The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

I wrote a long post and deleted it because it felt like I was ranging too far afield and I don't want to derail this very informative and interesting thread. I will just say this:

I more or less share your dim view of humanity F7. I, too, come from the George Carlin "circling the drain" view of humanity's future. I do agree with Seth on this one though. I am going to assume you grew up in a culturally diverse area just as I did. It is easier for us to inherently know that racial stereotypes are bogus because ever since a young age we've been exposed to the culture of other races. This informs us as children and forms the basis of our adult opinions.

Now what if a person has never physically been within 100 yards of anyone not white? They have no experience to draw upon other than the vicarious experience related to them by their friends and family.

Human's are creatures of experience. Our mind and body quickly adapt to our environment and if the only stimulous we have is "hate gay people" then we'll probably hate gay people. Sometimes that feeling of hate is so strong that we will then go out of our way to insure that we don't have experiences with gay people, thus depriving us of the information needed to open our eyes to our misconceptions.

I'd venture to say that every single one of us has prejudices and misconceptions about others.

As liberal as I am I have to admit that I personally do have prejudices that I have to be aware of and work against. These prejudices stem from ignorance because they are about cultures that I have no personal experience with. Even though I know the stereotypes that come to my head are not representative I can't help but think them because my brain, without any personal experience to draw upon, instead fills in the blanks with the american pop-cultural viewpoint.

WAIT! I just deleted an onerous and too wordy post only to make a slightly different yet equally long and tengential one. I think I made my point. Sorry.

I also see what you're saying, F, though I wouldn't be so...strident about it? We have a tendency to just accept that some absolution has happened, and all has been made clean, when in reality absolution shouldn't be easy, if it's even possible.

We should accept these changes of heart, but we shouldn't forget the actions that came before. I think the best response is to say "Nice that you've had the change of heart, but what're you going to do about it?" As always D'Angelo Barksdale expresses this more succinctly and more NSFW than I.

Even though I know the stereotypes that come to my head are not representative I can't help but think them because my brain, without any personal experience to draw upon, instead fills in the blanks with the american pop-cultural viewpoint.

Realising they are stereotypes, refusing to act upon them and trying to overcome them is what makes the difference. Humans have flaws, but most people just roll with them out of convenience. I have the deepest respect for those who try to overcome them.

dejanzie wrote:
Even though I know the stereotypes that come to my head are not representative I can't help but think them because my brain, without any personal experience to draw upon, instead fills in the blanks with the american pop-cultural viewpoint.

Realising they are stereotypes, refusing to act upon them and trying to overcome them is what makes the difference. Humans have flaws, but most people just roll with them out of convenience. I have the deepest respect for those who try to overcome them.

But for every stereotype I am aware of there are probably two more that are just ingrained in me and I never realized it.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

He says his parents started putting notes in his lunchbox saying that gays were evil and he was a bad person and emotionally abused him in other ways. He says his mother was particularly abusive. She told him he was “disgusting” and said she would rather have had an abortion than have a gay son and also said that she would have preferred a Down Syndrome child or a retarded child rather than a gay child.

I used to think that the best thing for the rabid anti-gay-anything people would be to have a gay child. But after reading that, I think I'll change my position. Those people shouldn't have children at all.

TheArtOfScience wrote:
dejanzie wrote:
Even though I know the stereotypes that come to my head are not representative I can't help but think them because my brain, without any personal experience to draw upon, instead fills in the blanks with the american pop-cultural viewpoint.

Realising they are stereotypes, refusing to act upon them and trying to overcome them is what makes the difference. Humans have flaws, but most people just roll with them out of convenience. I have the deepest respect for those who try to overcome them.

But for every stereotype I am aware of there are probably two more that are just ingrained in me and I never realized it.

So which group of people do you advocate legislating rights away from?

I am being a little snarky maybe but I think you get my point. I also see yours though, prejudice can be difficult to spot in one self, even when one is looking.

The difference I think is when you start campaigning to legislate rights away from people. I am not sure what makes the difference exactly but I think there is a difference.

Great posts guys. You've given me a lot to think about. I'll tell you this, despite the little faith I have in humanity, you guys and gals remain the big bright f*cking shining beacon in this ocean of refuse and if anyone can coax a glimmer of hope out of me for the rest of humanity, it's all of you under the premise that there HAS to be more GWJ-type people out there.

Sorry for nurturing the derail Rev. I look forward to the next update.

Cmon, Kier. Every single person alive harbors stereotypes. Given a day researching old posts on these forums I could give you a list of stereotypes people on this forum take for granted, individually, in list form.

Like I've said a dozen times, stereotyping is just a politically unpopular word for generalizing, a human survival behavior that everyone has and no one can escape.

[edit] Not that that should be anyone's excuse for not fighting against stereotypes. I just find myself better equipped when I understand that I'm fighting against my own evolution, not my own evil.

Holy.Crap.

I'm shaking, I'm so angry.

Rubb Ed wrote:

Holy.Crap.

I'm shaking, I'm so angry.

Tam wrote:

T: This letter is my letter to pastors and leaders. Most of the things I’m talking is my personal information and they will be offended if this is in the public eye.

IMAGE(http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b296/Bonus_Eruptus/gifs/prince_wtf.gif)

I... I don't think that's a valid objection in court.

B: Do you believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children?

T: Yes, I do.

B: Based on what?

T: From academic papers.

B: Which academic papers?

T: Some could be news and some could be journalists.

B: I’m not asking you what it could be. Was it a book? An article? Who wrote it?

T: I don’t remember. I don’t know.

B: Does Collins believe that sexual orientation can be changed?

T: I saw it on the NARTH site [that’s where Ryan from yesterday went to have conversion therapy)]

B: You think NARTH is an objective website?

T: Yes. It’s reliable.

B: What does American Psychological Association say about this?

T: I don’t know.

B: You never tried to find out?

T: No.

B: You believe that NARTH is a good source?

T: Yes. I rely on the NARTH.

*head asplode*

I'm so glad this guy is getting his right now.

Rubb Ed wrote:

Holy.Crap.

I'm shaking, I'm so angry.

This stuff is really skirting the line between tragic and comic (i.e. it'd be hilarious except that it's being taken seriously and being used to discriminate against people)

B: You told people that next will be legalizing sex with children. That’s the homosexual agenda. Do you believe this?

T: Yes.

Gay people want to marry another adult so that they can have sex with kids? Buh?

B: You said that if Prop. 8 passes, California will fall into Satan’s hands.

T: Yes, I said that.

Over here, that'd get the guy immediately chucked into the "nutjob" camp (if his previous statements had left any doubt). I suppose things are a bit different in the US.

T: I saw it on the NARTH site [that’s where Ryan from yesterday went to have conversion therapy)]

B: You think NARTH is an objective website?

T: Yes. It’s reliable.

B: What does American Psychological Association say about this?

T: I don’t know.

B: You never tried to find out?

T: No.

B: You believe that NARTH is a good source?

T: Yes. I rely on the NARTH.

T: Homosexuals are not minority.
B: How many are there?
T: I am a minority. Minority is based on skin color.
B: How many are there?
T: 2-4% of population.
B: So they are a minority?
T: yes.
B: Do you believe that homosexuals should be discriminated against?
T: No.

That attorney is doing an excellent job of demolishing Tam.

Rubb Ed wrote:

Holy.Crap.

I'm shaking, I'm so angry.

I don't mean to belittle you here, because people tend to react differently to something so completely absurd and offensive ... but I am laughing my backside off. This man has done horrible things, helped lead a campaign based on ignorance, fear, and outright hatred, and without the comfortable equivocations or "nudge/wink" inferences... what he has to say is just so ridiculous.

T: Homosexuals are not minority.
B: How many are there?
T: I am a minority. Minority is based on skin color.
B: How many are there?
T: 2-4% of population.
B: So they are a minority?
T: yes.
B: Do you believe that homosexuals should be discriminated against?
T: No.

Pretty sure the text mentioned Tam's side trying to stop him from testifying. Bit obvious why. He's an attorney's worst nightmare.

B: Your paper says that after Netherlands legalized SS marriage, NEtheralands legalized incest and polygamy. Do you believe that?
T: SS marriage may not have led to legalization of incest and polygamy, but it happened.
B: Who told you that?
T: I found it on the Internet.

I don't do this very often but... LOL!

Incidentally, the anti-Prop8 forces seem to have picked up some really unlikely buddies.

Bloo Driver wrote:

Incidentally, the anti-Prop8 forces seem to have picked up some really unlikely buddies.

Gotta rebel against daddy somehow.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Rubb Ed wrote:

Holy.Crap.

I'm shaking, I'm so angry.

I don't mean to belittle you here, because people tend to react differently to something so completely absurd and offensive ... but I am laughing my backside off. This man has done horrible things, helped lead a campaign based on ignorance, fear, and outright hatred, and without the comfortable equivocations or "nudge/wink" inferences... what he has to say is just so ridiculous.

Not taking it as belittling, Bloo. I think I'd be laughing too, if it wasn't for the fact that I'm part of the group that this idiot's targeting. I'm livid because it's this sort of crap that I read about over and over in my local newspaper from "concerned citizens". It's this sort of thing that gets GLBT folks killed, because people believe we're truly going to recruit or rape their kids, or that we're going to somehow be the gateway for Satan to come to the earth, or whatever.

It's also sad, because there are so many young lives that are damaged by this sort of thinking, and it's not limited to this guy. Gay kids being thrown out, beaten, killed, committing suicide... adults entering loveless marriages so they can "prove" they're not gay... just... gah.

Rubb Ed wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
Rubb Ed wrote:

Holy.Crap.

I'm shaking, I'm so angry.

I don't mean to belittle you here, because people tend to react differently to something so completely absurd and offensive ... but I am laughing my backside off. This man has done horrible things, helped lead a campaign based on ignorance, fear, and outright hatred, and without the comfortable equivocations or "nudge/wink" inferences... what he has to say is just so ridiculous.

Not taking it as belittling, Bloo. I think I'd be laughing too, if it wasn't for the fact that I'm part of the group that this idiot's targeting. I'm livid because it's this sort of crap that I read about over and over in my local newspaper from "concerned citizens". It's this sort of thing that gets GLBT folks killed, because people believe we're truly going to recruit or rape their kids, or that we're going to somehow be the gateway for Satan to come to the earth, or whatever.

It's also sad, because there are so many young lives that are damaged by this sort of thinking, and it's not limited to this guy. Gay kids being thrown out, beaten, killed, committing suicide... adults entering loveless marriages so they can "prove" they're not gay... just... gah.

I think laughing is a pretty sane reaction. If you don't experience it up close in every day life, it is all a little bit ridiculous.

Unfortunately, as Rubb Ed said, people act upon their ridiculousness. That's the point where it becomes serious.

Rubb Ed wrote:

Not taking it as belittling, Bloo. I think I'd be laughing too, if it wasn't for the fact that I'm part of the group that this idiot's targeting. I'm livid because it's this sort of crap that I read about over and over in my local newspaper from "concerned citizens". It's this sort of thing that gets GLBT folks killed, because people believe we're truly going to recruit or rape their kids, or that we're going to somehow be the gateway for Satan to come to the earth, or whatever.

It's also sad, because there are so many young lives that are damaged by this sort of thinking, and it's not limited to this guy. Gay kids being thrown out, beaten, killed, committing suicide... adults entering loveless marriages so they can "prove" they're not gay... just... gah.

Or growing up in 400 person towns in the middle of Missouri and wondering every time you go home from school alone if you're going to be safe? I'm fully aware of how damaging this thinking is. Just in the context of the courtroom after all the dancing, sidestepping, and "you knooow what I'm sayin" is peeled away, all I could really do was laugh.

Logic crits Tam for 9000

T: I believe if marriage is beyond a man and a woman that any person can come to ask for marriage for incest and polygamy. If this is a civil right what would stop anyone from using marriage.
B: Can two siblings become DPs? Can man and girl of young age become DP?
T: No.
B: DPs exclude people of certain age and relationship.
T: Right.
B: You know that?
T: Yes.
B: So you see that DP does not lead to incest.
T: Yes. Oh I see your logic.
B: Yeah, logic, logic?
Bloo Driver wrote:

Just in the context of the courtroom after all the dancing, sidestepping, and "you knooow what I'm sayin" is peeled away, all I could really do was laugh.

As far as I could tell, most of it boiled down to:

You've stated that gay marriage will lead to x.
- Yes.
Do you have any sources?
- Yes.
Reliable sources? Can you produce them?
- No.

VDOWhoNeedsDD wrote:
T: Homosexuals are not minority.
B: How many are there?
T: I am a minority. Minority is based on skin color.
B: How many are there?
T: 2-4% of population.
B: So they are a minority?
T: yes.
B: Do you believe that homosexuals should be discriminated against?
T: No.

Pretty sure the text mentioned Tam's side trying to stop him from testifying. Bit obvious why. He's an attorney's worst nightmare.

Well, he's his attorney's worst nightmare. I'm pretty sure the anti-Prop-8 attorney was trying to stifle a giggle at a few points. Logically, it was like Mike Tyson boxing a special ed kid.

Rubb Ed wrote:

Not taking it as belittling, Bloo. I think I'd be laughing too, if it wasn't for the fact that I'm part of the group that this idiot's targeting. I'm livid because it's this sort of crap that I read about over and over in my local newspaper from "concerned citizens". It's this sort of thing that gets GLBT folks killed, because people believe we're truly going to recruit or rape their kids, or that we're going to somehow be the gateway for Satan to come to the earth, or whatever.

It's also sad, because there are so many young lives that are damaged by this sort of thinking, and it's not limited to this guy. Gay kids being thrown out, beaten, killed, committing suicide... adults entering loveless marriages so they can "prove" they're not gay... just... gah.

You should see some of the stuff on Tam's site in the feedback section. Some of it's old, but there was one Christian woman wanting to know how to pray for her daughter, because it was obvious she was so unhappy being a lesbian. Uh, I'm pretty sure she's unhappy because she has a judgmental c*nt for a mother.

This one is fantastic:

B: Did anyone from ProtectMarriage.com contact you ask you take off of 1man1woman.com the statements that homosexuals are 12 times more likely to molest children?
T: No because it was in 2007.
B: Correct that this website was in operation during the campaign?
T: Yes. This website does not belong to TFC. Only TFC signed pledge. 1man1woman never signed the pledge.
B: I’m focusing in on a different question. This website was up during the campaign?
T: This page was not up during the campaign?
B: If I represented to you that a prior witness saw this page before the election, would that reflect your recollection?
T: Maybe it is, but then, uh, well I cannot remember correctly when, but that’s what I thought. That’s what I thought.
B: PM.com was well aware of 1woman1man website, right?
T: I am not aware.
B: (Back to press invitation). See what the website is? (For rally that Ron Prentice attended)
T: 1man1woman.net.
B: Flyer refers to 1man1woman.net
T: Yes.
B: Flyer for open-air rally to protect children? Right at the top is 1woman1man.net? Does that refresh memory that ProtectMarriage.com knew?
T: I’m not ProtectMarriage.com, so you can infer that they know.
B: Well, let’s see if we can do more than infer. (Points to document that went out on August 28, 2008, sent from Mr. Shubert’s firm). What was Mr. Shubert’s responsibility?
T: To run the campaign.
B: This was sent from Mr. Shubert to a number of people, many of which have been redacted. Reads off orgs that have not been redacted. Attached are the project marriage weekly grassroots minutes from yesterday.
T: Yes.
B: Did you attend those meetings?
T: Yes.
B: Who else attended those meetings?
T: Leaders of grassroots teams.
B: What team were you the leader of?
T: Asian American.
B: Read minutes sent by the man who ran the campaign. What does that third bullet point say?
T: A website is up, 1man1woman.com.
B: Pauses. Your honor, I have no further questions.

IMAGE(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nvWgMkmFQCE/SBlBcMBS8XI/AAAAAAAABD8/DjTzBnQ87E0/s1600/Fractal%2BWrongness.jpg)

Seriously, this is likely listening to Fred Phelps lecture people.

Day 8

Part 43 – Cross Examination of Dr. Segura
Dr. Segura is being cross examined by Attorney Thompson for Prop. 8. He begins by throwing the names of politicians and celebrities that opposed Prop. 8 including Sen. Feinstein, Ellen Degeneres, President Obama, President Clinton, etc. He asks if that doesn’t demonstrate that gays and lesbians have power. Segura says it does not. Thompson then shows the amounts of money politicians and celebrities donated to the No on 8 campaign and Segura says that money doesn’t not denote power.

Thompson asks about all of the churches that supported the No on 8 campaign. Segura says that is misleading because the size of the churches that opposed Prop. 8 was tiny compared to the heavyweights like the Catholic Church, the LDS Church and the Southern Baptist Conference. (Thompson is correct. My church – the Congregationalist Church – opposed Prop. 8 but our numbers are minuscule. All Congregationalist Churches account for less than 1% of the entire Christian population in the U.S. Even combining us with the UCC, the Unitarians and the Metropolitan Community Churches, that doesn’t even come close to challenging the size of just one of the heavyweights.)

Thompson asks if gays and lesbians flock to CA because of the state’s protections. Segura says he doesn’t know that for a fact. He is asked if gays supported domestic partnerships. Segura says yes, but that is because it was better than nothing. Segura is asked if gays supported civil unions. He says yes, but only because it was better than nothing.

Segura is asked if people could have voted for Prop. 8 because they feared their churches having to perform gay marriages. He says that could be the case. He said it could also be the case they voted to show their disapproval of judicial activism, but doubts that would be more than a handful of people.

The topic then turns to the issues of violence that occurred during and after the Prop. 8 campaign. Thompson has Segura address to a laundry list of violent acts that were directed toward people who supported Prop. 8. This continues for some time with individual reports being read and Segura reacted. Segura says each time that the violence was not helpful and actually had a negative effect on the No on 8 campaign. Thompson makes the claim that gays and lesbians must be powerful if they can lose points with the general public due to violence. Segura says the acts of a few people do not mean the entire group is violent.

Thompson mentions that police were called to the El Coyote Mexican Restaurant in Los Angeles due to a boycott. Segura says boycotts are effective and are not violence. He points out MLK’s boycott of the Montgomery Bus Company during the 60s and how effective it was in changing civil rights.

Thompson then asks Segura if the increase in AIDS funding isn’t proof of political power for gays and lesbians. Segura takes grave exception to Thompson’s question and lectures him about how AIDS is a global disease and the funding has nothing to do with the status of power of the LGBT community.

Thompson points out that 40 states allow gay and lesbian adoption. Segura says that he is misrepresenting the facts. Segura says the laws Thompson reference were already in effect years before the gay rights movement and are neutral. Gays and lesbians were able to adopt because the laws were silent on sexual orientation vis-à-vis adoption. Segura says that several states have already had ballot propositions to outlaw gay adoptions.

Thompson tries to insert documents into evidence, but Judge Walker overrules and says he is not pleased with how defense counsel is handling himself. Thompson ends his cross-examination.

Part 44 – Re-Direct of Dr. Segura
Attorney Boutrous for the plaintiffs asks Segura about boycotts and their effectiveness. Segura says they are very effective and reiterates that they are not acts of violence. He notes that the Supreme Court stated that boycotts are effective forms of free speech.

Boutrous asks about the violence during the Prop. 8 campaign and Segura again says it is unacceptable. He also notes that the defense did not mention the violence that occurred on the other side, that people who supported Prop. 8 were harassing gays and the like.

Boutrous then asks to show the Gathering Storm ad put out by NOM. Judge Walker says okay and Boutrous asks Segura about the video. Segura says this shows the imbalance of power between the majority and gays and lesbians. He points out the ad all but says that gays are to be feared, that gays and lesbians are a threat to America and to all aspects of public life. Segura says the ad completely undermines any power gays and lesbians have because it makes it harder for gays and lesbians to get protections from the government.

Boutrous asks Segura about the Supreme Court ruling on Colorado’s Amendment 2. Segura says that since that ruling, gays and lesbians are worse off because of all the states that have banned gay marriage.

Boutrous asks Segura to address defense counsel’s notion that gays had lots of support from churches. Segura says that isn’t the case and you can’t say that the UCC is equal to the Roman Catholic Church in numbers or power. He says that even though there were some churches involved in the No on 8 campaign, the sheer numbers of churches and volunteers the Yes on 8 campaign had was staggering compared to the No side.

Boutrous asks Segura if gays and lesbians are politically powerful. Segura says that all of the research he has done demonstrates that gays and lesbians do not have meaningful political power.

Part 45 – Testimony of Dr. Bill Tam
There is a discussion between Judge Walker and the attorneys regarding whether or not Tam can withdraw from the case. After discussion and deliberation, Walker says Tam can testify. He is a hostile witness.

Boies asks Tam if he worked with the Prop. 8 campaign and he says yes. He is asked if he produced written materials and Tam says no, he just signed his name to them. He is asked if he worked with ProtectMarriage.com regarding the rallies. Tam says no, only that he invited the CEO of ProtectMarriage.com to the rallies. Boies asks, “Doesn’t that mean you worked with them, then?” Tam agrees it does.

Boies asks about his participation in debates and fundraising. Boies produces a document from ProtectMarriage.com with instructions on sending letters to pastors. Thompson objects because the documents contain the personal views of Tam. Judge Walker overrules, but says Thompson can have a standing objection to all of the documents so he doesn’t have to object to each one.

Boies shows the document to Tam and asks if the document lists all of the groups that were in coalition with ProtectMarriage.com. Tam says he doesn’t know, so Boies goes down the list.

Focus on the Family? Tam says yes.
Family Research Council? Maybe.

Boies gives the list to Tam and asks him to read the list himself and identify any groups he recognizes. Tam says he knows Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, CA Family Council, Values Advocacy Council and Traditional Family Coalition.

Tam is asked about his connection with the Traditional Family Coalition (TFC). Tam says he is the executive director. He is asked about the “Chinese Coalition” and Tam says he knows some Chinese evangelical churches due to his position at TFC.

Boies then asks Tam about how early his involvement was with the Prop. 8 campaign. Tam says he doesn’t remember. Boies produces a letter Tam signed off on in mid-2007 stating that he was anxiously awaiting for ProtectMarriage.com to get up and running so they could start collecting signatures. Tam says he did do fundraising for ProtectMarriage.com.

Boies produces more documents and asks Tam if he was part of the leadership of ProtectMarriage.com. Tam says no. Tam is asked if he played a major role in limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Tam says yes.

Tam is asked questions about gay marriage. He says he opposes, but is okay with civil unions and DPs. He isn't sure about gay adoptions. He is asked about his involvement with a website called 1man1woman.net. He says he had some involvement but wasn't the key player. He says he was the secretary of the organization.

He is asked if gay marriage will lead to pedophilia. He says yes. He is asked about a claim on the website that gays are 12 times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. He says it is just a link to a claim, that the link doesn't mean the organization believed it. Tam is directly asked if he believes that gays are more likely to molest children. He says yes. Boies asks him why. Tam says he has read reseach. Boies asks which research. Tam says some articles or books. Boies says he isn't asking about the format but what actually research. Tam says he doesn't know or remember.

Tam says he believes gay marriage will lead to legalized sex with children and a takeover of the government by gays and lesbians. He says prostitution will also become legal. Boies asks him why is that. Tam says because of Measure K that was on the ballot in San Francisco. Boies says Measure K had nothing to do with Prop. 8. Tam says that is true. Tam says San Francisco was being taken over by the gays already because they have a gay city counselperson.

Tam says he believes gays will demand having sex with children and points to the fact that Canada and Europe have age of consent as low as 13 or 14 and doesn't want America becoming like that. Boies points out that Tam never mentioned age of consent issues in any of his writings. Tam says that is true but he told people that would happen if Prop. 8 failed.

Tam is asked if he said that gay marriage will put California in Satan's hands. He says he said that and believes it.

Tam is given documents and says he authored them including one that says that gays can choose to be straight. He is asked for his sources and he says he reads the information from NORTH, the conversion clinic that Ryan Campbell attended.

Tam is given a document where he writes that gays are not a minority, but that he - being Chinese - is a minority. He says he meant gays are not a racial minority.

Tam is given a flyer that was handed out a rally he helped put together that says "It's time the Church rises up to face the forces of evil." Tam says he had no involvement in that flyer. He says he may have seen it at some point. He admits he sent out the press release and email for the rally in question. He says it looks like he was very involved, but he really wasn't.

Tam is handed another flyer. The flyer says that gay marriage will lead to moral decay. He is asked what is moral decay. Tam says homosexuality is a sin. Boies says that Prop. 8 wasn't about stopping homosexuality. Tam says that if Prop. 8 failed, gay marriage would encourage children to engage in homosexual behavior.

Tam is shown another flyer. It says that gay marriage will lead to incest, pedophilia and polygamy. Tam says he agrees with that. Tam is asked if he told people that in order to get them to vote for Prop. 8. Tam says yes.

Tam is shown a paper he wrote. It says that after Holland allowed gay marriage, it legalized incest and polygamy. Tam asks where he heard that and he says he saw it on the Internet. Boies says that polygamy is not legal in Holland and asks Tam to show where incest was made legal. Tam hedges and says that countries with loose sexual morals will start allowing polygamy and incest.

Tam is asked about his statement that civil unions in Sweden led to incest. He states that siblings are allowed to marry in Sweden. (Acutally, only half-siblings are allow to marry and they need special permission from the government to do so).

Tam states that gay marriage, CUs and DPs may lead to including minors. Boies asks if that is true of CUs and DPs since they have age restrictions. Tam admits that it doesn't.

Tam states that the word "marriage" is very important to keep only for heterosexuals. Says it is important for the children.

Tam is then questioned about his relationship with ProtectMarriage.com. He says he signed a pledge to work in a unified manner and then went on TV and said that allowing gay marriage will cause children to experiment with homosexuality and can lead to all sorts of diseases. Tam says Pugno contacted him and says he shouldn't have said that.

Boies produces documents to establish Tam's participation with ProtectMarriage.com. Tam says he really wasn't involved that much.

Part 46 - Cross Examination of Dr. Tam
Attorney Moss for the defendants begins by talking to Tam about his involvement. Tam says he had a few calls and a few meetings, but really wasn't much involved in the grand scheme of things. Tam claims he was pretty much a loner and never mentioned ProtectMarriage.com or other groups when speaking about his opposition to gay marriage.

Part 47 - Re-Direct of Dr. Tam
Boies produces emails and documents showing that Tam attended lots of meetings, including a meeting called "Allied with ProtectMarriage.com." Tam maintains he attended some meetings but really wasn't involved. He is shown an email addressed directly to him and TFC. 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."

Tam then says that he feels like a little schoolboy who was being called in front of the class to be mocked and ridiculed.

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.

billt721 wrote:

This one is fantastic:

B: Who else attended those meetings?
T: Leaders of grassroots teams.
B: What team were you the leader of?
T: Asian American.
B: Read minutes sent by the man who ran the campaign. What does that third bullet point say?
T: A website is up, 1man1woman.com.
B: Pauses. Your honor, I have no further questions.

That's amazing. I think what makes it even more depressing is that guys like him "won". They won. Some of them possess the intellect of lobotomized turtles and they won. Incredible.

Double post.

Just a point of clarification on Tam's testimony regarding gay marriage leading to the legalization of pedophilia.

Tam said that he feared that America would turn into Canada if it allowed gay marriage because Canada has a lower age of consent.

In 2005 when Canada began allowing gay marriage, the age of consent in Canada was already 14 years of age.

In 2008, some three years after Canada started allowing gay marriage, the age of consent in Canada was raised to 16 years of age.

Dr. Tam is an idiot.

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.