Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Liveblogging Day 8: Part VI more from Tam

Liveblogging

By Rick Jacobs

[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: , ,

329 Comments

  • 1. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:46 am

    Tam is so CONFUSED.

  • 2. Anthony N  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Can you say: "SWISS CHEESE"?!?!?!?!?

  • 3. Scottie  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:47 am

    It is AMAZING to me how far this campaign went to deny the WORD MARRIAGE to people. Keep in mind that's all Prop. 8 did. As I said elsewhere that makes Tam's testimony even more damning. He really convinced people that gays will rape kids if they're allowed access to the word marriage? And if these people really believe that we are a threat to marriage you'd think they'd stop gays from getting any benefits associated with marriage other than just the word marriage.

  • 4. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Logic? Where?!

  • 5. Peter C  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:47 am

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

    Translation: I LIED!

  • 6. Pam  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:48 am

    I sense the growing impatience of Boies. Poor man.

  • 7. christina  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:48 am

    wow…. i still dont know what to say to this. he's an idiot

  • 8. Jay  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:48 am

    This is…does he actually have any concrete ideas about this? Or any facts at all? I'm not entirely sure what's going on here.

  • 9. Kevin  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:49 am

    I can't believe that people actually listen to the opinion of this man…..

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

    Ditto. I hope he hangs in there…

  • 11. Andy  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:49 am

    "Finished?"
    It's too perfect! Thanks, B, for exposing the petty, righteous and altogether unbelievable rhetoric of Tam.

  • 12. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:50 am

    Did Mr. Pink leave a tip this time?

  • 13. Frijondi  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:50 am

    Tam's comments about children suddenly wanting to marry a member of the same sex if gay marriage becomes legal remind me of an old Art Hoppe column. (Anyone else still missing him?)

    His fictitious son Mordred comes home one day and says, more or less, "I've been converted to homosexuality! Two told me all about the glamorous lifestyle."
    Art says, "Son, do you know what men actually have to do to be homosexual?"

  • 14. Lisa  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:50 am

    T: Yes. Oh I see your logic.

    Do you?

  • 15. pearlheartgtr  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:51 am

    I'm wondering what the defense is going to do with this guy. Are they even going to TRY to make some twisted sense of this?

  • 16. SnSD  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:51 am

    I cannot think of a worse human being at the moment and I understand why he feared for his safety after this. I really hope there could be some way to press charges against him for slandering our community to the extent that he went to.

  • 17. Greg  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Damn, I would pay to see this in a movie. This is totally fascinating. The mask has been taken off these Prop 8 swine and the drama is amazing!

  • 18. MarkOH  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Does anyone know what Tam has his PhD in? There is nothing I can find online.

  • 19. Frijondi  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:51 am

    (Should have been "two men.")

  • 20. christina  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:51 am

    My brain is starting to hurt from the stupid. Why is Tam even speaking, he's just a MORON.

  • 21. Happy  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:52 am

    Seriously. I feel like this is starting to go against us, simply because I don't sense animus as much as pure ignorance and blind faith.

    What's this guy's doctorate in anyway?

  • 22. Ray Harwick  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:52 am

    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.

    Ah! Well, if you were GOING ROGUE, did PM.com slap your hands?

  • 23. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:52 am

    No, he's just an idiot.

  • 24. Jay  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:52 am

    I was wondering that as well. Do they think they'll be able to salvage anything from this?

  • 25. Allison  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:53 am

    I for one, am surprised he has even heard of the word "logic"

  • 26. Steve  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:53 am

    Rumor has it he got his PhD from a diploma mill.

  • 27. sugarbritches  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:53 am

    Gotta say this man doesn't exactly come across as an intellectual. It'll be interesting to see how the other side tries to salvage anything from this. It would probably be best, from their perspective, to try to paint him as a raving lunatic to whom nobody would ever pay attention. Shouldn't be a hard sell.

  • 28. homogenius  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:53 am

    It could be a mail order degree. It could also be from some storefront bible college. Anyone can call themselves a college and issue a piece of paper with PhD on it and call it a degree. But it's not accreditied or recognized by any accrediting body or any addredited university.

  • 29. Michael Herman  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:54 am

    On the contrary. I believe he is thoroughly enjoying tearing this man apart on the stand. :)

  • 30. Kevin  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:54 am

    PhD in BullShi*t

  • 31. Diane M.  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Watching Tam is like watching a train wreck, as much as I try I can't look away…..

  • 32. Happy  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Would that he could've "kept his mouth shut" long before Oct. '08!

  • 33. PM, in the UK  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Yeah; that will be a sight.

    Considering there has effectively been 2 attempts to withdraw him now, I wouldn't be surprised if they just decline to question him.

  • 34. pearlheartgtr  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:55 am

    I think they should just pack it up after this debacle.

  • 35. Lisa  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:56 am

    This is MADNESS!

  • 36. Frijondi  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:57 am

    What kills me is that this has always been out there, and it was never too hard to find. But for some reason, the general public has mostly ignored it.

  • 37. elliott  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:57 am

    I must say that my face is starting to hurt from my plastered perma-smile… i will relish this because it is sooooo juicy and embarrassing. This guy needs to be in a funny farm. Tee hee!

  • 38. Joel Wheeler  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:57 am

    Seriously? Feeling so much tightly focused rage right now…

    Breathe. Breathe. Breathe.

  • 39. Lymis  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:57 am

    Actually, it is all that the Court allowed it to do. I think a lot of people voted in an attempt to actually strip people of their rights.

    And I think that the Prop 8 people intended them to think that.

    You heard him say that DP are not the same – to the extent that he could explain to kids that some same-sex couples want to live together and take care of each other, but that if they call it marriage, everyone's brains short out.

  • 40. David Kimble  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:57 am

    Yes, from what I have read of this examination, not only
    Tam, but the Prop8 side must be feeling the heat too!

  • 41. Jim  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:57 am

    From parody Twitter account protectmawwiage :

    "@protectmawwiage Sooooo listen gang, we're pretty anti-gay and all, but yeah…Dr. Tam is kind of a fucking idiot. #prop8 #protectmarriage #godhelpus"

    Priceless!

  • 42. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:57 am

    He must be an attorney's wet dream.

  • 43. e  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:58 am

    So…

    Girl: Mommy, can I have a wife?
    Mother: No, you can only have a husband or a domestic partner.
    Girl: Okay. When I grow up, I want a husband!
    Mother: Okay.

    OR…

    Girl: Mommy, can I have a wife?
    Mother: Yes, or a husband.
    Girl: Okay. When I grow up, I'm going to marry my father and my brother, and molest my daughter. And sleep with the dog.
    Mother: The DOG?! Don't be silly.

  • 44. allanj  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:58 am

    B: Yeah, logic, logic?

    Best. Line. Ever.

  • 45. Ozymandias  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:58 am

    God, reading Tam's testimony is giving me a crushing headache… but this is IMPORTANT! Rick, that you are sitting there actually listening to this sh*t being spewed… my friend, you have my eternal respect.

  • 46. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:58 am

    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.

    perjury?

  • 47. Pam  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:58 am

    hahaha i was drinking water when i read that…made me snort it out my nose. lmao.

  • 48. Randy  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:58 am

    There seems to be a slight language barrier and cultural differences at play as well, but it's frightening how clear the christian "script" comes across.

  • 49. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:59 am

    Go to http://www.marriagetrial.com and send them an email that says you want this testimony to take precedence.

  • 50. Lisa  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:59 am

    LOL!

  • 51. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:59 am

    not precedence (damn reading of 3 blogs and facebook at the same time). Preference.

  • 52. Barb  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:00 am

    After the defense talks to Tam to try to debunk what he has said so far, do we get to question him again?

  • 53. JefferyK  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:00 am

    The majority of voters in California listened to this man and others just like him. Pretty disturbing, no?

  • 54. Cat  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:00 am

    I wonder how well the prop8 people can distance themselves from Mr. Tam. As Happy indicated, it might be relatively easy to dismiss him as a key person to the defense, and be done with it. It still shows that there is bigotry that has entered the Yes on Prop8 campaign, but not the smoking gun I would like to see.

  • 55. Jay  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:01 am

    Holy. Crap.

    Did that just happen? Am I dreaming?

  • 56. Ben  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:01 am

    Which is why the obvious solution (the one this judge has suggested a number of times) is to remove the word "marriage" from the purvue of the government entirely. Let it mean to each individual whatever they want it to mean and have the government only give "civil unions" to any couple, gay or straight. Everyone is treated equally under the law and the state is separated from what is undeniably a religiously loaded term. Everybody wins (except that there are too many on both sides who don't just want to win; they want the other side to lose).

  • 57. Ted  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:01 am

    Let's see:

    – I get my information from the Interwebs.

    – I can't be arsed to spend even five minutes vetting it.

    – I'm perfectly happy spouting incorrect statistics, laws that don't exist, and other gibberish to as wide an audience as possible.

    – I adore conflating homosexuality with incest, polygamy and pedophilia.

    – I missed the whole "logical fallacies" part of the curriculum.

    – I'm really fucking forgetful when it's convenient.

    Where's MY Ph.D?

  • 58. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:01 am

    Yeah to be able to listen to it and type it out at the same time must be incredibly difficult.

  • 59. Kevin  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:01 am

    It's amusing to read his "logic" on this gloomy rainy day. I am an openly gay Chinese man living in San Francisco, originally from Hong Kong. It's sad to say that his sentiment against GLBT does represent what it's like in Hong Kong. However, we are in America, at least act like a freaking American and don't impose your twisted Chinese tradition and religious studies on us. For anyone interested for his background, you can search on 譚克成 on Google. Happy to help translate some of the crazy shit he is saying in forums and articles published in Hong Kong.

  • 60. Urbain  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:01 am

    The entire argument against marriage equality rests on emotion. They may call it tradition, god's will or whatever, but ultimately, it is an emotional thing that cannot be explained with logic or reason.

    I have had similar conversations with people who start floundering when they try to give a rational explanation for no gay marriage. I think Dr. Tam's testimony illustrates what goes on in many people's minds, when they attempt to justify their discrimination. The frightening thing to me is that those who are religiously inclined often take the word of their pastors or authorities instead of researching what they've been told.

  • 61. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:01 am

    Yep

  • 62. Charles  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:01 am

    "If marriage is beyond a man and a woman it could lead to incest"

    So if a brother and a sister want to get married, it's not incest, since they're a man and a woman? Or something?

  • 63. Kevin  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:01 am

    Yup, Redirect it's a wonderful thing

  • 64. Lymis  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:02 am

    Animus does not have to mean passionate anger. It's pretty clear that his actions were very clearly aimed specifically at gay people because they are gay and because he doesn't like them.

    Being willing to take for granted that gay people are pedophiles out to destroy society, and join a huge group spending millions to strip away rights without even bothering to verify a few basic facts (or speak to any actual gay people) sure looks like animus to me.

  • 65. P-dee-tee  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:02 am

    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 PM.com knew?
    T: I’m not PM.com, so you can infer that they know.

    .>>>Yes I randomly allow people to use my site address without my permission<<<<<<

  • 66. JefferyK  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:02 am

    My guess is they will either (1) portray him as a victim or (2) play the religious expression card. Remember: defending gay rights means violating someone's right to religious expression. That's the argument, anyway. And people believe it.

  • 67. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:02 am

    But it seems too easy, so maybe not that rewarding?
    Rewarding to me to see it here, though.
    I know, it's hard to keep hearing the BS spewed, but it seems to for a reason now.

  • 68. Lymis  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:03 am

    Then they have to explain why they worked with him so long and why they recruited him to be part of the lawsuit. It isn't like they wouldn't have noticed he was a loon sooner.

  • 69. Jane  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:03 am

    Sorry, I just have to it:

    ………………………………..__…………………………………………
    ………………………..,-~*`¯lllllll`*~,……………………………………
    …………………..,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,………………………………
    ………………,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,…………………………….
    ……………,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll……………………… …….
    ………….;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll…………………………..
    …………..lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/………;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,……………………. ..
    ……………lllllllllllllllllllll,-*………..`~-~-,…(.(¯`*,`,……………………..
    …………….llllllllllll,-~*…………………)_-..*`*;..)……………………..
    ……………..,-*`¯,*`)…………,-~*`~……………./…………………
    ………………|/…/…/~,……-~*,-~*`;……………./……………….
    ……………../…/…/…/..,-,..*~,.`*~*…………….*………………..
    …………….|…/…/…/.*`…………………………)….)¯`~,………………
    …………….|./…/…./…….)……,.)`*~-,…………/….|..)…`~-,………….
    ……………/./…/…,*`-,…..`-,…*`….,—………./…../..|………¯“`*~-,,,,
    ……………(……….)`*~-,….`*`.,-~*.,-*……|…/…./…/………………..
    …………….*-,…….`*-,…`~,..“.,,,-*……….|.,*…,*…|………………….
    ……………….*,………`-,…)-,…………..,-*`…,-*….(`-,……………….
    ………………….f`-,………`-,/…*-,___,,-~*….,-*……|…`-,………………

  • 70. Nakhone  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:03 am

    And a fucking manipulative liar. I feel sorry for his ass for being used. Not that he's any kind of victim. He's just as bigoted as the rest of his ilk.

  • 71. Denny  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:03 am

    "B: Pauses. No further questions your honor."

    In other words: "BOOYAH!"

  • 72. Abbie  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:04 am

    That was epic. Way to go Boies!!!!

  • 73. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:04 am

    HELL YEAH BOIES! Nice finish.

  • 74. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:04 am

    Well here's a kernel of knowledge:

    According to the 1man1woman website, MOST VIOLENCE AGAINST GAYS COME FROM GAYS.

    I did not know that.

    It is apparently true, you learn something everyday.

  • 75. Tam's logic  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:04 am

    Okay, so by Tam's logic. DP/CU is ok. Gay couple can live together for 30 years and raise a bunch of kids. Nothing happens. Same couple gets married. Then, they molest the kids, marry them, the kids marry each other, and all grow up to be gay.

  • 76. Lymis  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:05 am

    Silly. Lesbians don't sleep with dogs. Only gay men do. Ask Rick Santorum – remember it's man-on-dog sex, not girl-on-dog.

    Lesbians are invisible, remember?

  • 77. JC  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:05 am

    If not that part, then the ending part CERTAINLY is perjury. He claims not to know about onemanonewoman.net website being up in 2008 but attended a meeting in August of 2008 where its launch was announced. If that ain't lying, I don't know what is.

  • 78. DonG  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:05 am

    Yes, if we want to.

  • 79. Lies  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:05 am

    Yeah, you see, we're a violent people. We constantly feel the urge to attack each other with random, preferably sharp objects. It is in our sinful nature.

  • 80. PM, in the UK  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:06 am

    Protectmawwiage is tweeting that the defense have declined to talk to Tam!

    WAIT, THIS ISN'T EVEN A CROSS EXAM?! Dr. Tam is a PLAINTIFF witness?? Sweet baby Jesus we're so fucked. #prop8 #protectmarriage

    @NOMTweets @protectmarriage @ADFMedia, which of you mental giants hired this Dr.Tam guy?! Ever think of googling him first? Fuck me! #prop8

    KriegerWaves Lawyers defending #prop8 sweep up the fragments of what was once Dr. Bill Tam and pretend they weren't paying attention…

    Checked in with HQ. Staff at secret antigay fortress vomiting from every orifice after Dr. Tam testimony. #prop8 #protectmarriage #sofucked

    Is he accurate or joking?

  • 81. Theresa  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:06 am

    if you found it on the interwebs, then yes, of course it is true. 😉

  • 82. Alena  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:06 am

    OMG! This is better than Law & Order!
    "Your honor, I have no further questions"

  • 83. JefferyK  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:06 am

    There's no blog on NYT Web site for today's testimony, so Tam's performance will disappear into the ether even more quickly.

  • 84. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:06 am

    So will we get to see the DIs try to "rehabilitate" their sorry excuse for a witness today, or tomorrow?

  • 85. Roger  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:07 am

    As a member of the Chinese community I would like to say that Tam is a disgrace not just because of his politics but also in his inability to answer simple questions and conclude the obvious based on Boise line of questioning.

  • 86. pearlheartgtr  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:07 am

    Well duh! Haven't you heard of all those queer gangs taking to the streets and getting all West Side Story?

  • 87. Lisa  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:07 am

    The courtroom floor would like to report that it feels thoroughly wiped. Thank you very much, Mr. Tam.

  • 88. Rebecca  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:07 am

    WOW!!! That was one huge parade of crazy!

    I'm exhausted.

  • 89. PM, in the UK  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:07 am

    Or 3rd option: I'm miscomprehending the tweets (it is passed midnight here).

  • 90. P-dee-tee  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:07 am

    Precisely.

  • 91. Tommy  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:08 am

    I wouldn't assume anything about where Tam received his degree. He could be very knowledgeable with regards to something like math, or physics or chemistry. Also, keep in mind his first language is not English, and he is obviously having difficulty understanding some of the things Boies is saying.

    I mention this because I *know* a few smart people who received degrees from accredited universities, and they share many of Tam's beliefs on homosexuality. Why? Because their pastor told them. Because the Bible says so. Yes, hard to believe, but there are educated people who will not question anything their Bible/pastor says.

  • 92. Johnathan Fii  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:08 am

    So, I've been reading this every day when I should be working and am only commenting just now.

    I cannot believe they let Tam up there – the crazy is overwhelming. But seeing them tie his crazy-@$$ site to the campaign just made me happier than I've been all day.

  • 93. Kevin  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:08 am

    He got a PhD from Columbia University for Chemical Engineering, at least from some Chinese website it said so.

  • 94. Jay  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:09 am

    I would so watch that movie.

  • 95. remix  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:10 am

    The most riveting day yet.

  • 96. Nikki  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:10 am

    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.

    WOW!!!! Talk about a "smoking gun" Bravo, David Boies, bravo!

  • 97. Lymis  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:11 am

    Well, hell, when my brother was Executive Officer of a US nuclear submarine equipped to carry (but nobody can confirm or deny that they did) nuclear missiles, his Commanding Officer repeatedly stated that he believed that evolution was a lie, the Bible was literally true, and that Satan was active in the world. Eep.

  • 98. Ray Harwick  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:11 am

    B: Pauses. Your honor, I have no further questions.

    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!!

  • 99. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:11 am

    protectmawwiage is a parody tweeter.

  • 100. Andrew  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:12 am

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is the angle that our side has to be going for with this:

    The religious movement and activist group in America is large and powerful (previously testified to).

    This group seems to have some important role in the Prop 8 campaign. (Previously testified also).

    BUT, where did the impetus come from? Apparently, it's possible it came from this man. And someone with views like this, based on feelings and lies rather than facts and science, can lead such a large and powerful group against an apparently underpowered minority group (again, previously testified to), then the minority group definitely needs and deserves special protections from the larger group.

    In that case, since that larger group can apparently be so successfully mobilized for a campaign, it may all end up being that they can easily play into the hands of someone as illogical as Dr. Tam. In a way, I'm starting to get a sense that even though the religious voters may still be his brethren in faith, they probably are not his brethren on rational thought and got a bit played here.

    Does any of that make sense?

    Either way, it still can boil down to the religious movement was able to suppress the rights of LGBT simply by sheer size. This guy's just the jerk that realized that and set the ball rolling.

  • 101. Brian D  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:12 am

    As a pediatrician, I support the AAP and I'm amazed at how anyone who calls themselves an advocate for children (or pretend to care about their livelihood) could sit there and say stupid merde like that. And I lose a bit of respect for the judge who doesn't just kick him out post haste.

  • 102. Lymis  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:12 am

    They didn't have a choice, outside of a hit man. They did everything they could to keep him from testifying.

  • 103. CajunBoyLgb  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:12 am

    WRONG.

    Get RELIGIONS out of the CIVIL CONTRACT called a MARRIAGE.

    If they can't dissolve a MARRIAGE (and NO RELIGION CAN DISSOLVE A LEGAL MARRIAGE IN THE U.S.), they have no business controlling who can enter into a LEGALLY-DEFINED marriage.

  • 104. pearlheartgtr  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:12 am

    protectmawwiage:

    Working on time machine with @ADFMedia @protectmarriage to go back in time, prevent Dr. Tam's birth/testimony. #prop8

  • 105. ron1008  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:12 am

    The funny thing about the Bible is it can say anything you want

  • 106. MScott  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:12 am

    Damn! That was quite the dramatic ending; wish we could have seen that!

  • 107. Fran Walker  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:13 am

    Thank you so much for doing this.

    I've tried to donate, but the online form won't work because I don't have a US address. If you have a system for overseas people to donate, or if you can accept PayPal, could you please point me to it?

  • 108. Ric  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:13 am

    As he should.

  • 109. Lisa  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:14 am

    Thank you!

  • 110. bJason  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:14 am

    "B: Pauses. Your honor, I have no further questions."

    COLD CHILLS!!!!

  • 111. Colt  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:14 am

    I used to kind of hate twitter … Protect Mawwiage has changed my mind!!! ROTFLMAO

  • 112. Lymis  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:14 am

    I respect the judge for including it. This kind of testimony is critical at the appellate level. When the defense claims that they were only acting from the highest, purest motives based on deeply held principles, crap like this has to be on the record to prove that it ain't so.

  • 113. Jane  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:14 am

    If he cares so much about the children having sex underage — I wonder what his organization does to stop human trafficking. Especially the asian kids that are sold by their parents into prostitution.

    Other than Prop 8 and working towards making sure GLBT have no rights, what does his organization do to "protect the children".

    Wouldn't know that show the real bias?

  • 114. Warren  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:15 am

    I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree. I would really like a lawyer to weigh in on whether I can, as a gay man, bring a suit against him for the revolting things he has said from a position of authority to large numbers of people about me as a gay person and seek damages for hurting my good name. I cannot thing of a more defamatory statement than implying I wish to have sex with children. And the very passage of Prop 8 is more than enough grounds to prove I was personally harmed.

  • 115. Roger  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:16 am

    He has (or did a few days ago — the page is coming up blank now except for a heading "Bill Tam PhD") a bio on his home page in which he claims to have done "postdoctoral research" at a well-respected university — but doesn't say he actually got a PhD from it.

    I think his PhD is as bogus as the rest of him.

  • 116. Lies  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:16 am

    I'd like to second this. Is there any way we can use Paypal to donate? I'm overseas and do not have a credit card.

  • 117. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:16 am

    [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.”]

    Especially for the Supreme Court. If they aren't ready to take a beating by the judges there, then they shouldn't go in the first place.

  • 118. Marc  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:17 am

    Of course it's true. IT'S ON THE INTERNET!

  • 119. Ted  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:18 am

    Oh — I absolutely wouldn't kick out a witness like Tam. The judge is going to have to weigh how deeply animus was involved in the prop8 campaign, and WOW did Tam give him an earful.

    No wonder the D-I were doing gymnastics to try to keep him off the stand. The guy is friggin' kryptonite to their cause (at lease in a court of law).

    I almost want to send ol' Bill a gift basket.

  • 120. QStick01  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:18 am

    I disagree. It's snarky and inappropriate. It shows disdain and no detachment. This is not a Law and Order episode on TV, and to get snarky is to demean the importance of this case. You can BET when this day ends he'll get his ass chewed out for that one little mistake. At least one can hope so!

  • 121. R_Genesee  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:19 am

    That didn't quite jell with me. My Christianity includes my God-given sexuality, ergo my own right to religious expression that God lovingly made me gay.

  • 122. Ray Harwick  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:19 am

    Tam's Background: The best I can find shows his page is blacked out but it show this (and ONLY this):

    Hak-Shing William Tam
    He worked as a research faculty member at Columbia's College of … and as a senior research scientist at Becton-Dickinson, a major medical products firm. …

  • 123. Lisa  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:20 am

    Me too!

    You're doing an incredible job here.

  • 124. UC Student  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:21 am

    OH you can be totally smart, but when you draw conclusions not based on academic research (as you're taught to do in university (believe me, I'm still there)) and take un-researched statements as fact, that's when you should be calling their academic integrity into question

  • 125. Nick Griffin Miller  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:21 am

    Here here!

  • 126. Mouse  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:21 am

    I remember being quite amused by homophobic flame letters that when into graphicaly detailed, multiple paragraph long, erotic descriptions of gay male sex and followed with something to the effect of "and whatever it is that two women do together."

  • 127. Joe  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:22 am

    Jane, you and I are wondering the same thing. Are gays the only threat to marriage or just the thing they spend 100% of their time and money fighting against?

  • 128. Pete in Texas  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:22 am

    Just so you can see some of the craziness I deal with in Texas, a friend just sent me this gem!
    http://www.boycotthouston.com/

    Apparently we're now becoming the 'San Francisco of Texas' because of electing a Lesbian Mayor!!!!!

  • 129. Nicole A  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:22 am

    This guy got 20,000 signatures from his measly email list of 100 people and 1,600 visist to his website? Sorry, doc, but those numbers don't add up!

  • 130. Jane  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:22 am

    Me too!

  • 131. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:23 am

    Both and whatever else they can to support "their views", bible verses, etc.
    Really, there is no way to get through the wall of "faith" and the "authority of the Bible" to some people. They are told to go on faith, not facts. If they consider facts, they are told it's the temptation of the devil.
    They will lay it on thick with their rights are violated AND the children are potential victims of "the gays".

    Funny, in my self discoveries there was nobody "out" that I knew about. No examples to fantasize about, in fact the opposite popular negative view. My parents are straight, Republicans, still married after 57 years (by a judge) that brought me up in a stable home with no "bad examples" to emulate.

  • 132. R_Genesee  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:23 am

    In theological arena, there is no PhD.

  • 133. straightfromsacramen  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:25 am

    Ha! Did Tam ask for a break?

  • 134. PM, in the UK  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:25 am

    I'm intrigued how a Roguish Rogue Gone Rogue! angle will pan out, considering that:

    * He is one of the 5 sponsors of Prop 8.
    * He is one of the interveners in this case.
    * The judge remarked – way back when Tam was called – that he has an excellent attendance record for this case.

    Not even a house of straw, surely?

    I assume he gets in to the courtroom itself – rather than in with the bloggers etc. – in which case he has & will be seated next to the very lawyers trying to paint him as a passing lunatic.

  • 135. Barb  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:25 am

    There is somewhere an address where you can send a check to. I also will be donating again. My new CC came in yesterday (lost it…unfortunately found it in the laundry after calling to get a new one.)

    I don't have much, but I have to donate some. This is too important!

  • 136. Steve Zlick  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:26 am

    Redirect coming up. But unless Bois can show that Tam is a fall-guy for the campaign and they wink-winked knowingly at his outrageous comments while he failed to get the permission he pledged in writing to stay on message, then this entire line of testimony was a waste of time, imo.

    Sure, it shows animus by someone connected with the campaign. But it's not the magic bullet of the campaign's intentions that would make it worth half a day of trial. We already got all this stuff in with his videotape a few days ago. So far, nothing further has been gained from his testimony.

  • 137. Jeff G.  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:26 am

    I've been searching since Tam's testimony began, and I can't find anything that confirms that Sweden or Netherlands permit sibling marriages. Both permit cousins, but so does the United States, so that can't be the basis for Tam's assertion that both of these European countries allow siblings to marry each other.

  • 138. Andrew  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:26 am

    Selective memory? Senility?

  • 139. R_Genesee  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:27 am

    Tam's testimony may prove to be OUR SIDE's best testimony – it displays how baseless Prop. 8 has been all along.

  • 140. Shane Z.  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:27 am

    Tam: "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."

    This is key. If gay couples are limited to domestic partnerships, it's easier to categorize them to his children as the "other". They have a relationship but it's not marriage. But if gay couples were married, he would lose the ability to use their relationship as a tool by which to differentiate gay couples from themselves.

    The 400lb gorilla here is that DPs are second class compared to marriages. If gay people are excluded from marriage, it's easier to categorize their relationship as second class as a tool to instruct their children that these gay people, themselves, are second class.

    It's pure animosity, through and through.

  • 141. Barb  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:27 am

    What's with asking for a break every three minutes?

  • 142. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:27 am

    CajunBob has the right of it. Churches are allowed to perform legally binding marriages under the authority of the state (which they must cite during the wedding). This is a courtesy afforded them by the state, frankly, and I have no problem with that courtesy being yanked.

    As I said in another thread, this is how the EU avoids this problem. There is strict separation of church and state. If you didn't get a civil marriage at the bureau/registry, your church wedding has no meaning under the law. (How ironic, that this is the case for so many same-sex couples here in the US … if you don't have the "golden ticket," you aren't married.)

  • 143. Tom B.  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:27 am

    I was wondering when the Doink Doink would come up!

  • 144. Dieter M.  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:28 am

    State of emergency declared in Southern California……

    Me thinks that God is mad at Mr. TAM!!!

  • 145. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:28 am

    Won't Austin be upset if you become the SF of TX?

  • 146. David Kimble  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:29 am

    Thank you, Roger! I think sometimes in the heat of the battle people forget we are still talking about a real person with real feelings. And please don't take any of the 'racial epithets' personally. We are trying.

  • 147. Tom B.  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:29 am

    I for one would certainly love to see them redirect after the apparent 'rogue' defense being used by the defendants in cross.

  • 148. Tommy  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:30 am

    But that's exactly what I'm saying. There are people who are so blinded by their religion that they will believe whatever their religion tells them, even if goes directly against something they may have learned in school. I have a friend who got a BS in Microbio from a UC school, and he believes in the literal Genesis account of creation.

  • 149. Gaby Tako  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:30 am

    Wow – Bill Tam has math and logic problems, big time. I really hope Judge Walker sees Tam for what he is, a "poster child" of Prop. H8 supporters.

  • 150. Angel  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:30 am

    If I were the defendants, I'd hang my head in shame and just pack it up. They really can't get any lower than this, can they?

  • 151. Nick Griffin Miller  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:30 am

    I made a similar comment over on Firedoglake-we had better hope that Dr Tam is protected-because if something should happen to him-the h8trs will say it was what he was afraid of-and point the finger in our direction-tho I would doubt such stupidness of our people-but a "criss cross" of sorts could be possible-especially in light of the tweets someone said were coming from their side…

    Careful folks…

  • 152. Nakhone  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:31 am

    ROFLMAO.

  • 153. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:31 am

    I'd pay good money to watch Gerard Butler kick certain folks down a bottomless well …

  • 154. Lisa  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:34 am

    I don't know a single person that pays anything in checks.

  • 155. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:34 am

    Urbain, far too many churches depend on people *not* employing their critical thinking skills. It makes them easier to lead. :-(

  • 156. Nakhone  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:37 am

    David. That's not a good excuse. When you use and, in your case, condone or encourage, racist remarks and then turns around and says, "We're trying," doesn't cut it. And, to say, let's not stoop to their level is condescending. Remember, we're trying to show the world that LGBTs are not hypocrites ourselves…that we're all really equal under the rainbow. I know it's hard to expect that some racist people to not show their true selves. It just goes to show that being gay isn't synonymous with being enlightened. And, FYI… when you're talking about someone's it's a very personal thing. Try harder.

  • 157. Linda  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:37 am

    Did I just hear the news correctly?… Cindy McCain is doing a pro SS marriage commercial.? Maybe I'm dreaming. Love her! Why she stands behind and not in front of her hubby is beyond me.

  • 158. Theresa  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:38 am

    I'm so sure they can…and have… :-(

  • 159. Josh  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:38 am

    Damn I wish this was on YouTube. It would be all over the news sites. But instead, they'll try and hide and other more 'important' issues will be on the news…

    Ugh.

  • 160. tess  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:38 am

    Checked in with HQ. Staff at secret antigay fortress vomiting from every orifice after Dr. Tam testimony. #prop8 #protectmarriage #sofucked

    Can't… stop… laughing… !!!

  • 161. Tom B.  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:39 am

    Well, looking at the last several pages of blogs, methinks that Tam got so severely spanked he needed a few minutes to let his butt cool down.

  • 162. Rikaishi  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:40 am

    Actually, my take on that idea is that everybody loses. We've heard a few times in this court about the downsides of domestic partnerships – mainly that it doesn't provide a reason to celebrate – so everyone gets stuck with that. Meanwhile the word Marriage is being used for anyone who wants to glorify a relationship with their car, pet, child, anime character etc, so you could say in a very real sense that the institution of marriage has been effectively destroyed, thus the conservatives have lost out. (assuming, of course, that this is actually a concern for them on some level)

    I don't think it's a good solution. Especially not if homosexuals can get pinned as "those people who destroyed marriage in California"

  • 163. Jane  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:41 am

    Yes it's true — it was on early news this morning. She's got the duck taped over her mouth. :-)

  • 164. Bill  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:41 am

    The only purpose of Prop 8 was to hurt people.

    That's all.

    It really IS that simple.

    They wanted to hurt us. So they did.

    Anything they say to the contrary could be dried and used to fertilize your lawn.

  • 165. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:41 am

    Right now only "marriage" has any portability. Everyone needs to be able to walk into the hospital in any state in the US where their loved one has been taken in an emergency and say, "Let me see my wife/husband."

    "Let me see my civil union partner/domestic partner" just doesn't cut it. Way too many people don't know what that means (or claim to not know what that means).

  • 166. Theresa  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:43 am

    though not on youtube (boo) – i believe the court transcripts are available to us here:
    http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/our-work/hea

    though this should definitely be televised, at the very least some visibility.

    spread the word!

  • 167. Ray Harwick  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Tam: Break?
    Judge: Five minutes.

    Tam needs the break to clean the shit out of his pants.

  • 168. Robert Carter  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:44 am

    I have to agree, Animus is obvious but we can't let them weasel out of his conecction and impact on prop 8. I'm hopeing that in order to get on the defence in the first place he had to show a greatter conection than they're pretending now.

  • 169. Tim  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:44 am

    I almost feel sorry for him! He really got butchered. Taking rapid-fire questions from a highly-experienced lawyer like Boies must be terrifying for someone who has such poorly substantiated beliefs. He believes all sorts of crap about how SS marriage led to incest in other countries, but had to confess that it all came from hearsay or the internet or a source he can't recall! How humiliating for his reputation!

    His biography on his web site (which has been taken down, but you can find it in the internet archive) says that he used to be a biomedical researcher! What an embarrassment to the profession — a scientist should know better than to accept claims without reliable sources!!!

    But that's the end of my sympathy. I swear he (and the Prop H8 side) will go away from this experience complaining of his persecution at the hands of the "homosexual rulers" of San Francisco and activist judges. *eyes rolling so hard it hurts*

  • 170. Andre  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:44 am

    Then Roger, "As a member of the Chinese Community" it is therefore your duty to EXPOSE this Moron TO THE CHINESE COMMUNITY! He has not only shown he is a disgrace to himself, BUT has disgraced the Chinese community!

    When I was beating the pavement back in the day for No on the Briggs Initiative (1978) I had great understanding dialogue with many members in Chinese neighborhoods. Their english may not have been the best, but they understood Bigotry and Predjudice, and knew if it was allowed to happen to a minority like Homosexuals, then it could happen to the Chinese too!

  • 171. JC  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:46 am

    While waiting for the break to be over, I saw this headline from yesterday: http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexmarriage/ci_142

    I am so exhausted….

  • 172. Nick Griffin Miller  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:47 am

    she did come out on our side, yes…

  • 173. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:47 am

    true. sad but true

  • 174. Nick Griffin Miller  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:47 am

    LOL-I hope it wasn't living…

  • 175. Bill  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:47 am

    They'll never put these clowns befroe the Supremes.

    I think if it goes there, defense council will be replaced.

    Unless that is not allowed.

    But defense council is dumb. Slow. And ill prepared for plantiff's council.

    They're Tony Danza in a made for Lifetime movie.

    (Sorry, Tony.)

  • 176. sarah  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:48 am

    Y'know, I was born in Houston, but my family moved just a few weeks later. I've been back a few times to visit, but only once as an adult. I'm thinking another visit may be in order.

  • 177. InMA  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:48 am

    The duct tape thing is part of Kathy Griffin's campaign which you can find on her website.

  • 178. Theresa  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:49 am

    it's tiring JC, no doubt. But our unwavering belief in equal human rights will keep you going.

    let's help new hampshire by giving them our support as well.

    we are making history.

  • 179. Charles  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:50 am

    Oi Stevie, no need to be such a party pooper. :-(

    Let people be joyful for now. I think everyone knows it's pretty much a lost cause anyway in the need, but you know? Let's pretend this afternoon was a victory for our camp.

    *is already depressed*

  • 180. Colt  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:50 am

    Can you imagine how much better our country would be if, instead of fighting against equal rights for everyone all the time, these people poured their energy and resources into something like education or health care? Sad.

  • 181. InMA  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:50 am

    Yeah – they're not taking us down this time. Tired of playing nice.

  • 182. JC  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:50 am

    Thanks, I needed that. This afternoon was a humdinger of a roller coaster and tomorrow is another day….

  • 183. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:50 am

    agreed! motion approved!

  • 184. David Kimble  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:51 am

    It's been a lot more than 5 minutes, since we broke, anybody know what's going on?

  • 185. elw  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:51 am

    totally! Boise in da house!

  • 186. Pam  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:51 am

    wow…seriously? when will it ever end??

  • 187. Shun  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:51 am

    As a member of the Chinese community (especially SF's), I can say that he's a pure representative of a lot of Chinese Americans' mindset on the issue. They, esp ones of his generation, are just conservative and traditional in their way of thinking. There needs no logic to their way of reasoning. They are just 'old-fashioned' like that.

    When my mom was freakin out about gay marriage leading to it being taught in school (to my niece), she freaked out. I tried reasoning with her but she just wouldn't hear it. And I think a lot of people are like that. Unless they are personally connected with the issue (like a son/daughter being gay), they would never attempt to understand.

  • 188. Linda  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:51 am

    I hope that doesn't prove we have power…

  • 189. Theresa  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:53 am

    now, back at the trial hearing….

  • 190. elw  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:53 am

    The Boise direct reads like a comedy script. If you made T's testimony up, no one would believe it because it's so horrible. Damn, I should have skipped work this afternoon and gone down to the courthouse. My bad.

  • 191. Andre  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:54 am

    I agree with you Nakhone! I find it interesting how the Gay Community would like to think they are so enlightened and being PC and all, but when you have gay people people moving from little hamlets and rural areas of the country like the South and Midwest to the major cities and urban areas to seek a better open, and less persecuted life, the unfortunate thing is that they bring their racism with them.

  • 192. Theresa  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:55 am

    now, back to the trial…

  • 193. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:56 am

    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.

    Yep, the Chinese Exclusion Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Ac

    It's actually what the rather popular musical, "Flower Drum Song," is about. The book on which it is based is *very* explicit about the horrors of living under the Chinese Exclusion Act in San Francisco … the author fictionalized a great many of his real experiences. The musical, of course, glosses over the unpleasantries.

    I've recommended the book on many occasions: http://www.amazon.com/Flower-Drum-Song-C-Lee/dp/0

  • 194. Nick Griffin Miller  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:57 am

    and with that, I leave you with this fine exchange–

    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?

  • 195. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:59 am

    Yes,

    I think they are going to try to throw him under the bus, he was there as translator, says he, but the pro prop8 folks need a fall guy for the bad part and the voters for the good. (from their view)

    He is looking out to cover his @ss. No doubt there will be the victim card when needed, then the majority voted, tying both together is a bit hard, but the majority feels they are victimized by any overturning of their vote.

  • 196. Nick Griffin Miller  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:59 am

    Not only is the time stamp messed up here, but the numbers on the posts are changing as well, I think it might be full-or fatigued!

  • 197. Jane  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:59 am

    English is not his first language, but he's a Phd —

    He didn't know he would have to face a d lawyer one day for what he did — interesting….probably because his co-hort pugno led the charge is is now leading the other sides case.

    I wonder if Mr. Tam is aware of the "laws" that were passed against the Chinese when the black plague hit SanFran… how they were treated as a society and the plague was oiginally blamed on them.

  • 198. Shun  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:00 am

    "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."

    Would he stop using the first language/being Chinese excuse?

  • 199. Tammy  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:00 am

    For a little taste of what the other side is saying about the trial today. Don't click unless you have something to cool off with. It's smoke-from-the-ears worthy.
    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/

    No mention of Tam yet. However, this particular blogger seems to think that because we all are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, we all have the same rights. So he may throw Tam under the bus, too.

  • 200. e  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:00 am

    Ah, Columbia's College of Ellipsis, very prestigious!

  • 201. Dieter M.  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:01 am

    the trial re-enactments have begun on youtube

    marriagetrial.com

  • 202. Tim  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:01 am

    Yeah, the Asian/Asian-American vote for Prop 8 breaks along age and religious lines. I'd say that Tam's view point is rooted in his religion, not his ethnicity.

    For those interested: http://demographics.apalc.org/wp-content/…/rele…

  • 203. JPM  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:01 am

    Any info on the progress of the reenactment youtube videos?

  • 204. Dieter M.  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:02 am

    trial re-enactmnents on youtube.

    marriagetrial.com

  • 205. Tom B.  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:02 am

    As Daniel Tosh would say, for your selfless service in screwing up almost any chance of your side winning, "Doctor" Tam, we thank you.

  • 206. JPM  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:02 am

    Any new info on the progress of the reenactment youtube videos?

  • 207. Ted  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:03 am

    For anyone interested in his archived background:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20060530014941/http://

    Born in Hong Kong, Dr. Bill Tam (also known as Hak-Shing Tam) received his bachelor degree in Chemical Engineering at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He finished his graduate work at Columbia University while doing interdisciplinary research in Bioengineering. He has published 8 scientific papers in major international, medical and engineering journals, spoken in scientific conferences, and also co-authored a graduate level textbook in Biomedical Engineering. He worked as a research faculty member at Columbia's College of Physicians and Surgeons and as a senior research scientist at Becton-Dickinson, a major medical products firm. His specialty is in heat transfer, human thermoregulation, exercise physiology and mathematical modelling. In business, Dr. Tam has managed cosmetics companies both in Hong Kong and the US. He held membership at various professional organizations as well as positions at the Lions Club, Hong Kong.

    Dr. Tam became a born-again Christian in 1984 and has been active in various ministries. He is the executive director of Chinese Family alliance and Traditional Family Coalition, both are pro-traditional family value organization. He is a columnist with Chinese Christian Herald and a member of the board of directors of Chinese Christian Herald Crusade, Northern California division. He has authored many articles on parenting, education, religion, creation science, family, media, homosexuality, and other political, ethnic and social issues. They are published in major newspapers and Christian magazines. Some of them appear on this website. He is often interviewed on radio, TV, newspaper, and news conferences in the San Francisco Bay Area. His knowledge and experience with science, social and Christian issues makes him a popular speaker at various seminars and church functions. Dr. Tam is a deacon of San Francisco Sunset Chinese Baptist Church and is married to Hazel and has three children.

  • 208. Dieter M.  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:03 am

    the first trailer is up..will be changing format for updated enactments. full transcrips have been provided

    marriagetrial.com

  • 209. QStick01  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:05 am

    Yes, and as a US American married to a Canadian, when I'm in Canada it is exactly as you described. There is no monkey on my back in (most of) Canada (most of the time). Imagine the loss of stigma! It ROCKS!

  • 210. MarkOH  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:06 am

    I admit, I feel a pinch of sympathy, mainly because of the language barrier. However, his comment: "I’m Chinese and don’t know that I would have to face a lawyer one day to talk about this." just makes me angry. We do have free speech in this country, but it sometimes comes with consequences. People are allowed to disagree with your speech and you may, at times, have to defend it. However, like a good friend once said to me "don't post a pic of yourself on the internet that you wouldn't want your Mother to see".
    His comment is too much like the "Christians" who go around speaking hatred against gays and then are shocked (and defensive) when someone takes their words and acts on them.

  • 211. Tom B.  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:06 am

    Part of it was a particularly racist comment that was made by one poster and subsequently deleted, so the whole comment thread that that was a part of is basically being scrapped, if my limited info is correct.

  • 212. Richard Cortijo  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:08 am

    They should put Maggie and Brian on the stand next!!!

  • 213. Richard Cortijo  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:08 am

    They should put Maggie and Brian on the stand next!!!!!

  • 214. proudprogressive  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:09 am

    http://www.youtube.com/user/MarriageTrial

    they are slowly beginning to post the videos on youtube. there is nothing to prevent others from re enacting their favorite scenes, if one is vlogger. This has only just begun as far the video projects go.

  • 215. Greg  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:10 am

    Tam tries to appear bumbling and confused claiming he doesn't understand English. But I sincerely believe he is very calculating and evil in his pursuit to demonize innocent glbt citizens. He is not innocent.

  • 216. Aconite  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:10 am

    Er…psst, Ray? Remember what happened the last time that banner went up?

    Yeah, that.

    We don't want that for this trial, now do we?

  • 217. Tom B.  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:12 am

    Born in Hong Kong, Dr. Bill Tam (also known as Hak-Shing Tam) received his bachelor degree in Chemical Engineering at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He finished his graduate work at Columbia University while doing interdisciplinary research in Bioengineering.

    He has authored many articles on parenting, education, religion, creation science, family, media, homosexuality, and other political, ethnic and social issues.

    I don't know if I'm the first to ever say this, but what about Chemical Engineering or Bioengineering would make you an expert in "parenting, education, religion, creation science, family, media, (and) homosexuality"???

  • 218. sugarbritches  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:12 am

    Tam pisses me off beyond belief. I worked damn hard for my doctorate. He gives the appearance they're not worth any more than the cost of the matchbook we mail in to redeem them. It disgusts me that this man could have any credibility whatsover, with any group.

  • 219. Ted  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:13 am

    ARGH!

    If you really want to get your blood pressure up, go to Tam's website (http://billtam.homestead.com/articles.html), download a few of his docs (in Chinese) and then cut-and-paste them into Google Translate (http://translate.google.com).

    Frankly, after reading a few of these, Tam got off easy. He goes way beyond just conflating gay marriage with pedophilia.

    Someone on our side who reads Chinese should download, translate, and circulate his docs. He's a lot more fucking bold when he thinks the only people reading his drivel are other Chinese evangelicals.

  • 220. Roberta K  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:13 am

    But since there are churches that have no problem with marriage equality (UCC and Unitarian just to name a couple), it could be argued that denying marriage equality violates THEIR right to religious expression. And churches/other faith organizations deny marriage in their sects for all sorts of reasons; Orthodox rabbis won't perform services between Jews and Gentiles, some Catholic parishes will require the non-Catholic partner to convert, and even Protestant churches will require a ton of pre-marital counseling if a Christian is marrying a non-Christian.

  • 221. Warren  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:13 am

    I think Boies succeeded quite well at showing that Tam was deeply involved with the campaign as evidenced by his frequent contacts with Schubert, Pretence and White. Also Tam has shown how the supposed 'rational' basis offered by Prop 8 (and the only chance they have to claim a rational basis) is related to animus and not grounded in any logical or rational thought.

    The facts in the case are so overwhelmingly on our side. Problem is the very animus that we have conclusively shown exists also exists in the minds of several SCOTUS justices. the only question is whether there are 4 or 5 of them. Until we get a final ruling from them we will not know how Kennedey is going to rule, but given that this case is very similar in substance to Romer, I tend to think that we have a chance. That said in Romer he emphasized how broad and sweeping the denial of rights were, which leaves him room to find Prop 8 is a narrow definition of rights.

  • 222. Roberta K  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:14 am

    I don't know about pressing charges…but a bit of "reprogramming" and "reparative therapy" might be in order…

  • 223. Oinky the Shabbos Pi  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:14 am

    Perhaps the good doctor Tam is a nicotine addict.

  • 224. Theresa  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:16 am

    it's ironic to me that he [tam] conveniently states "English is not my first language" (alluding to the fact that he doesn't speak / understand the english language well), however didn't run into any of those issues when:

    1. Defense questioned him.
    2. Wrote those emails (as read in court).
    3. Somehow got a PhD.

    hmm…he must have read all he needed to know [in Chinese] on the internet.

  • 225. Craig  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:18 am

    He may come across as less intellectual at least partly because he is not being questioned in his native language. We should give him that much. I know I would sound pretty dumb right now if I were being questioned in Chinese… I'm just sayin'….

  • 226. Johnathan Fii  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:22 am

    Let me rephrase, my bad.

    I'm amazed they let him up there without coaching him properly before-hand.

  • 227. Kevin  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:23 am

    I have no problem with religions continuing to have the courtesy of being able to perform marriage, or even getting to decide to whom they will or will not perform that courtesy. As long as they don't get to decide that also for other religious or especially for the secular government.

  • 228. Ron  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:24 am

    But this is the big lie of NOM. They say it is just about marriage, but then when we ask for civil unions to fight. when we ask for DP they fight. If there were any honesty in their stated attempt to protect marriage and not discriminate they would encourage DP and CU, but they don't. They don't want to give us any rights at all

  • 229. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:24 am

    Thanks.
    The Chinese family is portrayed as uber-traditional.
    I think Tam's going to be thrown under the bus, though.
    He was important to No on 8 side.
    Onward Christian soldier, so to speak…

  • 230. Benjamin Geiger  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:24 am

    I'd rather see Simon and River.

  • 231. Liz  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:24 am

    Just left this guy a comment asking him to define "behavioral minority"… So far he has grouped us with repeat DUI offenders and sex offenders.

  • 232. Tim  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:27 am

    Whoops, messed up the link.
    http://demographics.apalc.org/wp-content/uploads/

  • 233. Linda  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:27 am

    Tommy, you are exactly right! There's no thinking, no questioning when it comes to the Bible or the pulpit. Intelligent people set their reasoning aside and blindly follow whatever they're told.

  • 234. Kevin_BGFH  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:27 am

    I truly miss Art Hoppe.

  • 235. Woody  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:31 am

    I don't think we have to ask. This guy was pretty central, and the shenanigans around his court appearance are IMO enough to ensure it gets in there.

  • 236. Marc  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:32 am

    I believe too that you are correct. I called the person out myself in a reply and and my comment was deleted as well. I'm not sorry that it was done in the slightest.

  • 237. Jdseattle  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:33 am

    He's probably just conditioned to picking and choosing which bible verses, er, websites, er, memories that support his claims.

  • 238. David Kimble  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:34 am

    I am sorry, I plead – temporary mental insanity in my defense. My point is that condesceneding to another level of discourse is never a wise course to follow.

  • 239. Marc  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:35 am

    As an actor, I imagine that to some extent there is a need for rehearsal so I suspect that it will be a few days before it is up.

  • 240. Fabled1  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:36 am

    Wait…Dr. Tam, if Prop 8 is upheld, what about the rights of the Children? The Gay Children created by all those Straight folks in those 'one man, one woman' marriages?

  • 241. charles  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:37 am

    Rick,
    I love you for this huge effort. I almost wish I was gay to properly be part of this amazing history…
    Thanks again!

  • 242. Bill  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:38 am

    Indeed. Walker is being quite smart here. He wants as much on record as he can possibly get. This will help prove that Judge Walker himself was not biased, which is a sure cry of the Yes on 8 folks when this is appealed to the 9th Circuit.

    I think that when it reaches the 9th, there will be so much on record, so many documents and testimony that the claims by Yes on 8 of Walker's bias will not be eveident in reading the transcripts and such.

  • 243. Tammy  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:38 am

    More on the argument that children need one woman and one man to raise them (not even considering biology):
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-01/w-

  • 244. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:39 am

    Here's a hopeful note: Our teen daughter just got home from HS. I told her a bit about what Tam had testified to about his beliefs.

    ::uproarious laughter from teen daughter::

    I think if she saw this on video she would just point and laugh.

    The day will come, everyone. Hopefully sooner than later, but it will come.

  • 245. Roy  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:40 am

    LMAO…priceless comment from Tam

    "I felt like a naughty boy being put in front of the classroom being mocked"

    oh you naughty boy…give him his dunce hat

  • 246. Bill  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:40 am

    (Thoughy bubble over Tam's head to read:)

    "Crickets chirping"

  • 247. Leslie Wilde  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Here is a great article by Maureen Dowd from the NYT about Ted Olsen, turns out he's an honorary lesbian!
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/opinion/17dowd….

  • 248. Kevin_BGFH  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Ah, ok, I was confused. Someone mentioned a racist comment and I hadn't seen anything. Guess it makes sense it got deleted.

  • 249. Nikki  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:43 am

    Who they really need to put on the stand is Howard F. Ahmanson, the Dominionist billionaire who was a driving force behind Prop 8, as well as the drive to force schools to include "Intelligent Design" in their curricula.

    "the extreme politics of Prop 8’s third largest private donor, Howard F. Ahmanson, reclusive heir to a banking fortune, have passed almost completely below the media’s radar. Ahmanson has donated $900,000 to the passage of Prop 8 so far. (note: (by 11/4/2008, he had donated nearly $1.4M)

    …While Ahmanson once resided in a mental institution in Kansas, he now occupies a position among the Christian right’s power pantheon as one of the movement’s most influential donors. During a 1985 interview with the Orange County Register, Ahmanson summarized his political agenda: “My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives.”

  • 250. Woody  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:44 am

    Ha ha ha! I was thinking the same thing. I so wish he'd been asked that.

  • 251. dtwirling  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:44 am

    Do you -really- want folks who think like this involved in education? That aside, I whole-heartedly agree with your point. All this money they've spent could've done so much good in the world.

  • 252. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:47 am

    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.

    uh oh…

  • 253. Fabled1  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:48 am

    Charles, root for Prop 8 to be overturned so SS Marriage is possible once again, because as I learned from the 'good' Dr. Tam, once SS Marriage is legal again, you will wake up and instantly want to have sex with a man…or maybe your sister…or small children. Think of the possibilities that aren't available to you now!

    THANK YOU RICK!!!

    I've had way too much coffee, so excuse the off topic stuff but can someone tell me why it is that the healthcare debate doesn't make me worry about 'death panels' but makes me think we need publicly funded elections so our Representatives won't be beholden to big corporations? And the Tea Baggers (you know, the ones who don't understand the definition) don't make me think President Obama is a socialist as much as they make me think we need a better educational system? And after reading this, Dr. Tam makes me wonder why he doesn't have his own reality show, he's a human car crash, and folks definitely like watching those or NASCAR wouldn't be so damned popular.

  • 254. Fran Walker  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:49 am

    If he worked as a senior scientist at BD, they would've vetted him pretty thoroughly — his PhD is likely the real thing.

  • 255. Charles  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:51 am

    This is a different Charles from me, though. I'm mooooost definitely gay.

    Charles, with a capital C.

  • 256. Joshu  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:55 am

    This is simply an unfortunate situation, from beginning to end. I did not read all the comments, but what was brought up in what I read was thought provoking.

    Their assertion that homosexulas are child molesters is…fallacious at best. People cannot make blanket statements like that. While most pedophiles may tend toward children of their own gender is irrelevant. That would be like making a comment that a disproportionate amount of crime across the country is done by white males, or most gang activitty is disproportionally done by blacks and mexicans; we cannot take away everyone's rights who fall into those demographics.
    The fact of the matter is we are supposed to live in a society where church and state are intrinsically still entwined, even though we brag otherwise. I agree; churches can still give out licenses as long as the state grants that power. If that is the case, then they have every right to parcel out as they see fit. The inequality lies with the state, who needs to fill the void for those denied by churches…so long as certain standards are held.
    I think we all agree; respect age limits, amount of spouses, etc. But beyond that…they have no right to deny anyone their rights beyond that…for any reason.

  • 257. Greg  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:55 am

    Wow.

    This guy is an idiot!

    He's making our case waaaaay too easy

  • 258. pepper  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:56 am

    Jeff G, Im from the Netherlands, and sibling marriage is forbidden, in Sweden as well. Illegal. The man was lying. Also, bestiality is forbidden here and polygamy as well, as is 3some marriage and marriage with children (I thought to make the list complete for you people). All ive seen so far about the Netherlands or any other country mentioned re: gay marriage are all a bunch of lies. The age of consent here is 16, and dint change after gay marriage.

  • 259. Kim  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:02 am

    For some reason, the immersion in all of this just sort of hit me. It's so frustrating that this trial doesn't seem to be getting nearly the amount of media attention it should. It's today's "Brown v Board". My straight friends who are certainly on our side don't seem especially interested. No family members have asked about it (probably don't even know it's going on). It reminds me of the days after the election in Nov. 2008.

    To our allies, this is a political issue being debated. To us, it's US — our very personhood. This court is deciding if we are equal citizens deserving of the same rights as everyone else. How frustrating to even have to make that case in public, much less to fear that we'll lose!

  • 260. Paulo  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:05 am

    how utterly revolting that Tam should hide behind his heritage. Everything he says is referenced in some way to a whine that "but I am Chinese" as if somehow people of Chinese heritage are incapable of grasping the sound of other peoples voices or interpret political processes differently because of a few genetic markers. Margaret Chou is going to have a field day with him.

  • 261. country lawyer  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:11 am

    Yes, Bois did an excellent job. I hope he does as good or better job with D/Is' expert Blankenhorn, a key witness for D/Is. My guess is that D/Is probably expect to lose until they get to SCOTUS. The crux of case is which standard applies to classification: conceivable rational basis, intermediate (US v. VA, the VMI case) or suspect class. If trial judge finds as facts the necessary elements for suspect class, then Pls may be in a strong position to "beat them at the post and beat them at the wire," the wire being SCOTUS. Anything less is more doubtful. Conceivable rational basis (i.e, that a rational basis can be dreamed up ex post facto) is like "common sense". It depends too much on prevailing prejudices.

  • 262. Woody  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:12 am

    I wonder if Plantiff's counsel let that go unaddressed because of the sheer ridiculousness of it. Maybe goes to that "rational basis" thing — ie, there is none.

  • 263. Tom  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:13 am

    Andre – Do you not see the hypocrisy in your sweeping generalization that all the gay people from "little hamlets and rural areas of the country" are automatically racist?

  • 264. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:13 am

    Kim, there are a lot of us allies on here, too, but I think I understand your frustration about the lack of coverage.

    No, I can never fully understand what this is like for you, but I and many others are here for you.

    I do wish this were getting the press we feel it deserves. Maybe Tam will attract the media coverage a bit more with his off-the-wall comments.

  • 265. Nikki  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:14 am

    Boies and Olson should enter into evidence the video from "The Call" (33,000 Prop 8 supporters gathered at San Diego's Qualcomm stadium just days before the Nov. 4, 2008 vote). Nothing illustrates more compellingly (and disturbingly) just HOW MUCH animus is due to the religious beliefs of those who support Prop 8. The religious fervor and incessant references to "martyrdom" for their cause show, too, their "call" goes beyond mere prayer — this video clearly exemplifies their belief that violence against GLBTs and anyone else who *threatens* their cause is wholly justified in the name of God.

    Video begins with these words from Pastor Lou Engle: "Have the whole world pray for this is going on today in California, because what happened in California will release a spirit that is more demonic than Islam, a spirit of lawlessness and anarchy and a sexual insanity will be unleashed unto the earth. We beg you, pray for California elections! Pray that God would break in with Yes on 8. (date of video

    "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1HGpY8EuXQ

  • 266. JimB  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:15 am

    +10

    I would SO love to find a lawyer to sue these people for what…defamation of character? Undue emotional stress & harm? *ssholism?

  • 267. Aconite  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:15 am

    Er…why? Is NOM saying they got married?

  • 268. Nikki  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:16 am

    Oops, messed up the link. Trying again…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1HGpY8EuXQ

  • 269. Lisa S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:16 am

    I think their IQ is in the bloody negatives. Oy…

  • 270. Woody  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:16 am

    Well John "Get off my lawn" McCain has already distanced himself from it, saying he doesn't agree with his wife and daughter's positions. So, I guess that power thing is out the door. If Cindy and Meghan can't get ol' Pops to change his mind, well, no power.

    "John McCain's office said in a statement that he respected the views of his family but remained opposed to gay marriage. 'Senator McCain believes the sanctity of marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman,' it said. In 2008 McCain backed a measure in his home state of Arizona to ban same-sex marriage." — http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/jan/21/

  • 271. JimB  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:18 am

    THAT… COMMENT'S…. FUNNNNYYYYY

  • 272. niallyb  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:21 am

    TOTALLY with CajunBoyLgb on this . His logic is sound. There should be no intertwining of civil and religious marriage and religion should have no civil power in this regard.

    To take away the civil institution of marriage would have VERY messy international consequences also. All other countries would have to change their laws to recognize US domestic partnerships as being equivalent to marriage in their countries. Otherwise immigration would become an even bigger nightmare than it is.

  • 273. JimB  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:22 am

    critical thinking is the death knell of religion

  • 274. James  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:22 am

    Tam: I’m Chinese and don’t know that I would have to face a lawyer one day to talk about this.

    D'YA THINK!?? HAhaha.

  • 275. JimB  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:23 am

    what else do you do with 5 years of ballet, 3 of jazz & 2 of tap?

  • 276. niallyb  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:23 am

    How f*cked up are HIS kids one has to wonder?

  • 277. niallyb  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:25 am

    To paraphrase a certain former Illinois governor – this testimony is "FUCKING GOLDEN".

  • 278. activecitizen54  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:26 am

    Language barrier my ass. This man will be hung for his Lies and Fraud in front of the judge and I pray that they hold him to his post as one of the sponsors of this. Perjury is too kind and it would be wonderful to see a summary judgement against the man for the cost of his fraud.

  • 279. Aconite  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:26 am

    I'm hearing the voiceover now:

    River: It all started when The Netherlands, back on Earth-That-Was, legalized same-sex marriage, and the Reavers came from that and they ate everybody, and there was a war, and hairy green fish sleep furiously pickle seeds. And I married my brother.

    Simon: I wonder if they had any idea it would come to this?

  • 280. Eddie  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:27 am

    I think Tam is afraid of his own self denied sexuality.

  • 281. JimB  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:27 am

    is that by definition something close to the opposite of educated? intelligent? logical? worthy of respect?

  • 282. JimB  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:30 am

    you can't coach stupid
    (apologies to Ron White)

  • 283. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:31 am

    I thought it couldn't possibly be true, the faith/belief of some needs to be dialed back a bit or refocused to do some fact checking.

    I think some of these folks are overlooking the behavior in 10 Commandments regarding bearing false witness!

    Thanks for setting it straight, so to speak.

  • 284. Olivier  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:43 am

    I wish this was televised. I wish everyone had the chance to see it.

  • 285. Suzanne Garrett  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:51 am

    I'm a straight ally, and I wish there were more of us who care as deeply and passionately about this issue and trial as I do. I think I'm exceeding maximum capacity on my Facebook Page posting analysis of the trial.

  • 286. Rhonda Ross-Brooks  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:55 am

    Rick, today must have been difficult, considering the content of the testimony in that courtroom so thank you for all that you have done, for being the means by which we are able to more fully understand the depths to which the Prop 8 people will sink.

  • 287. Kim  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    Thanks, Ann. I do realize that there are some huge important stories in the news right now, like Haiti and the SCOTUS decision on campaign finance today. Maybe it'll get more attention next week. Or at least if/when it makes it to SCOTUS.

  • 288. Jenny  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    Following his logic (scary) he thinks that if ss marriage is legalized, California will then legalize the raping of children. I can't believe there are people that buy into this bs.

  • 289. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    That silly old "due process" "equal protection" and all that…

  • 290. Jenny O  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    …And to keep children from believing that it is okay for them to be gay.

  • 291. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    The main stream public does not swim in the same water. There appears to be slow change, with some willing to consider listening to those that are swimming in that water without trying to deny the existence of what's in their water.
    Then the younger people are growing up KNOWING some of those that are "different". They are not color blind or trying to make them "the same" or wipe out that difference.
    They KNOW them as PEOPLE.
    Way to go, young people!
    That worries these pro prop 8ers.

  • 292. Miller  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    It's fair to say that this site is biased toward the plaintiffs, however, it's also fair to say that this site reports the trial in an honest way and I expect that it closely reflects the actual testimony.

    Does anyone know whether "protectmarriage.com" is showing the trial transcript as we are at http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/our-work/hea…?

    Notice that the "DONATE NOW" button is front and center at their website. Hmm, a continuation of their tactic to profit from their lies about the "gay agenda"? They need to collect as much money as possible before their house of cards collapses.

    It's so hypocritical that organizations like pm.com pretend to be christian groups, yet they do nothing but lie, aka sin. Tell a lie enough times and people believe it's the truth, but it's still a lie.

  • 293. Jenny O  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    '"I'm here today about Adam and Eve," state Rep. Alfred Baldasaro'

    How can prop 8 say with an ounce of honesty that this isn't about religion when state reps are saying things like this? I know it's a different state, but those that oppose same sex marriage everywhere have nothing to back themselves up but 'God's law' and tradition.

  • 294. Lain  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    …and that people in major cities and urban areas are automatically NOT racist?

  • 295. Kevin  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    my favorite has to be the closing, where Tam is reminded that for a very long time even the most Christian of Asians in California were restricted in who they could marry. I am just in awe that people are so quick to forget struggles in their past to achieve equality and so quick to do whatever it takes to deny that same equality to others who seek it. What ignorant, idiotic, close-minded, bigoted, hateful Californians and Americans are doing is eerily reminiscent of Fraternity hazing…

  • 296. Lain  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:43 pm

    Wow, I'm glad I'm not the only one who was thinking this.

  • 297. Callie  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    My straight friends who are certainly on our side don’t seem especially interested. No family members have asked about it (probably don’t even know it’s going on).

    Yep! That's the frustration I've been feeling all this week. I have over a hundred friends on FB. I have maybe 4 or 5 even acknowledge my posts on this. It's amazing how many of my fellow GLBT friends on there don't even respond. Of those 4 or 5 regularly commenting, one is gay.

    This is why our community is having such a problem with getting anything done. Tam sends emails and gets 20K signatures. We send emails and if it doesn't say "white party" or drag queens in it, we don't get anything.

    It's frustrating as hell!

  • 298. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    OK, having never heard of Tam before this trial, I searched some things online. I found some interesting things, including Tam's name on the Prop 8 "core" proponents. I suppose one could find on the CA State site or on a ballot brochure.

    from jewformarriageequality.org

    Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment.
    Summary Date: 11/29/07 Circulation Deadline: 04/28/08 Signatures Required: 694,354

    Proponents: Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, and Mark A. Jansson c/o Andrew Pugno (I deleted the phone number)

    There was a majority of Californians that approved of gay marriage until the campaign did their dirty work.

  • 299. Callie  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    Just an overall thougt after reading all the testimony, and this hasn't really been hit on yet.

    Has anyone noticed that when it came to how our side campaigned that it was honest and about us and how this would affect us as a community? Thinking of what I've seen of ads, not just on Prop 8 but in other states. Usually our ads focus on the rights we're being denied. Then you look at something like the NOM ad and how "fear mongering" it is and how obvious the lies are that Tam was involved in spreading.

    How can any reasonable person compare the two side-by-side and say that the Prop 8 supporters didn't invoke hatred and animus towards us to achieve their goals? They're using their millions of dollars and a patsy that has reach into an unfortunately gullible and large portion of the CA population (Chinese-Americans) to harm us, while we're simply defending ourselves and trying to be treated equally.

    This is almost surreal.

  • 300. Bry  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    Bored college girls do too…. Remember "Sleeping Dogs Lie?" lmao

    /wacky

  • 301. DebbieC  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    Nothing on the internet ever really vanishes – here's the bio from his site from 2006 http://web.archive.org/web/20060530014941/www.bil

  • 302. Bry  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    DEHSILPMOCCA NOISSIM

  • 303. Avi  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    Ain't that a bitch? I was staying in Austin because Houston's an insufferable banality parade. How can I un-boycott Houston without having to actually go there? What a quandary…

  • 304. Andy  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    I wish I could say that Tam’s testimony has been illuminating, but we’ve all heard this before. I’m glad it’s being placed on the record and I hope that this will help to end this lunacy.

  • 305. Lymis  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    And yet they say the word marriage isn’t powerful. Yikes.

  • 306. Lisa  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    another:

    Working on time machine with @ADFMedia @protectmarriage to go back in time, prevent Dr. Tam’s birth/testimony. #prop8 #hellfrozenover

  • 307. Sam  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    … This is Sparta?

  • 308. pearlheartgtr  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OlCVNn9ZeY&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0]

  • 309. James  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    So does he think we are already raping children??? What change would Marriage make?

  • 310. Daniel L  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    Seriously. To think we get a redirect after cross too! I hope he’s on the stand for another day or so. This just keep getting better and better…

    I am annoyed about how he’s wiggling out of things with his fuzzy memory

  • 311. John D  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    Remember, in the California case Strauss v. Horton (that is, the California Prop 8 case), Kenneth Starr called for the invalidation of the same-sex marriages performed in California.

    I'm sure that if they had got their way, they would have then claimed that Prop 8 invalidated domestic parternship.

  • 312. Terri  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:01 pm

    Unfortunately you only have to turn on Faux News or read the comments contained on the web site to know that here in America his reasoning is not that twisted. It would seem that the religious right of the deep south are made of the same stuff Mr. Tam is. Sigh………. Even better go to Michelle Bachmans website. Yikes. And that crazy lady is a Representative in Congress.

  • 313. Tim  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:05 pm

    THANK YOU Scottie!

  • 314. James Sweet  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:57 pm

    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?

    I think Boies misunderstood Tam's answer. He wasn't casting doubt on the latter clause; he was rejecting the former.

    I mean, if you were the son or daughter of William Tam, would you be glad he married your mother? :p

  • 315. Lymis  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:16 pm

    I don't WANT the teabaggers stirring things up about this. The point where public influence affects this trial is pretty much over.

    Certainly I don't want this kept secret. But it does go a long way to prove that all those anti-gay straights who were so committed to knock us down really don't care all that much.

  • 316. mjl  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:38 pm

    Let Mr Tam withdraw as a defendant intervener! Just ask him to sign the following statement: "I hereby withdraw as a defendant intervener in the matter Perry v Schwarzenegger. I have sinned before God in my work to support Prop 8 and prevent marriage equality. I have lied about the expected effects of same-sex marriage in the US. I have lied about same-sex marriage in other countries. I have broken solemn promises made to my partners in the Prop 8 campaign. I commit to spending 1000 hours over the next two years to identify the lies I spoke and wrote, and state instead what I now know to be the truth. I humbly beg for forgiveness before God and my fellow Christians." I think that should about cover it. Any amendments?

  • 317. A  |  January 22, 2010 at 12:09 am

    I am confused by this post –

    'While most pedophiles may tend toward children of their own gender ..'

    – how can that be true when MOST under 18 victims of sexual assault are women and MOST perps are men. Are they narrowly defining pedophilia to NOT include ALL acts of rape and molestation by adults on kids? Any megan's law search will give you an overwhelming number of men perping on young girsl in any zipcode?
    and at risk of sounding like the illustrious Tam himself…that MSNBC show to catch predator sure didn't catch many same gender perps…I saw it on the internet 😉

  • 318. A  |  January 22, 2010 at 12:26 am

    thanks for the link – we really have to be careful not to start doing racial sterotyping here. If Tam was the one we are allowed to see and many of the other 'core group' is protected – I would really like to know what they had to say. I have to wonder if they picked the only person of color in the core group (to my knowledge) to take the fall on purpose!

    Kind of been wondering the same thing about why such glee and unending media attention and comedy around tiger woods for the same reason – we all know these wealthy white fat cats seem to get far less attention for similar or worse behavior? don't they ..or am I paranoid all over again?

  • 319. A  |  January 22, 2010 at 12:33 am

    Whoever posted the boycot houston link – interesting – to read their mission statement you'd think they felt that a boycott is a legitimate use of power and free speach – compare that to what they say when we want to use it. hypocracy. how come they can't see it. May the THEY that use it aren't the same THEY as condemn it when we use it..don't think so. I am scared for this county too for all the reasons others posted about..not sure if we can get it back now – sems all the pieces are in place for that armegeddon they have been trying to bring about.

    here's the mission statement from the boycott houston people
    'Mission

    'Our mission is to impose economic sanctions on the city of Houston, Texas for voting in an openly homosexual mayor and for allowing the largest Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in the United States to be opened there. Both of these actions are an abomination in the eyes of God and should be boldly confronted by Christians seeking to preserve life and decency in the state of Texas. We have the absolute right to spend our money as we see fit. We also have the absolute right to withhold our money from things that offend God. In fact, we have an obligation to be good stewards of our money so it is not spent on evil.
    While not everyone in Houston is responsible for voting for a homosexual mayor or for building a Planned Parenthood version of Auschwitz, a boycott is the best way, and in many cases the only way for those not living in Houston to have a positive effect for righteousness in that city. Those in Houston who dare to call themselves ”Christians” are largely at fault for allowing these two abominations to happen. If everyone who calls on the name of Christ had gone out and voted against the newly elected mayor, she would have been defeated in a landslide. If everyone who calls on the name of Christ had written letters or made phone calls to the city authorities, voicing their strong objections to an abortion supercenter being opened, it would never have happened. ”Christians” of Houston, this is your fault! Now, because you have failed to be faithful to the cause of righteousness in Christ Jesus, others must step in and fight the battle that you lacked the courage to fight. If you are a Houston Christian who did fight, God Bless you and please join us in the struggle to rid your city of these two evils.'

  • 320. fiona64  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:17 am

    :;waves at Suzanne::

    I am grateful that you're doing that. I have thought about doing the same … and should definitely go past the "thinking" stage, LOL.

    Love,
    Fiona64 (aka SC from the No on 8 discussion board and FB)

  • 321. fiona64  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:18 am

    They aren't showing diddly-squat. They're just blogging their "analysis" and leaving out major facts in evidence.

  • 322. Ann S.  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:13 am

    Not only the Chinese Exclusion Act, but Asians and whites (among other races) couldn't inter-marry in California until a Cal. Supreme Court case in 1948, Perez v. Sharp.

    My parents married in California after Perez, but their marriage was still illegal in many states until the Loving case in 1967. I was 10 years old in 1967 and had no idea. I don't know if I would have been upset if I had known that their marriage was illegal in many states or think their "forbidden love" was cool.

    Love,
    Ann

  • 323. Audrey Smith  |  January 22, 2010 at 4:51 am

    Callie and Kim, I also feel your frustration! I have been posting news about the trial (and tons of other gay news) every day on FB. Even though I have over 100 FB friends, and 10 of them are gay, I have probably only received 2 comments total in response.

    I have also been trying to organize some kind of civil rights action in my university community and have had no luck getting anyone involved. People are either complacent or afraid to get involved. :(

  • 324. Jeff G.  |  January 22, 2010 at 11:31 am

    I figured Tam was lying about that, which would be why there's nothing anywhere corroborating his testimony. The man certainly has some very disturbing ideas.

  • 325. Colon Cleanse Weight Loss&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 8:06 am

    Colon Cleanse Review Site…

    […]while the sites we link to below are completely unrelated to ours, we think they are worth a read, so have a look[…]…

  • 326. Online games&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    Get it…

    […]Cool info[…]…

  • 327. porn&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    Catch it…

    […]Cool website[…]…

  • 328. Tegaderm Film&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 5:24 pm

    tegaderm medical gear…

    I would like to get as many links to my site as posible, rite now this is what I am doing!…

  • 329. http://cardtradersparadis&hellip  |  September 3, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    Free Movies…

    […]we like to honor other sites on the web, even if they aren’t related to us, by linking to them. Below are some sites worth checking out[…]…

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