Skip navigation

Ed Whelan:

Short version:  Everything that plaintiffs’ “experts” say is beyond dispute.  E.g.:  “[T]he evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes.”  “The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.”  (I would have thought that it’s equally clear that “moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief” that the laws against murder should protect all persons.)

Judge Walker makes little or no reference to the fact that nearly all of plaintiffs’ “experts” are political activists for gay causes and that many or most are in same-sex relationships.  They’re just neutral experts.  In the same way that Walker is just a neutral judge.

How can you tell that a court decision is, at bottom, illegitimate? The court takes testimony on what the latest social science says, and then the court decides what public policy should be based on the testimony of a few experts.

Courts are not made to evaluate social science studies. Courts are the very last place to examine this kind of stuff.

First of all, social science research is often creepily flawed. It is the most highly politicized of all the soft sciences. Judges have no way of knowing what is a valid study and which is not; he must rely on the experts before him, and these days a person can become an “expert” specifically because they are highly biased in one direction or another. (For example, if someone tried to publish a study that said homosexuality had ANY down side at a major university today, they would be instantly drummed out. So we are not getting real science here, we are getting highly politicized gunk).

The whole trial was one big joke, I am afraid.

Everything about this case is going to be a disaster for the gay marriage movement. It might have driven a stake through it. It will rally political support against gay marriage in the coming election. The Supreme Court will decide there is no right to gay marriage – at all.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: