Witness argues against same-sex marriage as Prop. 8 trial testimony concludes

A prominent opponent of same-sex marriage testified at a federal trial today that he believes the rights of gays and lesbians should take "second place" to the institution of marriage.

"With some anguish," David Blankenhorn testified, "I would choose children's collective needs over the rights of same-sex couples."

Blankenhorn, who founded and heads a think tank devoted to marriage and family issues, was one of two witnesses called by defenders of Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that reinstated a California ban on same-sex marriage.

No more witnesses are expected to testify in the trial that began 2½ weeks ago. The court gave both sides until Feb. 26 to submit briefs pointing to the evidence that buttressed their views, which will be followed by closing arguments at an as yet uncertain date.

Blankenhorn testified that same-sex marriage benefits gay couples and their children, but weakens the institution of marriage. He said he reconciled these "goods in conflict" by embracing domestic partnerships and civil unions for gays.

Under cross-examination today, Blankenhorn testified that he agreed that same-sex marriage might reduce prejudice and hate crimes against homosexuals, lead to higher living standards for same-sex couples and probably reduce the number of gays who marry members of the opposite sex.

Blankenhorn, who is not affiliated with a college or university, sparred frequently with David Boies, one of the nation's top litigators representing two same-sex couples challenging the federal constitutionality of Proposition 8.

Sometimes seething, sometimes aggrieved, Blankenhorn objected to having to answer questions with a simple "yes," " no" or "I don't know." At times the dueling was comic, producing laughter from the courtroom and even from U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who is presiding over the trial.

Blankenhorn identified three principles of marriage, saying it involves opposite-sex people, is limited to two people and includes a sexual relationship.

Boies pointed out that much of the world has practiced polygamy in the past, that some societies practiced homosexual marriage and that some marriages, such as those of prisoners, are never consummated by sexual intercourse.

Blankenhorn, however, insisted that polygamy satisfied the principles of marriage because it involves a man who marries one woman at a time.

Boies asked whether Blankenhorn was testifying that a man with five wives is consistent with his rule that marriage involves two people.

Blankenhorn said yes, adding that the marriages did not occur at the same time, and "each marriage is distinct."

Walker thanked the lawyers at the close of the session for the "fascinating" trial and praised their legal skills and acumen.

-- Maura Dolan at the San Francisco federal courthouse

Comments

[RC Roeder]

I think Mr. Blankenhorn comments are interesting. Not entirely sure the defence is happy right now, but it appears the judge did get a good laugh from him... Maybe we all should follow the lead of the judge and laugh at Mr. Blankenhorn. I am

[Jessi]

the people of california said no... why should a judge make them say yes?

[Verballistic]

Only two witnesses for the defense of a measure like Proposition 8 that was passed by over 52% of California?!?

That does NOT include the witnesses for the defense who decided to WITHDRAW because they were harassed, intimidated and threatened by radical gay activists for being proponents of a measure against gay marriage. That says MUCH about the real value that the gay rights movement puts on free speech, when the speech doesnt happen to support their agenda.

It is NOT surprising that this show trial became a circus in a courtroom packed with gay marriage supporters, held in the North American capitol of radical gay activism (San Francisco) and convened by a biased judge like Vaughn Walker who managed to scare off defense witnesses with his ingenious strategy of having live video telecasts that would give even more exposure to the faces and testimony of Prop 8 proponents who had ALREADY been harassed, threatened and intimidated, before this trial even BEGAN.

It will also NOT be surprising when Walker's pro-gay marriage decision is overturned by a higher court...it may not even make it to the US Supreme Court. Of course, all those who have relied strictly on Maura Dolan's one-sided reporting of the trial will be baffled and puzzled about how these kangaroo court proceedings could possibly be overruled.

[GospelVenice]

According to Judge Walker’s rulings, opponents of Prop 8 could try to show that Proposition 8 passed due to animosity or bigotry toward homosexuals. Or that Prop 8 was adopted because of “improper” religious views. Or that prohibiting gay marriage is akin to racial discrimination, in which case the traditional marriage laws may be presumptively invalid. Can you imagine Biblical views being ruled improper by a judge?

Solution is simple institute same sex marriage. Right a law that same sex marriage would have the same "Secular" "Earthly Governmental rights and privileges as Traditional marriage. So couples can choose a Traditional Marriage or a same sex marriage. It's OK to be transparent about who you are and what your about. Be proud of it. I remember how Christians where shocked that the Traditional marriages automatically became same sex marriages as you could no longer chose husband or wife but both who were of different sex could only chose spouse. Well Christians should be respected and there is a lot of Christophobic people around these days. I would like to remind Christophobic people that Christians do spiritual warfare and do not do warfare or are not supposed to do warfare against flesh and blood but against the principalities and powers of darkness. Romans Chapter 1 the apostle Paul clearly states homosexuality is sin and Christians have the right to preach this and be respected just as much as "gays" have the right to preach their stuff and be respected and loved. Christians are to love those who mistreat them.

To have sex in the first place regardless of whatever is choice. To have a certain kind of sex is a choice also regardless of orientation or whatever. The people have simply voted rationally that what one does in the bedroom is personal choice and should not be discussed in public, in the courts, in the legislatures (unless criminality is involved). To take a sex act or orientation and make it a determining factor regarding anything is insane. Those who are pushing this nonsense should be shown to be intellectually flawed in their thinking. They are not qualified to be in charge of anything and need to be fired. They are irrational and intellectually flawed. The devil takes a lie and wraps it with some truth but deceit can be seen.

Christians are commanded to pray in their closets and peoples sexual practices should also be kept in the closet cause they are offensive to some just like prayers are offensive to some.

The Constitution is the People’s will ratified by the people not the Government’s or Judges will or interpretation. We in California have voted and ratified Proposition 8.
Our obligation to Christ is to pray that he intercede for us and also to boldly proclaim his will not ours. Use the keys the Lord gave us and remember to pray.

[JR]

"asked whether Blankenhorn was testifying that a man with five wives is consistent with his rule that marriage involves two people.

Blankenhorn said yes, adding that the marriages did not occur at the same time, and "each marriage is distinct."

wow, that's some twist of reality, I guess Blankenhorn would feel that a serial killer only kills once because the many murders he does aren't done at the same time.

[Pam Logan]

The notion that Prop 8 might be overturned in part due to the influence of Prop 8 supporters' TV ads that lied to voters - ads that said Prop 8 would allow pedophilic and incestuous marriges - this would be a far reaching and fantastic development. At last, there will be a penalty to pay for misleading voters with deliberate lies. I love it.

[Colin]

this stumbling fool's testimony showed how much this trial is not about marriage at all, but rather one side's refusal to accept homosexuality as an "acceptable", or "normal" condition.
It's nice to finally see those who hold blatant, unwarranted discrimination against gays have to explain themselves in a court of law. Especially while at the mercy of lawyers like Boies and Olsen! Its so much harder for them to get past the legal councils and the judge what they can easily get past their unscrupulous book buyers with small-minded preconceptions.
See ya'll in the Supreme Court soon!
The defense better find better "experts!"

[John De Salvio]

I first posted a comment about this trial more than 2 weeks ago. It referred to a quote from a movie: "You can't handle the truth!"

Since then, I have attempted to post about a half-dozen statements, including one for this conclusion story. None have been put on the Comment blog. Yet I see some people have posted dozens of comments (archangel, for one).

Could you please explain what was wrong with any of my comments?

[Jet Black]

Well homosexuals, don't start celebrating the spoils of war just yet. The defense knows the judge presiding over this case is bias and also know this case will more likely end up in the Supreme Court. Both sides said they will appeal regardless of the outcome. So why bring your best weapon in the first round. I actually think this is a smart strategy by the defense. Lose the battle win the war. The talking points homosexual marriage supporters post on comment boards are the same talking points they used during their campaign to reverse marriage laws across the nation. They lost in every state. Religious and natural laws provide us the common sense to know the true design of marriage, a man and a woman. The fact that there were many types of marriages during human history does'nt mean it was the best situation or the best practice, even during those times. Probably the reason why it didn't sustained itself throughout time reverting back to one man one woman. All societies of the past have failed or weakened severely when the practice of marriage have been compromised or used incorrectly. I don't need stats or a major college degree to know certain behaviors are just wrong. Ignorance or the lack of an higher education have nothing to do with understanding the fundamental practice of an institution passed down through generations since humans set foot on this planet. As a matter of fact, some of the best inventions we use in today's life came from people who could barely read and write. In some minority group(I mean real minorities, not self appointed), mothers and fathers successfully raised children and build wonderfully strong communities during some of the most oppressive times with very little education. Problems within the community became more prominant when fathers were sucessfully separated from the family. I know this personally. In closing, I will not allow intimidation to cause me to remove GOD or common sense from the equation concerning homosexual "marriage". Homsexual "marriage" is just plain wrong and it will not sustain itself or the society that allow its practice over time, just like past attempts. The fight is far from over.

[Mott]

Homosexuals who use the argument about interracial mariage law ban are not stating the fact that the ban was against a MAN and a WOMAN of different race marrying. What does this have to do with same sex marriage ban? Nothing. Totally apples and oranges comparison. Though the skin color is different between the two, the design itself remained intact in support of futhering the human species. Put a female of a different race with a male on an island, best case senerio, you still can go there 50 years from now and see an Island full of beautiful little offsprings running about. As nature intented. So it is stupid to compare this with same sex "marriage".

[Colin]

To: verballistic:
1. those were prop 8's "2 expert witnesses". Do you think you would have fared better? Do you think your stance against same-sex marriage could be unwavering under oath and not be exposed as a position weak on facts and precedent? Your witnesses have spent 2o years (by one's own account) researching the "institution" of marriage, and even they couldn't explain their conclusions with reasonable facts or precedent. Do you think it's prudent at all to call to the stand everybody that voted yes on 8? For the record, as the opening statements in this trial pointed out, concepts such as "equal protection under the law," and the end of injustices like the "Black Codes" were all accomplished through judicial channels - not majority vote. In case you missed the point of our system being what it is - it boils down to this: A majority vote does not necessitate truth.
2. A) Don't pretend like anti-gay proponents are the victims. Do you really want to get into a challenge to see which side has suffered more at the hands of intolerance? I didn't think so. B) Gay rights activists don't care what you have to "say" about homosexuality. They care about what you "do" about it. Govt sponsorship of discrimination (prop 8) suggests that it is okay to mistreat gay people, but once that sponsorship has ended, and gay people are equal in the eyes of the law, the truth about same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general (which is that it is not harmful to society) will be unaffected by what you "say" about them.
3. Not surprisingly, you've ASSUMED something about the broadcast that is not true: Judge Walker approved the video broadcast. So did the appeals court. It was the Supreme Court that prohibited it. On whose appeal? The prop 8 side.
See, discrimination and bigotry look really bad on camera. Also, so does your "expert witnesses" revealing that they've relied upon no significant, or substantial research to base their "opinions." The prop 8 defense hides behind the safety of the "we're gonna be persecuted by the gays if they see our faces" argument. Funny how that is exactly why gays have had so much trouble "coming out" or defending themselves in public.
4. Once the Supreme Court rules that prop 8 and each measure like it is unconstitutional - then what? Secession? Civil War? Armageddon? Sounds like the reaction of the south after the govt emancipated the slaves. That should give you an idea about what your "opinions" resemble.

[Colin]

To Mott -
I think you're choosing to misinterpret the purpose of the analogy to miscegenistic marriages.
1. The relation is that the restriction there was based on superficial grounds. Color of skin, as with the genders of the individuals involved, are not valid criteria by which to assume the couples are incapable of having a healthy marriage.
2. The arguments against the two are identical, in that, opponents warned about the inevitable "destruction of the family." They also readily spoke for God, in that, it violated His laws - using the Bible as their authority. Both arguments had no more truth to them then as they do now.
3. Since we're on the topic of "what does one have to do with the other," maybe you can explain your reasoning about "furthering the human species?"
Where is that a requirement of marriage?
Really, why do people trying to "protect marriage" keep stepping in the same traps over and over and over again?

[Colin]

To Jet Black:
1. >"All societies of the past have failed or weakened severely when the practice of marriage have been compromised or used incorrectly." Your Quote.

Really? Would you be willing to take the stand with that quote?
Because the Prop 8 experts did and they left without credibility nor a leg to stand on.
Claiming that "gay marriage is just plain wrong", as you put it, is not a good enough reason to deny equal recognition of rights. Secondly, what exactly is being forced onto you? What are you being "intimidated by?" I don't recall anybody needing your approval of, or participation in, gay marriage. Your life changes not one bit by allowing people to experience their own happiness.

[JA]

@ Jessi, who asked, "the people of california said no... why should a judge make them say yes?"

Because we have this thing called the Constitution which is the ultimate standard of what is legal and what is not. If the majority pass a ballot initiate that is contrary to the Constitution, it is the job, and purpose of the supreme court to overturn it.
On the federal level, the first 10 amendments to the constitution are known as the "bill of rights", designed to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny (and ignorance) of the majority.

The whims of the majority change constantly. The Constitution does not.
As much as the right wing likes to crow about the "will of the people", the will of the people is not the ultimate authority, the constitution is.

[Ross E. Tallent]

Let's also remember than in Deuteronomy a woman could be stoned to death if her husband said she wasn't a virgin.

To Jessi...America is a democratic republic, not a pure democracy. That means that when laws are unjust, they can be appealed in a court of law to determine which side prevails based on evidence given. Both sides are justified in trying to prove their side. Both sides have the right to appeal if the decision doesn't go their way.

Just remember "What's right is not always popular. And what is popular is not always right."

Taking away the rights of a minority due to either religious dogma or plain discrimination is never justified. We have separation of church and state in this country because we have freedom of religion. Sounds a bit paradoxical, but it is true. One groups religion should have no bearing on how the rest of the people's lives are lived.

And again to the people who say that God created Adam and Eve...they had two sons...no daughters to speak of... So how did the grandchildren happen? Oh yeah... Cain killed his brother and then married his mother. (Sounds a bit like Oedipus from Greek mythology with the exception of who was killed before the marriage happened.) So, apparently fratricide is okay. and incest is even better.

Old gods die hard. Long live equality.

[Verballistic]

Judge Walker's courtroom circus seems to have provided some good laughs for the heavily stacked pro-gay marriage audience that you would expect to find in San Francisco, but they are not likely to have much to laugh about when Walker's expected pro-gay marriage ruling is overturned by a higher court.

It may not even make it to the U.S. Supreme Court...even the normally liberal 9th Circuit Court may well overturn Walker's heavily biased ruling on the Proposition 8 case.

[John B.]

Polygamy is profoundly different from same-sex marriage because there are serious legal issues of next-of-kin, inheritance, right to make financial or medical decisions, etc. that would be impossible to sort out with more than one legal spouse. It’s unfortunate this point wasn’t made when Blankenhorn asserted that polygamous marriages are actually a set of opposite-sex two-person marriages (that all happen to involve the same man…). Simply put, if the man with two or more wives dies or is disabled or hospitalized, which of his wives has the legal right to make which decisions? These issues simply do not arise with same-sex marriage, which in a purely legal sense is indistinguishable from opposite-sex marriage. Both are more similar to each other than either is to polygamous marriage. Virtually every state and federal law already on the books that pertains to “traditional” opposite-sex marriage (many of which actually have to do with the dissolution of the marriage by death or divorce) and virtually every court case precedent can be seamlessly applied to same-sex marriages. This is not the case with polygamous marriages, which would require an extensive re-writing of marriage law and many, many court cases to establish new precedent.

[Mott]

John B, what have you been smoking? Laws on the books have to be rewrritten to included homosexual 'marriage' because it was once illegal for two people of the same gender to marry. So why are you coming up with excuses to deny polygamy marriage? You're starting to sound like those bigoted hateful Christians trying to deny homosexual 'marriage'. Don't worry about the laws having to be rewritten, I'm sure it will be just as easy to rewrite them for polygamy as it is being rewriiten for homosexual marriage. Like societies of the past, fallen when they tried to redefine marriage, we will too, at some point in our history, pay a heavy price for breaking nature's law(non-Christian view) and God's Law(Christian view). My personal guess is that the USA will be made an example so future societies will know not to cross the line when it comes to marriage outside the scope of one man one woman. Heterosexuals are to blame as well for damaging this institution. This is the reason why full corruption wants to take over, put the final stake in it's heart, and kill this institution completely.

[Colin]

Mott:
John B's post was pretty clear. So, "what are you smoking" that causes you to keep clouding the issue?
Here's how easy it is to "rewrite" the law to include same-sex marriages in the eyes of the state: Substitute all instances of "one man and one woman only" with the words, "two consenting adult citizens of the USA." Bam. Done.
Not so easy with polygamy for all of the reasons (and probably more), in the legal sense, that John B stated. *See above post. Can you see why polygamy presents more legal challenges and basic problems in accommodating a good social order?
Quit pretending this is something more complicated than it is!
Again, besides your reliance on far reaching speculation and superstition (religious establishments which may not be the basis for law making), can you think of one practical reason, that doesn't also rely on false stereotypes and myths about homosexuality, to support the blatant discrimination of gays in prop 8?
Last, how can America be made an example here? As usual, when it comes to progressive social policy, we are in the wake of virtually every other industrialized nation in the world. There's no evidence to suggest that any of the nations which recognize same-sex marriage are falling apart at the seams. Quite the opposite, these places are considered to be very happy, healthy and robust socially.

[Mott]

Colin, You're sounding like a hateful narrow minded bigot in favor of denying the rights of those who wish to express their love via marriage with more than "two consenting adults". Existing policies isn't a problem. It can be "rewritten" to allow a marriage to accommodate consenting "parties". Besides, do you work for the times? You seem to have all the answers for anyone posting their opinion against homosexual "marriage". In case you haven't figured it out yet, you are not changing any minds here. Relax youself. Just people posting their hard fixed point of view.

[Cindi Lafontaine]

God set the standards for marriage since Adam and Eve. Its Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Gods laws are forever and ever and no law of man can conflict with thew law of the eternal God.

[beckie wallace]

Mr. Blankenhorn is incorrect when he states that Polygamy marries one man and one woman at a time therefore in keeping with the guidelines of traditional marriage. When a Polygamist marries his second wife, the two wives are also married together making a marriage of three parties, husband and two sister wives. This continues as each wife is brought into the marriage. At each marriage, the wives are also married AT THE SAME TIME to the husband.
Polygamy borders on same sex marriage if you think about it...

[THarris]

Why have a judge decide when the people voted? Simple: Because the people voted doesn't mean the action is always correct. That's why the courts exist as a check. You should be happy that this case is going to the courts as I don't think the pro-Prop 8'ers really got a mandate.
Marriage simply is not a religious issue. It is a legal issue. I appreciate those who want to point to the bible but in 6 years of watching this foolishness I haven't seen one justifiable reason to write marriage laws around religion. Of course if you'd like to write the bible into the marriage laws lets write in all the rules, not pick and choose.

[David]

the people of california said no... why should a judge make them say yes?

Posted by: Jessi | January 27, 2010 at 04:24 PM

Couldn't agree with you more! Bravo!!