The head of a think tank on marriage and family testified at the Proposition 8 federal trial Tuesday that same-sex marriage would weaken marriage and possibly lead to fewer heterosexual marriages, more divorces and “more public consideration of polygamy.”
But under cross-examination, David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, acknowledged that he wrote in a book in 2007 that the U.S. would be “more American on the day we permit same-sex marriage than we were on the day before.”
Blankenhorn was called as an expert witness by lawyers defending Proposition 8 against a constitutional challenge by two same-sex couples. He is an author and researcher who is not associated with any university. He earned a master’s degree in history in England, where he studied the history of labor unions.
Blankenhorn testified that he later worked as a community activist in low-income neighborhoods in Massachusetts and Virginia, where he became interested in the effect of fatherless families on children.
What does this have to do with the issue of constitutionality of Prop 8?
I have been wondering who chose the witnesses for trial, and on what basis? Most of the testimony I have heard about deals with personal situations and personal opinions. I have not heard anything about rigorously applied analysis and logic to examine the constitutional amendment.
I fear that this is an exercise of propaganda and manipulation that will result in allowing same-sex “marriages” in CA – and the rest of the country. And our culture will have taken another, giant step down the path to moral anarchy and dissolution.
I agree with Rome’s view 100%.
#1 Courts use different standards to decide which side should win. The most famous is probably in criminal law where someone has to be shown to be guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The easiest standard to meet in constitutional law is the “reasonable basis” test: is there a reasonable basis for the law in question? So the defense needs to show, at a minimum, that there is some purpose to the ban on gay marriage and so they are giving evidence that allowing gay marriage would hurt (heterosexual) marriage and this is the reasonable basis for the law.
There are tougher standards (less deferential to the state) the court could use and it is a debated topic in constitutional law what standard should be used for laws affecting gays. The reasonable basis test is the most deferential standard a court could use and the easiest for the state to meet.