According to Andy Pugno, General Counsel for Protect Marriage, the plaintiff’s star witness,Harvard Law Prof Nancy Cott, damaged their case.
1. she admitted that marriage is more than a private arrangement, but has social significance
2. she admitted 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.” Not the only state interest, but at least, a state interest.
3. “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.”
This last point doesn’t bother me as much as it bothers Andy. I, for instance, would be seen as a biased witness, because I am an advocate as well as a scholar. The real question is whether her position makes sense, is historically accurate, and relevant to the kind of society voters might legitimately want to create for themselves.