January 21, 2010
By Rick Jacobs
[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: 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.
B: You told people that next will be legalizing sex with children. That’s the homosexual agenda. Do you believe this?
[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?
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).
[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?
B: Did you write this document (that is translated from Chinese)?
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.
[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?
B: You believe that NARTH is a good source?
T: Yes. I rely on the NARTH.
[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?
B: Do you believe that homosexuals should be discriminated against?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
B: That’s what you told people to get them to vote for Prop. 8?
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…
[NOTE] This thread was getting long and the comments full, so I moved to a new one.