The American Spectator

Dr. Rekers is especially dangerous to the ACLU’s agenda not primarily because of his faith, but because he is also a tenured professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, and author of several peer-reviewed articles and books on child psychology. He told Ms. Hall he was prepared to testify about several scientific studies that could support CWARB’s policy. (I have seen the notes Dr. Rekers prepared for trial, and they consist of 70 pages summarizing scientific articles — a purely clinical tract, and not a religious one.)

However, this evidence was never introduced, both because Kathy Hall mysteriously chose not to ask about it during direct examination, and because a pre-trial motion barred much of it from being introduced.

That motion was filed not by the ACLU, but by the CWARB’s own attorney, Kathy Hall. According to an e-mail sent from Dr. Rekers to his university colleagues, Hall

Meanwhile, the ACLU attorney cross-examined Dr. Rekers by grilling him about his personal religious beliefs about sex and marriage.

The CWARB lost Howard. Judge Timothy Fox was not impressed with Dr. Rekers’ testimony, noting in his decision that

Given their failure to bring relevant testimony before the court, and their smear of Dr. Rekers without addressing the substance of his evidence, it looks like Judge Fox’s harsh words about putting ideology before the evidence better describe the lawyers of the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.

One concern about the ACLU’s aggressive attempts to discredit Dr. Rekers’ testimony is the implication that people of strong religious faith would never be allowed to testify on their subjects of professional expertise. They alleged a fundamental conflict between Dr. Rekers’ private religious beliefs and his ability to tell the truth in court on subjects of religious significance. The irony is pretty staggering: even as the ACLU made this argument, it knew (I suppose I should say or should have known) quite well that one of the lawyers in the courtroom shouldn’t have been there because of a glaringly apparent conflict, and it did nothing about it. Who are the real zealots here?

Gay adoption and foster parenting are divisive issues, but this story isn’t ultimately about gay adoption or even legal ethics. It’s about the ACLU putting its agenda above the rules, something even partisans on both sides ought to condemn.

Arkansas’ CWARB has appealed the Howard decision, and it sounds like it has grounds for a new trial to be granted. I would be fairly optimistic, except that the attorney handling its appeal is…

Why, of course: Kathy Hall.