We knew this lawsuit in federal court was coming when we the voters affirmed that marriage was between a man and a woman and that homosexuals, deserving of the same treatments that civil unions' afford, could not lay claim to an institution that has predated the state itself.
Obviously, a big part of the effort to invalidate Proposition 8 is to somehow show that homosexuals have been the victim of widespread and systemic discrimination. To correct the record, CMC Professor Ken Miller is there to correct the record. From today's New York Times,
The first defense witness, Dr. Kenneth P. Miller, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California, said that while the state’s voters had twice defined marriage as between only a man and a woman — with Proposition 22 in 2000 and Proposition 8 in 2008 — they had not invalidated other laws that extended benefits, like domestic partnerships for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender residents.
“It is true that in 2000 and 2008 the L.G.B.T. community, gays and lesbians, lost ballot measure contests” over same-sex marriage, Dr. Miller said. “However, California voters have not used the initiative process nor the popular referendum to repeal or limit the Legislature’s other broad expansions of L.G.B.T. rights.”
During a sharp cross examination, however, David Boies, a lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, peppered Dr. Miller with questions about discrepancies between his testimony Monday and earlier sworn depositions he had given. At one point, Mr. Boies asked whether Dr. Miller’s knowledge of pro-gay political gains came from his own research or had been told to him repeatedly by defense lawyers.
“Some of them were provided for me by counsel,” Dr. Miller said, “but most of them I found myself.”
. . .
The defense sought to show that claims of bias against gay men and lesbians were overblown. In particular, Dr. Miller testified, gay men and lesbians in California could count on a deep and varied contingent of allies, including the Democratic Party, organized labor, corporations, newspapers, celebrities and some church groups. Some of these groups also contributed heavily to the “No on 8” campaign, Dr. Miller said, which spent $43 million.
“There is no social issue that has ever involved this kind of money,” he said. “This is exceptional.”
7 comments:
Miller's did testify-but anyone who follows the liveblog of the proceedings can see he was ripped apart in the cross examiniation-with more on Tuesday. At one point the lawyers's got him to admit that Don't Ask Don't Tell and Defense of Marage Act WERE discrimination. His 20 min of his silently going through his deposition record to find what he was TOLD by council and what HE found was comical. CHECK out the LIVE BLOG report: http://prop8trialtracker.com/
wow great story...
I'm thinking Prof. Miller might want to rethink presenting himself as an expert on these issues in the future. I'd think he's extremely embarrassed at this point after enduring Boies' excellent and revealing cross examination yesterday.
The Claremont Colleges might want to start thinking of damage control in the wake of Prof. Miller's ridiculed cross examination by the stellar David Boies. Higher education in Calilfornia now has John Yoo and Kenneth Miller to be SO proud of. Lucky for the professor he is tenured...
No one it doing it here, but it irks me that anyone would criticize a professor or anyone brought to these campuses for their views. I didn't really have an issue bringing Ken Starr here, I don't have an issue having a professor here who doesn't support marriage equality.
But what does irk me is having an "expert" professor here that, apparently, isn't much of an expert in the field. It does seem to reflect poorly on the colleges.
As an old student of Prof. Miller, I am proud that he would be asked to give expert witness in any matter. However, I don't believe he said anything out of context or that he regrets. He is anti-initiative and probably wanted to lead the court and the record to the real problem -the people creating unjust and discriminatory "laws"
@ Lowell, not that I care what happens either way, but you seem rediculously self-serving. I hate to wake you up to the cold hard facts, but no one probably gives a flying feces what you think, to be honest. And I say that objectively, because I do not care about Prof. Lowell.
Post a Comment