David Blankenhorn didn’t mess up in the Prop 8 Trial

I have been reading lots of disappointed commentary about the defense of Prop 8. “If only we had a better defense team, more witnesses, better witnesses, etc.” I have had people contact me telling me they wish I had testified. Others write to volunteer their services in Public Relations, Advertizing or even Lawyering.
What I take from all this is that a) people are frustrated and b) people want to Do Something to help.
I understand. Really I do. And I appreciate the confidence that people are showing in me by asking these questions, and suggesting that I would have done better on the stand.
But just as a matter of professional courtesy and Christian humility, I am unwilling to second guess the attorneys or the expert witnesses. After beginning to read Judge Walker’s opinion this morning, I am even less willing to second guess the Protect Marriage team. In particular, I have a renewed respect for David Blankenhorn, the one witness the Proponents of Prop 8 called to testify on the social purpose of marriage.
To answer one preliminary question that I have been asked many times: yes, the Prop 8 legal team did consider using me as an expert. I talked at some length with one of them, and several of the attorneys for the ADF are friends of mine. They certainly know about me, and respect me. The team decided not to use me when they realized that I had been a spokeswoman for the Prop 8 campaign. They concluded (correctly) that the court would not take my opinion seriously no matter what I had to say, or how credibly I said it. Events proved them to be correct.
Reading the judge’s opinion makes it clear that he defines “expertise” so narrowly that no one but the plaintiffs’ witnesses could meet the definition of expert. The Proponents of Prop 8 called in a political scientist, for instance, to argue that CA gays and lesbians are not politically powerless. Living in CA since 1996, I find it hard to believe that anyone doubts the power of the Gay Lobby. But, the plaintiffs attacked him because he had not studied gay politics in particular, just political parties and initiatives in general. The Judge completely bought the Plaintiffs’ assessment and found the “Miller’s opinions on gay and lesbian political power are entitle to little weight.” (pg 54 of the opinion)
But the Plaintiffs’ abuse of David Blankenhorn, and the Judge’s acquiescence in that abuse, was really something awful. David has mastered an expansive amount of data from a variety of disciplines on the impact of fatherlessness on children, on the significance of family structure, and on the importance of marriage to society. More than any single individual, David brought the issue of fatherless families to the attention of the public. Given academic specialization, no one person could have produced all that material, which is the standard that the Judge seems to require.
I can very easily read between the lines of Walker’s opinion, and see him trying to trap David into admitting things which sound damaging. For the most part, these “damaging” admissions are remarks taken out of context, often a context in which David was trying to be generous to his opponents, and trying not to overstate the applicability of the data before him. The Proponents’ attorneys extracted comparable admissions from the Plaintiffs’ witnesses, but somehow none of those admissions damaged their credibility in Judge Walker’s eyes. He finds that the “opinions of Blankenhorn to be unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight.” (page 49)
Nothing in this opinion causes my respect for David Blankenhorn to waver in the slightest. On the contrary, I find him more admirable than ever. His breadth of knowledge essentially took the Plaintiffs the combined efforts of 9 witnesses to counter. He was attacked for his generosity of spirit. And the Lefty bloggers and Media lapdogs are still having a field day at his expense.
I’m grateful that David put himself on the line for the views that some many of us share. The outcome would have been no different, no matter what he had said, done or ever written.
Thanks David.