Prop 8 Trial cont’d…
Tuesday wrapped up day 11 in the trial to overturn Prop. 8 in California. If you missed my previous post you can catch it here @ Prop 8 Is it really still legal to openly discriminate?. I will admit – I have not read the trial word for word. I have gathered a few sources, as should everyone.
On Monday, the defense started calling their witnesses. First witness, Prof. Kenneth Miller of Claremont McKenna College. What is Claremont McKenna? Apparently, it is a liberal arts college in Claremont, Calif. It was an all male institution until 1976, and now has a staggering enrollment of 1,000 students. Long story, very short, he turned out to not be an expert at all and knew very little about the LGBT community or its causes. Good one, defense!
The second witness for the defense was called on Tuesday. David Blankenhorn, President of Institute for American Values. He contends that the main purpose of marriage is for pro-creation. Which leads me back to my point, does that mean heterosexual couples who cannot or do not want children should not have the right to marry? What about those 1000+ rights that come with marriage? Would it be okay if we took those away since marriage is about pro-creation? Let’s get rid of all the benefits of being married; the reduced taxes, the right for your spouse to speak for you if you are deathly ill in the hospital, your survivorship social security benefits, the ability to join your spouses health care plan tax free, and so on.
So what if gays and lesbians want to have a stable family? There are no studies that show being raised in a heterosexual household leads to better raised children than those who grow up in a homosexual household. Would it not be better if children were raised by two loving adults without being treated like second class citizens? I think so.
Mr. Blankenship, along with what seems to be most Prop. 8 supporters, also feels that if same-sex marriage is legal that it will be an open door for polygamy too. Really? Oh yes and even bestiality was being conveyed in Yes on Prop 8 commercials. It really is hard to argue with such idiotic points. These are nothing more than scare tactics that have no merit. If heterosexual marriages have not lead to the approval of polygamy, then why would homosexual marriages lead to the approval of polygamy?
He also testified that allowing same-sex marriage would lead to a higher rate of divorce. Somebody needs to show him the stats in Massachusetts. Since same-sex marriage has been legal, divorce rates have been on the decline. So why is he an expert? Maybe he is not an expert on same-sex marriage, but he may very well be an expert on marriage. I borrowed the below quote straight from Mr. Blakenhorn’s website http://center.americanvalues.org/.
“MARRIAGE IS an important social good, associated with an impressively broad array of positive outcomes for children and adults alike. Marriage is an important public good, associated with a range of economic, health, educational, and safety benefits that help local, state, and federal governments serve the common good.
— Sixteen social scientists, Why Marriage Matters, Second Edition: Twenty-Six Conclusions
from the Social Sciences, 2005”
Doesn’t everyone deserve a range of economic, health, educational, and safety benefits??