This morning’s testimony by the plaintiffs’ expert witness on the history of marriage, Professor Nancy Cott, attempted to describe the history of marriage in our nation without acknowledging the obvious: that it has universally understood to be between a man and a woman.
She was able to avoid this reality by choosing her words carefully, but then on cross examination by David Thompson, one of our legal team attorneys, reality came crashing down on her like a ton of bricks. In fact, the witness did great damage to the plaintiffs’ own case, making key admissions in our favor.
For example, she conceded that the consequences of same-sex marriage are impossible to know. She also admitted on the stand that the public interest in promoting the raising of children by both a mother and father is a purpose that is promoted by traditional marriage. She also undermined the plaintiff’s characterization of marriage as a purely private decision when she conceded marriage is a highly public relationship in which society has great interest.
On a separate note, the presentation of Prof. Cott as a scholarly observer fell apart when she admitted to being an entrenched and committed advocate for changing the law to allow same-sex marriage. Whether filing legal briefs, lobbying to pass legislation or supporting organizations that advocate the deconstruction of marriage, she was solidly revealed as an irretrievably biased witness.
Meanwhile, we are still waiting on a permanent decision from the United States Supreme Court following their temporary ruling that suspended the televising of the trial.
We continue to believe that we cannot get a fair and impartial trial if our witnesses are subjected to worldwide exposure of their personal beliefs and morals.
