One wonders how Florida’s American Indian community might react to the Attorney General’s star witness. George Rekers, the retired University of South Carolina professor paid $60,000 for his testimony opposing gay adoption, added that he would also oppose adoptions by native Americans.
Essentially, the state of Florida, by endorsing his discredited Bible-based theories on gay adoption, was also embracing his contemptible notions on race.
The state’s lawyers knew what they were getting when they hired Rekers to testify in the Miami-Dade family court tussle over a 1977 state law banning gays from adopting. In 2005, in a similar case out in Arkansas, a Pulaski County circuit judge said,
Dr. Rekers’ willingness to prioritize his personal beliefs over his functions as an expert provider of fact rendered his testimony extremely suspect and little, if any, assistance to the court.
Last week, Miami-Dade Judge Cindy Lederman echoed the Arkansas finding.
Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy.One reader e-mailed a question that the Attorney General's office needs to answer:Why did state taxpayers foot the bill for two “experts” on child adoption who were really just religious zealots? Either the state lawyers didn’t check their credentials, they purposefully stacked the testimony against their own case or (most dangerously) felt that research based on religious convictions is now appropriate in formulating state policy. Has the barrier between church and state fallen so far that no one finds this disturbing.