Testimony in the federal court trial over California’s Proposition 8 ended Wednesday in San Francisco with an advocate of male-female marriage maintaining that the rights of gays and lesbians must give way to society’s interest in promoting traditional families.
Sponsors of the 2008 constitutional amendment called David Blankenhorn, founder of the Institute for American Values, to make the case that allowing gay and lesbian weddings would weaken marriage – a potentially decisive issue in the clash over the ballot measure’s constitutionality.
In two days of testimony, Blankenhorn predicted fewer heterosexual marriages and more divorces and one-parent households if marital rights are extended to homosexuals.
But a lawyer for gay and lesbian couples challenging Prop. 8 confronted Blankenhorn with his declaration in a 2007 book, “The Future of Marriage,” that “we would be more American” if same-sex marriage were legalized. Blankenhorn sought to reconcile his statements Wednesday, saying gay and lesbian couples and their children would benefit but marriage as a whole would suffer.
Although same-sex partners deserve “equal dignity,” Blankenhorn said, their interests conflict with every child’s right to have a mother and father.
In cross-examination by plaintiffs’ lawyer David Boies, Blankenhorn said leading scholars supported his conclusions, but gave few examples. He also defended his assertion that marriage is universally defined as being between one man and one woman, despite acknowledging that some cultures allow polygamy.
Even in polygamous marriages, Blankenhorn said, “each marriage is a separate marriage of one man and one woman.”
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco heard 12 days of testimony in the nation’s first federal trial of a ban on same-sex marriage. He said he would schedule closing arguments after final written submissions from both sides, due in 30 days. – Source - San Francisco Chronicle
The point missed by this summary is that when the defenders of Prop 8 are asked about their research and their sources of others’ research, their arguments turn into cotton candy. One “expert” said the source of his information about homosexuality was the Internet and, in particular, articles published on a religious conservative site.
It becomes so obvious that they don’t want gays to marry and so they have woven together various elements of different studies in order to create a “scientific” foundation on which to base their prejudice. Reading the transcripts of this very important and under-reported trial leaves this person shaking his head and wondering how we became Alice’s Wonderland. For example, Blankenhorn only has a Master’s Degree and it isn’t even in the area of family, marriage or therapy. Yet, he’s testifying as an expert on all three!
These are the people who are successfully keeping us from attaining full protection under the law. And I can only imagine what will happen when this finally reaches the Supreme Court with those 5 conservative, corporate judges.
Comment by Barry Simon — January 28th, 2010 @ 10:53 am