Liveblogging Day 11: Part IV
January 26, 2010
By Rick Jacobs
[Looks like we won’t finish today. If the judge is indeed going out of town tomorrow, this will likely get held over until Monday. We’ll see.]
Dr. David Blankenhorn (DB) is sworn in.
Charles Cooper (CC) is examining him.
DB: Harvard in 1977 with degree in social studies. 1979 degree of history at University of Warwick. MA with distinction. John Knox fellowship as undergraduate study abroad at University of Warwick. Then spent two years in VISTA program, as community organizer in Boston and then continue my work as community organizer in Massachusetts and Virginia.
Our job as organizers was to advocate for reforms they thought were important. For me, seeing the weakened state of communities and families in those communities, particularly of children without fathers, motivated me.
In 1987, started Institute for American Values. Non-partisan think-tank focused on marriage and childhood well-being. I’m president.
Commission research, hold conferences. Our signature product is report to the nation where scholars work intensively for a period of time and then jointly release findings and recommendations. Main subjects, fatherhood, marriage, family structure, family well-being. In past years added other areas, but these are primary.
Annual report called state of our unions, which is report on the state of marriage. And then working on third periodic report on marriage.
Work with fifteen scholars to come up with principal social science findings on marriage. Have done two; now working on third.
Personally involved as principal writer or investigator or working with scholars to identify them and then with them in non-leadership role as they develop their conclusions.
CC: Have you authored any books?
DB: I authored a book called Fatherless America, a book about consequences of 35% of children living apart from their fathers. Then 2007, Future of Marriage that looks at marriage and how we might strengthen it in future.
CC: Describe research re: Fatherless America?
DB: Interviews with fathers in six different cities around the country and used transcripts. Looked at literature. Then held scholarly gatherings at which papers were commissioned and presented. Strengthened my work.
DB: Fair to say that book was widely and generally well reviewed: LAT, Washington Post, NYT, Newsweek, and CBS Evening News. Led to lots of public speaking at civic and community groups.
CC: Dr. Michael Lamb has testified in this case. Did he review your book?
DB: He disagreed about some of its findings, but gave it a respectful review.
CC: Demonstrative Number 1 which is among the things that Mr. Lamb said.
DB: This is among the nicer things he said.
Boise: Your honor, we have seen this before.
Judge Walker: It does ring a bell.
Thompson (T): Yes, it is in evidence.
CC: Witness’s book is in evidence, defense exhibit 103.
CC: Future of Marriage book, now.
DB: Talks about consequences and how society might strengthen the institution.
CC: Describe how you authored this.
DB: Spent concentrated time to learn literature about marriage as a cross-cultural institution. Spent time with scholars. Consulted my own accumulated body, having read, written and spoken about the issue over the past twenty years.
CC: Well reviewed?
DB: Not as widely reviewed as other, but got me invited to public speaking. I argued that we should not have same sex marriage. Got me invited to discussions with proponents of same sex marriage.
(Bad static)
CC: Prof. Dale Carpenter, Univ of Minn., probably best book yet written opposing same sex marriage.”
Francis Fukuyama says “enormously deepens the current debate on same sex marriage as a public institution designed to promote and foster procreation and the raising of children, an understanding not based on religious conviction but on observation of how our species has evolved over time.”
CC: Admit book into evidence.
CC: Other books?
DB: Black Fathers in Contemporary Society, 2003
The book of Marriage Equality USA Promises to keep: Decline and Renewal of Marriage in America (1996)
Rebuilding the Nest: A New Commitment to the American Family (1990)
50 references to my work in peer-reviewed articles and a number of reviews in academic journals (7 reviews).
Cited five times in Court Cases including by CA Supremes and Mass Supreme Judicial Court, both with respect to same sex marriage.
DB: Served on advisory panel for Bush I chaired by Ashcroft. Then served on panel that helped Gore do family conferences in Nashville while he was VP.
DB: I have delivered lectures quite often over the years on marriage, fatherhood, and family structure.
CC: Have you been invited to participate in debates or panel discussion on ss marriage?
DB: Have had opportunity to meet with leading proponents of same sex marriage, such as Evan Wolfson, Andrew Sullivan, Jonathon Rausch. We call them “conversations” now.
DB: Testified before congress.
CC: Tender Blankenhorn as expert on fatherhood, marriage and family structure.
Judge Walker: Voir Dire?
Boies: You got a master’s degree and that degree was in history?
DB: Comparative labor history.
Boies: Thesis?
DB: Comparative labor. Study of two cabinet maker unions that was peer-reviewed.
Boies: What is peer-reviewed?
DB: Competent persons who decide whether it should be published?
Boies: Other than on cabinet makers, have you ever had a peer-reviewed publication?
DB: Black Fathers co-published, was peer-reviewed.
Boies: Any others?
B: No. Except that at our own institution we have peer-review because we hold the process in such high regard.
Boies: Are you saying that there are more publications than two?
DB: I thought you were bracketing our organization. We’re looking at two publications only.
Boies: Those two peer-reviewed had nothing to do with same sex marriage?
DB: They did not.
Boies: You have never taught course at college or univ on marriage, fatherhood, family structure?
DB: Correct.
Boies: Do you understand that fields of anthropology, psychology, and psychiatry are important for this subject?
DB: No. You can go through list because I have told you what my degrees are.
Boies: Have you taught at college…
DB: any college or university has never employed me ever.
Boies: In the three cases in which you testified, were they about same sex marriage?
DB: No.
Boise: In preparation for your testimony did you do scientific study of ss marriage?
DB: Not for this preparation for this testimony.
Boies: I’m sure you’d like to answer questions that I’m not asking, but your counsel will allow you to do that. Your question is sliding over my words. Did your research include studying the effects of same sex marriage in any of the countries where same sex marriage is permitted?
DB: I don’t think I’m able to answer those questions if yes or no.
Boies: Answer my question, sir. Do you understand my question?
DB: No.
Boise: You are aware that there are jurisdictions that have permitted same sex marriage?
DB: I am so aware.
Boise: Have you attempted to study effects of same sex marriage in any of these jurisdictions?
DB: Yes, but I want to explain my definition of study.
Boies: I’d like to explore this in an orderly way. Which countries?
DB: Tried to pay some attention to effects of same sex marriage in Scandinavia and Massachusetts. But I have not conducted scientific study with data. I have talked to people and read about it. I did not come up with expert findings on those subjects.
Boies: Your honor, I object.
Judge Walker: Within the context of marriage, family structure and fatherhood?
Boies: Same sex marriage, which is context of this case.
CC: If you will let him testify you’ll see.
Judge Walker: I understand. I may let him do that. But do you have any other case?
CC: No.
Judge Walker: Recites Supreme and Appellate courts definitions of expert. Different for hard sciences that social sciences. If this were a jury trial, it might be a close call as to whether or not he may testify, but it’s a bench trial. As Mr. C said, I can weigh the testimony in the context of Mr. B’s level of expertise.
DB: Socially approved sexual relationship between a man and a woman. From broad consensus finding from scholars, including anthropologists, who have sought to expiate this in the modern era.
Marriage regulates legal relationship with children.
[UPDATE] 2:02
Boies objects to leading the witness. Judge says rather than just reading words and having him agree or disagree, ask him a question.
B: Claude Levi Strauss has said that across society, we have interest, in so far as we can make it so, the union of the man and woman who created child are also social and legal parents. Only one institution that brings together social, biological and legal. We think of it as the gift we give to children. You as a child are being given this gift of being able to know and known by the two people who brought you into the world.
This word “affiliation” –with whom child is affiliated—is cross-cultural reason for institution of marriage. Wonderful finding is that, as scholars who have looked it, gives child biological, social and legal parenthood. Fixes that because it’s so important for children. Marriage has evolved and changed over the years and across culture, but it’s for the children.
Marriage can look very different in different places and time. Always doing this thing, east, west, north and south, always doing this thing. For 1,000 years. It’s not just one thing among many. Because of its universality in piece of diversity, good evidence is that marriage addresses this thing.
This thing is need for child to be known by these two people. To make it as likely as possible that parents are social and biological.
[UPDATE] 2:22
DB: Reads quotes from books by people he says are scholars. They are admitted into evidence. These are from what he drew his expert opinion.
DB: Book from Dr. Kingsley Davis, eminent psychologist, who writes about marriage. “Granted that the unique trait of what is commonly called marriage is social approval. Approval of what? Intercourse between a man and a woman that produces offspring.”
DB: From 1951 book in Great Britain by what is widely accepted as most respected anthropologists in world. Field guide. These are concepts that are used by anthropologists in field. The family in this sense is based on marriage. Defined by union such that children are product of such offspring.
DB: Probably the most famous definition of marriage in history.
DB: Book called Human Family Systems by Pierre Vandenberg, 1979, anthropologist.
[They like old books.]
DB: (reads) “Here I shall argue that while all this is true, marriage is the socially sanctioned pair bond for the avowed social purpose of procreation.”
DB: Sex Culture and Myth published in 1962 by Malinowski. Widely and fairly viewed as father of kinship studies in anthropology.
We are thus led at all stages of our argument that the institution of marriage is dependence of children on parents.
I made a pretty close study of Malinowski because of his importance in the field.
DB: 1985 book View from Afar by Claude Levi Strauss , “one of the giants of the field” The family … of two individuals who have children relied on by every society.
CC: You relied on this (and all others above?)
DB: Yes.
CC: Are these the only studies you relied on?
DB: No. I’m not saying that everyone agrees with them, but I view these as representative of what people in the field say marriage is. Could multiply by ten and still get same message.
DB: My conclusion is that this is the correct view of society, that this is what marriage is.
CC: Is there an opposing view?
DB: Yes there is. There is a well-developed and relatively newer view that marriage is not this, that marriage is fundamentally a private, adult commitment.
DB: Reads from a report: Beyond Conjugality published by distinguished Canadian legal professionals in 2001 to make recommendations of marriage and family in Canada.
CC: Was this for same sex marriage?
DB: Not only, but one point it addresses.
CC: Turn to page Roman XVIII.
[UPDATE] 2:36
[This guy is really, really earnest. He reminds me of one of those southern ministers. He does not come off as an intellectual, which is useful for them. He’s the face of what they want out there. He’s smooth and likeable. He uses big words and term and then quickly defines them for all of the world. He’s what they have. And he’s not a Harvard professor or a slick lawyer. That’s what this is all about for them. They want this part of the PR machine out there. They want to say, ‘you know (wink), our whole lives we have all known that marriage is all about kids. This new gay thing is fine for them, but it’s just not marriage.’
This is our real challenge: we have to tell the stories that show that gay people are normal, that love is to be consecrated and celebrated, that kids are frequently NOT part of a biological family and often it’s better if they are not.
DB: “Marriage is sometimes referred to as an institution, but that’s an odd application of the term. The Department of Defense is an institution. But a marriage is a private arrangement for parties in love.”
Reads from Prof. Charles Estrich, the case for same sex marriage. “In today’s society the importance of marriage is relational and not procreational.” Has debated him before.
CC: Are there other sources that you relied on that show marriage as adult-centric?
DB: Yes sir. There are many, many others like this that are out there.
CC: Do you believe it is accurate?
DB: No sir, I do not believe it is accurate. I believe that the relationship between adults is a dimension but I do not believe that in the history of societies this has been the heart and core, that the thing itself can be encapsulated in this idea that marriage is a private affective commitment between two adults.
DB: The affected dimension of marriage in many societies is negligible. Many where most are arranged or governed by kin groups. Many societies in which affective dimension is not true. In our society, it’s one that is important and one we celebrate on Valentine’s day and so forth. That is not all marriage is.
What these analysts are saying is incorrect as a matter of our history and lives. That assertion they made as a question of what may happen in the future is one thing, but not accurate view of today’s society.
CC: What role does religion play in marriage?
DB: We know now that this concept is a universal or nearly universal in society. This is not something religion invented. It does not depend on rationale for religion. Evolution of marriage is natural. It concerns itself with natural not supernatural forces. Exists in mono and polytheism. Simply erroneous to imagine that this institution is an artifact of religion. Not controversial among scholars.
CC: You don’t disagree that marriage is sacred to many religions.
DB: Not at all. Religion is important to many and marriage is important. They believe that marriage is a promise to God or higher power, not just spouse. Marriage occurs in synagogue, church or mosque. Sometimes religious officials are agent of state in legally performing marriage. Many people draw from religion the inspiration to the calling of the marriage vocation. Interconnection or strong influence of religion on this dimension of life. Might call marriage in many societies a religiously informed institution. The thing itself, I’m trying to be very clear, this is not derived from religious doctrine. It’s not derived from anything supernatural. It derives from our bodies and does not conjure supernatural.
DB: I do not believe that anti same sex marriage is a symptom of homophobia. Homophobia is present in our society and many others around the world. I regret and deplore it and wish it to go away. I have sought to look at the evolution of marriage in societies as I have sought to understand how marriage became universal in its reach and impact and how those custodians of the institution have sought to state the reasons, goals of institutions, what the thing was trying to do and why it matters so much. I am not able to find any evidence that animus toward gay and lesbian people or hatefulness of homosexual persons is why they justified their participation in the marital institutions. I am not saying that no such evidence exists. If such evidence exists, I want to know it. I’m telling you I have looked for it and I cannot find it.
[UPDATE] 2:56
DB: Big speech about how it’s absolutely much better to have child with natural mother and father. Scholars are extremely emphatic that optimal outcome for children, whether it be living in poverty, abuse, neglect, –across the range of outcome measures, this family form of a two parent biological couple in a stable marriage is best outcome for child.
DB: Summary in the form of a research brief of research carried out by three scholars from Child Trends, non-partisan research center in DC, was published in I believe 2002. Called Marriage from a Child’s Perspective.
Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children and that family structure that is best for children is bio mother and father in low-conflict marriage. Parental divorce linked to range of negative outcomes. Not good in single, cohabiting or extended family homes. Marriage is good for children.
I relied on these also in my research.
DB: Reads article excerpt by Sarah McLanahan. Children who grow up in household are worse off with one bio parent than with both regardless of whether married when child born, they have remarried, etc.
CC: Does customary definition benefit only the child?
DB: Certainly benefits child, but benefits mother, father, society. Mother because it means it’s less likely to raise on own. Father because it attaches to child. For society because seed bed for good citizens. Human capital question. Highest investment we can make is to give children the gift of growing up in family forum. Does not guarantee success, but has been very well documented by scholars as the best bet.
[By talking about the scholars, we are constantly reminded that he is not one.]
CC: Deinstitutionalization of marriage?
DB: First paper I ever wrote at institute. Institution is relatively stable pattern of rules and structures intended to meet basic social (communal) needs. Deinstitutionalization means it becomes more brittle. When you take away its rules and you weaken its structures, scholars say you see deinstitutionalization. You can see this with a baseball team or museum. People become less loyal to it. It loses esteem and thus is less capable of carrying out its role in society. This concept is key to study for any institution, but most importantly for scholars to look at with respect to marriage. There has been marked process of deinstitutionalization of marriage. Need to come to its aid.
CC: You just testified that institution of marriage has already been weakened. What are manifestations?
DB: Look out of wedlock childbirth, five decades ago to now , rate is 38% vs. what we had in 1960. Increase in divorce suggests a reduction in value of marriage. Assistive repro technology that disturbs bio bond and last but not least the the the spread of the idea and reality of same sex marriage in the view of, I think, leading scholars, is another aspect of manifestation of this trend of deinstitutionalization.
Heterosexuals did the deinstitutionalizing. (He laughs sort of). Did not just come up a few years ago when we started discussing ss marriage. Scholars are telling us that process of weakening will be accelerated significantly by same sex marriage.
[This is oxymoronic. He seems to be saying that the more people who want to marry, the better, but not if they are gay?]
DB: I believe same sex marriage will culminate the process of deinstitutionalization of marriage. If you change definition of marriage that has been child centered public institution to adult centered private institution—private ordering among couples. That’s a culminating trend toward the erasure (sic) of marriage as we know it.
[NOTE] There is a new thread up.
Entry Filed under: Liveblogging. Tags: Charles Cooper, David Blankenhorn, David Boies, Judge Walker.
320 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
missdk | January 26, 2010 at 2:10 pm
So much talk about biological parents. What about adopted kids? I have two adopted siblings and my parents are a heterosexual couple. What about step children? My best friend’s father is in jail and her step father raised her. Are these relationships less? Isn’t the most important thing, the reason we encourage marriage, that it creates a strong foundation for families?
2.
Sean | January 26, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Well said.
3.
Proper Biology Brngs Results | January 26, 2010 at 2:14 pm
OF course biology matters with the proper upbringing of hetero couples. I mean for pete sake, hetero couples produced some of the finest examples every of properly adjusted children. Let me see, Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Ghangis Khan, uhmm……. and to more localized California hetero born children – Charles Manson
4.
Andrea | January 26, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Biological parents are always the best possible people to raise children. That’s why Child Protective Services and the Foster Care system do not exist.
(This is snark, for the negation-challenged)
5.
Bill | January 26, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Loved it!
6.
Dave T | January 26, 2010 at 2:19 pm
The problem with the defense in this case is that they only want to argue half way: they want to claim that same sex couples are bad for kids, but the arguments they’re using also imply that single parents are bad for kids, adoption is bad for kids, and (as we saw early on in the trial) fathers are bad for kids.
The intellectual dishonesty of the defendants is appalling.
Like you, I have adopted siblings & I’m feeling a little insulted by these claims.
7.
MKrumm | January 26, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Right on, Dave!
8.
missdk | January 26, 2010 at 2:39 pm
I wish they would mention that 70% of families in the US are NOT traditional. Kids are raised by extended family members, adopted parents, foster parents, step parents, single parents, divorced parents, and GAY parents.
9.
Lymis | January 26, 2010 at 2:49 pm
More than that, they claim by extension that childless marriages are bad for kids.
10.
Andrew | January 26, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Legally, it may not matter.
Absent strict scrutiny, all the defense has to show is that there is a (one) legitimate reason to promote different sex marriage over same sex marriage. They do *not* have to show that the law is the best way to do that, or the most consistant. All they have to show is that it is towards reasonable aim.
So the fact that non-traditional but still heterosexual marriage isn’t as good as biological procreative marriage is legally irrelevant. All they must show is that this “traditional” definition of marriage is superior to same sex marriage somehow.
In other words, “Yeah, single parenthood, adoption, and infertility suck, but we haven’t chosen to do anything about those. That doesn’t mean we can’t deal with gays.”
11.
Desert Verdin 1 of 18,000 second-class married couples | January 26, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Menendez brothers.
Ted “Unabomber” Kaczynski.
Howzabout Timothy McVeigh: “born into an Irish Catholic family in Lockport, New York to William McVeigh and Mildred Noreen “Mickey” (née Hill).[3] His parents divorced when he was 10 years old and he was raised by his father in Pendleton, New York.”
12.
John | January 26, 2010 at 2:23 pm
*GASP* This totally proves it!
13.
Jennifer | January 26, 2010 at 2:54 pm
or Andrea Yates who drowned her kids….but she was married, God love her!
14.
Marlene Bomer | January 26, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Yeah, Jennifer… but remember — she was marries to a righteous Christian man who lived up to the ultimate in the traditions of the faith — he forced his wife to have as many kids as possible, and kept her away from everyone, and forced her to home school them while he was allowed out to socialize to his heart’s content!
What could have been better for the “Christian” man in his element?
15.
waxr | January 26, 2010 at 3:31 pm
He has an idealistic view of marriage, but it’s not everybody’s ideal. Does he object if a hetero couple who does not want to have children get married? Does he object if a hetero couple who cannot have children get married? Does he object if a hetero couple who cannot have children adopt children?
Why does he object if a same sex couple gets married, and adopt children if hetero couples are allowed to adopt children?
His argument is weak.
16.
Sean | January 26, 2010 at 2:13 pm
And here we are again, with an “expert” who has not studied any actual cases of same sex marriage or its effects. Is this really the best the defense can offer? This man may be more prepared than Miller, but that doesn’t mean he knows what he’s talking about.
17.
Lesbians Love Bois | January 26, 2010 at 2:16 pm
If a person HAS actually studied SS marriage, they probably side with us. Perhaps this is the key problem for the defense.
18.
Glenn I | January 26, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Ah, but he is smooth and supremely confident. Those are serious qualifications!
19.
Kimeron | January 26, 2010 at 3:08 pm
THANK YOU!!!
I grew up in the South, raised by fundamentalist parents who constantly used the equivalent of “because I said so” as a rationale. Major religious institutions continue to try to pull this crap on us daily!!
I can’t WAIT for Boise to cross-examine this jerk.
20.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Except that Blankenhorn is WRONG when he says that anthropologists maintain that marriage is always between a man and woman. http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/marriage.htm
There were a number of scholarly papers that went into their decision to release that statement. In fact, the American Anthropological Association filed an amicus brief when Bush II was trying to amend the US constitution in 2004: http://www.aaanet.org/pdf/ma_092807.pdf
21.
slignot | January 26, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Thank you for the timely correction to Blankenhorn, Fiona.
I’m quite certain Judge Walker is erring on the side of admitting questionable defense evidence to prevent any question of bias, but this presentation by the defense has been pitiable.
Love,
April
22.
bjh | January 26, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Right up at the beginning of the post: If Blankenhorn is a doctor of some kind, I can’t find a reference to it, even on his “American Values” bio page…
23.
Steve | January 26, 2010 at 2:53 pm
He does not hold a doctorate. His highest degree is a masters. And, that masters is in a different field, entirely.
24.
Steffi | January 26, 2010 at 3:20 pm
oh
my
god
that would make me a qualified “expert” in this case too!
(ok in about a years time when I got my master’s degree)
having a master’s degree in some remotely related field and having read a lot more that he did on the subject…
Maybe I volunteer as expert if this goes to the supreme court…
only our side can come up with some better experts…
25.
Judy | January 26, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Am I reading this right? The witness is saying that they review themselves, because that’s just like peer-reviewing because they think it’s important?
You know what, I think I did an awesome job today, so I’m giving myself a 100% on my employee review. Where’s my raise?
Great group of “scholars” they found!
Love,
Judy
26.
rf | January 26, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Judy,
I agree, you’re 100% perfect!
love
anonymous blogger peer reviewer
27.
Gery | January 26, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Sounds like conflict of interest… if that’s the proper term.
28.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Yep, you read it right. Sort of like a lot of diploma mills claim they are accredited, but you then research the accreditation and find out it’s an arm of the diploma mill company.
Peer review doesn’t mean “my buddy agreed with me”; it means that reputable scientists examined the data, determined that it was sound due to replication of results, etc. Not just a big ol’ high-five from the guy at the next desk.
29.
michael | January 26, 2010 at 2:52 pm
This is like someone getting pulled over for DUI and telling the cop that your buddy’s in the car all agree that you are not drunk so therefore the cop is wrong and asking him to hold your beer while you take a piss.
30.
Marlene Bomer | January 26, 2010 at 4:56 pm
At least there’s the “perception” of peer-review with this guy.
NARTH and their ilk *refuse* peer-review because they *know* their “evidence” would be laughed out of the room!
31.
hearsay | January 26, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Ah, goody. Another ‘expert’ for Boise to chew up and spit out.
32.
John | January 26, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Wait, did he just admit that he hasn’t actually studied same-sex marriage? They’re making this too easy. To be honest, it actually worries me. How could people who were able to get a majority vote for blatant discrimination be unable to make a better case than this? I realize they don’t have much to work with, but it’s like they’re not even trying any more.
33.
Ugh. | January 26, 2010 at 2:17 pm
They believe ‘god’ is on their side and they can’t loose against the ‘devil’
34.
michael | January 26, 2010 at 2:53 pm
I agree the 3rd witness for the defense in this case is the Bible.
35.
Darth | January 26, 2010 at 2:26 pm
“Ugh.” has it right – the case they made to the people is a blatantly religious one, and therefore it won’t stand up in court. So they have to fall back on the handwavy “protect the children” line that doesn’t have any serious academic support behind it.
36.
butchfaginnola | January 26, 2010 at 3:04 pm
actually they are playing the game for SCOTUS, not Judge Walker.
I’d bet a dollar to a million that one of their claims to SCOTUS will be judicial bias based on Walkers overturning their attempts to improperly place into evidence passages and whole books not properly placed.
Their second claim will come that Walker tainted the trial and scared off valuable witnesses with the video thing.
These will lead to a third claim that strict scrutiny should not apply because the malignant judge terrorized their witnesses and opened them to vile harassment from the politically powerful, violent homo’s. vis-a-via the strong judicial support from activist judges rulings that are biased against them doing gods work.
The sad part is the that last 3 decisions from SCOTUS show a scary trend. namely the video decision based on fraudulent claims, the review of Ref 71 Washington st. public records being released, and the decision on Corporate privacy rights.
The one aspect not widely talked about yet, re: Corporate Speech, is that now Maggie the MOUTH and NOM can now create shell corps that can donate directly without providing funding sources. All they will need is incorporation paperwork.
Add this to their attempts in Mass, NJ, Maine, and Wash St. to block the release of their required campaign reporting and the claim that bigoted voters have a right to keep their bigotry secret and you see the trend.
pay attention folks , this could get very nazi like very quickly…
With those three
37.
Prup (aka Jim Benton) | January 26, 2010 at 5:00 pm
You are, I think, confusing the concept of ‘reversible error’ — which might come up in the Appelate level. The losers may make a case like this — though it is much more frequent in state than in federal cases on the first level. But there is almost no similar claim in a SCOTUS case. I think that if the appeals court does not rule on some error by the judge — and again, not often on a L&O type one, such a claim would not be brought in SCOTUS.
Rather the argument would be not one of a biased judge, simply one who misread the Constitution, or misapplied it or previous Supreme Court decisions. Or, as not infrequently happens, one side asks that what seems to be a ‘controlling precedent’ for this type of case can be ‘distinguished’ from the specific facts in this case, or that the Supreme Court simply changes irs mind — classic example, Brown v Board which asked that SCOTUS overrule Plessy or Lawrence v Texas which overruled Bowers v Hardwick.
But four mmbers have to vote to take the case and state that they feel it represents an important Constitutional principle — or a procedural violation like the televising of this case. (In that case the decision was — teechnically — the right one, though the dissenters argued that the case was important enough the technical violation should be overlooked — and if Souter were still there it would have been a 6-3 decision.) Not even Scalia would vote to take a case based on a ‘wicked biased judge’ argument.
38.
butchfaginnola | January 26, 2010 at 5:40 pm
@Prup (aka Jim Benton)
first apologies for the positioning of this response but for some reason Firefox does not present a reply button to your reply under this Word Press Theme. go figure.
I am not addressing reversible error, I am addressing the arguments they will make against strict scrutiny.
Strict Scrutiny has to be applied for SCOTUS to rule for Perry and against the Prop 8 bigots. (okay I won’t write that in blood, but without strict scrutiny a claim of animus is moot, and without animus this will not fly under the 14th or 15th).
During arguments they will vie for what level of scrutiny will apply and while they will not use the somewhat plain language I show here the results will be the same and predicated on those reasons (or similar enough not to matter to the lay person).
SCOTUS alone will decide if this will be viewed as a 1st, 14th, or 15th amendment case and the amicus briefs submitted will all be geared to shaping this as a 1st amendment issue for the haters.
While animus is the only strong attribute we need to be recognize they only need to convince the court that this is a Freedom of Religion issue. No matter what they say at trial, if they convince 5 justices that if is an F.o.R. case we are sunk for an unknown amount of time.
F.o.R. mitigates animus (not excusing it just mitigates it) and as such holds a higher valuation since F.o.R. is one of the primary claims made about the founding of the U.S. (lets not argue the truth of that vis-a via the founding, we all know that is the claim).
The religionists cling to their over whelming claim that their religion allows discrimination against those who they consider enemies of their truth. They jealously cling to traditional federal and state laws that allow them to do so and declaim as activist any judge who does not allow them to discriminate freely.
The SCOTUS trial will be quite a show if you think about it, and the haters have tried to keep distant from the religious claim at the appellate level.
I believe they do this knowing that SCOTUS (or at least 4 judges) will be all over viewing this as 1st Amendment and R.o.F. without them having to expose their arguments at trial.
The haters know that if they claimed that religions were cohesive and unified in their bigotry they would prove the animus that the plaintiffs claim.
Couple that with the knowledge that 4 of the justices are automatically assumed to be against lgbt rights and will try to prevent a narrow decision based on animus.
As for the court needing 4 members to take it like the video issue. I was disappointed in Kennedy for not ruling on his own. I feel there had to be some pressure from within the court itself. Kennedy could have ruled the same way, on his own or he could have accepted that the bigots were trying to hide their bigotry. Instead he punted to the full court.
copy my post above and when this gets to SCOTUS see if they don’t make those claims and if they don’t try and force this into being a 1st amendment issue on F.o.R.
39.
Steffi | January 26, 2010 at 3:23 pm
maybe they are aiming at the higher courts and just want us to believe we are on the save side and won’t prepare properly for higher court trial???
40.
butchfaginnola | January 26, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Steffi, you may have an interesting aspect in that thought.
considering the tendency for Democrats to “rest on their laurels” it is conceivable they do think that is what will happen.
Where they miss the mark are the attorneys we have, who are NOT the type to pat themselves on the back and try to coast through.
41.
Devon | January 26, 2010 at 2:17 pm
What type of experts ARE these then?
I don’t see how his expertise can remotely qualify him to testify against SSM.
42.
Keegan | January 26, 2010 at 2:33 pm
He isn’t qualified at all, but he “believes” he is qualified. It is essentially psuedo intellectualism at its absolute worst. The whole process works as such:
-He is of relatively average intelligence, perhaps lower.
-He is annoyed and upset by actual intellects, because he wants to feel better than everyone else.
-It is important to note that intellects do not “feel better” than everyone else, they are intelligent enough to recognize intellect isn’t everything to being a human.
-He created a psuedo intellectual persona to pretend he’s smart.
-He gathered “scholars” and “hangs” with them, so he can feel smart.
-He created a fake think tank, to create “intellectual stuff” to get him on TV and make him feel smart.
-He’s most likely hammered in on “tha gayz” because it makes him feel important to “fight” against all the “wrong” intellectuals.
So, he’s not an expert, he’s just an average joe plumber who imagines himself to be a Leonardo Da Vinci (‘cept, not gay).
43.
pepper | January 26, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Keegan, sounds like youre describing a narcissistic person(a) (Blankenhorn). Might be the case indeed.
44.
Steven | January 26, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Blankenwhater…(I just saw that he’s up)
OH…this should be really, REALLY ugly.
Get ready to hear lots of lies and vomit about us.
45.
Ruth | January 26, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Here we go again with the “goal of marriage is propagation” argument. Which, if continued logically, means nobody past childbearing age should be allowed to marry.
46.
Lesbians Love Bois | January 26, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Which means nothing. Heterosexual couples will not suddenly stop having children just because John and John got married.
47.
Ruth | January 26, 2010 at 3:13 pm
But can you imagine straight couples being told they’re not allowed to marry because they either don’t want or can’t biologically have children?
48.
Lymis | January 26, 2010 at 2:51 pm
And that throughout history, widows and widowers have never married. After all, marriage is only about the biological parents raising the kids.
49.
Ronnie | January 26, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Did I hear a few more I don’t know’s?
Boies Crushes Part 2!
“GOOD GOD MAN!”
and did I hear “Black Fathers” geeze racists much?
50.
Gary A | January 26, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Marriage regulates legal relationship with children
well duh, that means my children as well
51.
Lesbians Love Bois | January 26, 2010 at 2:22 pm
absolutely Gary!
52.
NVLawMan | January 26, 2010 at 2:21 pm
I think I am going to try and pull a Blankenhorn and convince my PhD committee that I am fully competent to review my own dissertation along with some of my friends and then make a final recommendation on whether or not I should be granted my PhD…… It’s totally justifiable!
53.
jamie d | January 26, 2010 at 2:23 pm
maybe that’s why he only has a masters…
54.
Steffi | January 26, 2010 at 3:30 pm
I’m still not over that fact……
mean seriously…. a MASTER??
I mean master degrees are good but I’d never consider myself an expert with only a master’s degree when there are doctors and Professors around……….
I’m speechless
totally cracking….
…
.. .
55.
Desert Verdin 1 of 18,000 second-class married couples | January 26, 2010 at 2:23 pm
I am going to Blankenhorn the NV Bar examiners for a “pass.”
Oughta work!
56.
Dave T | January 26, 2010 at 2:37 pm
I like it!
(thanks to Desert Verdin for the example)
57.
Desert Verdin 1 of 18,000 second-class married couples | January 26, 2010 at 2:49 pm
*squee*
58.
NVLawMan | January 26, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Ha ha ha. Probably wouldn’t be that hard to do in this state!
59.
Kim | January 26, 2010 at 2:21 pm
He, having this ‘expert’ admitted is perfect, because they can chew on him for hours. That will be fun.
60.
Pam | January 26, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Um… so he is NOT an expert? This is what they brought? An idiot and a non-expert? Wow!
61.
Ugh. | January 26, 2010 at 2:22 pm
He’s a Harvard Grad. Of course that qualifies him to testify to everything.
62.
michael | January 26, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Yes an expert on cabinet makers. AKA Carpenters Aka Jesus….
63.
Ronnie | January 26, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Home Depot Workers? or IKEA?
64.
JonInSF | January 26, 2010 at 3:47 pm
The irony is that, as a “Harvard grad,” the DIs are making an implicit argument from authority, in portraying Blankenhorn As one of those “ivory tower intellectuals” that they loathe so much.”
That being said, this is the witness to be concered about. He’s a Believer. He’s masked it in pseudoscientific garbage, he’s possibly even convinced himself it’s not homopathy*, but he is a Believer. And when belief in an ideal trumps respect for the rule of law….
* – I think that it may be about time to recognize that homophobia, the fear of homosexuals, has given way in many of these people to outright homopathy, or outright anger and eliminationism towards homosexuals.
65.
Ed-M | January 27, 2010 at 5:28 pm
@JohnInSF:
Exactly. They are angry at us for giving lie to their “truth” by our lives, and want to eliminate us. Globally.
66.
Mykelb | January 26, 2010 at 3:01 pm
If he is not an expert and testifies that he is, isn’t that perjory?
67.
Scott J Bouza | January 26, 2010 at 2:22 pm
They will claim their “real experts” were intimidated because these proceedings are going to be televised. Oh wait, they are not going to be. Hummmm…I wonder how they are going to spin their loss here?
No doubt they will raise millions for the appeals. In an already struggling economy the religious groups will beg for more money. They will get it from the already cash strapped families. These people would rather demonize us and make children and families give their last dollar to help them do it. How is that protecting families or children?
68.
John | January 26, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Not turning gay (because that’s how it works) is more important than food. Didn’t you hear?
69.
l8r_g8r | January 26, 2010 at 3:01 pm
At least their kids will go to heaven because they weren’t gay when they starved to death.
70.
Steffi | January 26, 2010 at 3:32 pm
l8r_g8r: and what about those kids of them that were gay while starving? …
71.
jamie d | January 26, 2010 at 2:27 pm
How will they spin their loss? Easy. Activist judge. I mean, he didn’t even allow their supposed expert, right? …Oh, …wait….
72.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Scott B. wrote: These people would rather demonize us and make children and families give their last dollar to help them do it. How is that protecting families or children?
One of the earliest articles about this matter concerned an LDS family in the Sacramento area. When their Stake President contact them about their “donation” to Prop 8 (we all know that these “donations” were coerced and that there were quotas, etc. I posted the links in earlier threads), they handed over the $50K that they had put aside for their childrens’ college education.
I commented on the newspaper story that I sincerely hoped that one of their six kids was gay, because then mommy and daddy could explained how they used the college money in an attempt to mortgage a future in which that child was less equal than others.
It really is disturbing, but you are correct. LDS and many other churches preach what I call the “prosperity heresy.’” Basically, it means that if you are wealthy it’s because God loves you and if you’re less well off, then, well … you can draw your own conclusion. Of course, if you tithe (or more than that), you will become wealthy because God will reward you for paying into the church.
The only people who become wealthy via the prosperity heresy are the people at the top … just like any other Ponzi scheme. :-(
73.
hearsay | January 26, 2010 at 2:22 pm
If he’s going to argue that having a father (male) in the home is necessary to raise a child proerly, that might be bad for the lesbians but isn’t that doubly good for gays?
74.
Pam | January 26, 2010 at 2:25 pm
hahaha!!! True! But what about all the single mom’s out there? Damn them to hell!
75.
Gery | January 26, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Some of us are single fathers.
76.
Lymis | January 26, 2010 at 2:54 pm
One of their other experts explained that two women can’t raise healthy kids because the kids will grow up not knowing how to change the oil.
First, HUH?
Second, proof the clown never met any significant number of lesbians.
77.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Um, my very hetero, former fashion model best gal-pal from high school not only changes her own oil but also changed her brakes (pads, rotors and all).
Did I mention that homophobia is based in rigid gender role stereotypes and misogyny? Only about a zillion times.
As if only a man knows how to change oil.
(For the record, this is why I have an excellent local garage; my mechanical abilities were once described by an instructor as “fascinating to watch.” Not my personal forte at all, but not for lack of trying.)
78.
Frijondi | January 26, 2010 at 3:02 pm
They also believe that mothers do not have the necessary moral authority to instill a sense of right and wrong in their children, especially their sons.
It’s offensive as hell.
79.
Bill | January 26, 2010 at 3:18 pm
I would venture a guess that a lesbian couple might raise the type of kid that would grow up and be educated enough to be able to pay Lexus to change her oil.
Jeez.
80.
Marlene Bomer | January 26, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Frijondi — Tell that to the three-year-old boy who was beaten to death by his father, because he was afraid his wife was turning his son into a “sissy” and was beating on his boy to “toughen him up”!
81.
Steffi | January 26, 2010 at 3:37 pm
well since earlier they argued that fathers i.e. males in general are bad for children they wanna twist it into you need both!
well I agree that it is good to know both bio parents and have a good relationship whenever possible but this still doesn’t oppose being raised by ss-parents.
you can still know both bio-parents if possible at all…
82.
pepper | January 26, 2010 at 4:28 pm
There have been several studies, one in the UK recently that lesbians are better parents than straights. It raised a lot of debate online (Im not living in UK but visited some English newssites to see reactions) and many straights were pissed off about it , but ofcourse more so as many people wanna maintain hetero’s by defintition are the best parents. The reactions were eye-opening really. People didnt care about the good news for lesbians (and their children), but cared about their own pain, and jealousy I assume.
83.
Steffi | January 26, 2010 at 4:42 pm
as far as I understood most studies reported no difference between children raised by straights or gay/lesbians.
of course one has to look what outcomes were meassured and whether the sample collection was totally unbiased.
there’s a lot of things to consider like selection bias etc. it’s like our whitnesses testified all over the first two weeks.
do you have the link to this study? could you sent it to me? tiffyk-at-gmx-dot-de
84.
pepper | January 26, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Steffi, to make it easier instead of me emailing you, and for others to look into as well, Google ‘Lesbians make better parents’, you will find many online articles and reactions to it. The study and differences found, were statistically significant. Besides this in general, some advantages/differences have been found for kids of ss-couples, to name a few, the kids are often raised with less stereotypical education &work choices, and more socially accepting of other people. Another one is because the ss-parents have to go through so much before they can have kids (adopt/AI etc), the kids are more wanted, and better raised. I dont wanna offend straight people, but I am stating scientific findings.
85.
DM | January 26, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Is it typical for atty’s to voir dire opposing counsel’s experts? or is this unusual that we’ve had fairly lengthy (as seems to me) qualifications of both of the defense’s witnesses here. didn’t they just agree that ours were experts?
86.
jamie d | January 26, 2010 at 2:24 pm
that’s because ours *were* experts and challenging their credentials would only have further established them as such.
87.
elmo | January 26, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Typical only when the expert’s qualifications are pretty weak. You voir dire a guy who knows his stuff, and he will eat you alive, without ketchup. You will start off in a deep hole, looking like you don’t know what you’re talking about and the expert just pwned you.
In this instance, the real “tell” comes when the judge goes back to the DI’s lawyer and asks, essentially, “Is that all you got?” When the judge offers to let you lay a better foundation, instead of immediately ruling that the foundation has been laid, that’s a significant hint that the judge is not satisfied with the expert’s credentials. Judge Walker won’t keep him out, because it’s a bench trial, but he won’t be assigning much weight to this guy’s opinion.
88.
Ray Harwick | January 26, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Walker: Governed by opinion testimony and the cases the SCOTUS has laid down to govern such testimony. RElevant to the social sciences, the SCOTUS and Court of Appeal goes to whether the standards of intellectual rigor, whether the tesstimony is under the expert’s special skills versus and intelligent layperson, and whther the court can be assisted. With repsect to Mr Blankenhorn’s qualifications, in a jury trial it might be close thing. But since this is a bench trial, I will weigh his evidence myself. Therefore you mauy proceed. OBJECTION OVERRULED
Whew!!!! In short, Blankenhorn hasn’t even STUDIED gays and lesbians and the judge thinks his testimony wouldn’t even get into a jury trial, right?
89.
Steve | January 26, 2010 at 2:57 pm
If Walker were to exclude any expert witness proposed by the defense, that _could_ be an error, and it _could_ be an issue at appeal. Allowing the witness avoids any such possible error.
I expect that Mr. Boies will shred this witness just as thoroughly as the previous one. And, in the end, this testimony will help the plaintiffs.
90.
Josh | January 26, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Alright maybe this is a ridiculous thing to bring up… but I still don’t understand the whole arguement that “Marriage is an institution for the furthering of the species”. Why, if marriage is only for this purpose, are elderly straight couple allowed to marry? Why are couple who are found to not be biologically capable of having children allowed to remain married? Marriage has a factor involved in the raising of children, granted. But there are thousands of straight couple who either choose to never have children or are unable to. This witness should be disqualified alone for the basis of childhood not being an issue involved in the legal right for rights. If the defense wants to use procreation as an argument, shouldn’t they have to show some passage in legal doctrine that states marriage is for the purpose of bearing children? if its not part of the legal wording of marriage the evidence is inadmissable.
91.
MKrumm | January 26, 2010 at 2:30 pm
It’s not ridiculous, but it has been said a lot.
You’re right, and I also gotta say: What, like keeping gays from marrying will just divert them into heterosexual marriages instead, thus perpetuating the species? I’m pretty sure SSM won’t make the birth rate decrease.
92.
Andrew | January 26, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Bisexuals exist. If they’re in same sex marriages, they aren’t doing the whole “two biological parents procreating” thing.
If they’re instead ‘gently’ pushed away from a same sex relationship and into a heterosexual marriage… well there you go.
93.
Frijondi | January 26, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Perhaps the most asinine argument against gay marriage I’ve heard is from a certain young neo-conservative who has hitched her wagon to Maggie Gallagher’s star. She has suggested that men need to be able to do things that women can’t, and marrying a woman is just about the last thing on that list. And if women can marry women, marrying women won’t be manly anymore, and men won’t bother. They’ll stay at home watching hockey, only emerging from their caves late at night in search of poontang.
94.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Frijondi, I am suddenly reminded of Newt Gingrich’s comments about why women shouldn’t be in combat (although they most assuredly are). http://home.att.net/~howingtons/gop/newt.html
Quote:
“If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for thirty days because they get infections and they don’t have upper body strength. I mean, some do, but they’re relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets, you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn’t matter, you know. These things are very real. On the other hand, if combat means being on an Aegis-class cruiser managing the computer controls for twelve
ships and their rockets, a female may be again dramatically better than a male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a chair all the time because males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes.”
For the record, I have never known a single, solitary man, gay, straight or trans, who felt the urge to hunt a giraffe. :-)
Love,
Fiona
95.
Gery | January 26, 2010 at 2:31 pm
And all those children born OUT of wedlock. Then there are those in foster care, and adoption agencies.
96.
Steffi | January 26, 2010 at 3:41 pm
yeah… as we argued somewhere in the first of second trial week, allowing ss-couples to marry will decrease the number of children born out of Wedlock (per def.)
97.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 2:32 pm
The thing is (and I speak as an anthro major), Blankenhorn is way off base on his kinship studies. Marriage is nothing if not an elastic institution. Blankenhorn is completely ignoring matrifocal societies, just for a start.
98.
Lisa | January 26, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Of course the argument doesn’t hold up, but that doesn’t keep the idiots from using it again and again and again and again. Until people think it’s true.
99.
Frijondi | January 26, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Right now, it’s in the species’ direct material interest to encourage non-reproducing couples of any gender configuration. We have enough people.
100.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 3:17 pm
What this so-called expert fails to take into account is the importance of inclusive fitness. What this really means is non-reproducing people helping to care for (educate, medicate, etc) offspring. This is actually part of the biological and evolutionary aspect of homosexuality, according to some actual scholars (you know, the ones who have *other* people peer review their work). http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/Test%20of%20homosexual%20hypothesis.pdf
101.
MKrumm | January 26, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Lame question (but I feel brave because I know I’m not the only one who is just now finally becoming interested in the judicial process):
Judges explain their decisions, right? If this goes our way, will we get some intellectual satisfaction? Or is it like med school, where you get in or get rejected, but either way, no one tells you why?
102.
DonG | January 26, 2010 at 2:36 pm
No, Judge Walker will write an extensive (probably over 100 pages, perhaps as many as 150 pages) to explain his conclusions.
103.
Glenn I | January 26, 2010 at 3:00 pm
There will be a long written opinion. You can read lots of written opinions online these days.
For instance, you can read the 2008 California Supreme Court decision recognizing the right of same sex couples to marry: here
And you can read Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court decision that threw out a Colorado voter approved initiative that banned gays & lesbians from the political process, here
104.
Marlene Bomer | January 26, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Which Justice Kennedy wrote, btw! I’m hopeful he’ll be on our side in this.
105.
MKrumm | January 26, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Thank you both!
106.
Buddha Buck | January 26, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Judges don’t have to explain their reasoning for making decisions, and probably in many cases don’t. Judge Walker is rarely explaining why he overrules objections or admits bits of evidence. There’s rarely a controversy as to why he made the decision, so he doesn’t explain himself.
But after a judge makes a ruling, the parties to the case have an opportunity to challenge the ruling by appealing to a higher court — in this case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — which will review why the judge made the decision he or she did.
Most judges don’t like to be overruled in appeal, and most judges don’t like to have their reasoning second-guessed, so when they rule on an issue that is likely to be appealed, they will usually issue a written statement of their findings or judicial opinion explaining what they found in court and their reasoning for their decision.
In this case, Judge Walker knows that the case is likely to be appealed regardless of his decision, so he will likely be very thorough in his written opinion such that his reasoning has the best chance of standing up to appeal.
At appeal, cases which are heard on their merits will usually get a written opinion for the same reasons as above, but also to provide guidance to the subordinate courts which are bound by the decision. It isn’t sufficient to state that the losing side was wrong, it’s important to explain why they were wrong — or why the winning side was right.
107.
Lesbians Love Bois | January 26, 2010 at 2:27 pm
DB: “My conclusion is that this is the correct view of society, that this is what marriage is.”
And they say we want to force our views on them. pttooeey
108.
Ronnie | January 26, 2010 at 2:41 pm
exactly I’m a member of society and I don’t view marriage as man and a woman or that its about procreation since thanks to surrogate and the lot gay people can have biological children as well…..
OH SNAP DEBUNKED!
109.
Michael B | January 26, 2010 at 4:47 pm
He may think it is the correct view, but is it the only correct view? Is there room for one more?
110.
Desert Verdin 1 of 18,000 second-class married couples | January 26, 2010 at 2:28 pm
I guess two corollaries to “marriage is for teh Baybeez” is (1) no one who plans not to have children shall be permitted to marry and (2) no one without children can remain married.
Do I have that correct?
111.
Linda | January 26, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Yes….I mean, no…uh…I’m not sure…..I’m confused….uh….what???
112.
Desert Verdin 1 of 18,000 second-class married couples | January 26, 2010 at 2:33 pm
I don’t know!
113.
Sean | January 26, 2010 at 2:34 pm
I don’t recall!!!1!!one!!
114.
Tom B. | January 26, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Brought to you by “How to be a Prop 8 Witness”, Book 1! Only $19.95! Good God, man! Buy it now!
115.
Bry | January 26, 2010 at 3:49 pm
For the low low price of putting a silver bullet into the activist judge and pledging your immortal soul to Maggie Gallagher, we’ll also include How To Win Cases By Cheating… including lovely passages about sending psychos into courtrooms to interrupt the proceedings… I’M SORRY did we say “psychos” we meant Money Trees……… Meat……..Allies…….Yes, Allies….
I dunno, think it’s in too bad of taste?
116.
Richard | January 26, 2010 at 2:28 pm
” I view these as representative of what people in the field say marriage is.”
Books from 1951, 1962, 1979, and 1985? These are representative of what people in the field say marriage is in 2010?? WHERE DO THEY GET THESE GUYS?
117.
Liz | January 26, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Yeah, all I could think when I read that was: I’d love to know what those books from 1951 and 1962 said about INTERRACIAL marriage. I thought it was pretty commonly agreed that our opinions on marriage THEN don’t really represent our opinions on marriage NOW. Although I’m not a recognized “expert” on marriage and family, so what do I know?
118.
Sean | January 26, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Judging by the defense’s current definition of the word “expert,” I would say you are more than qualified!
119.
Steffi | January 26, 2010 at 3:46 pm
did you read some internet articles on the subject? offered your opinion once or twice to anybody? maybe (but not essential) read the one or other book or article about the subject?
yes?
then I hereby declare you an expert on the subject in line with the precedence of the perry vs. Schwarzenegger Trial….
120.
DM | January 26, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Awesome. When are they going to cite “Nanook of the North” as evidence?
121.
Desert Verdin 1 of 18,000 second-class married couples | January 26, 2010 at 2:30 pm
B: There are many dimensions, it evolves, it changes over time, but it always is organized, everywhere to achieve this goal: to give the child, to unite the biological social and legal dimensions of sexual reproduction for the child. That is what marriage is and does.
So THAT’s why Julius Caesar adopted Octavian (Augustus Caesar) via his last will and testament!
122.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Yep, his nephew … whilst leaving out his own son (by Cleopatra Ptolemy), Caesarian. Yeah, it’s all about that whole primogeniture thing, world-wide, world without end, amen.
Except when it isn’t.
Love,
Fiona
123.
Ronnie | January 26, 2010 at 2:31 pm
B: Book called Human Family Systems by Pierre Vandenberg, 1979, anthropologist.
(They like old books.)
B: (reads) “Here I shall argue that while all this is true, marriage is the socially sanctioned pair bond for the avowed social purpose of procreation.”
Then by this reasoning any heterosexual who cannot biological reproduce or has gone through menopause should not be legally allowed to marry if marriage is in fact about procreation!
Oh SNAP DEBUNKED!
124.
Andrew | January 26, 2010 at 3:12 pm
“Exactly right, it shouldn’t be allowed, but it’s tricky to prohibit.”
Whoops, there went the DEBUNKED.
125.
Darrell | January 26, 2010 at 2:31 pm
I think its funny that they only have 2 witnessess called to the stand while we had like 17……
There 2 witnessess make our case look good i think… I hope they bite a hole into this guy.
126.
Lymis | January 26, 2010 at 2:57 pm
We didn’t have 17. We just used their leftovers. They only LOOKED like they were our witnesses.
127.
DonG | January 26, 2010 at 2:32 pm
This guy claims to be a doctor. Can anyone find out where he got his doctoral degree from and what field of study it was. He did his undergraduate work at Harvard, and got a Master’s degree from some unknown school in Massachusetts. However, I have not been able to find out where, when, and in what field he got his doctoral degree. Thanks for any help on this.
128.
Ugh. | January 26, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Does Cracker Jacks count as a degree program?
129.
Michael | January 26, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Must have, in 1977.
Jeebus.
130.
Lesbians Love Bois | January 26, 2010 at 2:37 pm
I do not see where he claims to be a doctor. Can you point me in the right direction? thanks
131.
DonG | January 26, 2010 at 2:51 pm
At the top of this thread, Rick said that Dr. Blankenhorn was sworn in. In subsequent checking of the witness list, I discovered that he is not represented as having a doctoral degree.
132.
JefferyK | January 26, 2010 at 2:41 pm
He does not have a Ph.D.
133.
Michael | January 26, 2010 at 3:34 pm
He DOES have a PhD
That’s…
Professional Hair Designer
134.
Jeff G. | January 26, 2010 at 2:48 pm
I don’t see any claim of a doctoral degree in the testimony as blogged. He has a M.A. in history. Doesn’t qualify him as an expert on same-sex marriage. Then again, the other witness wasn’t qualified to testify, either…
135.
Linda | January 26, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Okay, I’ve been married. No where on the marriage document was there a statement requiring me to reproduce. That was NOT a stipulation for my marriage. It may be that many people marry with the intent to have children, but that is not a requirement for marriage. Marriage is marriage; period. It does not require offspring to validate it.
136.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Heh. Ditto. I’m childfree — with a tubal ligation to go with it. Nowhere in the license application does it say one thing about procreation.
In fact, the only time I’ve ever heard it mentioned was in a full-on Catholic wedding mass that I attended. I was so shocked that I asked my then-fiance about it (he was raised Catholic, and it was his brother’s wedding). I had never heard such a thing before in the vows.
M’s response was priceless: “Of course they make you promise that. How do you think they get more Catholics?”
137.
Lymis | January 26, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Catholics only promise to be open to children if they happen. They don’t agree to actively work to produce them.
And even that is part of the religious ceremony, not the civl part.
138.
Nikki | January 26, 2010 at 2:47 pm
My first marriage was a heterosexual one. It was my first; his second. He had had a vasectomy during his first marriage–long before I met him. Neither of us, when we married, had ANY desire for children, a good thing since he was unable to due to his vasectomy.
There are thousands of men out there with vasectomies entering into 2nd, 3rd, 4th marriages with no intent to procreate, not to mention those who are medically infertile or infertile due to age, and those who simply do not want kids…
This whole b.s. of “marriage is for procreation” is archaic to say the least, and laughable beyond words.
139.
Ozymandias | January 26, 2010 at 3:19 pm
We’ve all seen the argument – ‘Marriage is to have kids!’ My experience has been that that excuse is just a ‘nicer’ cover for a much uglier truth – it all boils down to ‘Gays are yucky’! It doesn’t matter how much actual peer-reviewed evidence we offer, these folks will refuse to even consider their ‘holy’ position to be flawed.
However, it’s the folks on the fence that profit from our rebuttals the most – showing actual evidence (from CURRENT studies, not stuff printed a generation ago!!) showing that we can (and DO) raise healthy, adjusted kids is just one weapon in our arsenal.
Love,
Ozy
140.
Yann | January 26, 2010 at 2:34 pm
I’m going to have to tell my boys today that they are growing in a pretty flawed structure (i.e., their two adoptive dads as parents), according to Claude Levi-Strauss. I hope they take it OK…
141.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Keep in mind that the late Dr. Levi-Strauss’s kinship analysis findings are being greatly misrepresented by this yutz.
Love,
Fiona
(who has actually read Levi-Strauss)
142.
Korbinos | January 26, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Not to mention he himself was gay and wrote all about the creation of homosexual behavior as a taboo in our society
143.
Linda | January 26, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Yann, i broke the news to my three children a few days ago.
1. Divorced parents
2. single mom
3. father no where to be seen
4. mother gone lesbian
5. living ‘out of wedlock’ with ss partner
My kids are doomed, and I told them so.
They just laughed.
Such disrespectful children!!!
144.
Yann | January 26, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Sheesh! I hate it when they see through my BS!
145.
Lymis | January 26, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Okay, so the burning question from a few days ago — how will your children learn to change the oil?
(Ducks)
146.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Well, Lymis, I guess they’ll have to do what this straight woman from a traditional household with two opposite-sex parents does: go to Jiffy Lube.
147.
Layla | January 26, 2010 at 2:36 pm
“B: This word “affiliation” –with whom child is affiliated—is cross-cultural reason for institution of marriage. …Marriage can look very different in different places and time. Always doing this thing, east, west, north and south, always doing this thing. For 1,000 years. …”
Look up the marriage and child rearing customes of the Cherokee people for just one example of where he is wrong. The father had no place when it came to the children.
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Cherokee_Clans_-_Clan_Married_Life/id/1219126
148.
Shane Z. | January 26, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Please hammer him on how infertile, sterile, and menopausal people are legally allowed to get married. Or couples who just have no intention on having children at all.
149.
Ray Harwick | January 26, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Judge Walker did that before the trial started. It went something like this:
Defendant Attorney: Marriage is for procreation.
Judge: The last marriage I officiated, the groom was 94 and the bride was 86. Am I missing something?
Defendant Attorney: No.
150.
Anne | January 26, 2010 at 2:39 pm
They almost lost their second “expert” witness? They only put two people on, and the second one almost gets booted for lack of expertise?
People in favor of SS marriage should sue these lawyers for incompetence. Of course, I’m glad they’re incompetent…
151.
Desert Verdin 1 of 18,000 second-class married couples | January 26, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Oh goody he invoked Valentine’s Day.
Well that tears it. We might as well pack it in and go home.
152.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 2:41 pm
He says he “looked for evidence of animus and didn’t find any.” Where did he look, under the god-damned bed? Because anyone with their eyes open could see the animus …
I’m sorry. I’ve tried to remain as polite as possible, but honest-to-deity, this comment by Blankenhorn takes the cake.
153.
Darth | January 26, 2010 at 2:48 pm
If you read closely, he’s saying he couldn’t find any evidence of animus towards homosexuals as a reason for why heterosexual couples get married. Which is a completely ridiculous statement designed to cloud the issue.
154.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Ah. Thank you.
Is there anyone on this planet who thinks that people get married to spite other people? Seriously?
Ugh.
155.
Andrew | January 26, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Wait… Did I read the Judge’s response to our objection correctly? ‘If this were a jury trial, it might be a close call as to whether or not he may testify’… Sounds like the defense’s star witness was almost rejected before we could testify.
156.
elmo | January 26, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Exactly. And if you read FDL’s coverage as well, it looks like the Judge went back to the DI’s lawyer after Boies’ voir dire and asked, “Do you want to add any additional foundation to establish his credentials?”
Judges don’t make that kind of offer for no reason. If the judge were satisfied with the credentials, there’s no reason to waste time adding more. There’s only one reason to make that offer: the judge is saying, very politely, “Really? Is that all you got?”
157.
Anne | January 26, 2010 at 2:43 pm
He’s not able to find any evidence that “animus toward gay and lesbian people or hatefulness of homosexual persons is why” people are against SS marriage?
guess he hasn’t been paying attention to this trial.
158.
Lymis | January 26, 2010 at 3:01 pm
No, he can’t find reason why straights get married to each other out of animus toward gays. Like, duh.
Apparently, he does thing gays want to get married to piss off straights.
159.
Frijondi | January 26, 2010 at 3:15 pm
They’re a bunch of real navel-gazers.
160.
Rightthingtodo TX | January 26, 2010 at 2:44 pm
homeboy needs glasses cuz he ain’t looked too hard
161.
Nicole A | January 26, 2010 at 2:44 pm
As someone who was raised by an alcoholic, sexist, racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, atheist father and a codependent, subservient, devout Catholic mother, I can state unequivocally that being raised two biological, opposite sex parents is NOT automatically the best family option for children.
Children will do better in a home where they have a daily example of loving and supportive parents. Whether that’s two men or a man and a woman is irrelevant. Let’s get somebody to do a study on that hypothesis!
162.
Heathjh | January 26, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Here is a study that has been done. http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids
I am a married hetero. Until this whole prop 8 business I hadn’t read much on this subject. Prop 8 really pissed me off. This study is exactly what I was thinking the results would be from such a study. I’m sure this trial will spark even more studies concerning marriage- divorce, ss- hetero, and how the children are affected in all given situations.
163.
Lesbians Love Boies | January 26, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Great article.
“Between 1 million and 6 million children in the U.S. are being reared by committed lesbian or gay couples, she says. Children being raised by same-sex parents were either born to a heterosexual couple, adopted, or conceived through artificial insemination.
“The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way,” she tells WebMD. “In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures.”
164.
pepper | January 26, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Lesbians Loves Boies, some advantages the children of ss-couples have are that they grow up to be more socially accepting of other people, and less stereotypical raising as in education choices and work. Im sure there are some more, but of the top of my head.
165.
Lesbians Love Bois | January 26, 2010 at 2:45 pm
DB: I do not believe that anti same sex marriage is a symptom of homophobia. Homophobia is present in our society and many others around the world. I regret and deplore it and wish it to go away. I have sought to look at the evolution of marriage in societies as I have sought to understand how marriage became universal in its reach and impact and how those custodians of the institution have sought to state the reasons, goals of institutions, what the thing was trying to do and why it matters so much. I am not able to find any evidence that animus toward gay and lesbian people or hatefulness of homosexual persons is why they justified their participation in the marital institutions. I am not saying that no such evidence exists. If such evidence exists, I want to know it. I’m telling you I have looked for it and I cannot find it.
I am sure Mr Boies will explain it to you later.
166.
Desert Verdin 1 of 18,000 second-class married couples | January 26, 2010 at 2:46 pm
*snort*
167.
Desert Verdin 1 of 18,000 second-class married couples | January 26, 2010 at 2:46 pm
I guess he didn’t talk to Mayor Sanders.
168.
Wednesday | January 26, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Funny, when I took an anthro course in college, the professor told us that historically* the definition of marriage in that discipline was “a contract between a woman and another person” in order to establish inheritance, etc.
Emphasis on “another person” – some cultures allowed a widow to take a wife in her late husband’s name, if he’d died without an heir. The widow’s wife would then have liaisons with non-dead men and produce children to be heirs of the dead man.
*Historically, as in before white Western anthropologists realized that white Western gay people exist. =P
169.
Jeff G. | January 26, 2010 at 3:07 pm
“non-dead men” awesome!
170.
l8r_g8r | January 26, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Very interesting. I’d love to hear more.
171.
Desert Verdin 1 of 18,000 second-class married couples | January 26, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Historically in the West marriage was about PROPERTY rights – where the property (as in real estate and money) goes when the owner (IOW, the MAN) dies.
MAN: “I bought that {points at land outside window} – I own it! I bought that, too {points at woman} – mine!! {points at 14 children in the house} I made them on the woman, whom I own – I own them, too!”
172.
Darth | January 26, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Thank goodness *some* of us live in a more enlightened time.
173.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Re: the man quote …
George, is that you?
174.
Desert Verdin 1 of 18,000 second-class married couples | January 26, 2010 at 3:02 pm
You owe me a keyboard . . .
175.
erasure25 | January 26, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Good god man, can’t wait for the cross/slaughter to begin.
176.
David | January 26, 2010 at 2:46 pm
“What these analysts are saying is incorrect as a matter of our history and lives. That assertion they made as a question of what may happen in the future is one thing, but not accurate view of today’s society.”
Unless I misunderstood what he is saying, it looks to me like he just made a good case for ss marriage.
177.
PM, in the UK | January 26, 2010 at 2:46 pm
“Marriage has evolved and changed over the years and across culture, but it’s for the children.”
So… exactly when did Dr. David Blankenhorn come to the dazzling revelation that the evolving & changing of marriage has concluded?
I must have missed the global newsflash.
What does he say to all the children growing up in same-sex households, deprived of the cultural, security & financial benefits of marriage?
Sorry kids: mankind’s all out of evolution?
178.
Allison | January 26, 2010 at 2:47 pm
DB: ” I am not able to find any evidence that animus toward gay and lesbian people or hatefulness of homosexual persons is why they justified their participation in the marital institutions”
He’s stating that people didn’t get married so as to spite glbt. He’s making the point I believe that people got married with no thought of glbt.
179.
Steffi | January 26, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Wait…
No peer reviewed articles on the subject? only 50 citations/ references respectively? and (if I understood correctly) only a master’s dregree?
are they for real?
I mean REALLY????
WTF….
*shaking hdas disbelievingly*
180.
Lymis | January 26, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Given that any coherently phrased anti-gay tirade is going to be quoted a lot – look at some of the crap they are still recycling – I don’t think “citations” in peer reviewed journals counts for much.
Besides, can’t a “citation” be a “meanwhile, this moron had this to say, hold on while I discredit him completely” just as easily as “God descended from high and granted us this author’s gems of wisdom”?
181.
Jeff G. | January 26, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Absolutely, being cited by others doesn’t automatically mean they support your conclusions.
182.
Steffi | January 26, 2010 at 3:54 pm
yeah, exaclty.
some times you cite a person to disproove him/her.
but 50 citations just show that his article on whatever it was isn’t considered much for other people’s work. It’s just unimportant and ppl. don’t bother to include it into their work…
and citations ARE important. it kinda indicates how important your work is. And many professors and doctors are evaluated by the no. of paper they produce and by the no. of citations they have. that’s why some/many databases of scientific papers record no. of citations. you can – in parts – evaluate how much weight to give a paper. many citations indicate that this paper makes a well acknowledged (or well disproved) point and your own research might have greater impact if proving or disproving sth. that is basis for many other people’s arguing in their work…
183.
Ray Harwick | January 26, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Blankhorn: “I am not saying that no such evidence exists. If such evidence exists, I want to know it. I’m telling you I have looked for it and I cannot find it.”
David Boies will be up in a minute to show you.
184.
Dieter M. | January 26, 2010 at 2:53 pm
LOL..damn right. this guy is about to get a really quick education….gonna make him seem silly for not being able to find it all these years, and Boise is about to “find it” FOR HIM!!..LOL
185.
Alexandra | January 26, 2010 at 2:55 pm
I thought the same thing, Dieter!
186.
Steffi | January 26, 2010 at 3:56 pm
in my head I have this picture of a rather young master student being taught a lecture by his prof….
187.
Ronnie | January 26, 2010 at 2:49 pm
“I am not able to find any evidence that animus toward gay and lesbian people or hatefulness of homosexual persons is why they justified their participation in the marital institutions. I am not saying that no such evidence exists. If such evidence exists, I want to know it. I’m telling you I have looked for it and I cannot find it.”
MORON!!!!!!!! LGBT people are denied marriage because they are GAY!!!!!!!!!
188.
Rightthingtodo TX | January 26, 2010 at 2:49 pm
This word “affiliation” –with whom child is affiliated—is cross-cultural reason for institution of marriage. Wonderful finding is that, as scholars who have looked it, gives child biological, social and legal parenthood. Fixes that because it’s so important for children. Marriage has evolved and changed over the years and across culture, but it’s for the children.
Sounds like he acknowledges that marriage can evolve. Also sounds like if he believed that the procreation stuff weren’t so embedded in marriage’s function, that it’s the sense of unity, identity and affiliation that’s really the key for kids and therefore parents are important regardless of gender.
189.
Darrell | January 26, 2010 at 2:50 pm
marriage is a private arrangement for parties in love, is what he said… i hope they ask him how does that not apply to two same sex couples.
190.
Dieter M. | January 26, 2010 at 2:52 pm
The defenses “expert” witness says: But a marriage is a private arrangement for parties in love.”
Your honor…case closed!
even the defense says this is a private arrangement for parties in love.
191.
Ronnie | January 26, 2010 at 2:52 pm
If I had a frying pan in my hands right now I would be bashing it against my head!
192.
Dieter M. | January 26, 2010 at 2:53 pm
but think of the children…!!!
193.
inMA | January 26, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Them getting “reliable” information from a 40+ y.o. book is like me trying to pay 73 cents for gas at a pump that is now $3.00 but demanding i get the gas for 73cents because i saw an ad that said gas was once that price.
People weren’t even thinking about giveing gays ANY kind of rights, let alone marriage rights in the 60′s OR 70′s. Are they going to us James Cameron’s work next? SHEESH!
194.
Desert Verdin 1 of 18,000 second-class married couples | January 26, 2010 at 2:54 pm
My banana. Let me show you it.
195.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 3:00 pm
That’s Kirk Cameron, whom I presume is the person inMA meant (as opposed to James Cameron, the film guy …).
196.
inMA | January 26, 2010 at 3:06 pm
OH! ha! Sorry about that…
I meant “Dr.” Paul Cameron – the one that has been lkicked out of every reputable Psych Association but whom the Religious Right still uses as an “expert” in the field of homosexuality.
197.
Lymis | January 26, 2010 at 3:09 pm
You are thinking of Paul Cameron, of the “yes, I have been thrown out of every reputable sociological, psychological, or medical association I can find, but since I pay to have my own work published, you can still quote me” school of Making Stuff Up.
Kirk Cameron is Paul’s gift to the world. Sort of discounts that preference for straight people automatically being allowed to raise kids theory.
198.
hearsay | January 26, 2010 at 2:54 pm
I’d say something but y’all got this – saying everything I’m thinking. I’ll go back to reading, nodding agreeement and whispering, “yup” to myself every so often.
199.
DM | January 26, 2010 at 2:55 pm
How do people like this guy, who “deplore” homophobia, reconcile the fact that straigth, childless couples in an intimate relationship can get tax and other civil benefits from being married, while we cannot?? and than LGBT’s have kids regardless of marital status and their kids might be harmed by the unavailability of those benefits? LAME. omg i have to go back to work.
200.
trineb | January 26, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Based on this answer alone, we know that cross should be interesting
” I am not saying that no such evidence exists. If such evidence exists, I want to know it. I’m telling you I have looked for it and I cannot find it.”
In the Voir Dire examination alone we know that he is full of cow dung that he has “looked for it but cannot find it”…he is barely an expert…except at pushing bullpuckey
201.
SteveJ | January 26, 2010 at 2:56 pm
When I’m reading his testimony, I imagine that he sounds like George W. Bush speaking. It makes me cringe about the outcome considering the outcome of W…. twice!
I can’t wait until the cross!
202.
Caleb | January 26, 2010 at 2:56 pm
I’ll give ‘em this much: this witness is a lot more polished than Tam or Miller, and definitely understands how to phrase his testimony without seeming evasive/hostile.
Looking forward to Boise giving him some luvin’.
203.
Ronnie | January 26, 2010 at 2:57 pm
GIT HIM BOIES!
204.
Happy | January 26, 2010 at 2:58 pm
And another thing…. no matter what the impetus for marriage was throughout history, we’re talking about today, the here and now.
Historically, gays and lesbians weren’t even recognized talked about,. NO rights existed for us, and many laws existed to punish us specifically. So of course marriage was not conceived of for us.
Today, we have gained visibility, we continue to fight to gain respect, we have pushed until we’ve gained some rights, and there is no reason not to further those rights to include marriage.
It seems like their big argument is, “It should be because it always has been.”
Get over it. Find a better reason – not “for the kids,” not “because it’s always been this way,” not “because I hate the thought of gay sex.”
Btw, there is no reason that isn’t inherently flawed.
205.
Alan E. | January 26, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Or women have realized that they don’t have to just settle with the guy who is really an abusive asshole. There are many reasons, and he picks the Disney version.
206.
Frijondi | January 26, 2010 at 3:22 pm
I have never understood why anyone is nostalgic for a time when people stayed in disastrous marriages out of a sense of obligation.
207.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 3:41 pm
The people who are nostalgic for that time are invariably men … and they usually hate Greta Rideout for helping to make it illegal to rape their own wives. @@
208.
Rebecca | January 26, 2010 at 2:59 pm
“[They like old books.]”
I will be 43 on Tuesday and all their books are older than me.
Next they will be submitting books phrenology
209.
Michael | January 26, 2010 at 2:59 pm
I teach at Harvard
I am going to find out if there’s a way to rescind Miller and David Blankenhorn’s degrees.
This is appalling. (Unless you’re on the plaintiff’s side.)
love,
Michael
210.
Jeff G. | January 26, 2010 at 2:59 pm
LOL he’s saying people don’t get married because they hate gays, an attempt to twist the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ words.
211.
Desert Verdin 1 of 18,000 second-class married couples | January 26, 2010 at 3:00 pm
DB: Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children and that family structure that is best for children is bio mother and father in low-conflict marriage.
No.
Research indicates the ideal family structure is 2 loving adults. Gender and orientation have not mattered in the reputable studies.
And further, research does not indicate that every other family structure is anathema and should therefore be disallowed.
212.
Lymis | January 26, 2010 at 3:10 pm
They going to outlaw high-conflict marriage? Yikes!
213.
Dieter M. | January 26, 2010 at 3:00 pm
I have a real question for hetero married folks:
This guy is claiming that allowing gay marriages will devalue the meaning of what marriage means to quote “normal” people.
so Would the athletes that participate in the Olympics, have any less pride in their achievements, because differently abled people were allowed to participate in the “special olympics”?
REALLY?
214.
MKrumm | January 26, 2010 at 3:03 pm
I’m hetero, newly married, and a Christian. If my friend who is gay in California sends me a save-the-date, I will buy my plane ticket that moment.
The idea that SSM somehow threatens OSM mystifies me.
215.
Charlie | January 26, 2010 at 3:11 pm
I would point out that, according to the U.S. Olympic Commission, the integrity of the Olympic Games was threatened by what were originally called the Gay Olympics. USOC sued and won and now we have “Gay Games”. Apparently, the differently abled have even more political juice than LGBT people do. Scary.
216.
Alkanshel | January 26, 2010 at 3:17 pm
I don’t know, man, if they allow SSM, I may have to give up on my dream of ever getting married. It just won’t be the same, you know? It’ll be like ‘man, to think men I don’t know in some part of the state are probably getting married right now. That completely trashes the significance of our love; we’ll have to settle for just being good friends.’ Complete buzzkill.
[/sarcasm]
217.
pgbach | January 26, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Segregation was good for white folk, guess we shouldn’t have freed the slaves.
218.
Ray Harwick | January 26, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Blankenhorn: “That’s a culminating trend toward the erashure (sic) of marriage as we know it.”
This, he THEORIZES having NEVER studied gay marriage or conducted any research in place where gay marriage is legal and ongoing. He’s basically doing with this testimony what William Tam did – looking into a crystal ball!!!!!!
219.
Sean | January 26, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Except their crystal ball is actually made of yarn and it’s unwinding faster and faster…
220.
Desert Verdin 1 of 18,000 second-class married couples | January 26, 2010 at 3:05 pm
When you take away its rules and you weaken its structures, scholars say you see deinstitutionalization. You can see this with a baseball team or museum.
Waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait. Wait.
So now my marriage is like a baseball team???
221.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 3:09 pm
I’m trying to figure out how it’s like a museum, myself.
222.
Lymis | January 26, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Full of old fossils?
223.
Desert Verdin 1 of 18,000 second-class married couples | January 26, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Revolving exhibitions? Perhaps??
Can we get a team jersey or hats or something? Maybe a gift shop. Yeah! Then we’ll be like both a baseball team and a museum!
I like both/and!
224.
Ronnie | January 26, 2010 at 3:34 pm
like a baseball team? How so? I mean I get the many men in tight pants thing but how does refer to lesbians?….I’m just saying
I guess they play baseball but so do I and I’m gay
like a museum? you’re a huge work of art! or more like a piece of work!
225.
109 | January 26, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Sounds to me like a whole lot of “I’m David Blankenhorn and my opinions should be LAW!”
226.
David | January 26, 2010 at 3:05 pm
“Assistive repro technology that disturbs bio bond and last but not least the the the spread of the idea and reality of same sex marriage in the view of, I think, leading scholars, is another aspect of manifestation of this trend of deinstitutionalization” – Oh I see, he admits leading scholars disagree with his view – interesting.
227.
WarrenSensei | January 26, 2010 at 3:05 pm
This cross-ex is going to be entertaining… much like Miller’s. I have a sinking sensation that it’s going to be the courtroom version of a WWE smackdown… if the jobber was hungover.
228.
homogenius | January 26, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Damn. I gotta run get more popcorn.
229.
SarahE | January 26, 2010 at 3:06 pm
I think that this is really all they have.
If there were such a thing as an expert for their side they would have numerous peer reviewed articles
Books are generally NOT peer-reviewed
Did he pay to have these ‘books’ of his published?
230.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Well, I guess you could say that … http://www.americanvalues.org/html/bookstore.html
Every single one of them is published by his own company, the Institute for American Values.
231.
DD | January 26, 2010 at 3:06 pm
“Scholars are telling us that process of weakening will be accelerated significantly by same sex marriage.”
WHAT scholars??? why aren’t THEY testifying??
232.
homogenius | January 26, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Wow! I mean WOW!!!
This is going to be a bloodbath. He is throwing around broad unsubstantiated generalizations. He’s out of his area of expertise and tossing out “facts” that can be challenged (and I predict will be).
Oh, boy!
“When you take away its rules and you weaken its structures, scholars say you see deinstitutionalization.”
Which institution is he talking about? From what culture and from what century?
The fundies just love the Old Testament–but when you’re talking about marriage that includes women as chattal, polygamy, concubines, political marriages, etc.
There are holes large enough to drive the Titanic through (or Arianna Huffington’s appetite for fame and influence).
233.
Liz | January 26, 2010 at 3:07 pm
“Scholars are extremely emphatic that optimal outcome for children, whether it be living in poverty, abuse, neglect, –across the range of outcome measures, this family form of a two parent biological couple in a stable marriage is best outcome for child.”
Sooo….ummm…let me see if I have this right: the child is living in poverty, abuse, and neglect but at the same time their parents are in a happy and loving relationship? Yeah, that’s totally the “optimal outcome” for a child. Starved, beaten, and ignored…but Mommy and Daddy are married and that’s all that matters!! Exactly what scholars said this????
234.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 3:10 pm
My thoughts precisely.
235.
Lymis | January 26, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Maybe they LIKE beating the kids, and that’s what makes them happy?
236.
109 | January 26, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Not like gay marriage is going to decrease the number of heterosexual households. It’s like saying, X is the best food to feed children, and if they can’t eat X, they shouldn’t eat anything at all.
237.
Lymis | January 26, 2010 at 3:14 pm
More like saying X is the best food to feed children, so the adults don’t get to eat anything.
238.
Rebecca | January 26, 2010 at 3:07 pm
“DB: “Marriage is sometimes referred to as an institution, but that’s an odd application of the term. The Department of Defense is an institution. But a marriage is a private arrangement for parties in love.”
BUT A MARRIAGE IS A PRIVATE ARRANGEMENT FOR PARTIES IN LOVE.
Did another Defense witness just help prove our case?
239.
Keegan | January 26, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Probably, considering he said “marriage is not an institution” and then a tad bit later he said “queers are deinstitutionalizing marriage”… how can we dinstritutionalize something that isn’t an institution?
This man offends my very brain, it’s just really awful circular argumentation that leads nowhere.
240.
Michael Adrian | January 26, 2010 at 3:54 pm
I believe that was Blankenhorn quoting a different book or study in favor of same sex marriage with which he disagrees.
241.
Lesbians Love Boies | January 26, 2010 at 3:09 pm
So, if the judge is going out of town, we will not cross until Monday? The defense might be cringing at that thought.
242.
Desert Verdin 1 of 18,000 second-class married couples | January 26, 2010 at 3:16 pm
oooOOOOoooOOooooo dee-lish!
243.
Dieter M. | January 26, 2010 at 3:09 pm
I see another ” GOOD GOD MAN!!!!” coming
244.
Lesbians Love Boies | January 26, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Dieter, I reviewed yesterdays transcripts and did not see the “Good God Man.”
Would they have removed them from the transcripts if he said it? Just asking.
245.
Russell V | January 26, 2010 at 3:12 pm
That comment was made today, during Miller’s testimony, not yesterday.
246.
Dieter M. | January 26, 2010 at 3:13 pm
while an editor may have removed the comment, to post somewhere, the court cannot strike anything from the transcripts unless ordered to do so by the judge at the time of the statement, which did not happen.
247.
Lesbians Love Boies | January 26, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Hi Russel, Good God Man was yesterday. I went through the transcripts and side by side found where it happened, but sadly, it wasn’t there.
248.
Ronnie | January 26, 2010 at 3:18 pm
It was made during millers testimony but it was yesterday when boies said it.
249.
Straight Ally #3008 | January 26, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Almost; we got “Answer my question, sir. Do you understand my question?”
250.
Ronnie | January 26, 2010 at 3:09 pm
First all I hear when I read this guys words is BLAH BLAH BLAH
2nd: B: Big speech about how it’s absolutely much better to have child with natural mother and father. Scholars are extremely emphatic that optimal outcome for children, whether it be living in poverty, abuse, neglect, –across the range of outcome measures, this family form of a two parent biological couple in a stable marriage is best outcome for child.
- again by saying this all orphans get left out in the cold
3rd: Just because same sex marriage is not legal doesn’t mean that you are going to be able to stop out of wedlock procreation and divorce unless you are going to make them illegal as well.
4th: What do you mean if you change the definition….the definition has already been changed in 8 countries, 8 states, webster dictionary and dictionary.com
OH SNAP DEBUNKED!
251.
John | January 26, 2010 at 3:09 pm
You know, it’s really hard to get any work done when I’m facepalming every ten seconds reading this.
252.
Layla | January 26, 2010 at 3:20 pm
I think I just may become a lesbian divorce statistic if this trial doesn’t wrap up soon. I’m supposed to finish building our 3 season room by spring but I haven’t gotten 1 thing done since the beginning of this trial! :-)
253.
109 | January 26, 2010 at 3:11 pm
A typical closed-minded, only sees what he wants to see, only credits the articles he likes, can’t see animus not even in ads comparing being gay marriage to terrorism. There’s no way this is standing up under scrutiny.
254.
inMA | January 26, 2010 at 3:12 pm
”If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost, and the institution is weakened.” – President George W. Bush, 2004
▼
“Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure.” – President George W. Bush in a speech at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, 2006
▼
“Marriage is the God-ordained covenant between one woman & one man that provides the essential societal support for families. As we look at attempts to change that definition, we need to be very, very clear that it’s not a question of being against individuals, per se. It’s a question of looking at traditional marriage and what it requires, and saying we cannot allow, in principle, an understanding of marriage that excludes procreation.” – From Alan Keyes’ campaign website, 2007
——————————
“We believe that personal independence and equal human rights can never be forfeited, except for crime; that marriage should be an equal and permanent partnership, and so recognized by law; that until it is so recognized, married partners should provide against the radical injustice of present laws, by every means in their power.” – Henry B. Blackwell and Lucy Stone, 1855
255.
Desert Verdin 1 of 18,000 second-class married couples | January 26, 2010 at 3:21 pm
On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement, which commented on same-sex marriage, prepared for delivery on the fortieth anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision of the US Supreme Court. The concluding paragraphs of her statement read as follows:
“Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the ‘wrong kind of person’ for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”
256.
chris | January 26, 2010 at 3:13 pm
I cant wait for redirect. It doesn’t take much to blow away the procreative “best interest” mother father biological nonsense and I am more than confident that boies will do so with the magical touch I have come to learn he has.
“Are you familiar with federal court precedent that says one cannot exclude prisoners from marriage?”
“Is it possible for someone in maximum security prison to procreate and if so would it be in the child’s best interest to be raised by a murderer dad?”
257.
Gary S | January 26, 2010 at 3:13 pm
I would hesitate to criticize the statement that a child does best in a low-conflict marriage (although I doubt the genders of the couple are relevant) but I’d really like a more comprehensive list with descriptions and institutions of the “scholars” this gentleman is citing. After all, the “scholars” he refers to may be professors at Oral Roberts University or Vatican researchers for all we know.
258.
Lymis | January 26, 2010 at 3:17 pm
We aren’t criticizing the statement that a child does best in a low-conflict marriage. We are criticizing using that to declare same-sex marriages (regardless of conflict) invalid while allowing high-conflict straight marriages.
His logic is like “A equals B, therefore C is a tuna.”
Huh?
259.
Keegan | January 26, 2010 at 3:13 pm
So, since the Judge is going on vacation, and cross won’t be till monday: What are the odds Blankbrain will become mysteriously “unavailable” on monday?
260.
Tom B. | January 26, 2010 at 3:31 pm
I doubt that will happen – DI’s will probably be held in contempt of court if they don’t produce Blankenhorn for cross-examination.
261.
Layla | January 26, 2010 at 3:34 pm
If I were him I would try and get hit by a bus this weekend.
262.
Colt | January 26, 2010 at 3:15 pm
“Scholars are extremely emphatic that optimal outcome for children, whether it be living in poverty, abuse, neglect, –across the range of outcome measures, this family form of a two parent biological couple in a stable marriage is best outcome for child.”
Really???? How … ? *splutters*
263.
homer | January 26, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Last time I checked there was no fertility test prior to marriage.
264.
inMA | January 26, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Well then shouldn’t we be forcing all unmarried pregnant women to get married and then banning divorce? Gotta keep them together somehow!
265.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 3:29 pm
You know, like it was back in the good ol’ days …
266.
JacobM | January 26, 2010 at 3:16 pm
So, marriage is an institution
then it’s not
then it is
all from Blankenhorn – WTF ? Either it is or isn’t , and you can’t apply arguments for both cases in the same breath
267.
Desert Verdin 1 of 18,000 second-class married couples | January 26, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Yes!
No!
I don’t know!
(Boies: Do you understand my question?)
I don’t know!
No!
Yes!
268.
Shelley | January 26, 2010 at 3:17 pm
I just wanted to say I have been following the blog for the last several days and love it! Thank you for keeping us updated! Now as to this latest witness I can’t wait till cross exam on him starts!
269.
Kohai | January 26, 2010 at 3:18 pm
“Marriage is for procreation!”
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/genetic-crossroads/200907/female-sperm-and-male-eggs-good-news-gay-families
problem solved.
270.
Polydactyl | January 26, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Freakin’ SERVED.
271.
Dieter M. | January 26, 2010 at 3:18 pm
DEFENSE: Marriage is not an institution
DEFENSE: Allowing gay marriage will de-institutionalize marriage
HUH?
we MUST be powerful if we can de-institutionalize something that wasn’t institutionalized to begin with. That takes POWER!!..LOL
272.
inMA | January 26, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Hey – we caused potatoes not to grow in Maine and for storms to ravish New Orleans and now California. Oh yeah, we’ve caused many a tragedy…maybe I’ll go spit blood in someone’s face at a church now (see: Pat Robertson quote)…
273.
Dieter M. | January 26, 2010 at 3:24 pm
and apparently this week alone in Texas we gays have caused two oil spills, and a giant sink hole..!!! LOL
274.
Kathleen | January 26, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Ugh. he just said he thought DP was a “humane compromise” to marriage for gays. What are we, dogs?
Love,
Kathleen
275.
Keegan | January 26, 2010 at 3:22 pm
At least I’m not the only one who read that and went “Excuse me?”.
This is very simple, GLBT are NOT another species, we are human. To treat a human humanely, you treat them like all the other humans… is this concept really so complicated?
276.
Ronnie | January 26, 2010 at 3:37 pm
We are Pure Breeds Dr. Blank!
277.
PM, in the UK | January 26, 2010 at 3:19 pm
I went in with an open mind, but I just don’t like this guy.
Miller was in a pitiable situation, but Blankenhorn has his cross-examination coming.
This isn’t an expert testimony, it’s just one more – long – irrational advert from their side with the bible references taken out and replaced by decades old cherry-picked textbook quotes & allusions to mysterious all-knowing “scholars”.
278.
Alkanshel | January 26, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Yeah. Miller, at the very least, was simply uninformed on the subject at hand (I mean, he at least has qualifications and is apparently a good teacher, he just knows nothing about LGBT political power).
This guy is…well, a walking propaganda machine with very vague ‘facts’ from ‘scholars’.
279.
Steven | January 26, 2010 at 3:20 pm
“DB: I believe same sex marriage will culminate the process of deinstitutionalization of marriage. If you change definition of marriage that has been child centered public institution to adult centered private institution—private ordering among couples. That’s a culminating trend toward the erasure (sic) of marriage as we know it.”
WHAAAAT?!?
My GAWD dude! You good old hetro persons have been doing on damn fine job on screwing up marriage as it is! Hey…don’t blame us!
And the last thing that we would do is screw up YOUR marriage even more!
Outrageous!
280.
Dieter M. | January 26, 2010 at 3:22 pm
I guess if a straight man has an orange, and then I ask for an orange, then they will just throw THEIR orange away, because apparently MY having one will make their orange not as good.
281.
John | January 26, 2010 at 3:25 pm
I like the analogy of a kid on the playground throwing a tantrum because he doesn’t want to share the swingset with a gay kid.
282.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 7:10 pm
My friend Lucy had a great one: “Is the Lamborghini in your garage blighted because the fellow down the street gets one as well?”
283.
Kevin | January 26, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Wait, the techno pop band Erasure are married? I’m confused?!!!
j/k
284.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 3:30 pm
No, they can’t be married. IIRC, they’re gay.
285.
Alkanshel | January 26, 2010 at 3:22 pm
I like how he doesn’t actually CITE any scholars when he says ‘scholars say.’
I mean, I could easily say ‘nine out of ten leading experts say that Crest provides the best protection against man-eating elephants’, but really, WHICH NINE? Give us some NAMES, man! NAMES!
If you tried this shit in High School Debate, you’d be laughed out of the damn room. He’s presenting this bullshit in COURT. Seriously? Seriously, defense?
286.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Oh, you know it. This would not be pretty in the National Forensics League, let alone a courtroom.
Love,
Fiona
(Who has trophies from high school debate)
287.
Alkanshel | January 26, 2010 at 3:46 pm
I only did one debate in high school (with parent judges, horrifying as that is), but anyone with even marginal critical thinking skills should know that ‘scholars say’ bears no more weight than, say, ‘Confucious say’.
288.
Liz | January 26, 2010 at 3:23 pm
“I believe same sex marriage will culminate the process of deinstitutionalization of marriage. If you change definition of marriage that has been child centered public institution to adult centered private institution—private ordering among couples. That’s a culminating trend toward the erasure (sic) of marriage as we know it.”
It has been the rise of equality of women that has deinstitutionalized marriage because for the first time, women realized that marriage wasn’t their only option and that their financial and emotional happiness wasn’t tied to having a husband. It became okay to work outside the home and support yourself, it became okay to divorce your husband if he treated you badly instead of quietly putting up with it for 50 or 60 years (like my grandmother) and it became okay to raise a child on your own if you so chose. I think Blankencrap is completely missing the point: legalizing ss marriage would help restabilize the institution of marriage because it would bring us back to the core value of two people committing their lives to one another, to have and to hold. Being surrounded by happy, loving, committed married couples can only make MORE people want to get married, not less.
289.
Happy | January 26, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Allowing same sex marriage IS NOT the erasure of marriage as we know it, simply an addendum to it. Nobody says that allowing same sex marriage means heteros can no longer get married. This guy’s an a-hole.
290.
Happy | January 26, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Here’s one:
My niece lived with her biological parents. Dad worked 2 jobs, Mom always stayed home. They never understood my niece; never seemed to want her to be anything more than they are in life. She wants to go to school, better herself, get a job she will actually like, support herself, etc. Two of her siblings are drug addicts; the other two had children as teens themselves, out of wedlock of course. She has never done drugs and has no children. She is not a lesbian. But, she and I (and my girlfriend) are very close and always have been. If to anyone in the family, she always came to me for advice, understanding, comfort, support, etc.
When she got in one of many heated arguments over her younger sister’s drug habit (my niece wants the child to get help, her parents stick their head in the sand and deny the problem), her mother actually told her she didn’t want her living with them anymore and told her to come live with me, the unmarried but cohabitating lesbian.
Now, I ask you, which child of the five is the more well-adjusted, “good” child and which ones aren’t? And which one spent the most time – and lives – with lesbians?
Case closed.
Sorry for the long story, but it illustrates that living in a hetero two- (preferably bio) parent home is not always best for a child.
291.
Ronnie | January 26, 2010 at 3:27 pm
John Gayse(spelling) grew up in a 2 parent bio home and had a heterosexual marriage……enough said!
292.
butchfaginnola | January 26, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Happy, here’s another one just like yours.
Me-Retired Navy Chief, Sister-Pot Smoking Beer Guzzling broodmare with 6 kids-father of 4 known, 2 unknown.
Oldest niece, at ripe age of 7, runs away from home to my and my lovers home. States emphatically she will not “be like her mother”, “will not go home to her”, “will continue to run away from her”.
Lover, parents and I get together with the lawyers and get custody of niece to me (this if FLA a long time ago) and my lover. Sister not happy but too stoned to care much. Other kids want to stay at home, despite on going visits by DCFS.
Niece (my daughter now) graduates Yale with a double major in economics and computer science. Gets Doctorates in Economics, Psychology and Instructional Design.
Stays a virgin until 26 when she introduces her boyfriend to me and my lover and then asks our opinion if it is okay if she sleeps with him. US very shocked (that she asked and that she was still a virgin) but are amazingly touched that her love, respect and confidence in us was was so deep.
She married him a year later, is now President of very prestigious tech company, married 10 years, ready to have her first child with me and the lover as grandparents!
Her mom? no how! not in this life is she allowed around the grand kid for any reason.
Sister-still drinking, drugging and whoring, as a grandmother. Other 5 kids-3 on parole, 1 currently incarcerated for attempted murder, 1 currently selling drugs to support their and their mothers habit. collectively 8 grand kids all in DCFS custody a.k.a. foster care. destined to be their mother.
ours are extreme cases, but this old faggot is gonna be a grand pappy and damn proud of his daughter/niece.
Her husbands harsh republican redneck family have done a 180 after being involved with us and now treat us as in-laws like their other kids in-laws. The red necks are more radical about gay rights then we are!
gotta love ‘em.
There is hope, one bigot at a time, but this trial and our experience attack the issue from different angles that are both working to erode the wingnuts control over marriage and legal rights.
293.
sassy | January 26, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Can I adopt you as a parent? :)
294.
Alexandra | January 26, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Has anyone determined why he is being referred to as Dr.?
Thank you. Sorry if I missed it in a comment above.
295.
Happy | January 26, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Seems like it’s in error. Masters is indicated, not Dr.
296.
Colt | January 26, 2010 at 3:27 pm
My friend’s sister is adopted, and she has a beautiful memory of how happy she was the night her parents brought her new sibling home. They have one of the closest, sweetest relationships I’ve ever seen between sisters and it is a joy to be around the two of them. Has Blankenidiot ever actually met someone who was adopted?????
297.
ron1008 | January 26, 2010 at 3:27 pm
There is nothing around the way I knew it! What are they thinking- Isn’t change the word. Kinda like Mormons with one wife or Blacks marring whites, ya know ,different than the way it was.
298.
Fildo | January 26, 2010 at 3:27 pm
CC: What role does religion play in marriage?
DB: We know now that this concept is a universal or nearly universal in society. This is not something religion invented. It does not depend on rationale for religion.
I bet all those pastors are having a fit over this one!!
299.
katie | January 26, 2010 at 3:28 pm
If marriage is only for procreation and it must be protected for the sake of the children, why aren’t they trying to repeal divorce laws? That would affect children waaaaaaaaaaay more than denying same sex marriage.
300.
CharlesF | January 26, 2010 at 3:28 pm
This guy is so full of bs. “Scholars suggest…It’s widely accepted that…Eminent scholars argue…Prominent scholars are pointing to significant deinstitutionalization…” He is all rhetoric and zero integrity.
301.
John | January 26, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Like all those panacea drug ads that start with “Studies show…” Which studies? Cite your sources already.
302.
Chana | January 26, 2010 at 6:29 pm
yeah, i noticed tat too. compare his testimony to Nancy Cott’s-she used specific examples to substantiate every point. He’s making very general statements to cover the fact that this is all bullshit. Note that even when he quotes the very foundational but also very outdated Levi-Strauss and Malinowski, he makes no effort to talk about the people they studied and how they came to this conclusion about marriage. (If I remember correctly, both of these guys studied at least some groups that were NOT all about one man-one woman).
Hmmm, so biological kids are always better off with their crrazy parents?? note that he says children benefit from a STABLE marriage-stability is not something always provided by bioparents. he’s twisting the research. (And if marriage prevents women from having to raise kids alone-how is lesbian marriage different? Isn’t it better, according to his logic, to have 2 lesbian parents than one single mom??)
303.
Kim | January 26, 2010 at 3:30 pm
When does it become clear that it is not about whether a child will grow up in a heterosexual or same-sex marriage, but in a same-sex marriage or in a same-sex relationship. The child ofr a gay parent will grow up in a gay parents home REGARDLESS. So, is a marriage worse for the child than no marriage?
304.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Not in the slightest. This is all about heterosexist hegemony.
305.
Jesse | January 26, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Fiona, I think I may have to put “heterosexist hegemony” on a button…that, or start and indie rock band with that name. ;-)
Love
Jesse
306.
Frijondi | January 26, 2010 at 3:36 pm
The very idea that marriage is an institution is bizarre. Schools, hospitals, and prisons are institutions. Marriage is a contract; if you’re religious, it’s also a covenant.
And unless you’re talking about an individual contract or covenant between two living, breathing human beings, it’s also an abstraction. An individual marriage can be in trouble, but the abstract concept cannot.
The notion that “marriage has been weakened” or “marriage is in trouble” is even more asinine than thinking you can declare war on a noun.
307.
fiona64 | January 26, 2010 at 3:39 pm
“Ideas are bulletproof.”
(My favorite quote from “V for Vendetta”)
308.
Straight Ally #3008 | January 26, 2010 at 3:38 pm
DB: Tried to pay some attention to effects of same sex marriage in Scandinavia and Massachusetts. But I have not conducted scientific study with data. I have talked to people and read about it. I did not come up with expert findings on those subjects.
I don’t know how it is in the social sciences, but in the natural sciences this is called not doing actual research.
309.
Kimeron | January 26, 2010 at 4:01 pm
I loved how the questions was about other COUNTRIES and he listed Scandinavia and MASSACHUSSETTS…
Of course, with the election of Scott Brown to the Senate, I’m starting to wonder about Mass myself….
310.
pepper | January 26, 2010 at 5:38 pm
I dont understand why they keep bringing up Scandinavia. Sweden had ss marriage starting 2009, Norway had 2008. Before that they both had registered partnerships. If you wanna compare marriage, then take the countries (and some states) that had it starting from 2001.
311.
Andrew | January 26, 2010 at 3:39 pm
So, if the sole purpose of marriage is to raise kids, and that having mommy and daddy in the house is so important, maybe Blackenthorn should work for the petition to ban divorce (http://www.petitiononline.com/NoDvrce/petition.html)
Well, except for barren people; since they cannot have children, they should not be allowed to marry.
Oh, and imagine the number of state-funded orphanages that would have to open, because of course adopting should be banned as well – think of all the jobs this would create… It would help the economy, so of course this is the best solution.
Egad, talk about hypocracy!
312.
A Mom | January 26, 2010 at 3:45 pm
interesting article I found
http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/gay_marriage_6_the_case_against_the_case_against/
… a review of Blankenhorn’s latest book finds this quote:
“Near the beginning of his book, Blankenhorn calls childrearing (by which he means the rearing of children by their biological parents) “probably the single most important social need that marriage is designed to meet, but there are numerous others as well.” Two pages later, however, he makes a more unequivocal statement: “Without children, marriage as an institution makes little sense.”
313.
Alkanshel | January 26, 2010 at 3:47 pm
So you’re saying that marriage is an institution that isn’t an institution, yet it’s being uninstitutionalized?
314.
sassy | January 26, 2010 at 3:46 pm
This comment is on the Mormon issue and polygamy (I’m not an expert, but I have an interest in polygamy as a way to procrastinate on my PhD)
In order to become a state, Utah had to make polygamy illegal. In order to convince the flock, the LDS leadership had to declare a revelation that God no longer wanted them to have polygamy in the mortal world here on Earth– though they could still have it in the after-life.
Personally, I think it is a stupid approach by the LDS and others to claim ss marriage would lead to polygamy, etc. But, by making that argument, I’m wondering if they are revealing that they are scared as heck that their flock will question why they can’t have polygamy back after ss marriage becomes legal. It would require a new revelation from God giving them the o.k. to return to polygamy and would reveal that many of the revelations of the LDS have been for political expediency– and would test the faith of the followers, possibly losing some.
I know this is off topic from today’s witness. I need to get back to work! :)
315.
butchfaginnola | January 26, 2010 at 4:45 pm
@sassy,, happy to adopt another great young person, but ya gotta know upfront that would make you a very distant relative of Brigham Young (through marriage of all things) and the Bush Family cartel-of villains-and-hypocrites (again by marriage). You might not want to be adopted knowing that LOL.
as for your procrastination and interest in the LDS, look into their very odd practice of using death records to “baptize” non-Mormons dead people as Mormons.
Not only do they do this without the consent of the dead, or their family, which is creepy and way insulting.
But if you contrast this with the Mormon belief in that the man is the GOD-HEAD of the family, and that their Idea of Heaven is that the God-Head gets his own planet in the after-life with his wives and children as his servants, sub-missives and worshipers.
With that in mind, and despite their public claim that god changed his mind about polygamy, imagine what capacity those re-baptized dead non-mormons serve in their version of the afterlife….
I’m thinking slaves! minions! serfs! chattel! something along those lines.
Apparently when the angel Moroni visited Joe Smith he passed along this celestial secret reserved for the Mormons alone.
should help you procrastinate a bit longer LOL
316.
Richard | January 26, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Where did they findtheir “experts?” WalMart? or Big Lots?
317.
James Sweet | January 27, 2010 at 6:38 am
Translation: The critics hated it, but it sho’ did pander to the culture warriors, yes sir!
318.
James Sweet | January 27, 2010 at 6:52 am
Apparently Blankenhorn has not read the statistics on what percentage of children were not fathered by their nominal “father” — often unbeknownst even to the mother.
I would argue on the contrary that, as regards children, the real value of marriage is that it supplants the rather tricky (maybe impossible) matter of trying to align the social and the biological, and instead focuses on aligning supporting the social with the legal, i.e. de-emphasizing the biological since it can be so controversial and (until very recently in human history) difficult or impossible to determine.
Ignoring same-sex marriage for the moment, one of the big benefits — to children — of heterosexual marriage is that it helps take some of the question marks out of social paternity. How many untold millions of children were able to grow up in stable two-parent households because marriage is blind to biology, rather than in spite of it?!!!!
319.
James Sweet | January 27, 2010 at 6:57 am
Holy crap, they are arguing that arranged marriage is better! Well, at least this guy’s consistent. He probably wants to go back to women-as-property too…
320.
Robin | January 27, 2010 at 10:45 pm
“DB: I do not believe that anti same sex marriage is a symptom of homophobia. Homophobia is present in our society and many others around the world. I regret and deplore it and wish it to go away.”
You guys, I hate racism so much! I wish racism would disappear! That’s why I oppose interracial marriage, ’cause that’s totally not racist at all.
“I am not able to find any evidence that animus toward gay and lesbian people or hatefulness of homosexual persons is why they justified their participation in the marital institutions.”
Okay, here’s a little hint. Those people who stood outside gay couples’ weddings holding signs that said “God hates fags”? I would say that probably counts as evidence of “hatefulness of homosexual persons.”