Today's prop 8 decision is a smackdown treasure trove. I am gleefully reading examples of bogus arguments put forward by Prop 8 proponents and then torn apart by both Judge Walker and the plaintiff's expert witnesses.
This should come as no surprise, but the ruling also reveals that the "experts" called by prop 8 proponents were anything but experts.
Right. So I have no legal training, but after reading these it's hard to conceive how these findings / opinions would be overturned on appeal. I know many of you do have legal training so if my conclusion is off base please feel free to correct in the comments. So while I cannot offer legal analysis I wanted to share some nuggets of how the prop 8 proponents were challenged on their credibility and the merits of their arguments.
First we have the prop 8 proponents trying to compare apples and oranges of scientific studies to support their claims. These were thankfully rebuffed by the actual experts and dismissed by Judge Walker:
When proponents challenged Lamb with studies purporting to show that married parents provide the ideal child-rearing environment, Lamb countered that studies on child-rearing typically compare married opposite-sex parents to single parents or step-families and have no bearing on families headed by same-sex couples. Lamb testified that the relevant comparison is between families headed by same-sex couples and
families headed by opposite-sex couples and that studies comparing these two family types show conclusively that having parents of different genders is irrelevant to child outcomes."
Supposed expert on "marriage, fatherhood and family structure" David Blackenhorn's crediblity and arguments were pumped so full of holes, one has to wonder whether he will have the audacity to ever testify as an "expert" witness again.
Wait wait, not that Judge Walker even found him to be an expert:
Blankenhorn’s opinions are not supported by reliable evidence or methodology and Blankenhorn failed to consider evidence contrary to his view in presenting his testimony. The court therefore finds the opinions of Blankenhorn to be unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight.
Blackenhorn drew conclusions from sources that were not actually supported in that source:
Blankenhorn relied on sociologist Andrew Cherlin (DIX0049 The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage, 66 J Marriage & Family 848 (Nov 2004)) and sociologist Norval Glen (DIX0060 The Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage, 41 Society 25 (Sept/Oct 2004)) to support his opinion that same-sex marriage may speed the deinstitutionalization of marriage. Neither of these sources supports Blankenhorn’s conclusion that same-sex marriage will further deinstitutionalize marriage, as neither source claims same-sex marriage as a cause of divorce or single parenthood.
Wherein Blackenthorn explains how his ideas were subject to a rigorous peer-review process and grounded in scientific methodology.../snark:
Blankenhorn’s book, The Future of Marriage, DIX0956, lists numerous consequences of permitting same-sex couples to marry, some of which are the manifestations of deinstitutionalization listed above. Blankenhorn explained that the list of consequences arose from a group thought experiment in which an idea was written down if someone suggested it.
What about Proponents other expert? Prop 8 proponents called Kenneth P Miller to testify that GLBT individuals do indeed wield considerable political power, but:
Miller admitted that proponents’ counsel provided him with most of the “materials considered” in his expert report.
Relevant Judge Walker smackdown:
The credibility of Miller’s opinions relating to gay and lesbian political power is undermined by his admissions that he: (1) has not focused on lesbian and gay issues in his research or study; (2) has not read many of the sources that would be relevant to forming an opinion regarding the political power of gays and lesbians; (3) has no basis to compare the political power of gays and lesbians to the power of other groups, including African-Americans and women; and (4) could not confirm that he personally identified the vast majority of the sources that he
cited in his expert report
And finally, Prop 8 supporter Hak-Shing William Tam testified about what he said about Prop 8 and where he got that information from, in a statement Elisabeth Hasselbeck would be proud of:
"Tam identified “the internet” as the source of information connecting same-sex marriage to polygamy and incest."
Bravo Mr. Tam, bravo.
All emphasis in quotes was added by diarist.
Link to prop 8 ruling