Then it was time for the Prop 8 supporters' second and final witness, David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values. One of the arguments used for Prop 8 is that same-sex marriage would undermine traditional heterosexual marriage and that one of the primary reason for getting hitched is procreation, in other words, producing children. Prop 8 opponents, of course, argue that lots of folks get married without having kids, necessarily, and that having children is not a requirement of marriage. The defense contends that procreation is one argument that the gay marriage ban has a legitimate purpose and is not discriminatory.
Once again, attorney Boies objected that Blankenhorn has a master's degree in labor history and has never taught on marriage-related issues, that he is not an expert on the subject (as most of the plaintiff's witnesses had bona fide degrees and publications). His objection was overruled and Blankenhorn was allowed to speak.
Prop 8 defense attorney Charles Cooper got things rolling by asking Blankenhorn, "What is marriage?" Blankenhorn replied, "A socially approved sexual relationship between a man and a woman."
"And what does marriage do?" Cooper continued. Blankenhorn: "The most important thing it does is regulate affiliation. It establishes who are the child's legal and social parents." He went on to assert that reproduction is a "primary purpose" of marriage. Cooper asked if this belief is the result of "anti-homosexual prejudice." Blankenhorn was adamant. "No, I have looked for it and I can't find it." More than once Blankenhorn made the point that the institution of marriage is already being diluted by heterosexuals with divorce and children being born out of wedlock. He said that he believes that same-sex unions would further weaken marriage and lead to other forms of marriage, including polygamy. "Putting children with their biological parents is marriage's purpose in society," he said. He also said that even in polygamous marriages that "each marriage is a separate marriage of one man and one woman."
But upon cross-examination, Prop 8 opponent Boies brought forth some of Blankenhorn's own writing in which he stated that "we would be more American on the day we permit same-sex marriage than the day before." Huh?!?!? The witness just contradicted himself! Boies also got Blankenhorn to state that he knows of no studies that show harm to children raised by homosexual couples.
WEDNESDAY JAN 27
The last day of testimony in the Prop 8 trial in San Francisco started out with defense witness David Blankenhorn telling the court that "it would be better for gay people to be married because it would lead to stability, commitment, and lessening of promiscuity."
Once again, the witness seems to be contradicting himself. This is the best that the defense can do? To be fair, they had scheduled several other witnesses, but they failed to show up, fearing opprobrium and reprisal if they testified against gay marriage in public.
Blankenhorn did manage to state his three rules for the structure of marriage, however:
- It's between two people.
- It's between a man and a woman.
- It's a sexual relationship.
Boies had the court laughing when he told Blankenhorn, "I don't want to fall into the trap of making sex boring!" Blankenhorn shot back, "Maybe together we can do that." At this point, everyone was cracking up, after two tense days in court.
Then Boies sharpened his knives and went on the attack once more, going after Blankenhorn's claim that marriage is a "sexual relationship between a man and a woman." "Are you aware of marriages where the couples do not have sex?" he thundered. "Where sex is not the basis for marriage?"
Blankenhorn said that if such marriages exist, "I would consider it grounds for divorce." He conceded that it was possible that there might be an example of a husband and wife who "were not interested in sex, but I have never met one."
With that exchange the evidence portion of the trial came to a close. Judge Walker will now go into chambers to consider all the evidence and testimony he has heard for these past three weeks, and it looks like he will issue his decision sometime in March, probably after a few more questions for both sides. Walker said he would schedule closing arguments after final written submissions from both the plaintiffs and the defense within the next 30 days.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
