Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 2 Chapter 3

The cross-examination of Dr. Nancy Cott is complete and Theodore Boutros redirects for the plaintiffs.

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 2 Chapter 1

In this installment, Atty. Ted Boutros finishes his direct examination of Professor Nancy Cott. Her expert opinion is that there has NOT been a tradition in this country of marriage being strictly for purposes of procreation, marriage has historically been restricted upon the basis of race, marriage has increasingly become a domestic partnership of two equals, same-sex marriage would be beneficial for same-sex couples, and in her home state of Massachusetts divorce rates have dropped slightly (by 2/10ths of 1% out of 100% of all opposite-sex (?) marriages) since same-sex marriage became legally recognised there.

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment - Day 1 Chapter 4

Today David Boies completed examining Kristin Perry and examined Sandra Shier. Their testimonies were very poignant. Then, Theodore Boutros examined the plaintiff's expert witness on the history of marriage in the United States, Dr. Nancy Cott, Ph.D. When she tried to testify about marriage outside the US as it pertains to marriage inside the US, she and Mr. Boutros were almost derailed by the defense-intervenor's counsel, saying: "OBJECTION, your honor! It was noted in the deposition that she was only an expert on marriage within the United States and that she is not an expert on marriage outside of the United States," yada yada yada... District Judge Vaughn A. Walker bent over backwards for the D-I counsel and Mr. Boutros had to carefully ask questions about marriage outside the United States as it pertained to marriage inside the United States, including the founders' observation and known history of marriage outside US society.

And this is the judge that ProtectMarriage.com is now denouncing as an impossible-to-be-impartial, gay activist judge. You will find out later why in future installments when the reenactment of the trial proceedings will reveal a serious lack of preparation and a total appearance of ridiculousness, ludicrousness and arrogance on the part of the defense-intervenor's counsel.