Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Liveblogging Day 8: Daily Summary

Daily Summary Liveblogging

By Julia Rosen

Wow! What a day. Dr. William Tam was the star of the show today. The comments were flooding in as Trial Trackers obsessively refreshed the page.

But before Tam took his seat on the witness stand, Dr. Segura finished his testimony. Then all eyes turned to Tam who brought the crazy, as everyone expected. The Prop 8 lawyers did their best, filing objection after objection to keep Tam and evidence out of the court record, but Judge Walker let it fly.

Note: Be sure to stick around. Brian Leubitz has a post on Tam going live in a little bit and Robert Cruickshank will be writing later about how today’s SCOTUS decisions on corporate dollars in politics relates to Prop 8.

With that said, here is your daily summary of Rick Jacobs’ liveblogging. He will be back tomorrow as the plaintiffs finish their case and the defense starts calling their witnesses.

——-
DAILY SUMMARY

[UPDATE] 8:49

I’m back up in the overflow room on 19, where I’ve been for the entire trial. Sitting behind me in the jury box are the folks from Prop. 8/Protect Marriage. I’m at what would be the plaintiff’s table in this ceremonial courtroom. In the front row, which is like a big church pew (yes, I have been into a church!) are Andrew Harmon from Regent Media/Advocate and Dave Dayan from Firedoglake. There are only a couple of others in here today even though I think Mr. Tam will be up today, which should be fascinating.

The news just delivered from DC that Citizens United won its Supreme Court case is a jolt, but in this bubble of the Prop. 8 trial, it carries two messages. The first, which is very scary, is that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money for election purposes. As Eden James, Courage’s Managing Director just said, welcome to California, brought to you by Chevron. But there’s a twist. Ted Olson argued the case on behalf of Citizens United. And he won. Again. Ted has an amazing success rate with the Supreme Court. Let’s just hope that he his odds continue in our favor on this trial.

We should start any minute with Prof. Gary Segura being cross-examined by Mr. Thompson. Prof. Segura was up nearly all day yesterday. If you have not caught up from then, take a look. It was a revealing, powerful day in which we learned about the difference between political power and simple influence. By Prof. Segura’s definition, with which I wholeheartedly agree, LGBT people are powerless in the political context.

And that’s what this case is all about. Are gays and lesbians a “suspect class” worthy of protection under the Constitution? So far, the plaintiffs have made an incredibly powerful case that we are.

[UPDATE] 9:24

0840: Judge: Very well. Any matters to take up? If not, I remind Prof. Segura you are still under oath. Mr. Thompson, your witness.

T: May I approach the witness?

Judge: More binders, eh?

T: Just one.

T: Sen. Feinstein[he says Fine-steen, which is not how she pronounces her name. Thompson loves talking about Jews. Loves it.] opposed Prop. 8. And she is very popular.

S: Yes, although her popularity waxes and wanes.

T: And Boxer.

S: Yes.

T: And Schwarzenegger?

S: But he vetoed same sex marriage twice.

T: Because it contradicted Prop. 22?

S: I don’t know.

T: And President Obama opposed the passage of Prop. 8?

S: Yes, but his support for that was muted by other things he said.

T: You refer to his appearance at Saddleback Church at which he said marriage is between a man and a woman?

S: I suppose so.

T: And president Clinton and he’s very popular in California?

S: Yes, but I’m not sure that he’s still so popular here.

T: Did any former presidents support passage of Prop. 8?

S: I don’t know.

T: Reads press release from EQCA that says that Levi Strauss and PG&E joined business council against 8 and gave money. Points out that Levi gave $250,000. Is this an asset to LG?

S: It’s a financial asset, but not sure how much political asset.

T: Stars, like Ellen DeGeneres and Brad Pitt opposed 8?

S: Ellen DeGeneres is like a political party in that she is part of the class that is under question here.

T: Do you know of any corporations that donated $250,000 to yes on 8?

S: Not corporations, no.

T: Lists hundreds of congregations that supported same sex marriage and opposed Prop. 8.

S: Yes, but it’s misleading. The groups you mention such as Universalists and Church of Christ (getting these wrong I think) constitute less than 2% of the US population vs. Roman Catholic 30% and protestant faiths that also supported Prop. 8 that are much larger.

T: Shows ad that appeared in San Jose Merc News with 25 ministers who signed ad for no on 8.

T: UCC Church takes stand against California’s Prop. 8 referring to first cong church of Berkeley. “In addition to voting to oppose Prop. 8, we’ve been actively working to defeat Prop. 8. Formed phone banks…” It’s true that churches formed phone banks?

S: Less than 1% of population and not surprised that a church in Berkeley would do this.

T: St. Francis Lutheran Church photo in newspaper agreeing to accept donations for no on 8.

S: Yes, but tiny.

T: Keeps listing churches, and rabbis who oppose Prop. 8.

S: Reads the release fro NGLTF in which they claim lots of religious support. Then reads paragraph T does not want him to read that says from NGLTF that “we have a problem with religion.”

T: Says that CA has the largest population.

S: There’s more of everything in California; one out of 8 Americans lives here.

T: Nevertheless, CA has the highest per cap of homos?

S: Not sure.

T: LGBT move to CA because they are protected here.

S: More than in other states.

T: LGBT supported Domestic Partnership laws?

S: Yes, as opposed to nothing.

T: Reads statement from Kors that says that AB 205 being signed by Davis “honored all families and shows that intolerance stops at CA’s borders.” Shows that LGBT community supports DP?

S: As opposed to nothing.

T: Reads NCLR (National Center for Lesbian Rights) that says we “hail” the passage of AB 205. Lots of LG “hailed” the passage?

S: Appears so.

T: You also talked about initiatives and the number that have passed or not targeting gays and lesbians. Number that were held in CA?

S: No.

T: Percentage of initiatives that targeted gays and lesbians in CA and passed?

S: No, since I don’t know how many occurred here.

T: “Lose, Win or Draw: Effects of Direct Democracy…” this is an article you used in preparation for this testimony? Have you attempted to determine whether gays and lesbians have been winning more initiatives recently?

S: No, I did not disaggregate.

T: Puts in as evidence with this appendix that shows the specific number of elections.

T: Reads from Dall’s book suggesting that majorities are inherently unstable. That’s the protection against the Madisonian concern about tyranny of the majority. Don’t you see that the majority is not monolithic and some are in favor of ss marriage like in New Hampshire? (Dahl or Dall is the authority on majoritarianism cited many times yesterday and part of S’s main education.)

S: You miss the point. One of the critiques of Dall’s pluralist theories is that there are some majorities that do not fade, that do not break down, that persist for a long time such as the majority opposed to gay rights and even what happened with AA people that took an exceedingly long time. You take this paragraph out of context.

S: Are legislators more or less likely to adopt policies; not clear that policy will endure.

T: Many times gays and lesbians are successful in keeping measures off of a ballot.

S: That implies an agency to which I cannot attest. Some measures do not go on ballot, but not sure that gays and lesbians did it.

S: Prop. 8 is a factor in demonstrating political powerlessness. As I said in response to His Honor’s question yesterday, one election is not dispositive.

S: Repeats that gays and lesbians have a “religion problem.”

T: Some people voted for Prop. 8 because they feared their churches would be forced to bless ss marriages?

S: I’ve heard that, so makes sense.

T: Some voted for 8 in reaction to judicial activism?

S: Political scientists lament the lack of information voters have. Doubt many voted due to judges.

T: We have decades of information that show how religion impacts voters, such as abortion. Religion is regularly cited as influencing voters? Everything shows that religious people vote based on religion?

S: Mr. Thompson, have you switched sides? Yes. Increasing levels of religious observance are more likely to dislike same sex marriage, then we might logically conclude they voted yes on 8 because of religion.

T: Hard to estimate who voted yes based on religion?

S: Could do surveys, polling, campaign messaging, language people use, lab experiments, variety of scientific methods we could use to look at distribution of votes if we had time and money.

S: I don’t have numerical basis to conclude why people voted. I don’t have a basis to make an estimate of whether its greater, less than or equal to 50%.

[UPDATE] 9:47

T: Goes through Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists to say their religious views informed their votes on SS marriage.

S: Yes, but tiny.

T: 100% of Quakers?

S: All three of them, yes.

T: It’s your data set. Jews? Many voted against same sex because of religion?

S: Not sure that’s true.

T: Is it true that some percentage of religions in CA honestly believed 8 had more to do with children than anything else?

S: Yes.

T: How much money came from RC church?

S: Not sure.

T: How many Mormons campaigned?

S: Document that I read into evidence yesterday said church claimed 20,000. I have no reason to doubt them.

T: Don’t know how many Episcopalians, Jews and Catholics campaigned?

S: No. I don’t know how many people showed up for public events, but the event Qualcomm stadium was quite large.

[This is in the context of rebuttals S did to Prop. 8’s expert.]

T: Some individuals who themselves are not religious believe that marriage is religious so they could have voted for Prop. 8?

S: I suppose.

Judge: Please explain this table that breaks down religion and voting.

S: Tells judge that survey question asked do you favor full marriage, civil unions or no legal recognition. That’s from what these data are derived.

Judge: 47%+ of Protestants favor no recognition, 21% marriage and 27% civil unions (reading chart out loud to be sure he understands what data mean).

[Judge Walker asked a lot of questions about data, including whether any questions were asked about which people think the bible was written by man vs. God and how their beliefs influence their views of same-sex marriage.]

T: Wants to move in document that shows number of acts of violence in campaigns?
Boutrous: Object. Hearsay.

Judge: Didn’t he talk about vandalism and violence in campaigns?

T: S said in his testimony that “the moment you resort to violence the ability to persuade is lost.”

Judge: Okay.

T: With approval of Judge, showing video.

[Video from SD showing that there was a physical fight over Prop. 8. An old lady shows up with bruises on her face because she had a yes on 8 sign. Proud to show their support on their front lawn. “When I put up my sign, I noticed that my neighbor put up his little sign. That probably provoked him…” Arrested 53 year old man who did.]

[UPDATE] 9:59

T: Wouldn’t a video of an old woman with a bandage over her eye because she put up a Prop. 8 sign hurt the no side?

S: I can’t say what happened, but such a video is inflammatory.

B: Objects; not relevant.

Judge: Not here to adjudicate what happened in SD. But this is part of what witness talked about, so it’s relevant.

T: Reads news report about fight in Carlsbad, CA between people who were “stealing” prop. 8 signs and then fought with yes side and had dog bite person. Would this hurt no side?

S: (over objection) Yes.

T: Reads another report, “Prop. 8 supporter, Jose Nunez, assaulted for giving out Prop. 8 signs at church…” He was punched in his eye and the assailant ran off with the signs. (From int’l biz review.)

S: Not sure how many people read that paper and note that source is Protect Marriage dot com.

Judge: Pauses to check that citation. “Oh, I see. You may proceed.”

T: “The homeowners had Yes on 8 Protect Marriage signs on their yards…” Had garage doors spray-painted “no on 8” The rear window also hit with red spray paint. Does this sort of activity diminish support for gay marriage?

S: Yes, but see above that campaign disavowed it.

T: Reason they disavowed it is politically “it’s kryptonite.”

S: I cannot say why they did that;.

T: Plays video entitled vandals target downtown Fresno church. From ABC 30. Pictures of church that was egged. Pastor told supporters that his home was also egged.”

T: Were you aware that mayor of Fresno received death threats? If that were true, would you say that would diminish the ability of the LGBT to appeal to norms of fairness?

S: From PR point, not helpful.

Judge: Before we take our break, if counsel from this matter could step aside, we have another matter which is happy.

[Inducts two lawyers into Western District of Texas. A young man and woman. Both attractive. Swears them in. Says, “very well, good luck in Texas.”]

Break until 1010. Judge tells T to “streamline things.”

[UPDATE] 10:44

Back at 10:15 after the break

David Thompson (T): Reads NYT story about the ugly specter of people getting death threats and white powder being mailed and boycotts. Does that make the LG position tougher?

Dr. Gary Segura (S): To the extent that these acts make the already weak position of the LG community weaker, I’d agree with you. Boycotts are separate. Difficult to imagine the success of the civil rights movement without the Montgomery Bus Boycott. We can all the way back to the 1770s when women in Boston organized a boycott of English tea to see that boycotts are often instruments used by weaker parties.

Judge Walker: Just occurred to me since T is exploring this line of questioning, have you considered the riots and vandalism and other inappropriate behavior associated with the civil rights movement and associated largely with blacks and how that affected civil rights movement?

S: Yes. Any form of violence or disorderly behavior has a negative impact on the public. Non-violent protests play better. That said, it is conceivable that such outbursts may serve the long-term impact of the group. Eg, post Rodney King violence that spurred “Rebuild LA” that brought about investment in south LA. Not endorsing such acts, but there are times when such acts express powerlessness.

Judge: Is it possible that the effects Mr. T describes had the same effect?

S: I’m a little concerned about making that leap. First, Mr. T mentioned NYT article of things that occurred after Prop. 8. We’ve heard Mayor Sanders talk about vandalism at his house, about Ms. Zia being attacked. Heritage Foundation reports about violence against Prop. 8 intellectually dishonest because did not take into account any acts against NO side. We know there were over 100 hate crimes reported in 2008.

T: Reads LAT article by Steve Lopez saying that police were called because of El Coyote boycott.

S: I have no problem with underlying boycott of business that makes money from gays and lesbians that used that money against them. If it got out of hand, not good.

T: Reads LAT article about teacher who called kid a fascist for supporting Prop. 8 after the election.

S: Yes, adverse publicity against a group is not good.

T: Reads definition of hate crime. Assailant is trying to create sense of fear… Trying to show that hate crimes were committed against majority.

pPlays Bill O’Reilly, who says courts want to support gay marriage, there is no doubt. Brings on 21-year-old guest who is Christian (named Christine Cloud) who plays Christian music and has been doing so in Castro for three years. We don’t stop people. “Are you trying to convert from being gay to straight?” “No, but we are hoping they’ll accept Jesus Christ and have that revelation.” “We wanted to be sensitive to these people. We were singing Amazing Grace. Man took my bible, “hit me upside the head with my bible, knocked me on back and kicked me.” Police arrested guy, but I said I would not press charges, that I forgive you.” O’Reilly tries to say that police should have arrested him. She says police did not see crime. “I don’t know if we are going to be back. We are going to use wisdom, we know it is a politically charged situation.” BO: “You turned the other cheek.” ]

Boutrous: Objects. A number of Mr. O’Reilly’s questions were leading.

[LAUGHTER, but B made the point perfectly.]

T: May fit my your definition of hate crime?

S: Might, but it could also be like yelling fire in a crowded theater. If an AA approached an Anglo and said, “You racist bastard you are evil” and then that person hit the AA, not a hate crime. I don’t know what to make of that video.

Judge: (In annoyed tone) Very well, can we move on Mr. Thompson?

T: Document in TIME Magazine. What happens if you are on gay rights enemies list? AA, 70% of whom voted yes on Prop. 8 according to CNN exit poll, racial epithets have been used against blacks, some of whom are fighting to repeal Prop. 8.” Bad?

S: As I keep saying anytime there is adverse publicity, not helpful.

[Just need to point out here that the 70% number has been debunked. About 57% of blacks voted for Prop. 8. The church relationships as disclosed yesterday also help to explain the vote of the black community. Thompson is trying very hard to show that gays hurt ourselves because we were violent. He’s saying that we are bad for us, but he does not take into account that a group that has been put down for so long by so many gets frustrated. Did Stonewall, which was violent, help our cause? Of course it did. Does vandalism help our cause? No. Should we be violent? No. But again, Mr. Thompson is trying to say that gays are powerful and hurt our own cause.]

[UPDATE] 10:56

T: Reads from Time Magazine story about the Cabinet, a secret cabal of rich homosexuals who met with two sitting governors in California at the same time. Doesn’t that show power?

S: It is clear that if people have money, politicians will show up to take it.

T: We can agree on that.

T: Tries to show that homosexual power is evidenced by the increase in AIDS Funding.

S: Deeply troubled by your assertion that this somehow shows political power. This is a disease that has ravaged and killed people all over the world and its incidence continues to grow. So the increase in funding is likely due to the fact that AIDS is so dangerous to so many.

T: Doesn’t right of adoption exist for gays and lesbians in 40 states?

S: Yes, but those laws predate gay movement. Adoption laws silent in those states about gay and lesbian adoption. Says one man or one woman may adopt. I predicted that once the anti-marriage movement peaked, the next frontier would be anti-gay adoption. Arkansas unfortunately proved me right. Florida, Miss., Oklahoma, Arkansas have taken this up by ballot measure. More will follow.

T: Goes through hate crime incidence rate of hate crimes. Jewish population per census is 2.2%.

S: I dispute this. Table you presented under this next tab has to do with religious observance so I think it’s 4-4.5%.

T: So there is a higher incidence rate of hate crimes against gays and lesbians less than Jews. Notwithstanding hate crimes against Jews, Jewish community is politically powerful?

S: Yes.

T: Look at African American rights in 1964 before civil rights act. Do you think gays and lesbians in California in 2009 are better off than AAs before the passage of civil rights legislation?

S: Depending upon your definition of “better off,” yes.

T: Shows that before civil rights there were two AA members of congress when AA were 10% of population.

S: Yes.

T: Women had between 10-16 members of House and 2 women in senate maximum before 1975 in 1970s.

S: Correct.

T: Women are less cohesive group that gays and lesbians.

S: I suppose.

T: Talked about politicians making disparaging remarks about gays and lesbians, most specifically Tom Coburn?

S: Yes.

T: Can you identify one statewide elected who made negative comments about gays and lesbians in last quarter century?

S: I would be shocked if there were zero. I don’t have encyclopedic knowledge of everything said in last 25 years.

[UPDATE] 11:24

Judge stops Thompson from putting in an article questioning whether its time to go to Supreme Court, apparently written by opposing counsel. “That’s at the edge of the pale, Mr. Thompson.” Judge is not happy with the way Thompson is handling himself.

T: Young people will support homos?

S: Quite likely that in time we will have majority that support gays and lesbians.

T: “shift in opinion (to support gays and lesbians) was frankly astounding.” Article by S:

S: Yes, but read on.

T: Reads on. Support for at least civil unions climbed to at least 61-64%. Outright opposition to any recognition dropped to 29% when President was reelected largely on anti-gay wave.

S: With respect to subject matter about which I was writing, correct.

[Redirect begins]

Theodore Boutrous (B): Explain what that article is about.

S: Article was about civil unions. Once Massachusetts had a court ordered adoption of gay and lesbian same sex marriage rights, support for civil unions climbed partly as a strategic move by those opposed to marriage. That notwithstanding, there has been growth in public support for gay unions.

B: Do the views in that article affect your views of powerlessness of gays and lesbians?

S: The fact that attitudes toward gays and lesbians are changing for the better is good, but does not always have to move in one direction. There can be ceiling and floor.

B: Civil unions similar to enhanced domestic partnerships later passed in CA.

S: Yes.

B: What happened to Grey Davis to whom Mr. T referred before as having signed D bill?

S: He was recalled from office.

S: Regarding boycotts, when you teach a course on American political history, David Thoreau’s civil disobedience and it was used again by AA and by Cesar Chavez t help grape harvesters.

B: Boycotts were used as a means for AAs to achieve equality?

S: Boycotts are difficult to maintain. They only work if there is long term and wide spread adherence. One of strategies by whites in south was to insist that their African American domestic help to shop at white boycotted stores. One of ways they resisted was to wear maid’s uniforms to show that they were not breaking boycott.

B: MLK preached a philosophy of non-violent actions. Were there times when certain members of the AA community engaged in violent activity even though MLK wanted non-violent?

S: First, remember that MLK rose to prominence due to Montgomery Bus Boycott started by Rosa Parks. He was chair of boycott. Notwithstanding, some AAs lashed out. Did it help cause? No. Bad PR? Yes.

B: Does fact that AAs engaged in boycotts suggest that they were powerful?

S: No. Powerful people do not do that.

B: Is this activity deeply entrenched in our history?

S: Boston Massacre was British troops opening fire on a protest mob.

B: Talks about Claiborne Hardware Case of 1982 v. NAACP.

S: Reads: “Boycott of with merchants at issue in this case too many forms. Nonviolent.”

S: Speech itself was also used to further the aims of the boycott. Nonparticipants repeatedly were urged to join the common cause via churches and to join via social pressure….

B: Supreme Court found that the speech and boycott were protected under 1st Amendment?

S: Yes.

B: Hardware sued because NAACP caused violence that spilled over. Supreme Court found for NAACP.

S: (Compares with violence and vandalism against Prop. 8 supporters.) Not clear that the violence and vandalism are applauded by American political process. Individuals sometimes behave badly. Individuals whose emotions run high frequently behave badly. Not endorsed or supported by No campaign.

B: Any electoral effect of the cases Mr. T. mentioned?

S: I know of none. Some individuals may have been motivated to vote based on those acts. Doubtful in the extreme that this would have affected outcome of Prop. 8 Idea that lots of people changed their minds from no to yes on 8 because of vandalism is almost impossible. Some might have, but not enough could have.

B: Refers to Heritage Foundation.

S: Conservative think-tank. I do not know of the author. Never heard of him. Heritage Foundation backgrounder does not conform to social scientific standards. In a social scientific journal, we’d want to look at evidence selected. Flaw in logic where you only study cases in which incidence occurred. Imagine if we wanted to study the cause of war, must look at cases where war did not start as well as did start or could not learn why wars start.

B: Do you think news reports Mr. T put up could have reached enough viewers to change outcome of election?

S: Almost impossible.

B: T only put up examples of harassment of yes side, but here’s Ms. Zia’s testimony from last Friday that shows that she was harassed.

S: Need to look at acts of violence and harassment on both sides. Takes me aback that someone would walk up to someone on the street and say you are going to burn in hell. What’s the right response to that? Have a nice day?

[UPDATE] 11:38

Theodore Boutrous (B) continues his redirect of Dr. Gary Segura (S)

S: Definitely want to look at hate crimes during campaign. Close correlation between hate crimes and election outcome/high emotion.

B: Puts up government report showing numbers of crimes against GLBT during campaign.

S: Range of crimes might be simple fisticuffs in protest to people who did not follow non-violent premises. Some of Freedom Riders fought back against crowds that greeted them with violence when they got off the bus in Mississippi.

B: 34 people died in Watts Riot. Was that a significant event of violence that many Americans saw and read about?

S: Yes.

B: Notwithstanding that, AAs at some points through courts and other means to achieve civil rights.

S: Fair Housing Act passed in 1968 after urban unrest. Society does not draw conclusions from one or two acts.

B: Any way that the few things Mr. T showed prove that gays are not powerless?

S: That would strain credulity.

B: Now I want to show Gathering Storm video to which T objected last week.

T: Does not in any way show powerlessness of gays?

B: At least as relevant as O’Reilly and other post-Prop. 8 stuff.

T: This was paid for by NOM, not Protect Marriage .com

Judge: I have taken a welcoming attitude toward evidence, so go ahead.

[Here is the video]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI&hl=en_US&fs=1&]

[UPDATE] 12:18

S: Makes point that the churches on our side represent almost no one compared with Baptists, Catholics, LDS and Orthodox Jews yes on Prop 8 vs. Unitarian Universalists, MCC and reformed Jews on no side. No comparison.

S: Their side claims that NO side’s religious supporters show that we have lots of numbers in our religious support. Also misleading to show that there is dissension in the Catholic Church because he uses Dignity as example, but Dignity is forbidden from being on Church property.

S: Prof. Nathanson claims that gays are working with religious groups so there is no problem with religious groups. Just because NGLTF is talking to religious groups does not mean organized religion does not present an obstacle to gay and lesbian equality.

S: If we look at the association of religiosity with the actions of religious people, we can see that people do vote according to their religious views. “Our institutions do a poor job of protecting minority rights even when they do enjoy majority support,” says article. True here but gays and lesbians do not enjoy broad majority support.

B: Even after Mr. Thompson’s line, do you think gays and lesbians lack political power?

S: I do. Even though Mr. T. pointed out there are gay and lesbian pols and pols in CA that support gays and lesbians, does not show power. Protections that stop at a county or state line are hardly protections at all. Need to look at layers of government. I do mind experiment that says, “Imagine that gays and lesbians are powerful.” I survey the world and see FBI report that says that gays and lesbians are 70% of hate-inspired murder. Are they still powerful? Possibly. 29 states do not protect gays and lesbians. Powerful? Possibly. Could I look at 150 ballot measures that gays lose 70% of time. Powerful? Presumably. Could I see constitutional prohibitions for gays and conclude they are powerful? Yes.

I could not draw the conclusion that gays and lesbians are powerful by looking at all of these factors. “That would be the political science equivalent of malpractice.”

[And that ends Professor Segura’s long time on the stand. And that last couple of paragraphs says it all. In the meantime, Protect Marriage harassed Courage in court for use of a logo. And they want to hide the trial. If I were they, so would I.

We adjourned at 12:10. We get Mr. Tam after lunch at 1:10. Ya gotta come back for that one. Tam was a proponent of Prop. 8, an original defendant in this trial who tried to drop out. So now we get one of their proponents as our witnesses. You’re gonna like this.]

[UPDATE] 1:27

1:15PM We’re back. Mr. Hak Sing William Tam is up.

Colloquy between Mr. Tam’s counsel, Mr. Thompson (a different Mr. Thompson and Tam withdrawing.)
chrome://foxytunes-public/content/signatures/signature-button.png
Boies: Tam cannot join a case, litigate it and then decide to get out.

Judge: Ordinarily under these circumstances, a defendant would withdraw and accept a judgment. I cannot understand what a reasonable judgment would be

Thompson: Intervention was voluntary. He did not have to intervene. Withdrawal is purely voluntary. Plaintiff has said if he did not like intrusive nature of discovery, he could withdraw. I could not find compelling or controlling legal authority (remember when Al Gore used that phrase?) that prevents him from withdrawing.

Judge: There has to be some consequence for putting defense to trouble and expense of litigating against someone. Typically, there would be a judgment that could recompense the opponents for their expense. He’s going to testify one way or another.

Thompson: He’s going to testify. He’s here and has been here.

Judge: Yes, he’s been very good about attending. A party’s deposition can be used by the adverse party at any time. I don’t know what prejudice there will be if he withdraws. Maybe the plaintiffs will agree he can withdraws or maybe not. So we’ll let him testify.

[UPDATE] 1:35

B: You were original proponent of 8. You worked with Shubert et al.

T: Yes and maybe some clerks who asked me to go to a press conference.

B: You supervised the language of Prop. 8?

T: Not sure what “supervise” means.

B: Look at declaration in which Tam says he supervised the appropriate language for Prop. 8.

T: I don’t quite remember what that particular document is.

B: Which document?

T: If it is about fourteen words of Prop. 8, I would go along with it.

B: This declaration that you have, did you prepare this declaration?

T: No.

B: Protect Marriage.com prepared this declaration for you and you signed it?

T: Yes.

B: Between January 2008 and November of 2008, did you devote substantial amount of your work time and organized rallies?

T: Yes.

B: Did you work with the people from Protect Marriage.com on the rallies?

T: No. Those rallies were mainly Asian Americans and those were the people that I knew. I only invited PM.com’s Ron Prentice to be present and one of the speakers.

B: Mr. Prentice CEO of ProtectMarriage.com? Do you consider that working with ProtectMarriage.com?

T: I would say so.

B: I would, too.

B: Did you personally participate in debates?

T: Yes.

B: Debate here in SF on Channel 26?

T: Not on Channel 26. They came and made a report on it that night.

B: This debate that was covered by Channel 26 was a debate in which you were campaigning for passage of 8 and you were told by people at PM.com to participate in that debate?

T: Yes.

B: Campaign for Prop. 8 began in 2007?

T: At 2007, if the preparation of the collection of the signatures is considered as a campaign, yes.

B: In October 2007, you were waiting for instructions from PM.com as to when you should start collecting signatures and eventually they told you when?

T: Yes.

[UPDATE] 1:48

Thompson objects to leading the witness.

Judge: He’s an adverse witness. He’s on the other side. Objection overruled.

B: You did take instructions from PM.com to send letters to pastors?

T: Yes.

Thompson: These documents are attorney client privilege. I’d like to reserve standing objection that T’s personal political views are protected under first amendment even though we lost in appeals court.

Judge: Very well, you may register standing objection so you do not have to get up for each question.

B: Points to exhibit 2685. (Asks for permission to approach to help T find the right page which he does.)

B: Is plaintiff’s exhibit 2685 a partial listing of the coalition of PM.com?

T: I believe so.

[Prop. 8 objects, but she’s standing in the back so I can’t hear what she is saying.]

Judge: Do you wish to lay any more foundation for this Mr. Boies?

B: I think I already asked him, but I’ll ask again. Is this partial listing of coalition of groups working with ProtectMarriage.com to pass Prop. 8?

T: I believe so, but it’s their website?

B: If necessary, I can take you through these one at a time. Focus on Family part of coalition supporting Prop. 8?

T: I believe so. I really don’t know why they put these names this list. You have to ask them.

B: I asked you if the Family Research Council was one of the organizations that supported Prop. 8? Yes. No. I don’t know. Family research council was an organization that was listed with your organization as working together to support Prop. 8.

T: Could be.

B: Read this list to yourself. Tell me if you know if any were part of coalition to pass Prop. 8?

T: I don’t know.

B: (Surprised) You don’t know any of them?

T: Focus on Family, Family Rearch Council, Ca Family Council, Values Advocacy Council, and Traditional Family Coalition—those are ones I recognize.

B: What is your relationship to the Traditional Family Coalition?

T: I am the Executive Director of the Traditional Family Coalition.

[UPDATE] 1:56

[Tam is very, very difficult. His lawyers are trying very hard to prevent him from testifying at all by constantly interrupting. The judge keeps overruling them.]

B: What is the Chinese Coalition referred to here (in doc that says Chinese community is strong and Bill Tam is one of the signers of Prop. 8).

T: I know some of the Chinese churches (evangelical) because of my position with Traditional Family Coalition.

B: You were already working with PM.com in July 2007 on what would become Prop. 8.

T: I think so, but my memory is fuzzy.

B: Does this document refresh your memory that as of July 2, 2007 you were working with Protect Marriage .com

T: I think so. We had discussions that a proposition could be put on ballot, but we’d need to gather.

B: This is email you sent on October 26, 2007 to whom?

T: Addressed “Dear Friend of TFC”

B: You say here, I am still waiting for http://protectmarriage.com as to when we can begin gathering signatures.”

[Boies is showing that Tam was integral to the campaign from the very beginning.]

B: You solicited contributions for ProtectMarriage.com?

T: Yes.

B: Email you sent on Feb 14, 2008.

T: Yes.

B: This is a uhm email that refers to an interview or debate you had on channel 26?

T: Yes.

B: You are talking about the opportunity you have to publicize “our protect marriage amendment” on television?

T: Yes.

B: This was debate that was broadcast over channel 26.

T: It was an interview, not a debate.

B: Is this separate than the debate you participated in on 26?

T: Separate events.

B: Both had interview and debate on 26 and you used both to support Prop. 8?

T: Yes.

[UPDATE] 2:00

B: You talk about many Christian forces including your organization, California Council, Concerned Women of America, the Values Council and Protect Marriage dot com. And others you don’t list. They all were part of this?

T: Yes.

B: Exhibit 2640. Email chain that includes both you and Mr. Pugno. Correct?

T: What I see here is my name on it and Pugno’s name on it. I don’t know if it’s a chain or not.

B: Well, sir, if you begin…

Thompson: I object under attorney client privilege.

Judge: Attorney Client Privilege?

B: There was no claim of privilege at the time.

Prop. 8 is not asserting atty client privileged and we produced document.

Judge: Very well. Over ruled.

B: What were you trying to tell Mr. Pugno?

T: He was asking if there is anything I should not say or disclose if there are questions from the Chinese press.

[UPDATE] 2:11

B: Emails between you and Lynn Fishel. Who is Lynn Fishel?

T: From California Family Conference (I think).

B: She addressed this to you as leadership of the Protect Marriage dot com? You were part of the leadership?

T: She did that to be nice. I don’t think I’m part of core group.

B: What do you mean by core group?

T: I don’t know but I heard you talking about core group while sitting in the courtroom and I know I’m not part of it.

B: So that’ something you picked up in the course of this trial?

T: Yes.

B: You sent an email on April 26, 2008. You remember that you said Fishel was just being nice to you when she called you part of the PM.com leadership?

T: yes.

Thompson objects that is attorney client priv.

Judge: Email sent by the witness?

Thompson: Yes.

Judge: Objection overruled.

B: You say in this email that Tam is playing major role to limit marriage to one man and one woman. You say that you worked closely with PM.com to collect 1.2 million signatures.

T: Yes. I played a major role. I spent a lot of time setting up petitions and collecting them. Worked with PM.com to get petitions off to Chinese churches. True statement, working closely with them (PM.com).

T: This document contain a lot of sensitive numbers that I would not like to disclose to public.

Thompson: I object. Attorneys eyes-only. Salary numbers. Budget numbers. Information about Dr. Tam’s family. Falls strictly into attorneys’ eyes-only.

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.

B: We’ll be happy to redact everything after those two sentences. I’m not sure I agree with Mr. Tam’s counsel, but in the spirit of cooperation, we’ll agree to redact.

Judge: Very well. That should take care of the problem.

B: You are responding to an email that Lynn Fishel sent you. You ask her, “who is Brian Brown and why is he speaking for us?”

[Brian Brown is from NOM and the Gathering Storm. Here it is, just in case anyone thought NOM was not directly involved.]

T: Those people in PM.com.

B: That included you and TFC?

T: Yes.

[UPDATE] 2:18

B: Shows document in which Tam says that we cannot lose 8 because it is god’s definition of marriage.

T: yes.

T: Other reasons it is very important that next generation understands the meaning of marriage. That our children not grow up fantasizing about should I grow up to marry John or Jane when I grow up. This is very important for the stability of Asian families.

B: You want the next generations to be educated about the historical meaning of marrying?

T: Yes

B: To prevent gays and lesbians from marrying?

T: I did not think of it that way.

B: You support civil unions, equal rights in house for gays?

T: Yes.

B: Adoption?

T: I have not come to a conclusion on that.

B: You consider yourself hostile to gays and lesbians.

T: No, I don’t.

B: let me ask you about website Onemanonewoman.net

T: You are familiar with that?

Thompson: Object.

Judge: Lay foundation?

B: Dr. Tam, may I have your attention? What is your connection to this website?

T: Part of group called America Return to God Prayer Movement.

B: Your relationship to that group?

T: I’m secretary of that group.

B: Who else is in that group?

T: Various Chinese pastors.

B: If you saw something on the website that you did not approve of, you’d tell them?

T: Yes, but they might not listen.

B: What did you want to put on or take off that they did not do?

T: I objected to mention of bestiality on website?

B: And they left it on the website?

T: I don’t know.

B: Why did you object to this reference to bestiality?

T: Because it is not related to homosexuality.

[UPDATE] 2:26

[Prop. 8 objects to questions about this website because it does not have anything to do with Prop. 8.]

B: Your honor, this was already admitted in the testimony of Ms. Zia. This website says that homosexuality leads to pedophilia. Do you believe that?

T: Yes, I do.

B: Reads: Homosexuals 12 times more likely to molest children. Appropriate for your organization to tell people that?

T: Which organization?

B: The organization of which you are secretary that puts out this website!

T: Yes. From what we see here, those are not the statements of the organization. Those are just links to other websites. My position is that if there is something like this that people want to read about, organization has the right to link it.

B: You are not just linking. Your website says that homosexuals are 12 times more likely to molest children.

T: It’s in that website. It’s not from the organization.

B: Mr. Tam, this is print out from your website!

T: From the organization. But I’m only secretary. There are presidents and vice presidents.

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.

[Boies is really, really good. You could hear a pin drop up here and based on the judge’s facial expressions, in the courtroom. Boies is establishing the nexus with ProtectMarriage.com that they use this stuff as the reason for Prop. 8, which fits in with the stigma and all the great stuff we learned last week. By the way, I’m really nauseated. Truly.]

[UPDATE] 2:37

[Okay, I’m sweating. And sick. This is the crux of it all. Please read this. Please.]

David Boies (B): You say here that if we lose Prop. 8 “they” will lose no time to push the gay agenda?

William Tam (T): Yes. They will.

B: You say here that the City of SF is under the rule of homosexuals. Do you believe that?

T: Yes.

B: Who?

T: Tom Ammiano was supervisor.

B: Was the mayor homosexual?

T: I don’t think so.

B: I don’t think so either.

B: You said that you thought Prop. 8 would lead to legalizing prostitution. Why?

T: Measure K in SF. I saw some homosexuals hanging around there.

B: You know that Measure K has nothing to do with Prop. 8.

T: Yes.

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

T: Yes.

[Up above, Tam says that Boies is using his legal expertise to pin my words in way I did not intend.]

T: Asks and B gives permission to talk. “I’m afraid of the liberal trend. Canada and Europe are liberal and they allow age of consent 13 or 14 and children can have sex with adults and each other.”)

B: You did not mention age of consent in the fourteen words you wrote?

T: No.

B: Age of consent has nothing to do with this [But Tam admitted that he told people that’s what would happen if 8 lost.]
Age of consent did not change because of passage of ss marriage in Canada or Europe, right?

T: Canada right. I cannot say about Europe.

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

T: Yes, I said that. (and that refers to ss marriage).

[UPDATE] 2:46

[Prop. 8 objects to several pages of exhibit because some of them appear to relate to articles that were written years before Prop. 8 and not particularly relevant to this case.]

Judge: Prop. 8 mentioned throughout.

P8: Yes, but this appears to have been produced by plaintiff. Some of these articles that are written in Chinese and translated and were written many years before Prop.8 and are not relevant. Appears there is Chinese article entitled “Homosexuality is not Equal Right.” (She’s having trouble finding her way through the documents.) Article written by witness before Prop. 8 so not germane.

Judge: Article written by witness?

P8: Yes. I believe its article they pulled down off of his website, his Bill Tam website. Not prop. 8 website. Article he wrote years ago.

Judge: I gather this is a document that came from the witness? Mr. Boies can you explain how this was put together and all that?

B: The first three pages of this are affidavits of accuracy from the translator. Fourth page says Why should we Support Prop. 8?

T: I did not write that.

B: That’s your testimony?

B: Look at document and handwriting. Organization of which you are secretary, right?

T: I did not write it. Someone who was in charge of printing and putting this together.

B: What was the purpose?

T: Well, to support Prop. 8.

B: So this is the organization of which you are secretary and it was written to support Prop.8?

T: Yes.

B: Did you write this document (that is translated from Chinese)?

T: Yes.

B: When?

T: 2004.

B: What was the purpose in writing?

T: In response to I think Mayor Newsom’s passing out of the same sex marriage licenses.

B: Was this also distributed by onemanonewoman.net.

T: No. This was Chinese article I wrote and put on my website among 60 other Chinese websites. BillTam.org

B; I would offer the uh four pages that we begins why should we support Prop. 8 as 2343A and then I would offer the remainder of the document that begins with Harm to Children of SS Marriage as plaintiff’s 2343B.

Prop. 8 objects; Judge overrules.

[UPDATE] 2:54

[This room has about thirty people in it now. It’s very quiet. Tam is the source of the real thought of whole campaign.]

B: Document says, “Science proves that homosexuality is a changeable sexual preference.” What science were you referring to?

T: I did not write this.

B: Do you know what science is being referred to?

T: Yes. Have you heard of Dr. Spitzer? Used to very prominent physician who in 1973 who was one of persons who promote that homosexuality is not a disease. Because of that, what I learned is that homosexuality is not a disease, just a part of normal human behavior. That’s what I learned. Later on, the same Dr. Spitzer produced evidence that some homosexuals did turn back and return to heterosexuality. Changeable sexual preference. It is not genetically wired.

B: Did you understand that Dr. Spitzer not genetically wired?

T: No. Francis Collins said that. He’s the one who mapped the human genome.

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.

[UPDATE] 3:12

[It’s a pleasure to watch David Boies at work. He is persistent and consistent and knows precisely what he is doing. I’m really glad we have him on our side.]

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.

B: You wrote below that homosexuals are not a minority.

T: Let me check Chinese. I said homosexuals are not a racial minority.

B: Let’s offer the Chinese as 2343C.

B: San Jose News has quote that is attributed to you. Is that in fact what you said?

T: Yes.

B: (paraphrase of quote, but really close) You hope to convince Asian Americans that if Prop. 8 fails, kids will be attracted to homo lifestyle and “that lifestyle comes with all sorts of disease.”

B: Exhibit 2601A.

[The judge’s head is practically in his binder. He has silver gray hair, a red tie today over white shirt beneath his robes. He’s highlighting with his yellow highlighter and making notes on separate paper. He’s paying concerted attention.]

T: This is document I received from medical Dr. named Lao Han Kit. He sent me an article that he wrote. (Article attached as 2601B).

T: Identifies another article he wrote. 2601C seems to be a translation of 2601B.

B: This is translation from your file?

T: Could be. I don’t remember. Let me read this article.

B: It’s headed “Reasons Why we Do not Support SS Marriage” by presence Ministry.

T: Chinese Christian organization in LA. I know their president and went to one of their conferences. I was a guest there.

B: This was rally as part of the campaign that you as Protect Marriage dot com was waging to pass Prop. 8. You say, “It’s time the church rises up to face the forces of evil.”

T: I did not write it. I don’t know who are the forces of evil.

B: Did you invite Mr. Prentice to attend the rally?

T: Yes.

B: And you did not see this document at the time?

T: Many people were working on the rally. My role was pretty small. I had my own organization to attend to.

B: Your organization TFC was a sponsor and you asked Mr. Prentice to attend?

T: Other people.

B: Who?

T: Chairman invited. I did not know any of these speakers, Tony Perkins.

B: What was your role?

T: My role was very small. I invited Ron Prentice because I know them.

B: Did you meet the speakers?

T: Yes, I met them but they would not even let me speak.

B: Did they tell you why you could not speak?

B: And just to be clear, Dr. Tam, is that before today you have never seen this flyer?

T: It might have gone in front of my eyes. It might have passed by my desk. So many came by that I did not pay attention to all of them and this is one of them.

[UPDATE] 3:27

B: Shows press invitation to this rally. Who sent it out?

T: I did.

B: Says on this press invitation that you were one of the two contacts. Is that correct? Does this refresh your memory as to how involved you were?

T: I’m one of the contacts because I have Chinese press contacts.

B: This press invitation did not go out without your knowledge.

T: I knew about it.

B: You personally sent out an email about this rally?

T: Yes.

B: You listed who the speakers were despite the fact that you say you did not know the speakers?

T: Yeah, that’s true. I did not know some of the speakers.

B: Here’s a flyer that says Prop. 8 protects against social, moral decay. What is the social, moral decay?

T: Well, from Christian angle, homosexuality or sex between two persons of the same sex is a sin.

B: You were saying that Prop. 8 protects against homosexuality?

T: No. But I agree with this. If same sex marriage is legal, it would encourage children to explore same sex as their marriage partner. From Asian as well as Christian angle, we think this is social, moral decay.

B: Second document which is from 1man1woman dot net, more specific. Says that if same sex marriage passes it will lead to incest, pedophilia and polygamy. Do you agree with that?

T: Yes.

B: That’s what you told people to get them to vote for Prop. 8?

T: Yes.

B: Your paper says that after Netherlands legalized SS marriage, Netheralands legalized incest and polygamy. Do you believe that?

T: Same sex 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 did not write this that polygamy was legalized in 2005.

B: You put it out there to convince people to vote for Prop. 8. Did you ever look up the law?

T: Yes, there was different documents that shows that’s true.

B: So after Netherlands legalized same sex marriage, legalized polygamy and incest.

T: I’m not sure about incest. That may have been legal before same sex marriage passed.

B: If that’s the case, then it has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

T: Yes, but it shows that if countries are loose with sex it leads to this…

[UPDATE] 3:42

[The direct exam of former Defendant-Intervenor Dr. William Tam by David Boies continue]

David Boies (B): Your document here says that civil unions were passed in Sweden in 1994 and now siblings can marry.

William Tam (T): Yes.

B: You said you support civil unions but here siblings can marry after it was passed in Sweden.

T: Yes.

[Back and forth about difference between civil union and domestic partnerships.]

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?

B: Is it your position that if we change the name that we’ll all of a sudden start having sex with 13-year-old girls?

T: Know. The name of marriage is so important. If marriage is not limited to above age of 18 our children will fantasize about marrying either man or woman. To us parents, you may say I’m a paranoid Chinese parent, I get very upset about. However, if DP we can exchange to our children that some sex people want to live committed life together, it’s very easy to understand. But if you mix up the sexes with marriage, it’s confusing.

B: Finished?

T: Yes.

B: Just because you allow g and l to marry don’t have to allow brothers and sisters to marry

T: Yes.

B: And don’t have to allow sex with children?

T: Yes.

B: You also realize that it’s important to gays and lesbians that they be allowed to marry?

T: Yes.

B: Just as children of you and your wife benefit from knowing you are married, the children of gays and lesbians will benefit from knowing their parents are married?

T: No.

B: You don’t think children want their parents to marry?

T: Laughs… I don’t know what they are trying to get at.

B: Gays and lesbians want the same rights that you have and they think it’s important even I you don’t think they should have it. Can you understand that?

T: I understand.

B: Produces email from Andy Pugno which is statement of unity from Protect Marriage dot com. Says at bottom that organization and I I represent join in this statement of unity. You signed it on behalf of yourself and Traditional Family Coalition. Says “victory depends on commitment of each partner to work in a unified campaign.” You agreed to work in the service of unified campaign to help PM.com

T: Yes.

B: You agreed that multiple campaign committees and independent messaging and independent strategies and fundraising and membership building are counterproductive?

T: Yes. But later on I forgot about this document and made some statements that were independent of PM.com.

B: Do you consider yourself an honest man?

T: yes.

B: You would not sign something in which you did not agree?

T: No.

B: It says here under message discipline that all messaging/public statement s must be approved by campaign manager.

T: I agreed to that but later on I did some things on my own.

[UPDATE] 3:46

B: You did not start violating this agreement the next day did you?

T: No, but I did later.

B: When?

T: I don’t remember.

B: What did you say?

T: I think I said to SJ Mercury News that same sex marriage can lead to all kinds of diseases.

B: Did anyone from ProtectMarriage.com contact you to say anything about this?

T: Mr. White called me and said I should not have said that.

B: Do you have that in writing anywhere?

T: No.

B: So this Mr. White or someone contacted you, you did not have anything in writing?

T: No.

B: Was there another time you violated your pledge?

T: I said something to a Chinese newspaper that some European countries allow sibling marriage.

B: Did anyone from ProtectMarriage.com come to you and tell you to stop?

T: No. It was in Chinese, so I don’t think they read that. After Mr. White contacted me (after that 15 October 2008 SJ Merc News story), “I kept my mouth shut.”

[UPDATE] 3:58

[Why They Do Not Want ANYONE To See This Trial.]

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.

[UPDATE] 4:11

[Miss Moss of Prop. 8 is now trying to prove that Mr. Tam is a rogue.]

Miss Moss for ProtectMarriage.Com: Do you agree that you worked most closely with PM.com during petition phase?

T: During petition phase I worked closely with Mr. Pugno.

M: How frequently did you talk with Mr. P?

T: We spoke six or seven times on the phone and one time I met him to pick up petitions. We discussed technicalities.

M: What do you mean by technicalities?

T: To file papers with Sec of State. He’d send me the paper work, I’d sign it and send it back and forth.

M: Were you involved with Pugno or ProtectMarriage.com in messaging?

T: No.

M: Did you write language for prop. 8?

T: No.

M: Of the over 1 million signatures ProtectMarriage.com gathered, how many were you responsible for?

T: About 20,000.

M: Do you recall that you said to Mr. Boies that you had signed a pledge? Who drafted?

T: Yes.

M: Who drafted?

T: Mr. Pugno.

M: Was he your attorney at that time?

T: Yes.

M: You testified that you were told by ProtectMarriage.com to do that debate. Could you have said no?

T: Yes.

M: Asks if Campaign Manager approved your language for messaging?

T: No.

M: Did you get any of the messaging that you or your organization sent out approved by Shubert Flynt or PM.com?

T: No.

M: 1man1woman approved by campaign?

T: No.

M: Every time you were contacted by the press, did you refer to ProtectMarriage.com or S-F?

T: No.

M: Did you post this Dear Friends letter to the Internet yourself?

T: No.

M: Shows update stamp of September 4, 2009. Was it posted before that?

T: I do not know. I did not know that it was posted.

M: Rally flyer says PM.com on flyer.

T: I don’t know. I did not pay attention to this flyer.

M: Did ProtectMarriage.com pay for this flyer?

T: I don’t think so.

M: Was this flyer created, approved or distributed by ProtectMarriage.com [I think she’s referring to the flyer that says that homosexuality leads to disease, etc.]

T: No.

M: How many visitors to your website?

T: About 1,600.

[What a difference between Miss Moss and David Boies. She’s weak and tentative and scared. As the judge said the other day to one of the lawyers, “experience matters.”]

M: Do you know how many of those visits were lawyers involved in this trial?

[Judge smiles]

T: I don’t know.

M: How many on your mailing list?

T: Email list small, about 100.

M: Did you share any of your emails with campaign manager before you sent them out?

T: No.

[UPDATE] 4:17

M: How many times did you talk to ProtectMarriage.com?

T: Four times maybe on the phone?

M: How many times did you communicate with S-F?

T: Maybe one or two.

M: Did you have any involvement in developing messaging strategy for campaign?

T: No. I was acting independently.

M: Did ProtectMarriage.com have any involvement in the messaging strategy of TFC or1man1womancom?

T: No.

M: when you communicated with TFC or others in your dear friends letter, were you doing so on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com?

T: No, not at all.

M: When you said you were working with ProtectMarriage.com, what were you referring to?

T: During the campaign phase, conference calls. During the petition phase, I was dealing with petitions.

M: Did you at any time during or after the campaign share your views with S-F or ProtectMarriage.com?

T: No.

T: Break?

Judge: Five minutes.

[UPDATE] 4:45

B: You say that you worked stopped working closely with the campaign after the petition phase?

T: Yes.

B: When was that?

T: Fall, 2008.

B: Here’s an email in which you wrote about opportunity to publicize an ad for “our initiative.” Was that during the campaign phase?

T: No, because if it had been part of the campaign phase everyone would have known about it.

B: You said you did the debate that they asked you to do. Was that part of the campaign phase?

T: Yes. I think it was in October 2008.

B: July 21, 2008 on this document. Is this part of the campaign phase?

T: Yes, that is the starting point of the campaign phase.

B: Exhibit 2631 shows you attending weekly grassroots conference. Was this part of the campaign phase (August 2008)?

T: Yes.

B: You testify that you did not communicate with Schubert-Flint, but they run the calls?

T: I did not know who runs this. I attended 6 or 7 meetings, not all of them.

B: Well, the email is from S-F?

T: Yes.

B: And you know S-F ran the campaign?

T: Yes. I did not know who was on the calls. They all sound the same. English is not my first language.

B: Invitations came from S-F. Minutes of calls (already entered as exhibits) from S-F.

B: You see these minutes that include notes of you and note that website 1woman1man.com [I think they mean dot net. I make that mistake all the time.]

T: Yes.

B: October 29, 2008. This is campaign phase?

T: Yes.

B: Communication between you and ProtectMarriage.com

T: Yes.

Judge: There have been some redactions here. Are they material?

B: I recommend that the court review this in camera.

M: I did not redact.

B: We will work with counsel to make sure court gets an unredacted document.

B: TFC News Bulletin that follows the passage of Prop. 8.

T: Yes.

B: See on page where it says TFC 2008 historic events. First event is “Allied with PM.com?”

T: Yes.

B: Offer as exhibit.

Judge: Very well.

B: With respect to your assertion that you were not closely working with ProtectMarriage.com during the campaign phase. October 2008 clearly during campaign phase?

T: Yes.

B: This is flyer of event at which you asked Mr. Prentice appeared?

T: Yes.

B: During the campaign phase, ProtectMarriage.com reimbursed you for your expenses for ads on their behalf?

T: They did not reimburse me. They reimbursed some people who ran some TV and newspaper ads.

B: Is this TFC they reimbursed?

T: No. Chinese Christians who offered to put some advertisements for Prop. 8 but then they do not know how to do it, so yeah.

B: This is an email that you got from Mr. Pugno of PM.com, dated October 27, 2008. This is addressed to multiple people but one of them is TFC. Dear Bill and Peter. You are the Bill?

T: Yes.

B: Your organization spent $50,000 on TV ads in Chinese community. Your organization is TFC?

T: I introduced Peter to Andy because I did not want to get involved.

B: Do you have anything in writing that says you did not participate?

T: It is wrong. It says “organizations” but should say “organization.” I’m Chinese and don’t know that I would have to face a lawyer one day to talk about this.

B: I’m just trying to understand if you have any contemporaneous documents that show that you did not get involved in the ads. You were very close to Peter?

T: Yes, but he did most of the work for the rally and the flyers.

B: But you worked closely with him?

T: Not really.

B: But you worked together on the rally and the flyers?

T: Yes.

B: You testified that you were not part of formulating strategy for ProtectMarriage.com?

T: Yes.

B: You testified that you were not part of the core group as you have picked it up in this courtroom?

T: Yes.

B: Whom did you talk to during the break?

T: My lawyer.

B: What did you say to your lawyer?

T: That I felt like a naughty boy being put in front of the classroom being mocked.

B: What did he say?

T: He laughed.

B: Did you know that in American history there were extremely unfortunate times when Asian Americans were limited as to whom they could marry?

T: Yes.

(Moss objects)

B: He gave his answer your honor. I have no further questions.

Judge: You may step down, Mr. Tam.

What do we have on for tomorrow?

B: We have I believe our final witness, Dr. Herrick. And we have some document issues.

Tags: , , , ,

45 Comments

  • 1. Michael Herman  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:36 am

    I'm not sure how tomorrow will be, but it sure seemed like today was the final nail in Prop 8's coffin.

  • 2. Tom B.  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:37 am

    Oh, I can only hope so. *gets hammer ready*

  • 3. Jesse  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:39 am

    Thank you ever so much for today's coverage. I've sent out links to it, to a lot of my friends to help spread the word, and dropped a donation in the bucket. Please keep up this important coverage.

  • 4. Theresa  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Tam conveniently uses "English is not my first language" when he is faced with questions he didn't want to answer.

    This letter the drafted seems in great & proper English to me!
    http://blog.mattalgren.com/2010/01/the-letter-per

  • 5. Scottie  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:41 am

    Today was very damning for the Yes on 8 side. There's no way around it. They are screwed unless they have some secret testimony that will prove that Prop. 8 had a good reason other than animus.

  • 6. Randy  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:43 am

    My eternal gratitude to Rick and ALL the bloggers! Because of you, word is spreading! Thank you!

  • 7. Rikaishi  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:47 am

    Fun! It looked like our side had a bit of trouble pinning him completely to protectmarriage.com but otherwise got in some salient points.

  • 8. Theresa  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:49 am

    again, just a reminder – court transcripts can be found here:
    http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/our-work/hea

    Finally, some visibility!

    spread the word!

  • 9. Pam  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:49 am

    i admit, i'm a little scared as to the defense's witnesses…what if they're more convincing? *sigh*

  • 10. Tom B.  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:51 am

    Don't you mean the defense's *one* witness? Or at least the only one that I know of.

  • 11. Ozymandias  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:58 am

    My friends, I am wrung out, and worn out. Rick, much much appreciation to you and your team for this website, and for being able to report this testimony! It is so, so important!

    G'nite folks, and my love to all!

  • 12. Roy  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:59 am

    interesting sidenote….just checked protectmarriage.com…NO mention of Tam's testifying…and NO tweets at all…

    Its like the trial didnt happen today for them…seems they are hiding (in shame?)an

  • 13. Ty  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:01 am

    Does anyone have a list of the potential witnesses for the defense?

  • 14. Greg  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:01 am

    Mind-blowing testimony today. Thanks so much for the posting service! This will go down in history.

  • 15. Greg  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:07 am

    I hope this is made into an HBO special some day. The dry transcripts are stunning so I can't even imagine the real thing.

  • 16. Curt Rowlett  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:09 am

    As straight guy, with the ability to procreate, I would like to offer an apology on behalf of the entire heterosexual community for producing such a vile human being as Mr. Tam.

    One thing that really puzzles me: How come such hatred and ignorance at Mr. Tam's was not exposed long before Prop. 8 ever went to the vote?

    And thank you to the live bloggers who have been updating this page. I could not tear myself away from reading the proceedings here today. You are a fine human being.

  • 17. Gery  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:09 am

    Well, I've been following this since day 1, though first time posting; just wanted to say I am MOST appreciative of the time and effort put in by everyone for the coverage.

    And though I'm Canadian, and this is pretty much moot up here, I am sincerely pulling for my Family down there and it's my hope that this trial gets more and more media coverage and attention.

    It IS all about the truth afterall.

    Keep plugging along everyone.

  • 18. Dieter M.  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:13 am

    The supreme courts decision today says it all…they are now after 100 years ALLOWING unlimited cash to flow in elections….(along with several decisions to keep donations secret) this is ONLY good for republicans and the churches. It is clear how the SCOTUS will vote on gay marriage. It's over.

  • 19. Ian  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:15 am

    So was Tam subpoenaed, or did the defense tell him to come and give his testimony???

    And I want to thank "Dr." Tam for delivering to me my daily dose of the bat-shit crazies…..I really enjoyed it! lol

  • 20. gary, Seattle  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:16 am

    firedoglake included this snippet of testimony that you seem to have missed; it occurs 7 questions after the comment on Proposition K:

    B: But Prop 8 had nothing to do with sex with children
    T: No
    B: You could have written that in the 14 words but you didn’t did you?
    T: No

    forgive me if I'm wrong, but Tam (who says he wasn't really part of this) does not deny he authored the 14-word official CA state ballot description.
    Looking at Moss redirect I'd say he perjured himself, at least once.

  • 21. Curt Rowlett  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:17 am

    Dieter: I hope you are wrong, but fear that you are correct. However, this whole issue is an important civil rights case and as such, I hope that SCOTUS will give full weight to what has happened to other minority groups in the past.

  • 22. elliott  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:18 am

    I'm really tired too. This trial has made me feel elated and despondent at the same time. I don't know whether to curl up and go to bed or call 15 people and talk about today. I feel like my very existence is on trial, but that it is a fair trail thus far. I hope the defense's defense is as bad as their cross exams.

    Thank you for blogging this — I think I would be a wreck without having this account of the trial.

  • 23. Barb  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:18 am

    Thanks Curt, but as you probably know, the heterosexual community produced us too. Mr. Tam is an anomaly in the gene pool.

    As for your second sentence, unfortunately truth of motivation is hard to see at first and usually takes trials (or time) for realization and facts to surface. Even sadder is that no person in the organization(s) involved saw the audacity and vitriol cared to share. It all comes down to us having to show the world the truth…and that's a very hard thing to do.

    Thankfully we have the best of the best, finally, helping our cause.

    Again, thank you for you!

  • 24. misken  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:28 am

    Ah, we should be used to that by now. They love to hide. I mean, seriously, PM.com's followers should realize by now that they are being duped.

  • 25. Andrea  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:32 am

    I live in California, in the Bay Area, in an area with a large Asian-American community.

    Dr. Tam's Chinese-language flyers appeared in my neighborhood on the Saturday before the election, so there was no time to counter them. We didn't even know what they said until afterward. One of my Chinese-American neighbors was helpful enough to translate for me; according to her they said that Prop 8 was to make pedophilia illegal.

    No one knows because the media coverage was awful then and awful now. As I write this, the SF Chronicle's website SFGate.com has reduced today's testimony to just an generic AP story entitled "Prop 8 backer stands by views on pedophilia."

    It's not linked to on their Prop 8 coverage page, nor does any mention of the depth of Catholic and LDS involvement appear. The Gate went with Cindy McCain, and a story about what Zoe Balfour wears while dancing, instead.

    …and they wonder why nobody's buying the paper any more.

  • 26. Dieter M.  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:39 am

    It's over.
    and with these new laws..the country just OFFICIALLY was handed over to the gas/oil companies, the insurance lobby,
    the Republicans and the churches… the end is near for all of us…

    I want out…How do I get to Canada?

  • 27. Dieter M.  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:41 am

    and now because of the ruling..if you are not a Rich White Religious person, you may as well committ suicide.

  • 28. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:45 am

    Ty if you go to:

    marriagetrial.com

    they have the defense witnesses with pictures of all the people that were possible to post

  • 29. couragecampaign  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:56 am

    Thanks so much, Jesse!

    Appreciate the support, both in sharing links with your friends and donating to support our coverage of the trial.

    Courage relies on thousands of small donations to fund our campaigns and projects — we truly could not do this without you!

    Eden James
    Managing Director, Courage Campaign Institute

  • 30. Jane  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    I know! HBO would rock this. Great idea.

  • 31. Jane  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    Dieter M., I have been following your comments. Please hang in there with us. This week has sucked (Mass + SCOTUS today) but it's not *all* bad. Please stay. Don't despair. xoxo

  • 32. Jane  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    My favorite word for today is "bat shit crazy".

  • 33. Jane  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    Ooo, I had to read that a couple times, you're right.

  • 34. Glenn I  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    It was exposed. Tam's views were a significant part of the Prop 8 campaign.

  • 35. Skip  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    Why does it look like the Prop. 8 people are doing a minimal, almost incompetent job?They got the money to hire top guns. It's starting to look to me as if they are 'throwing the fight"? If that were so, what would be in it for them? I imagine we all expect that this will go to the Supreme Court no matter what. So…any ideas?

  • 36. Chris  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    quite possibly to have something to Appeal.

  • 37. J. Stone  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:26 pm

    I think it's a combination of being outmatched (they're up against 2 of the best appellate attorneys in America) and being forced to defend a rationally indefensible position. If you were a competent, top-tier attorney, would you want to be in the defense attorneys' shoes, having all America mistake your clients' crazy bile for your own views? I think I'd pass and let one of those Jerry Falwell Law School grads embarrass himself (or herself) instead.

  • 38. Nathan  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:46 am

    BINGO! Boies is my hero!

  • 39. The Corporate Communists &hellip  |  January 22, 2010 at 6:56 am

    […] became the I want to sponsor but I don’t want to testify when the trial became reality.  The Courage Campaign and FiredogLake have both done a tremendous job of covering this trial that the Supreme Court […]

  • 40. Kimeron  |  January 22, 2010 at 7:56 am

    What I find interesting about the William Tams of the world is why, if they find a "homosexually-controlled" city like so offensive, they choose to live here?

    It's like the fundy preacher who sits on the obscenity board, watching porn all day, so that he can define what's obscene and what's not.

    Me thinks Mr. Tam may harbor some deep secrets of his own…

  • 41. Chris  |  January 22, 2010 at 8:34 pm

    I can't believe it took me this long to catch up to this. I'm so excited for the ignorant uncle.

  • 42. Matthew C  |  January 27, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    I'm catching up slowly but surely, but I have to say the line "I’m Chinese and don’t know that I would have to face a lawyer one day to talk about this." spoke volumes about the way the Prop 8 proponents conduct themselves. I had to post that one directly to Facebook.

  • 43. Protect the Children (and&hellip  |  July 7, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    […] might lead us to take revenge on him.  Our side called him as a hostile witness anyway, and exposed his hateful ignorance, pathetic illogic, and blind willingness to believe whatever anti-gay crap he […]

  • 44. Mark Hefflinger: Anti-Gay&hellip  |  August 2, 2012 at 4:09 pm

    […] “The O’Reilly Factor,” with O’Reilly praising her for having “turned the other cheek.” (The clip was screened in the courtroom by the Defendant-Interveners/Yes on 8 on the eighth […]

  • 45. best web hosting insurance company for small business  |  March 17, 2014 at 8:30 pm

    Magnificent beat ! I wish to apprentice whilst you amend your website, how can i subscribe for a blog
    web site? The account helped me a appropriate
    deal. I had been a little bit familiar of this your broadcast provided
    vibrant clear idea

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!