance Defense Fund tweeted, “Witness admits same-sex couples not similarly situated to opposite sex couples, same sex couples cannot have unintended pregnancies.” Now, why, you might ask, does that matter, and why was this an “admission” worth noting for the anti-gay-marriage side?
The reasoning:
In a 2005 case called Morrison v. Sadler, an appellate court in Indiana concluded that same-sex couples with children did not need marriage because they were already so stable—it was so expensive and complicated for them to adopt or conceive a child that they were bound to stay together. “By contrast,” the court observed, “procreation by ‘natural’ reproduction may occur without any thought for the future.” The stork could come calling on heterosexual couples without invitation, and when it did, marriage helped ensure that the surprised progenitors would stay around to raise the children.
Margaret thinks that "the fact that [this line of argument has] come up already in the trial suggests that the lawyers defending Prop. 8 may have the Indiana and New York decisions in mind as promising precedents."
The Dish 