bscorp (bnmc2005) wrote in ontd_political,

Prop8trial final witness: "Yes! Marriage is good for Gays, & America & CA but... it's bad, mkay?

"Amicus briefs are due on February 3rd. Judge Walker is bringing the lawyers in to go over these briefs on Feburary 26th. He indicated as they were wrapping up today that at that time (the 26th) he will schedule the closing arguments. That likely means we will not have closing arguments until early March, with the ruling several weeks after that, depending on how long Judge Walker takes (p8tt.)" 
It is good that he takes his time because well - it's a big deal right? I didn't have time to post yesterday and I wanted to let the President have his night.  Here is the wrap up with some fun loving final testimony from the defense "expert" David Blankenhorn. All the fun stuff is over, now we have a month before the Closing arguments.  
David Blakenhorn for Prop8 was something else. I think if I would have seen video of this man I would have been very very infuriated. Intellectual dishonesty is the Devil as far as I'm concerned. This guy reads like a slick scaly car salesman. Here we have the 'open-minded' bigot you see, he probably 'has gay friends...' but doesn't want them to marry because, becuase, becau.  Here's p8tt's  summary of how thing went down on the last day.

This is a Witness for the Defense?

( Click title for source ) January 27, 2010 by Brian Leubitz

Well, it looks like testimony has been all wrapped up. But David Boies’ demolition of David Blankenhorn — the defense’s second, and final, “expert” witness — will continue to reverberate through the record as this case proceeds forward. Was Blankenhorn an actual expert, well, let’s let him answer that:

DB: “I’m simply repeating things that they say.”
DB: “These are not my own conclusions.”
DB: “I’m a transmitter here of findings of these eminent scholars.”

And even those conclusions don’t actually support what the defense was going for with this witness. I’m pretty certain they weren’t looking for these choice nuggets:

“Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably reduce the proportion of homosexuals who marry persons of the opposite sex, and thus would likely reduce instances of marital unhappiness and divorce.” {duh?}

Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion. It would likely decrease the number of those in society who tend to be viewed warily as ‘other’ and increase the number who are accepted as part of ‘us.’ In that respect, gay marriage would be a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea.
“Because marriage is a wealth-creating institution, extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably increase wealth accumulation and lead to higher living standards for these couples as well as help reduce welfare costs (by promoting family economic self-sufficiency) and decrease economic inequality.”
Keep in mind, these were the words of the defense expert. Honestly, I can’t wait to see how Andy Pugno  (for prop8 ) tries to tie together the mess that was the defense’s two expert witnesses. Honestly, I figured that after Boies got through with Prof. Miller, that he couldn’t top that performance. I was wrong. Blankenhorn was an absolute disaster for the defense. He had no credibility with the Judge, and his continued failure to answer questions won’t look good on a written record either.

Also, if you missed this link in the comments, one of our amazing Trial Trackers spotted this video of a gay marriage debate between Evan Wolfson, of Freedom to Marry, and Mr. Blankenhorn. If you’d like to see what Rick was talking about with Blankenhorn’s demeanor, check it out. But keep in mind, Wolfson wasn’t cross examining him, and Boies was nowhere in site.

Jan27. Testimony copied from two sources,  uses "Q" & "A".  Has initials DB:  for Blakenhorn.Background: The day before Boies and Blakenhorn got into it because Blakenhorn wanted to preach on the stand, he simply would NOT answer yes or no with out Whining....Well --- but but but let me explain....more... I-

From FDL-

Q: I am going to try to make things go a little better today, good morning Mr BLankenhorn. DO you believe marriage is public good?
A: Yes I do
Q: And you believe that children benefit from their parents being married?
A: yes certainly
Q: And do you believe that children of G&L couples would benefit from their parents being married?
A: Well, I do think it would be better for them

Q: You absolutely believe it would be better for children of same sex couples to have married parents?
A: Yes

Q: (reads from B’s book) You say the rights of G&L should take second place to the institution of marriage?
A: Point me to the sentence?
Q: Reads next sentence.) You wrote that?
A: Yes
Q: You still believe that?
A: Yes, I was trying to say — I was saying — I meant that I accepted the validity of the arguments of those who disagreed with me, but my answer is yes. {{Wut? }}

Q: "With some anguish I would choose marriage as a public good over the rights of same sex couples."
A: Yes, and the whole purpose of my book –
Q: I’m not really interested in the purp –
A: I am exploring in these sentences the context of my arguments. I want you to understand –


Q: In your book, you list 20 possible benefits of marriage for same-sex couples.
A: Yes, working with advocates I tried to come up with the likely or possible benefits, I enumerated those in my book in that chapter.
Q: Alright, turn to page 203, Tab 13. "Goods in conflict: consequences" is the heading. I’m going to ask you which of these YOU agree with, if any. This was a group thought experiment, you put down on a white board a lot of ideas FOR and against. You did not necessarily agree?
A: Well there was a process, but the substance of your statement is correct.

Q: Which of these positive consequence do you agree with?
A: I want to say that these consequences were likely, attempt to predict the future –
Q: You may important points to make –
A: I do actually
Q: But this is not a debate
A: I’m not trying to debate

Q: Ask Your honor to instruct the witness to listen to the questions.

WALKER: One thing we say to juries about expert witnesses is to listen to the witness, including the DEMEANOR of the witness, someetimes guaged by his responsiveness to questions. Because I am sure you would not want your demearnor to be a negative while you are on the stand, so please answer MrBoies questions as he asks them. Your counsel will have a chance to elicit further discusccion during redirect, but please answer responsively.

A: yes your honor. You want me to read them aloud? Or to myself?
Q: read them all to yourself — all 23 — and tell me the number you agree with.
Tags: marriage, marriage equality
  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

← Ctrl ← Alt
Ctrl → Alt →
← Ctrl ← Alt
Ctrl → Alt →