[Ed. Note: FDL has complete team coverage of Perry v. Schwarzenegger–including more legal analysis, court documents, videos, and liveblogging direct from the federal court in San Francisco. You can find it all on our dedicated Prop 8 page.]
Today’s court session in Courtroom 17 at the Philip Burton Courthouse in San Francisco features Plaintiffs’ Counsel David Boies resuming his cross examination of Defendant-Intervenors’ Expert Witness David Blankenhorn.
Because both the questioner and the witness have the same first initial of their last name, I will use a Q&A format (with possible interjections by Judge Vaughn Walker as ‘Walker’ or ‘W’) for this cross examination.
Questions for today’s testimony: Will Boies continue to require YES/NO/I DON’T KNOW answers to his questions? Will Blankenhorn adhere to counsel’s requirement for the format of his answers? Will Judge Walker intercede early on to instruct the witness, or wait for a request from Boies after some wrangling? Will a good night’s sleep, as Judge Walker prescribed for us all, will both counsel and witness approach today’s questioning (and, more importantly, answering) more constructively and, um, responsively.
Q: I am going to try to make things go a little better today, good morning Mr BLankenhorn. DO you beleive marriage is public good?
A: Yes I do
Q: And you believe that children benefit from their parents being married?
A: yes certainly
Q: And do you believe that children of G&L couples would benefit from their parents being married?
A: Well, I do think it would be better for them
Q: You absoulutely believe it would be better for children of same sex couples to have married parents?
Q: (reads from B’s book) You say the rights of G&L should take second place to the institution of marriage?
A: Point me to the sentence?
Q: Reads next sentence.) You wrote that?
Q: You still believe that?
A: Yes, I was trying to say — I was saying — I meant that I accpeted the validity of the arguments of those who disagreed with me, but my answer is yes.