HUGE Prop. 8 Case News (Reker's Views Used In Prop 8 Docs Of "Expert" Witnesses!)

[kpete]

HUGE Prop. 8 case news
by indiemcemopants

Wed May 19, 2010 at 06:17:31 AM PDT

Well well, look whose views were relied upon in the Prop. 8 case:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/us/19rekers.html

Dr. Rekers has a less direct link to another high-profile gay rights case: the federal court challenge to a California law banning same-sex marriage, which was passed in 2008 by a voter initiative.

Dr. Rekers did not testify in that case, but his views, in the form of a declaration filed in a previous case, were cited in the documents prepared for trial by two men initially identified as expert witnesses. (Only one, David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values, testified.)

.....................

News coverage has focused largely on his seeming hypocrisy, given that Dr. Rekers, a clinical psychologist and ordained Baptist minister, has written that "leaders of the homosexual revolt" use "manipulative techniques of classic revolutionary strategies" to keep homosexuals from trying to change their orientation.

But legal experts say the scandal may affect more than Dr. Rekers’s reputation. They say it places obligations on those who have relied on Dr. Rekers to inform the court in at least one continuing case to modify or withdraw their arguments.

more:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/5/19/867801/-HUGE-Prop.-8-case-news
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/us/19rekers.html

[racaulk]

1. This Rekers scandal is the gift that just keeps on giving.

:rofl:

K&R!

[el_bryanto]

2. Maybe I'm reading this wrong but it seems like this is more damning to Dr. Rekers than to the

proponents of Prop 8.

The people who supported Prop 8 did so for irrational reasons (even if they covered them over with a patina of reason). I doubt this guy actually convinced many people. But maybe i'm missing something.

Byant

[efhmc]

3. Just that he continues to show himself as a liar and hypocrite.

[gratuitous]

4. It hurts the proponents' argument

Their legal briefing, in part, is supported by the declarations and affidavits of knowledgeable folks, who may be designated as "experts" by the court. Their statements offer testimony that is used to buttress the argument. Now, if their expert statements are based on flawed research, those statements lose some of their authority, and damage the legal argument. The experts should submit amended statements, or the opponents can use their dependence on flawed research as a reason to argue to the court to disregard the testimony and argument on certain points.

It hurts the proponents quite badly if their expert statements are heavily dependent on "Dr." Rekers.