The testimony by Sanford, Fla., investigator Chris Serino on Monday seemed to bolster the credibility of Zimmerman's claim that he shot Martin in self defense because the teenager was banging his head into the sidewalk.

In commenting on the consistency of Zimmerman's story as well as Zimmerman's apparent relief when falsely told there was a video of the confrontation, Serino said Zimmemran had to be either a pathological liar or telling the truth.

"If we were to take pathological liar off the table…do you think he was telling the truth?" asked defense attorney Mark O'Mara.

"Yes," responded Serino.

Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda started today's court hearing by asking Judge Debra Nelson to have Serino's comment stricken from the record and the judge agreed.

Catch up on all the details from the George Zimmerman murder trial.

Nelson ruled that one witness cannot offer an opinion of another and instructed the jury to disregard the exchange.

It remains to be seen if the prosecution's move actually drew more attention to Serino's testimony, or whether jurors will be able to ignore it.

De la Rionda moved to the heart of the state's case by asking Serino if Zimmerman's use of a crude epithet shortly before the shooting on Feb. 26, 2012 showed ill will and spite.

Zimmerman, 29, is charged with second degree murder in Martin's death. Florida law requires the state to prove a defendant acted with ill will, spite or hatred to convict on second degree murder.

Timeline of George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin Case

"In your opinion calling somebody and referencing them, pardon my language, as f***ing punks ill will and spite?" asked de la Rionda. Zimmerman muttered the phrase while talking to the Sanford police dispatcher when he called to report Martin as a suspicious person.

"Yes sir, it is," responded Serino.

Courtroom theatrics punctuated the day with de la Rionda approaching Serino and mock punching him while asking Serino if he would have defended himself.

"if somebody is hitting would you have your hands like this or would you be fighting," the prosecutor asked as Serino looked back with some discomfort and answered, "I would be fighting you"

The lawyers took so many turns re-examining Serino, they were reprimanded by the exasperated judge. "You're about to go into re-re-redirect," she told the state.

Prosecutors allege that Zimmerman profiled and followed Martin who was returning to the home in the Retreat at Twin Lakes subdivision where he was staying as a guest. Zimmerman maintains that he did not follow Martin after a police dispatcher asked him to not follow the teenager. He said in taped interrogations that he got out of his car to get a house number for police who were en route to the scene.

"Isn't there a numerical address right in the front?" asked de la Rionda.

"Yes there is," responded Serino.

De la Rionda showed the jury images of Zimmerman's video re-enactment, which was filmed during the day, and the numerical address of a home where he got out of his car is visible. However, the incident occurred at night.

O'Mara brought up that there had been other burglaries in the community including the arrest of a young African-American who was arrested about two weeks before Martin's shooting.

But when asked by O'Mara, Serino said that he believed Zimmerman was in fact following Martin.

"Did you think there was anything wrong with following him to see where he was going?" asked O'Mara.

"Legally speaking no," responded Serino.

Tweeting from court, Sybrina Fulton, Martin's mother wrote "Day 17 - Remember God gives His toughest battles to His strongest soldiers. Please know I can't give up now. I've come too far. Continue to keep us lifted in prayer."

WASHINGTON (AP) — Fearing a political-military implosion that could throw its most important Arab ally into chaos, the Obama administration has abandoned its hands-off approach, delivering pointed warnings to the three main players in the crisis: Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi, protesters demanding his ouster and the powerful Egyptian military.

U.S. officials said Tuesday they are urging Morsi to take immediate steps to address opposition grievances, telling the protesters to remain peaceful and reminding the army that a coup could have consequences for the massive American military aid package it currently receives. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the delicate diplomacy that is aimed at calming the unrest and protecting Egypt's status as a bulwark of Mideast stability.

The officials said Washington has stopped short of imposing a to-do list on Morsi, but has instead offered strong suggestions, backed by billions of dollars in U.S. aid, about what he could do to ease the tensions. Those include calling early elections, appointing new cabinet members, firing an unpopular prosecutor general and expressing a willingness to explore constitutional change. The army has been told that the $1.3 billion in foreign military financing it receives each year from Washington could be jeopardized by a coup or the appearance of a coup.

The White House, State Department and Pentagon all refused to comment on any specific steps the administration would like to see taken, saying any actions are for Egypt to decide.

However, the officials said President Barack Obama outlined the suggestions to Morsi in a phone call late Monday from Tanzania where he was wrapping up a trip to Africa. Around the same time, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called his Egyptian counterpart to point out that U.S. law requires cuts in military assistance in most cases when a country's armed forces are involved in an unconstitutional change in government, the officials said. Meanwhile, diplomats at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo have been speaking with the opposition, the officials said.

."

View gallery

Opponents of Egypt's Islamist President Mohammed Morsi hold a mock lamb with Arabic that reads, "Lea …

While military assistance would technically be at risk if the army intervened, the administration would be hard pressed to make significant cuts in it as the aid, a total of $1.5 billion a year, is deemed critical to U.S. national interests as well as those of allies like Israel and broader regional security.

In their conversation, Obama "encouraged President Morsi to take steps to show that he is responsive to (opposition) concerns, and underscored that the current crisis can only be resolved through a political process," the White House said in a statement released before the president left Tanzania.

As Obama flew back to Washington, some of his top national security advisers were meeting at the White House Tuesday to plot a way forward. The conclusions of the so-called "deputies committee" meeting were not immediately clear. The committee usually meets to prepare policy options for the president and his Cabinet, which gather in what are known as "Principals Committee" meetings.

The administration had tried to remain above Egypt's political fray, quietly counseling all sides to cooperate and compromise for the good of the country and the broader region. But officials said they determined that the low-key approach was no longer tenable after all sides hardened their positions on Monday. First, the army gave Morsi a 48-hour deadline to take action or face military intervention. That emboldened the protestors demanding Morsi's immediate departure, while the president himself dug in his heels and rejected the ultimatum.

Those developments prompted Obama's and Dempsey's calls to Cairo as well as a subtle shift in the administration's language, the officials said.

."

View gallery

Thousands of Egyptian opponents of Egyptian Islamist President Mohammed Morsi protest as they shout …

Where previous statements had stressed Morsi's position as Egypt's first democratically elected leader, the emphasis is now on the importance of the democratic process and respecting the principles of the revolution that led to strongman Hosni Mubarak's toppling in 2011.

Obama told Morsi in their phone call that "the United States is committed to the democratic process in Egypt and does not support any single party or group," the White House said on Monday. "He stressed that democracy is about more than elections; it is also about ensuring that the voices of all Egyptians are heard and represented by their government, including the many Egyptians demonstrating throughout the country."

At the State Department, spokeswoman Jen Psaki restated the administration's priority on the democratic process.

"It's never been about one individual," she told reporters. "It's been about hearing and allowing the voices of the Egyptian people to be heard."

In Cairo, meanwhile, the U.S. embassy said it would be closed to the public on Wednesday when the ultimatum expires. On Friday, the State Department had warned U.S. citizens to defer all non-essential travel to Egypt in light of the uncertain security situation and moved to reduce its diplomatic footprint in the capital by allowing some non-essential personnel and the families of embassy staffers to leave the country at government expense.

At the Pentagon, spokesman George Little would not say whether the U.S. has received any commitment from the Egyptian military to provide security for any Americans at the embassy in the event of riots or a coup.

Asked whether the U.S. would cut off military relations with Egypt if the military takes control of the government, Little said that he would not speculate on legal conclusions. But, he added that generally, "there are consequences that can flow from such political developments."

___

Associated Press writer Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report.

The Egyptian military has given President Mohammed Morsi until Wednesday to reach a deal with opposition protesters, and as the deadline fast approaches there is still no solution in sight. Indeed, demonstrators demanding Morsi's ousterlaunched fresh mass rallies on Tuesday, while Morsi's fellow Islamists in the Muslim Brotherhood urged his backers to stand firm against a possible coup.

What will happen if the military makes good on its threat to intervene?

SEE ALSO: The George Zimmerman trial: A day-by-day recap

If Morsi does not come up with a plan to make peace with his rivals, military sources say the generals will begin implementing their own power-sharing roadmap, according to Yasmine Saleh and Asma Alsharif atReuters.

The plan, which is still nebulous, calls for suspending the constitution — written and pushed through by Morsi's party — and dissolving the Muslim Brotherhood–dominated parliament, according to Reuters. The army would reportedly install an experienced and predominantly civilian interim council to run the country for the next few months, until an amended constitution can be drawn up.

SEE ALSO: The 8 worst job interview fashion mistakes

Next would come a new presidential election, followed by the vote for a new parliament — although there was no word on what the military planned to do with Morsi "if he refused to go quietly," Reuters says.

Analysts largely agree that the military is not eager to take power itself. The generals seized the reins after Egypt's Arab Spring revolution forced out longtime leader Hosni Mubarak in 2011, and wound up becoming the target of angry crowds. Jeff Martini at Foreign Affairs says that the military is "still licking its wounds" after that experience, and would be better off pulling together a real caretaker government, which means getting at least some Islamist groups on board.

SEE ALSO: Meet the woman who might unseat Mitch McConnell

An intervention absent Islamist support would risk an Algeria-like scenario, in which the military's overturning of an Islamist electoral victory led to a civil war that embroiled the country throughout the 1990s. To mitigate against the possibility of a violent response, the military could try to coax the Muslim Brotherhood to the bargaining table with the opposition. Failing that, it could try reach out to Islamists from outside the Muslim Brotherhood, such as the Salafists, or breakaway groups, such as the Strong Egypt and Center parties. [Foreign Affairs]

Faced with fuel shortages, dwindling hard currency reserves and worries about its wheat supplies, Egypt urgently needs a government stable and credible enough to manage difficult and disruptive economic reforms. A move by the military to force the Brotherhood from power, despite its electoral victories, could set off an Islamist backlash in the streets that would make stability and economic growth even more elusive. [The New York Times]

If Abdel Fattah el-Sisi — defense minister and commander in chief of the Egyptian Armed Forces — decides to take full power, it would not be the first time that Egypt experienced a coup.

SEE ALSO: The 10 best TV shows from the first half of 2013

In 1952, Gamal Abdel Nasser, a strong nationalist leader of the Free Officers Movement, overthrew King Farouk and then moved to abolish the constitutional monarchy, leading to a series of dictators that came from the army as well. [Jerusalem Post]

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

The Supreme Court may have given a boost for same-sex marriage supporters, but that doesn't mean Rep. Tim Huelskamp is giving up.

Late last week, the Kansas Republican introduced a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. To be sure, adding an amendment to the founding document of the United States is a long shot to say the least, even if it gains some attention in the beginning stages.

Though Republican leadership have yet to back the measure, the bill has 28 cosponsors.

The bill reads:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

In an interview with National Journal, Huelskamp said grassroots support in the states can pressure enough lawmakers to support the measure. But in the face of the inertia of the same-sex marriage movement (same-sex marriage is now supported by a slim majority of Americans in polls, with young people strongly in favor), Huelskamp's measure will probably not gain any momentum beyond his conservative colleagues.

"Any constitutional amendment is a very difficult hill to climb, but I think my colleagues are going to be surprised of the support coming from people back home," he said.

So why push? It's all about the children, who were the victims of last week's Supreme Court decisions, he said.

Here are edited excerpts from the conversation with Huelskamp:

NJ: You've had some time to reflect on this. How do you feel about the Supreme Court rulings?

HUELSKAMP: I still remain disappointed. After looking closer at them, they could have gone much further. They didn't declare a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. So, it's good to see the Court was not able to garner enough votes for that.

I'm continually amazed at the tortured logic of the two different majorities on those decisions and how they came to the goal they clearly wanted to get to. They're kind of schizophrenic decisions if you put them back to back.

NJ: Well, that's where you come in with your proposal for a marriage amendment. What sort of support are you seeing from your colleagues on this amendment? Any Democratic support?

HUELSKAMP: Too early to tell. In the Republican conference, we have John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers who were here the last time we voted for a marriage amendment. They voted for it and hopefully they'll be back saying the same. Hopefully they haven't changed their positions on that given how strongly the speaker was trying to defend [the Defense of Marriage Act]. Hopefully we'll get some strong support from leadership.

NJ: You've had some experience with this. You were behind the Kansas marriage amendment ban. What sort of lessons do you take from that?

HUELSKAMP: We were watching what was happening in other states and there were plenty of folks on the Republican side in general who wanted to make sure it was a very potent political weapon with the timing of when to put it on the ballot. And I understood all that, but I said at the end it's the issue that matters. And there were Republicans who didn't want to do it, but at the end of the day they said, "OK, if you put it to votes, you're going to make us vote for it." And we got it done. But it took two sessions and one election intervening. A number of folks got beat in 2004 because they were unwilling to put it on the ballot.

When we deal with constitutional amendments, every member of Congress needs to do his due diligence. But at the end of the day, you've got to put it out to the states. States make the decision eventually.

It'll get a full hearing over here. Any constitutional amendment is a very difficult hill to climb, but I think my colleagues are going to be surprised of the support coming from people back home. As much as we follow the decisions, there are only a few thousand people looking at the SCOTUSblog and the real world is still going on. And they hear the news and said, "Really? This is where our country has gone to? And we have 37 states that have this and these five justices will overrule 7 million Californians and this is all pretty strange and pretty nondemocratic." The debate of marriage is just starting. It's not over.

NJ: One of the things you have cited is the effect on children. Justice Kennedy, in his opinion, wrote that DOMA "humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples." Other studies, including from the American Sociological Association, show that children are not negatively affected by having two parents of the same sex. On what do you base your opinion that same-sex marriage is harmful for children?

HUELSKAMP: I'd like to see the one study. The study you're talking about is very limited and in my background—I do have a Ph.D. and am used to reading those kind of things—every study that I've seen is pretty conclusive. Social-science studies obviously have their limitations, but we also have centuries of human experience.

But what is a really shocking statement from the court is Kennedy proclaiming Bill Clinton and 400 members of the House and Senate back then as haters, that they have animus. There is no case for that. It's just an outrageous statement. To demonize like the Court did I think is going to upset all the folks who go to church every Sunday and a lot of folks who worry about their own families and wondering what it means.

It won't end the debate. It's just beginning. A good example is Roe v. Wade 40 years ago. The Left thought they won and 40 years later they're losing, they're losing ground. We're gaining on the life side and I think it's instructive and hopeful to those of us on my side of the debate here.

NJ: Is there anything you feel is important when discussing this issue?

HUELSKAMP: I still think the issue over children just gets lost. The idea that the desires of two consenting adults—there are court cases involving polygamy moving up through the system as well, but we'll leave it at two consenting adults—but somehow that trumps the needs of children? That's what gets lost too much. If you ask the average mom in America, "Would you like dad to be around?" Well, absolutely. And marriage has been that institution, the least intrusive institution, which make fathers into dads. And that's how we build a stronger society for our children. And that's what the studies have shown. And I think every mommy asking if you'd like a real dad around, really involved, really engaged. The best way to make that happen has always been marriage. And so that's what I think has gotten lost over the debates over two consenting adults. What about all our kids?

We have four adoptive children. That's what I see. I was happy to provide a mom and a dad for four kids, and I think it's helpful to them. And I'd like to promote that. That's been the societal ideal and that's been the goal of this legislation up here, at least the stated goal.