Paul Hogarth tries to understand why Edwin Egan was called to give testimony on the economic benefits of marriage equality:
Olson and Boies are probably bringing in all this evidence to cover their bases, because it’s harder to bring in evidence later. If — and it’s a big if — the federal courts recognize gays as a “suspect class,” then it’s a whole new ballgame. In that case, Prop 8 would only be constitutional if it’s justified by a compelling public interest, narrowly tailored through its least restrictive means. All of a sudden, the economic downsides of repealing gay marriage are very on point — because now Prop 8 can be thrown out for not being “narrowly tailored.”
The Dish 