Defense witness says institution of marriage would be threatened if gays allowed to wed

Witness says marriage threatened if gays can wed

SAN FRANCISCO — The head of a family values group testified Tuesday that marriage developed to provide children with clear ties to their biological parents but is in such a weakened state in the United States that extending the institution to same-sex couples could be its death blow.

David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, a private think tank in New York, took the stand as the second and final expert witness for the defense in the federal trial challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage. Lawyers for Proposition 8’s sponsors are trying to prove the voter-approved measure serves a legitimate public purpose.

“If we move toward a widespread adoption of same-sex marriage, I believe the effect will be to significantly further and in some respects culminate the process of the deinstitutionalization of marriage,” Blankenhorn said.

Blankenhorn acknowledged that heterosexuals were responsible for rising divorce and out-of-wedlock birth rates, but said allowing gays to marry could accelerate the process and possibly lead to the legalization of polygamy.

“The man-woman customary basis for marriage in turn reinforces limiting marriage to two,” he said. “If you knock out one of those pillars, the other becomes less comprehensible and therefore less defensible.”

The evidence phase of the trial, the first in a federal court to examine if the U.S. Constitution prohibits denying gays and lesbians the right to wed, is expected to wrap up Wednesday. Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who is hearing the case without a jury, said he will then take a few weeks to review the testimony before hearing closing arguments.

David Boies, one of the lead lawyers for the two same-sex couples who sued to overturn Proposition 8, tried to discredit Blankenhorn by getting him to acknowledge that he has conducted no independent research on same-sex marriage and his only advanced degree is in comparative labor history.

“I have not engaged in a scientific study were I find data and write up an article that would be published of that nature,” Blankenhorn said. “I have read articles and had conversations with people and tried to be an informed person about it, and that really has been the extent of it.”

Blankenhorn said he thought it was important to preserve the child-rearing function of marriage because research showed that being raised by biological parents in a stable marriage produced the most well-adjusted children. Under cross-examination, Blankenhorn said he unaware of any studies showing that children raised by gay or lesbian couples since birth fared worse than children brought up by their biological mother and father.

“Do you believe that legalizing same-sex marriage would improve the well-being of children raised by those households?” Boies asked.

“Adopting same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children,” Blankenhorn said.

Earlier in the day, while also facing an exhaustive cross-examination by Boies, a political scientist testifying for the defense said voters’ religious views and anti-gay stereotypes played a role in the ballot measure’s passage in 2008.

Claremont McKenna College Professor Kenneth Miller said he could not say what proportion of voters supported the ban because of bias or theological beliefs, but he acknowledged that at least some did.

David Thompson, a lawyer for Proposition 8 sponsors, asked Miller if concerns he expressed early in his career about the initiative process being used to deny vulnerable minorities their rights applied to the gay marriage controversy. Miller said it did not.

“In my view, taking that decision out of the hands of the people in general is an example of the courts taking too strong a position on this issue, this fundamental issue of social policy in the country,” Miller said.

The exchange prompted Judge Walker to chime in with a question: “Are you saying it’s never appropriate for the judiciary to intervene in the initiative process?”

“My view is it is appropriate when an initiative, just like any other statute enacted by a legislature, violates, in this case, the federal Constitution,” Miller answered.