One of the commercials from the Prop 8 campaign has been shown to several witnesses. It is instructive to see their responses.
For those of you from outside CA, this was the commercial that showed that parents from MA were upset by what their second grader was being taught about homosexuality without their permission. On the first day, there was this report of the response to this ad from one of the plaintiffs. This report comes from the Oakland Tribune, on-line edition.
Plaintiff Paul Katami ….grew visibly upset when asked about the Proposition 8 campaign and its reliance on the slogan, “Protect our Children.” He called the campaign insulting. “If you put my nieces and nephews on the stand right now, I’d be the cool uncle,” he said, chuckling.
Then, growing serious, he continued by choking up at the thought that gay marriage would harm children. “There is no recovering from that,” he testified.
Lawyer David Boies played some of the campaign videos that focused on harm to children by the Yes on Proposition 8 backers. How did you feel seeing that video? Boies asked.
“I’d be lying if I didn’t say my heart was racing and I was angry watching it,” Katami said after the video ended…. (Note from JRM: I don’t know what video they are talking about here. Based on this report from Andy Pugno, I presume it was the video that is described in the next segment, but I’m not sure.)
In the afternoon session… Brian Raum, lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, … started by playing a video from the Proposition 8 campaign featuring a Massachusetts heterosexual couple decrying how their second-grader was exposed to teachings about homosexuality at school. Raum is asking Katami about whether he believes it is acceptable for sexuality and homosexuality to be taught to first- and second-graders; Katami is taking a measured approach, pointing out that without children, it is hard to fully evaluate what is appropriate to teach young children about such issues at certain ages.
That seems like a sensible answer to me: he doesn’t know what would be appropriate, at what age. Here is Andy Pugno’s report of the same encounter:
You’ll remember that the campaign had informed voters that legally recognizing same-sex marriage would interfere with the rights of parents to raise their own children according to their own beliefs. The witness actually admitted that he believes parents should have the primary responsibility for instilling moral values in children, but still couldn’t see that reasonable voters would feel the need to “protect our children” from laws that infringe on those parental rights.
Contrast that with the views of Professor George Chauncey of Yale University, today’s expert witness. This report comes from Andy Pugno:
After viewing a video featuring a husband and wife in Massachusetts who objected to the subject of gay marriage being forced upon their second grade son without their permission, Chauncey said he believed the teaching about homosexual marriage was, in fact, an appropriate subject for young children to be taught, even if it is over the objection of their parents.
OK, look. I don’t care which of these guys you agree with. My point is only this: at what age kids should learn about homosexuality is a reasonable question, about which reasonable people can disagree. Shouldn’t the parents be the ones to decide? And even if you don’t believe that, why in the world would you think the courts, or any agents of the state should decide?
This is what we thought this case was about. The plaintiffs still don’t seem to understand that. This may be why they keep losing elections. they don’t take the arguments of their opponents seriously.