Redeeming the Dream : The Case for Marriage Equality (9780698135369) by Olson Theodore B.; Boies David

Author:Olson, Theodore B.; Boies, David
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Penguin USA
Published: 2014-05-29T16:00:00+00:00

Q: Well, sir, you know perfectly well that these are not sort of just hypothetical cases. Correct, sir?

A: No, sir.

Q: You don’t? You don’t? Like this example of the incarcerated prisoner, you know perfectly well that that’s a real example from a real court case, don’t you, sir?

A: No, sir. I do not.

Q: You don’t?

A: Why would you try to put words in my mouth of that nature?

By now everyone in the courtroom knew what was coming next. David read from Blankenhorn’s testimony at his deposition: “In recent years, there has been a growing permission on the part of courts to accept married couples who cannot have sexual intercourse. For example, when one spouse is in prison.”

On occasion Blankenhorn’s evasiveness provoked laughter from the audience. At one point, he complained, “It’s actually not a laughing matter to me, Mr. Boies.” “Mr. Boies is not laughing at you,” Judge Walker interjected. “He’s amused at the back-and-forth, as I think many of us who are observing this are.”

Judge Walker generally listened to this testimony with forbearance, seemingly determined to give the defense every opportunity to make its case—even if that meant indulging a recalcitrant witness for hours on end. He did caution Blankenhorn early on that the court would weigh all the evidence presented, including “the demeanor of the witnesses. And the demeanor of the witnesses is sometimes gauged, importantly, by the responsiveness of the witness to the questions that he’s asked.” This caution undoubtedly increased the pressure on Blankenhorn.

Blankenhorn eventually admitted that none of the academics he cited—the genuine experts in the field—had predicted that same-sex marriage would damage heterosexual marriages. This was a key concession, because it supported our position that permitting same-sex marriage harmed no one.

But perhaps the most valuable testimony came at the end of a long and contentious cross-examination when Blankenhorn, after agreeing that equality and inclusiveness were core American values, agreed that “we would be more, emphasize more, American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were on the day before.”

By the end of his testimony, Blankenhorn had provided far more support for our case than he had for the defense. He had admitted that barring same-sex marriage harmed gays and lesbians and harmed children raised by gay and lesbian couples, that there was no evidence such a ban served any legitimate interest, and that the ban was inconsistent with core American values.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.