Same-sex marriage opponents continue to undermine their own argument in the Prop 8 trial

So… Remember how the anti-gay side of the Prop 8 trial’s first expert witness made such a blunder by saying he believed same-sex marriage bans are discriminatory and that he would repeal such laws? Well, it turns out that their second (and last) witness was just as willing to admit the side he was brought in to defend is wrong. David Blankenhorn, founder of the Institute for American Values, admitted under cross-examination that he authored a book about two years ago in which he wrote the country would be “more American on the day we permit same-sex marriage than we were on the day before.” While this statement is absolutely true, it certainly doesn’t help the position of same-sex marriage opponents, especially coming from a man who is supposedly one of them. He also testified that he wasn’t aware of any scientific studies that concluded that children raised by gay parents were any worse off than those raised by heterosexual parents, clearly undermining one of the anti-gay side’s core arguments in this trial.

To prove just how nonsensical Blankenhorn’s opinion is, his argument is that same-sex marriage is not as good as heterosexual marriage in the same way that adoption (regardless of whether it’s by gay or straight parents) is not as good as having biological children. It’s just not as good? That is purely, without a shadow of a doubt, just an opinion, which clearly has no real scientific evidence to support it. That’s not even me saying that. That’s just based on the absolute lack of substantive evidence the anti-gay side of this case has provided. It’s no wonder that Judge Walker nearly revoked Blankenhorn’s status as an “expert” witness.

Ah yes, the truth comes to light. The defendants’ own witnesses are making the plaintiffs’ case. Now it becomes very obvious why the anti-gay side didn’t want this trial to be televised. It would have revealed just how bogus their arguments are to the whole world. Thank goodness for the internet!

The economic benefits of same-sex marriage and the inanity of anti-gay arguments

San Francisco’s chief economist Edmund Egan testified in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial on Thursday the 14th that same-sex marriage is good for the economy. He cited evidence showing that married people are both healthier and wealthier than single people, which means that their lives would be better in general. Some benefits include lower worker absenteeism, greater productivity, and higher wages. Egan also said that the extra weddings and married couples would generate more income for the state and local governments and economies. Healthcare costs would be reduced because married couples are both less likely to need healthcare services and also more likely to be covered by insurance, which means government subsidization of healthcare costs would be reduced. Furthermore, the increased wages that married couples generate would mean more payroll taxes for the government, as well as increased consumer spending which means more money going into the local economy. Not to mention the fact that weddings themselves are usually incredibly expensive, so more of them would be economically beneficial as well.

If someone didn’t know what the issue was but knew that it would create all these benefits for everyone, they would surely be in favor of it. Blatant discrimination is the only reason why anyone would choose to give up such immense benefits. There simply is no other explanation.

More recently, the defense side of this case (the anti-gay side) just began their testimony yesterday, and already one of their key “experts”, a government professor named Kenneth Miller, has stated under oath that the Defense of Marriage Act (which is pretty much the same thing as California’s same-sex marriage ban, just on the national level) is discriminatory. He also admitted significant shortcomings even in his qualifications as an expert on the issues being debated, saying things like he didn’t know whether gay people or black people enjoyed more political power in government (which is really not a difficult thing to know, even for the mildly politically aware), and that the bulk of his gay rights-related knowledge came from Yes on 8 campaign advertising. And… And! When being questioned by one of the pro-gay-side lawyers if he believed “laws that discriminate against intimate relationships between gays and lesbians [are] prejudice”, Miller responded, “I would vote to repeal such laws. I have no idea what good purpose they would serve.”

I am certainly not in support of the anti-gay side here, but what the hell kind of defense is that?! Have you ever heard of anything more self-defeating? Their very first expert called on to testify is already saying that the other side is right and the side he is supposed to be defending is wrong, and very plainly so. That’s just… holy crap! I literally burst out laughing when I read that. This just goes to show that the anti-gay argument is basically non-existent. It’s just a bunch of made up bullshit intended only to scare people from being nice to their fellow man. If the rest of their defense goes like this, and I hope it does, gays will be getting married again in California faster than you can say “Prop 8″.

And by the way, if these people knew anything about the Bible they claim to value so much, they would know that Jesus never turned anyone away, and that the ultimate message of religion is supposed to be one of universal love and inclusion of everyone. That’s something so fundamental that they teach it in Sunday school. How can you go from singing “Jesus Loves Me” as a little kid to shouting “Jesus hates you” as an adult? Something obviously went very wrong as you grew up, and it was something with you because Jesus certainly didn’t change.