bnpederson wrote:Bloo Driver wrote:Incidentally, the anti-Prop8 forces seem to have picked up some really unlikely buddies.
Gotta rebel against daddy somehow.
Actually that's John McCain's wife who is now supporting anti-Prop8 messages. That's a pretty huge deal -- his daughter Meghan has been against prop8 for a long time.
Also I am not sure if I should be filled with revulsion, horror, pity, or what for Mr. Tam.
I am filled with pity. Pity that, in a world where the information is out there for the taking, where people can no longer hide information, that people continue to stick their heads in the sand and ignore it.
Boies asks Tam if he knows American history and how Asians were once not allowed to marry who they wishes. Tam says yes.
Boies ends his re-direct.
End of Day 8.
Damn. That's powerful.
He says he has no documentation to prove he wasn't involved with the groups, and says, "I am Chinese and didn't know I would have to face a lawyer one day to talk about this."
If the defense had hired the unfrozen caveman lawyer these two would have had an impenetrable defense to any and all questions.
After reading the summaries of Tam's testimony I totally see why he was afraid of physical violence. Because his own side probably hates him so much that they're going to take him out back and teach him a lesson.
After reading the summaries of Tam's testimony I totally see why he was afraid of physical violence. Because his own side probably hates him so much that they're going to take him out back and teach him a lesson.
It is my closely-held belief that stupidity should be painful.
(Note: this is a concerted effort to show that there is not one firm definition of homosexuality and that because of that, you can’t really have same-sex marriage since you can’t define “same sex.”)
Any decent lawyer could turn this back on the defense in a heartbeat. If you can't define homosexuality, then the same logic would obliterate the meaning of heterosexuality, thus rendering any delineation between what sex should marry what sex completely worthless.
Phoenix Rev wrote:(Note: this is a concerted effort to show that there is not one firm definition of homosexuality and that because of that, you can’t really have same-sex marriage since you can’t define “same sex.”)
Any decent lawyer could turn this back on the defense in a heartbeat. If you can't define homosexuality, then the same logic would obliterate the meaning of heterosexuality, thus rendering any delineation between what sex should marry what sex completely worthless.
I don't see how that really matters anyways, since any form of legal same-sex marriage would have its own definition of homosexuality. Opposite-sex marriage already has its own restrictions (e.g. children or blood relatives can't get married, regardless of whether they self-identify as a heterosexual couple), so I don't see why same-sex marriage would be any different.
Besides, the issue isn't heterosexual marriage vs. homosexual marriage, it's same-sex marriage vs. opposite sex marriage. As the Prop 8 guys love to point out, a gay man and a lesbian can already get married to each other, and that's sure as hell not a heterosexual marriage.
And again, who you find attractive or who satisfy's you sexually is completely a separate issue from marriage. Many, not most, not even half, of Marriages in the US are between people who are physically and emotionally attracted to eachother. There is infidelity, total breakdown of a marriage, and then people move on to another partner. Men, women, gay, straight does not matter. If marriage was between sexually and emotionally satisfied people in the US, we would not have the high divorce rate, or rates of infidelity that we do.
I don't see how that really matters anyways...
Besides, the issue isn't heterosexual marriage vs. homosexual marriage...
I don't disagree with that. This is obviously a shell game tactic, I was just pointing out it was a pretty bad shell game tactic.
muttonchop wrote:I don't see how that really matters anyways...
Besides, the issue isn't heterosexual marriage vs. homosexual marriage...
I don't disagree with that. This is obviously a shell game tactic, I was just pointing out it was a pretty bad shell game tactic.
I wasn't trying to argue with your point either. Flipping it around to the definition of heterosexuality is a great idea.
Today the trial reviewed several videos in regards to rallies and ads for Prop 8 and ... well, in a word, it was damning. Some of the worst of it is at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker site.
Comparing gay marriage to 9/11? Classy.
I admit, though, that one of the commenters on that thread had me snarfing water after that comment was made in court: something along the lines of "Well, of course, after two men get married, what's next? The union between a man and a horse, a woman and a rock, a plane and a building..."
Which, so wrong, but black humor is sometimes necessary to get past the idiocy.
Man, the parallels between the testimony at this trial and the testimony of the Dover intelligent design trial are scary (in a good way, considering the outcome of that trial).
Ouch. Looks like that did a poor job vetting the guy who's being cross-examined. Also, "Good God, Man!" needs to be on a t-shirt. Immediately.
Hell of a job reporting on all of this Rev. Thanks again.
... I have no idea what to think after that, except: "Good God, Man!"
Apparently Miller's expertise is limited to his own opinions. He seemed shaky even about his own work.
Boies strikes me as very, very good at his job.
I'm coming in late here, but I just got through the Dr. Tam stuff.
Hooooooooly sh*t.
Blankenhorn then drops this on the court:
It never occurred to me that everything I would say regarding my views had to be documented. I have studied this for twenty years. Maybe I made a mistake, but it never occurred to me that all of the views that I state had to tie to documents at end of book. If it did, this would have had many more scores of documents listed.
Anyone who'd studied a field for 20 years would have learned the importance of citing sources the first time that they published an article!
He says he has never had any peer-reviewed article
Oh. Right. /facepalm
For the non-academics out there, most people get at least 1-2 peer reviewed articles by the end of their doctorate.
Which brings up a less important (and more personal niggle): Dr Blankenhorn
his degree is a Masters in History
Eh? Last time I checked, you don't get the "Dr" title for a Masters thesis. PhD, MD, etc., not an MA.
Next up, a real estate agent will talk about the impact of gay marriage on house sales. He's an expert since he's been in real estate for 20 years, even though he's never actually sold a house. (ok, it's not quite that bad, but it's close.) PR said it best:
(Why is this man on the stand? Who the hell is this guy? Does anyone think he has any shred of credibility?)
Edit: My sources of information on the trial have all been very pro-SSM, and I'd be interested in seeing the coverage from opposite perspective. Fun as it is to point and laugh at these guys, has anyone seen any (intelligent) discussion of the case from the other side?
Sonicator wrote:A less important (and more personal niggle): Dr Blankenhorn
his degree is a Masters in HistoryEh? Last time I checked, you don't get the "Dr" title for a Masters thesis. PhD, MD, etc., not an MA.
Sorry, Sonicator. Several of the blog feeds had him listed as Dr. and I didn't put 2 and 2 together. I will edit to clarify, although he may have an honorary degree somewhere.
Still, I will make the change.
No worries - I'm just touchy since I'm in the throes of writing up my phd thesis at the moment.
He says he has no documentation to prove he wasn't involved with the groups, and says, "I am Chinese and didn't know I would have to face a lawyer one day to talk about this."
It never occurred to me that everything I would say regarding my views had to be documented. I have studied this for twenty years. Maybe I made a mistake, but it never occurred to me that all of the views that I state had to tie to documents at end of book. If it did, this would have had many more scores of documents listed.
Facts? Accountability? You mean we can't just make sh*t up and people will believe us?
After reading today's summary, I was shooting the breeze with our company's legal counsel and I started talking about this trial. I asked him if he was following it, and he said only a little, since the trial didn't matter really. I was a little surprised by his flippant tone (he's usually pretty clinical and professional about these sorts of things) and asked him why he was being so dismissive. He pointed out to me that I had spent ten minutes detailing just how Goddamned awful the defense was on this case and that they were being effectively being completely overrun at every turn, including witnesses that are faulty at best. He then reminded me of something I had said awhile ago, which was that win or lose, this was probably on its way to the Supreme Court, an assessment he agreed with. With all that in mind, the current defense team is pretty much just throwing aimless punches at the air so they don't look like they've given up, but they have in fact given up. He sees little point in them wasting time and research efforts on this trial, instead feeling out the Plantiffs and developing a better case for the SC.
It seemed a little too courtroom-thriller to me, but it also made sense. It's a little disturbing to think that maybe at this point the defense looks so pathetic simply because they don't even care about this trial anymore.
I hope it gets beaten down in the end, but there's a curious academic part of me that hopes that THIS Supreme Court hears the case. If they are as Strict Constructionist as many say they are, then surely they can't find "one man, one woman" in the Constitution. It will be a test of the right of the SCOTUS's intellectual integrity.
Pages