FYI: It’s been reported that once both sides have rested in the Prop 8 trial, the judge will take a "few weeks" off to consider the case, then return for closing arguments, then rule in the case. I’ve yet to find an answer to whether the ruling will be immediate or if there will be another prolonged consideration (as with the CA Supreme Court) before a ruling is issued…
I have to say that while I want to be excited about the ongoing events at the Prop 8 trial in San Francisco, I’m restraining myself. The unbelievable and irrational setbacks for LGBT rights in recent months forces me to not to be too optimistic. Still, given just the developments in court it seems our side is not only winning, but virtually obliterating the opposition.
Another expert witness for the defense in the Prop 8 trial was decimated today by attorneys for the plaintiffs in this case. The AP reports that when Blankenhorn took the stand, he stated that traditional marriage is so weak that allowing same sex marriage could be its "death blow". He then threw out the absurd argument that legal same sex marriage would open the door to polygamy, in an attempt to convey the ultimate danger to children, caused by an even more unstable marriage paradigm.
Plaintiff attorney David Boies was on point when cross examining the witness, who, like all those who spread such fallacies about the dangers of same sex marriage, provided not only no proof to what he was asserting, but also that he’s never bothered to do any research himself. Under further cross examination he even admitted that allowing same sex couples the right to legal marriage would, in fact, benefit children living in those households.
The AP reports…
David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, a private think tank in New York, took the stand as the second and final expert witness for the defense in the federal trial challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Blankenhorn acknowledged that heterosexuals were responsible for rising divorce and out-of-wedlock birth rates, but said allowing gays to marry could accelerate the process and possibly lead to the legalization of polygamy.
"The man-woman customary basis for marriage in turn reinforces limiting marriage to two," he said. "If you knock out one of those pillars, the other becomes less comprehensible and therefore less defensible."
Boies tried to discredit Blankenhorn by getting him to acknowledge that he has conducted no independent research on same-sex marriage and his only advanced degree is in comparative labor history.
"I have not engaged in a scientific study were I find data and write up an article that would be published of that nature," Blankenhorn said. "I have read articles and had conversations with people and tried to be an informed person about it, and that really has been the extent of it."
Under cross-examination, Blankenhorn said he unaware of any studies showing that children raised by gay or lesbian couples since birth fared worse than children brought up by their biological mother and father.
"Do you believe that legalizing same-sex marriage would improve the well-being of children raised by those households?" Boies asked.
"Adopting same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children," Blankenhorn said.
