Skip to main content

View Diary: HUGE Prop. 8 case news - Rekers peripherally involved UPDATE (189 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What's the legal theory? (0+ / 0-)

    Being a closet homosexual doesn't normally call into question your academic theories.

    Reker's bat shit but that is unrelated to his sexuality.

    What's the theory under which his "luggage carrier" calls into question his work?

    •  The argument is that there is no (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MD patriot, G2geek, kydoc, wolfie1818

      "homosexual revolt" and that other testimony claiming homosexuality is a choice is bullshit. We know that people cannot change their sexual orientation, but he testified indirectly that they can. He is living proof that the opposite of his testimony is true. Inherently unreliable testimony - including any based on Rekers' scholarship, can be disregarded. I am pretty sure the Prop 8 judge was ignoring Blankenhorn anyway, but if you can strike the bigoted testimony from the record, then the proponents of Prop 8 have no case.

    •  that he provided fraudulent testimony. n/t (0+ / 0-)
      •  Did he testify that he wasn't homosexual? (0+ / 0-)
        •  He didn't testify at all (0+ / 0-)

          Which is the problem with this diary.  He apparently prepared a declaration that another expert relied upon, but it's not clear from the facts provided whether the declaration was provided in the Prop 8 case, or more importantly, the extent to which Blankenhorn relied upon it.  

          Maybe plaintiffs' counsel makes some creative (and persuasive) argument out of all of this, but the whole thing appears to be so tenuous that I'd be surprised if this merits more than a footnote in the court's decision.

          •  just the same... (0+ / 0-)

            ... it would be a tasty footnote.  

            •  Of course (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              G2geek

              It's too bad that Rekers wasn't the one who testified because that could have had some influence on the outcome, even at the Supreme Court level.  As a practical matter, I suspect that even Scalia knows that these types of "experts" are phonies but he's willing to use their "testimony" as cover for his opinions.

              •  we'll see what kind of intellectual gymnastics (0+ / 0-)

                he needs to do in order to make that look rational.  Heh.

                OTOH I think the 9th Circuit is going to rule in our favor, and with a bit more effort, the USSC will do likewise.

                The outcome of Loving v. VA plus the sodomy cases, makes this inevitable.

        •  he has provided paid testimony in .... (0+ / 0-)

          ... legislative hearings in Florida.

          And his written material was used in the testimony of other bigots during the Prop8 trial.  

          However his entire reputation is based upon a set of fraudulent assertions including assertions by default:  similar to someone pretending to be a lawyer but never exactly claiming in so many words, that they're a lawyer.  

          So from that point, anything else that's attributable to him is tainted.

          •  What fraudulent assertion? (0+ / 0-)

            In general, I think he's a nut job and his testimony is nonsense.

            However, the vast majority of it seems to be unprovable opinion.

            What fraudulent assertions did he make?  And what do they have to do with his apparent homosexuality (or bisexuality)?

            •  taken together, his claims add up to.... (0+ / 0-)

              ... include the idea that homosexuality is a choice that can be changed by "therapy."  

              His condemnation of homosexuality, on its surface, contains the embedded claim that he himself is not homosexual, because if he was, he would have had that characteristic changed by using the means he advocates.

              The fact that he still engaged in homosexual behavior therefore can be taken as demonstrating that either a) he does not believe the theory that he advances as a source of his own professional income, which makes his advocacy fraudulent; or b) his theory does not work, per his own case, thereby demonstrating that it is quackery, therefore fraudulent.  

    •  Credibility. (0+ / 0-)

      His credibility is in taters.  He has spent decades crusading against homosexuality and homosexual behavior when it appears that he himself either is a homosexual or engages in homosexual practices.  He has denied being a homosexual and of participating in any homosexual behavior with his RentBoy.

      His bat-shittedness may well be related to his formerly closeted homosexuality.

      •  Try an analogy... someone who has testified (0+ / 0-)

        about the dangers of drunk driving and that people can exercise will power and not drive drunk even if they are alcoholics is charged with DWI.  Is his testimony impeached by that?

        He's a hypocrite... but unless his testimony was based on his personal behavior I just don't see how his personal behavior is legally relevant.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site