Michigan’s witness in gay marriage trial barred

[DonViejo]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

DETROIT (AP) — A judge barred an Ivy League law student Monday from testifying at Michigan’s gay marriage trial, saying he might become an expert witness someday but his opinions wouldn’t help sway this case.

It was a blow for the Michigan attorney general’s office, which had offered Sherif Girgis as its first witness in defense of a 2004 constitutional amendment that bars same-sex marriage. Girgis has written and talked about a historical defense of marriage between a man and a woman going back to ancient philosophers such as Cicero and Plato. He’s pursuing a law degree at Yale University and a doctorate in philosophy in Princeton University.

“The fact is you’re still a student. Someone else is still grading your papers,” said attorney Ken Mogill, co-counsel for two Detroit-area nurses challenging the gay-marriage ban. U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman said Girgis is smart, articulate and bound to become an expert in his field. “But not quite yet,” Friedman said.

The trial entered its second week Monday. Earlier in the day, Lisa Brown, a Democrat and the elected clerk of Oakland County, was asked about an email sent last October from the attorney general’s office during a hearing in the case.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2014/03/03/michigans_witness_in_gay_marriage_trial_barred/

[Gothmog]

1. The Michigan AG is getting desperate if he wants to claim this person as an expert

Normally, one has to have graduated to be considered an expert. The attempt to claim this law student as an expert is amusing

[COLGATE4]

3. Actually, one can be accepted as an expert witness

by virtue of education or experience. A degree is not an absolute. However, in his case, he has neither.

[Gothmog]

4. I understand but normally one has to have a background that will assist the court

I am a lawyer and know the law in this area. Since experts have the right to give opinion testimony, they have to meet more stringent guidelines than fact witnesses. This "expert" did not meet the standard to be an expert witness. This law student was going to talk about history and I doubt that this testimony would be of any help to the judge

[COLGATE4]

8. I am also a lawyer and agree. My point was

simply that one does not necessarily have to have a degree to be qualified by the Court as an expert witness. Other background and experience can also be used. But, as I pointed out, the student in this instance had neither.

[roguevalley]

11. cute. do you think we should tell them Plato was gay?

[giftedgirl77]

2. Ha ha ha, a student as an expert witness...

That's rich

[Orsino]

12. Surely a hundred other haters willing to lie for free can be found...

...with a degree or experience to excuse the lies.

[giftedgirl77]

13. Exactly, at least find someone who has published

something that has been reviewed by someone other than his friends on facebook.

[Feral Child]

5. Straws

When there's nothing else to grasp at...

[blackspade]

6. Not that I agree with Girgis in the slightest

But the judge and Mogill are full of shit about him not being an expert because he is currently a 'student.'
The guy has a masters correct? and is working on his PhD?
What does it matter that "Someone else is still grading your papers?”
What an asshole.
I've been working in my field for 20 years. I'll be damned if someone would dismiss my expertise because someone was grading my fucking papers.
Let's face it, your always being evaluated no matter where you are in your career.

[Ikonoklast]

7. Girgis is a smart fellow. But he's a little too late to ride that gravy train of intolerance.

The marriage equality train has left the station, but Girgis still gets the Heritage Foundation, The Federalist Society, Opus Dei and other assorted right-wing chumps to give him money.

I doubt if the writings and beliefs of Plato or Cicero will be able to be used in a legal argument before the Supreme Court as to why the Fourteenth Amendment shouldn't protect the rights of gay citizens equally in all states.


The final summation of his Magnum Opus, "What Is Marriage?" that the right drools over boils down to, "Well....because kids."


And this guy is a Rhodes Scholar.

Oy.

[Crowman1979]

9. Is the AG going to call up his good friend Andy "Pee-Wee" Shirvell as an expert witness?

[Mustellus]

10. Plato ??? PLATO ??? You gotta be kidding me....

If I remember my Plato right, he agreed to Man on Woman sex only for that procreation thing.

The real worthwhile, grown up love interests were man on man in Athens...

(Also in Sparta, but that part got left out of the "The 300"....

[Gothmog]

14. Opinion rejected claims of Michigan's expert witnesses

The key issue in this case was whether same sex couples would be good parents compared to straight couples. The judge rejected the experts offered by the state of Michigan http://www.scribd.com/doc/213770186/2-12-cv-10285-151-Michigan-Decision

The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight. Marks’s testimony is largely unbelievable. He characterized the overwhelming consensus among sociologists and psychologists who endorse the “no differences” viewpoint as“group think,” by which he said he meant a politically correct viewpoint that the majority has accepted without subjecting it to proper scientific scrutiny. Marks undertook an excruciatingly detailed examination of the 59 published studies cited by the APA in support of its 2005 “Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting,” in which it concluded that “[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.” Marks, as well as Price and Allen, faulted many of these studies for their small sample sizes, the non-random methods used to obtain subjects, and the fact that some lacked heterosexual comparison groups, among other criticisms. Marks, Price and Allen all failed to concede the importance of “convenience sampling” as a social science research tool. They, along with Regnerus, clearly represent a fringe viewpoint that is rejected by the vast majority of their colleagues across a variety of social science fields. The most that can be said of these witnesses’ testimony is that the “no differences” consensus has not been proven with scientific certainty, not that there is any credible evidence showing that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than those raised by heterosexual couples.

This is a great ruling on the issue of whether children are hurt or injured due being raised by same sex couples. The Court did some great findings of fact here that will make this case an important case on this issue.

[Gothmog]

15. The last couple of paragraphs of the opinion are amazing

The key issue in this case was whether same sex couples made good parents for children (or could adopt children as a couple). The court made an amazing ruling http://www.scribd.com/doc/213770186/2-12-cv-10285-151-Michigan-Decision

No court record of this proceeding could ever fully convey the personal sacrifice of these two plaintiffs who seek to ensure that the state may no longer impair the rights of their children and the thousands of other snow being raised by same-sex couples. It is the Court’s fervent hope that these children will grow up “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694. Today’s decision is a step in that direction, and affirms the enduring principle that regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority, the guarantee of equal protection must prevail.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY DECLARED that Article I, § 25 of the Michigan Constitution and its implementing statutes are unconstitutional because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.