After an afternoon that more resembled the elbow
throwing of the political campaign over gay marriage than the placid
decorum of a legal proceeding, Chief U.S. District Judge
second and final witness could not finish his testimony Tuesday.
That witness,
ban on their right to marry. The exchanges were openly bitter, and
underscored the controversial nature of Blankenhorn’s thesis: that
procreation is the central purpose of marriage, and that gay marriage
will lead to the downfall of traditional heterosexual marriage.
“If you change the definition of the “thing,”
Blankenhorn said of marriage, “it is hard to imagine how it wouldn’t
have an impact on the ‘thing.'”
Blankenhorn, president of the
is one of two witnesses called by lawyers defending Proposition 8, the
2008 voter-approved law that restored the state’s ban on same-sex
marriage.
Earlier Tuesday,
testifying that gays and lesbians are gaining in political power.
Miller’s testimony was designed to rebut the
plaintiffs’ expert, who maintained that gays and lesbians remain
vulnerable in the political process and therefore need extra legal
protections against discrimination. Miller also had a bumpy stay on the
witness stand when pressed by Boies, but the show of the day involved
Blankenhorn.
The issue of procreation is central to the feud over same-sex marriage.
Proposition 8 defenders insist that reproducing is
the main purpose of marriage, an argument disputed by same-sex marriage
supporters, who note that procreation is not a prerequisite to marrying
for heterosexual couples.
The debate is important to the legal showdown.
Same-sex couples argue that the gay marriage ban is fueled by
discrimination, proof that it violates their equal protection rights
under the U.S. Constitution.
Prop. 8 defenders say procreation, not bias, is behind the desire to restrict marriage laws.
Blankenhorn, under questioning from Proposition 8 lawyer
testified that allowing same-sex marriage would erode traditional
marriage, causing heterosexual couples to abandon marriage, divorce,
have children out of wedlock and lead to calls for other forms of
marriage, such as polygamy.
Boies challenged Blankenhorn’s qualifications to
cast such judgments, saying he doesn’t have any expertise on the topic.
Blankenhorn at various points refused to answer Boies’ yes-no questions
with yes or no answers, objecting to such limits.
Boies also pointed to Blankenhorn’s own writings,
including a 2007 book in which he actually appeared to favor gay
marriage and wrote that “we would be more American on the day we permit
same-sex marriage than the day before.”
Blankenhorn conceded he still believes that, a puzzling moment given his earlier testimony.
He is expected to finish his testimony by midday
Wednesday. Walker plans to hold closing arguments later, so it will be
awhile before he has the fate of the legal challenge in his hands.
—
(c) 2010, San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.).
Visit MercuryNews.com, the World Wide Web site of the
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
