The federal trial challenging Prop 8 in California continues in San Francisco. Karen Ocamb, who is sitting in, reports fewer people are in the courtroom today and the plaintiffs (the pro-gay side) have more attorneys on deck:

Prof. Nancy Cott is back on the stand and while her testimony on the history of marriage is very interesting, she goes on and on so that even Judge Walker intervened and said plaintiff’s questioner Boutrous had to get a question in there some time.

One of the most interesting points Cott raised so far is that our Founding Fathers knew that George Washington was sterile and that figured into the deliberations to make him President so he couldn’t establish a dynasty like the one against which they just rebelled.

Boutrous also asked the professor about whether same sex marriage would effect divorce rates. She said:

My only comment is from observing my own state of Massachusetts where there has been same-sex marriage for five years. Massachusetts has lowest divorce rate in country. Since five years ago, divorce rate has fluctuated slightly, but if anything is lower.

Rick Jacobs is blogging for Prop 8 Trial Tracker. These are his thoughts on the morning:

We’ve moved into the meat of the trial now. The emotion is largely over. The plaintiff is trying to prove that marriage has evolved, that it’s about the state’s recognition of a committed, loving relationship. They did a good job this morning showing the arc of marriage, the changes in the way society perceives the man-woman relationship and therefore the changes in marriage itself. WE forget how recently women had no rights at all in this country. I was sort of shocked when Prof. Cott kept saying that only since the 1970s did women have the same rights in marriage as men. It’s only been thirty years and I’m guessing a lot of women who might be reading this would affirm that we have a long way still to go. So even though the Supreme Court ruled that women are not chattel in marriage, society still has biases about the role of women. I say this because it’s important for us all to remember that even when we do get full marriage equality, we’ll still have decades of work to change the way people think and that will only happen through compelling story telling such as that of the two plaintiff couples yesterday.

But back to the point. Our side is showing that marriage evolves with society. Their side is doing everything possible to show that marriage is really about mother and child. And they want to show that there is a “radical homosexual agenda” designed to undermine the fabric of this nation through overthrow of institutions such as marriage. That’s the whole ball of wax here:

1. Marriage between a man and a woman is the only way to “protect” kids;
2. The gays want to overthrow America, so be afraid, be very afraid.

More blow-by-blow coverage continues here, here, here, and here.