"State's last witness says unrepentant homosexuals are going to hell"

Reading over How Appealing's links to the news coverage of the Michigan same-sex marriage "trial," I could not help but notice the sensationalistic headline in this post's title: "State's last witness says unrepentant homosexuals are going to hell."

On cross-examination of an economist testifying on behalf of the state, the plaintiffs' attorney asked: " "Is it accurate that you believe the consequence of engaging in homosexual acts is a separation from God and eternal damnation? In other words, they're going to hell?"

The admission of improper testimony in a bench trial does not matter much in itself, but is this really how the cross-examination of an economist should have been allowed to proceed? I have no special expertise in the law of evidence, but this question about the economist's religious beliefs does not seem relevant, even with respect to trying to prove bias of the sort that one can question expert witnesses about, and the prejudicial value of the testimony in any event would seem to substantially outweigh whatever probative value it might have.

(For whatever it might be worth to note, this was the same trial in which Sherif Girgis was not permitted to testify as an expert witness.)