Tweet
Plaintiffs will call Dr William Tam who is a supporter of Prop 8.
It looks like David Boies will examine.
Dr (Other) Thompson for Dr Tam: WE filed a withdrawal for Dr Tam as a defenadant-intervenor. It would be appropriate to know if his status has changed. IS he a third party here under subpoena or an actor is this case.
Walker: Boies?
Boies: Well, he brought this case….
Walker: No , he intervened as a defendant
Boies: Yes, your honor.
Walker: He can withdraw under the circumstance of accepting a judgment. Do you have anything you’d like to add, THompson.
(Other) THompson: His intervention was purely voluntary aas is his withdrawal. Plaintiff has said several times that DIs could withdraw. I don’t find compellinglegal authority to prohibil his withdrawal.
Walker: Well there must be some consequences for joining a lawsuit and then causing the plaintiffs to go expense or trouble. Usually a withdrawing party would accept a judgment or relief. What would that be? Hard to imagine. Additionally, there are testimonial reasons that differ between being a party and simply testifying. He will testify one way or another, as party or not.
Thompson: Yes he has been ready and will do so.
Walker: Most prudent to hear testimony, then I will consider his status going forward. My inclination is to defer until we know what his status is and it is completely satisfactory.
Walker: A party’s deposition can be used by the other party at any time. Perhaps after Mr Tam’s testimony, the Plaintiff may consent to the withdrawal. So let’s see what his role in the litigation is and then evaluate what action to take.
Thompson: Alright your honor.
Walker; Call the witness.
B: Call Dr William Tam
(clerk swears in Tam)
Hak Shiaz Tam
B: Good afternoon, Dr Tam my name is David Boeies. You were an official proponent of Prop 8?
T: Tam
B Youwere in vited to be an official proponent by Protect Marriage.com?
T; Yes
Mr Prentice, Mr Schubert, Mr Pugno asked you join the campaign?
T: yes
B: Others?
T: Probably some clerical person, or a person who called me about a press meeting
B: In 10/08 You supervised the language for Prop 8?
T: Don’t understand ‘supervised’?
B: look at tab 1 in binder,please. this is your declaration?
T: Yes
B You declared under penalty of perjury that this was true and correct?
T: Yes
B: See: "In october 2008 I supervised the approval of the appropriate language for Proposition 8."
T: I don’t recall what that document is?
B: Which document?
T: I did agree to the 14 words in Prop 8, if that is what is meant, I would go along with it.
B: THis declaration, did youprepare it?
T: No
B: Who prepared it?
B: Protectmarriage.com prepared this declaration for you and you signed it?
T: yes
B: So when it says here that you supervised the prep of language, that was written by protectmarriage?
T: Yes
B: did you dedicate themajorory of your working hours for prop 8?
T: Yes
B: Organized several rallies?
T: Yes
B: With protectmarriage.com?
T: No, not originated by PM.com
B: My question was, did you work with PM.com on the rallies?
T: No, those rallies were mainly Asian Americans, I invited Ron PRentice to be present and speak
B: You invited Prentice to speak at your rally
T:YEs
B: And so you working with Protect marriage, he is the Exec Director?
T: Yes
B: You participate in debates?
T: Yes
B: Channel 26?
T: Yes, I had a debate here in SF, not at Channel 26. They came and made a report on it.
B: You were told to participate in this debate by Protect Marriage.com?
T: Yes I was
B: Campaign began in 2007?
T: Yes
B: You were awaiting instructions in 10.07 when to start collecting signatures, from PM.com?
T: Yes I was
THOMPSON: OBJECT TO LEADING NATURE
Walker: He is an adverse witness/party on the other side!, OVERRULED
B: You sent an email to pastors and churches about instructions for Prop 8?
T: I don’t know which one you are referring to?
B: Fair point, you sent a number of emails with instructions about coooperation, discussions, with Prop 8. You took direction from PM.com, correct?
T: In emails, I asked churchleaders to collect signatures after discussion with ProtectMarriage.com
THOMPSON: These are not introduced in court,also standing OBJECTION regarding first amendment privilege re: personal privileged political views. Want to preserve even lost in appeals court.
Walker: Thendon’t OBJECT every time, it is a standing objection so preserved.
B: Intro PX507.
Walker: So ordered/
B: Look at Tab 2 PX2685, please. Listing of coalition endorsements for Prop 8.
T: I cannot find.
B (approaches to assist witness in finding)
T: Okay I got it.
B: Is 2685 a partial list of coalition of PMarriage.com
T: I believe so.
B: Admit 2685, please?
Walker: Hearing no objec…..
Moss (DI): Objection, [can't hear her]
Walker: do you intend to lay further foundation wrt this document, Boies?
B: I have only one other question, Yr Honor.
B: Is this list a partial listing of coalition supporting ProtectMarriage.com, supporting Prop 8
T: I am not sure, it’s a website
B: Okay,let’s go through one by one: FOcus on the Family is ther?
T: Yes
B Did they support prop 8 in the coalition
B: Family Research Council?
T: You would have to ask them not me, I have no position of knoowing who on this list is supporting Prop 8.
B: Dr Tam, my question is: Was FRC supporting prop 8 in the coalition?
Yes, no, I don’tknwo?
T I don’t know
B: But you worked with them, got emails from FRC, yes?
T: I get lotsa emails
B: But on emails you got from PM.Com, you were a joint addressee with FRC, yes?
T: Could be
B: read to yourself, are any organizations listed here you recognize and know were part of the coalition working with PM.com to support Prop8.
T: I don’t know
B: None of them?
T: Well, I know some
B: I want you to ID which orgs you know were part of the coalition working with PM.com supporting Prop 8
T: Focus on Family, FRC, Values Advocacy Council, California Family Counil, Trad Family Coalition. Those I recognize
B: Whatis your relationship to the Traditional Family Coaltion?
T: I am the executive director
[exhibit admitted]
B: 2620,PM.com email, I don’t know you saw this in 7.07. However, there’s one paragraph in the bottom of the page: The Chinese Coalition with Bill Tam remains strong and he is one of the signators.
DI: OBJECT, this is before the campaign, we don’t know if Dr Tam saw this, and it’s irrelevant.
Walker: No it’s not relevant, it’s about collecting signatures, Boies doesn’t say Tam saw it, OBJECTION OVERRULED.
B: What is the Chinese Coalition?
T: Chinese Evangelical Christians
B: What was your relationship to them?
T: Myposition at Traditional Families Coalition, I know some Chinese churches.
B: So I can infer from 7/07 document that you were working with PM.COM already?
T: Yes, I think so. But my memory is not very good about what happened in 2007.
B: Does this document refresh your recollection that as of July 2, 2007, you were weorking with Protect Marriage.com on Prop 8?
T: I think I was appraoched and told that some marriage amendment was going to be put on the ballot, and that we would collect signatures.
B: Offers 2620 for admit as evidence
Walker: Hearing no objection
B: 2426?
T: yes I have it
B: You sent this?
T: Yes
B: Towhom?
T: It says Dear Friend of TRC, to members of Traditional Family Coalition. Dated 10.22.07
B: It says here: I am still waiting for ProtectMarriage.com to tell us when to start collecting signature.
T: yes it does
B: DId you also solicit donations to ProtectMarriage.com?
T: Yes
B: Please turn to 2472
T: Yes I have it
B: Email you sent on 2.14.2008? This email refers to the interview or debate you had that was broadcast on Channel 26. You write about the opportunity to publicize "our marriage amendment on television.?
T: Yes
B: This debate was broadcast over channel 26?
T: Was an interview, not a debate?
B: Is this separate from the debate you referred to?
T: Yes, separate
B: So you had a debate AND an interview you promoted Prop 8 on Channel 26?
T: Yes
B: Now, let’s focus on the debate. I asked you this before, not sure I got an answer. That debate you were told to participate in by PM.com, correct?
T: Yes
B: Now let’s go to PX2612. You talk about many Christian groups joining forces to pass Prop 8, yes?
T: Yes
B: That included Family Council, Concerned Women of America, (others listed, including his own)
T: Yes
[admits [2612]
B: Turn to PX2640 please. This is an email chain that includes both you and Mr Pugno, correct?
T: My name on it and Pugno’s name, I don’t know if it is a chain or not.
B: If you begin….
OBJKECTION: Privilege, attorney/client.
Walker: Attorney/client privilege?? Really?
Boeis: Your honor, no claim I am aware of, and looking at the subject.
Moss: We produced them and did not assert privilege.
Walker: Very well, admitted.
B: Includes email from you to Pugno and from Pugno to you?
T: Yes
B: What were you trying to tell Pugno in these emails?
T: Asking if I shouldn’t disclose anything in case of questions form the Chinese press.
B: PX 2651 includes emails from Lynn Feschell (?) to you and from Lynn to you? Who is Lynn?
T: Works for Family ResearchCouncil
B: And this is directed to the ProtectMarriage.com leadership, yes?
T: I think she is just being nice in calling me one of the ProtectMarriage.com leadership.
B: Did you tell her not to call you?
T: No, when someone says something nice to you, you don’t say to then, Don’t call me that. I am not in the core group.
B: What do you mean by Core Group?
T: I heard this in the trial and I am not in it.
B: So you picked up this term during the trial, here in this room?
T: YEs
B: PX2609 now, email that you sent 4/15/2008, correct?
T: Yes
B: Do you recall a moment ago when you said Lynn was just being nice to you calling you a leader of ProtectMarriage?
OBJECTION: This is between church leaders and church members, why are we talking about this in an open federal court? Privileged.
Walker: This is an email, a memo sent by the witness, correct?
DI: Yes
Walker: OVERRULED
B: Second paragraph: This year, TFC (that’s you, correct?) is playing a major role in getting one-man-one-woman marriage in California.
T: Yes
B: You go on to say that you worked closely with PM.com to collect signatures for Prop 8?
T: well this is Prop 8 signature phase,so I was playing a major role, a sent out petitions, worked closely with all the mechanics, working with ProtectMarriage.com, these are all true.
B: You mean working closely with PM.com?
T: Yes, that’ s what I mean.
Boies: Admit
Tam: OBJECTS on own behalf (can he do that?) Very sensitive numbers
DI: Budget, salary numbers, family matters.
T: These are personal information I would be very offended if this would be put into thepublic eye.
B: We are prepared to redact everything but what I just read.
Walker: Very well, admitted with everything redacted but what you just read, Boies.
B: PX2650: bottom of first page, there’s an email from you to Lynn Feschell. You are responding to her earlier email, correct?
T: mm=hmm, yeah
B: You are asking her "Who is BrianBrown and why is he speaking for us?" Who is the "US" there?
T: Those people who are within the PM.com
B: Including you and TFC
T: To a certain extent, yes
B: Offers 2650
Walker: 2650 admitted
B: 2538 now, please, Dr Tam
This is an email from you to supporters.
T: This is very important for Asian families, we don’t want our children growing up to fantasize should I marry Jane or John?
B: Did you believe it was necessary to educate people about the history of traditional marriage?
T: Yes
B: To prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying?
T: I did not think of it that way
B: Okay, you support DPartnerships?
T:: Yes
G> You support fair housing for G&L?
T: Yes
D: Support adoption?
T: Not come to a conclusion on that yet
B: Are you hostile to G&L?
T: No I am not
B: Websit onemanonewoman.net
OBJECTION: No foundation
Walker: Can you lay a foundation?
B: Dr Tam, before we get to that exhibit, what is your connection to this website?
T: My connection?
B: Yes
T: It is the website of an America return to prayer movement.
B: Your relationship to this group?
T: I am the secretary
B: Who else participates?
T: Different Chinese pastors
B: As secretary, you see website?
T: YEs
B: Wouldn’t you say if you saw something you disapproved of?
T: They might not listen to me
B: What have you ever asked them to put on or take off the website that they would not do?
T: Something about bestiality, I objected to it.
B: And they left it on the website?
T: I don’t know
B: Anything else you objected to?
T: I don’t recall
B: Why did you onhect to this bestiality reference?
T: Unrelated to homosexuality
B: PX 2299:
Moss: This doc doesn’t reference Prop8, it’s just a website.
Walker: Witness testified he was a member and the secretary of this organization, and it’s there website.
|Boies: This was already admitted under testimony of Mr Zia.
Walker, Well then alright
B: First line: Sources say that homosexuality was linked to pedophilia
T: YEs it says that
B: Do you believe that?
T: Yes
B: That homosexuality is linked to pedolphilia?
T: YEs, I believe it is
B: It says here homosexuals are 12 times more like to molest children. DO you agree that this is appropriate for your organization to put on its webstie?
T: Yes, becauser this information is — from what we see here, those are not the statements of the organization, those are just links to other websites. My position is, if there’s something like this, people want to read about, then the organization has a right to link to it.
B: But you’re not just linking it, you are saying it.
T: No, this is what that paper, when you click MORE, whatever info provided in that webpage shows homosexuals are 12 times more likely to molest children. It’s not a statement of our organization.
B: From your organization?
T: I have a small part
B: But you are the secretary
T: What is the power of the secretary of your company?
B: Considerable.
B: But you believe that homosexuals are 12 times more likely to molest children?
T: Yes, it says it here
B: Where did you read it, in a journal or a book
T: Could be something I read
B: (Angry now) I am asking you not what you could have read, but what you read?
T: Don’t recall
B: Was it a book?
T: Don’t recall
B: Was it an article?
T: Don’t recall
B: WHO WROTE IT? (angry now)
T: I don’t remember
B: (pauses to collect himself) Turn to PX513. This is something that you wrote during the campaign for Prop 8, correct?
T: Yes
B: The heading is WHAT IF WE LOSE. correct?
T: Yes
B: Meaning what if prop 8 doesn’t pass?
T: Yes
B: You write, "They will lose no time pushing the gay agenda"
T: Yes
B: You write: "The SF Ggovt under rule of homosexuals.
T: Yes
B: Who were these homosexuals?
T: Tom Ammiano was a supervisor
B: Was the mayor a homosexual?
T: I don’t beleive so?
B: So why did you say that?
T: Well, Gavin Newsom married them, he must be their freidn
B: So youmean that SF was under the rule of heterosexauls who were friends with homosexuals?
T: You are using your legal words to try to change my original intent.
B: Well let’s see what else you wrote. You wrote that "they will want to legalize prostitution next" Do youbeleive that?
T: Proposition K on the SF ballot, I say many homosexual politicians supporting that.
B: But it didn’t have anything to do with Prop 8. You knew Prop 8 and Prop K were unrelated, right?
T: Yes
B: But you wrote that they were connected?
T: Yes
B: Then you wrote that next on "their agenda was legalizing sex with children.’ That’s what you wrote to get people to vote for Prop 8.
T: Yes I wrote that/
T: May I comment?
B: Usually people say you have to wait for your lawyer, but go ahead.
T: When I look at countries in Europe and in Canada, they have their legal age of consent down to 14 or 13 years old. To me those is very unacceptable, that is having sex with schildren, or oldelr child having sex with younger child. And Canada was a country that legalized same sex marriage. It is a liberal trend.
B: Are you finished?
T: yes
B: But Prop 8 had nothing to do with sex with children
T: No
B: YUou could have written that in the 14 wowrds but you didn’t did you?
T: No
B: Canada did it lower the age when it legalized same sex marriage?
T: I don’t know
B: You don’t have any reason to believe that allowing same sex marriage would change the age of consent in any way?>
T: Not directly, no
B: You go on to say that one byt one if Prop 8 fails, other states will fall into satan’s hands.
T: Yes
B: and by flaling into satans hands, you mean allowing gays & lesbians to marry
T: yes
B: Offers PX2507, email from you 9.12.2008, essentially the same as the esarlier email from you, correct>
T: YEs it is.
B: Look at PX 2343, please. This is a translation of a document that was originally in Chinese. If you look behind the blue divider, you will see the CHinese original
MOSS: This appears to be a compilation of exhibits, or is this the entire exhibit.
Boeis: ENtire exhibit
MOSS: Some appear to be articles written years before Prop 8 and are not relevant to prop 8. This appears to be put together byplaintiffs from different sources, not produced for us this way. These articles don’t relate to, and predate, Prop 8 by many years.
Walker: Example, point to?
Boies: Counsel you have the same exhibit, 2343?
Moss: Yes, it appears there is a CHinese article. ":Homosexuality is not equal rights"
Walker: Where are you reading?
Moss: This article is about the harm to children by same sex marriage
Walker: BUt the witness wrote this article?
Moss: It’s a standalone Bill Tam website articel, it’s not Prop 8. Itr’s an articel he wrote years ago.
Walker: The source of the document is the witness? And the witness can speak to how it was put together?
Boies: Dr Tam does your 2343 have hand-written notes in the lower corners? The first three pages are affidavits of accuracy from the translators. Go to paghe four, "Why Should We Support Gay Marriage" Do you write that?
T: No
B: Your testimony is that you did not write this?
T: You are referring to this page?
B: Go to the Chinese version
T: Yes, with this right
B: Yes
T: I did not write this document
B: You did not write this document?
T: no I did not
B: Look at lower right hand corner, it says onemanonewoman.net?
T: Yes I see that
B: That is the organization you are the secretary for?
T: YEs, but someone else wrote it
B: This was prepared by the organization you are secretary of in support of Prop 8?
T: Yes it was, but not written by me
B: Go back to ENglish version, "The Harm toCHildren from Same Sex Marriage" Did you write this?
T: Yes I did
B: When?
T: I believe in 2004
B: For what purpose?
T: In response to Mayor Newsom’s passing out the marriage licenses.
B: So it was in opposition to same sex marriage?
T: YEs
B: Distributed by onemanonewoman.net?
T: No, I put it on my website, BillTam.org
B: I offer the four pages 2343A, beginning WhyShould We Support Prop 8, and then the part The Harm…. as 2343B
Moss: No likee. OBJECTION
Walker: OVERRULED, 2343A and 2343B are admitted
B: Look at 2343A, Dr Tam, begins WHY SHOULD WE SUPPORT PROP 8, you have that?
T: YEs
B: It says, "Science proves homosexuality is a changeable sexual prefernce." See that?
T: Yes I see that
B: What science were you referring to?
T: I did not write this
B: DO you know what sciecne is being refrred to?
T: Yes
B: You do? What science?
T: Dr Spitzer, in 1973, at EPA (?) wrote that homosexuality is not a disease, because of that what I learned was that homosexuality being taken out of being a medical condition that needed treatment.
B: Not a disease?
T: Part of normal huiman behavior
B: NOrmal human behavior?
T: Yes, then Dr Spitzer proved that some homosexuals could turn back [SURRENDER, DOROTHY!!!] and it was not genetically wired, it was a preference.
B: did Dr Spitzer sayit was not genetically wired
T: NO it was Frances COllins, the one who mapped the human genome
B: So he says sexual orientation canbe changed?
T: YEs
B: Written where?
T: THE NARTH WEBSITE
B: Is NARTH website a source of objective scientific informatino>
T: I believe them
B: What is the Amer Psych Association say about sexual orientation?
T: I don’t know
B: Never tried to find out?
T: No
B: You thought it was better to get your scientific information from NARTH than APA?
T: Yeah, I beleive what NARTH says.
[I guess we all understand what Ryan Kendall, sexual orientiation conversion victim of NARTH, was doing here earlier, don't we?]
B:
(talk about who is a minority, sorry missed this with a long-time-taking save of the liveblog!)
B: You don’t beleive minority shouls be discriminated against, right?
T: Yes
B: And you write here that homosexuals are not a minority?
T: Let me look at what I wrote in Chinese: I wrote that homosexuals are not a racial minority.
B: So this CHinese writing includes the word racial?
T: Yes, it was not translated into English.
B: Offers 2343C (CHinese, not English version) into evidence
Walker: So ordered
Boies: Exhibit 537 please (no one has this in their book) Apologize, your honor, I’ll return to thislater?
Boies: Exhibit 515, do you have that?
T: Yes I have 515
B: This is an article from the San Jose Mercury News, in October 2008, ther is a quote attributed to you. Is that what you said in fact?
T: (reading) yes
B: "WE hope to convince asian americans that gay marriage will convince more children to experiment with the gay lifestyle, a lifestile that comes with lots of disease." You said that?
T: Yes
B: And this was part of your campaign to pass Prop 8?
(admits 515)
B: Do you have PX2601?
T: Alright
B: First page is 2601A, right?
T: nooooooo
Boies; Approaches, finds 2601A for Tam
Boies: What is this?
T: Document I received from medical doctor Lau Han.
B: What was its purpose?
T: He sent me an article he wrote
B: Is article attached here?
T: That is the article
B 2601B what is that?
T: Another article he wrote
B: What it 2601C?
T: Translation of what Dr Lau wrote
B: This is a translation of 2601B from your own files?
T: In my files?
B: Yes, you produced this translation, we didn’t make it.
T: Actually, it could be but I didn’t really read this article
B: Headed: Why We Don’t Support Same Sex Marriage, from Presence Ministry in LA. DO you have any connection to them?
T: Well, I know the president and I went to one of their conferneces. That is my connection.
B: Your only connection?
T: Right, I was a guest there.
B: Look at PX2187, flyer for a rally, correct?
T: Yes
B: Mr Prentice participated in this?
T: yes
B: Organized by you?
T: I had a part in it, organized by onemanonewoman.net
B: TFC was a cosponsor?
T: Yes
B: And another sponsor was ProtectMarriage.com
Boies offers 2187. Admitted.
B: Part of the campaing you and PM.COM waged to get Prop 8 passed, right?
YEs
B: You write: It is time for the church to rise up to fight the forces of evil that are corrupting our children. What did that mean?
T: I did not write that, so I don’t know. Not familiar with this.
B: didn’t you ask Prentice to attend?
T: Yes
B: So you didn’t see this flyer?
T: No my role is pretty small, I have my own organization, Ihaven’t read all of their flyers.
B: But your organization is TFC, right?
T: Yes
B: And you asked PRentice to attend?
T: Yes
B: Who asked the others to attend?
T: Others
B: YOu played no role in gfetting others there?
T: I didn’t know TOny Perkins, or other.
B: If you didn’t know the speakers, why did you ask Prentice?
T: Because I knew him, not others.
B: Did you attend this rally?
T: Yes, but I did not speak.
B: Did you meet the speakers?
T: YEs, but I was told I couldn’t speak?
B: You were prohibited from spekaing?
T: Yes, I did not speak
B: did they tell you why you couldn’t speak?
T: Ther were other speakers
B: JUST TO BE CLEAR, BEFORE TODAY YOU NEVER SAW THIS FLYER?
T: Itr might have come before my eyes, or passed over my desk, so many documents, it may have, but I don’t remember.
B: Look at PX2595, please
T: Okay
B: No, actually, not that one, look at 2204, please. Remember you told me you didn’t remember this, you only played a small role, and only got Mr PRentice there. What is this then?
T: It’s a press invite to the rally
B: Sent by whome?
T; I sent it out.
B: You sent this announcemt out to the press?
T: Yes
B: And you were one of the two press contacts for this rally?
T: Yes I was
B: Does this refresh your recollection that perhaps you were more involved than you said before?
T: I was one of the contacts, it was sent out over my stationery, using that gained more attendance.
B: Did this go out without your knowledge?
T: No, no, I knew all about it.
B: Turn now to PX2203, you personally sent out an email about this rally, yes?
T: Yes
B: You are inviting people to the rally, telling people who the speakers are.
T: yes
B: Despite your claim you didn’t know the speakers/
T: Yes, I knew some of the speakers.
(admits these into evidence)
B: Now, Dr Tam, please turn to PX2595
T: Okay
B Can you ID this document?
t: Yes I know this document
B: YOu know of it?
T: Yes
B: How do you know of it?
T: It’s something they put out
B: Who is they?
T: The team that puts out our flyers
B: You saw this before hand?
T: YEs
B: The last buller point says Prop 8 protects against social moral decay
T: Yes
B: What is the socila moral decay being protected against?
T: Homosexuality, sex between two persons of the same sex, is a sin.
B: And you were saying is that society would be protected against that
T: What they meant…
B: They? Or you?
T: Well I agree, so I guess they is me.
B: So you wrote this?
T: What it means that if same sex marriage is legal, that would encoursge children to explore same sex partners for marriage. Asians and Christians view this is as social moral decay.
B: This nextpage is more explicit about social moral decay, where it says not a civil right, compares to pedophilia, polygamy and incest. Do you believe that?
T: Yes I do
B You were telling poeple to vote for Prop 8 for these reasons?
T: Yes we were
B: Countries with samae sex marriage saw amazing moral decline? INcrease in polygamy and incest in teh Netherlands>
T: YEs
B: Netherlands legalized polygamy?
T: Shows the moral decay of a liberal country, in their views of sex
B:You say here that rthe Netherlands legalzied polygamy and incest after legalizing same sex marriage?
T: Yes
B: Who told you that?
T: The internet
B: The internet?
T: YEs
B: Somewhere out in the internet, it says the Netherlands legalized polgygamy andincest?
T: I did not write that, someone else found it.
B:And you beleived it?
T: It was in the document, so I thought it was true.
B: Did you ever find something that said it was true?
T: YEs
B: So somewhere it says opolgygamy and incest were legalized after same sex marriage?
T: Maybe not incest
B: Wait, iut says incest here
T: Not in this oducmetn
B: But it says that right here
T: No it says that if a country is so liberal then there will be moral and socil decay.
B: Sweden accepted same sex unions in 1994, traditional marriage is no longer valid.
T: YEs
B: But those a re civil unions not marriage, adn you support civil unions.
T: Well I said I support domestic partnerships.
B: Two minutes ago you said you support civil unions.
T: Well I don’t know the difference
B: What is the difference?
T: Seems closer to marriage, DP does.
B: BEcause of the name?
T: WEll yes.
B: But DP are the same as marriage except for the name?
T: Yes
B: they are exactly the same as themarriage except for the word?
T: Yes
B: So you beleive pedophilia and incest will happen?
T: If this is a civil right, why won’t these other groups ask for marriage for incest or pedophilia?
B: Right now, can people of any age or relationship become domestic partners? A man and a ten year old girl? A man and his sister?
T: No
B: Domestic partnerships are limited to people of a certain age andrelationshp?
T: Yes, that’s why I support it/
B: So having domestic partnerships don;t mean incest and pedolphilaa?
T: Ah, I see your logic now.
(laughter)
B: Yes, do you see whatI mean?
T YEs I do (goes on about evils of incest…)
B: But do you think if the name changes to marriage, then we will have all this incest and pedophilia? Just because we change the name from domestic partnership to marriage?
T: No, but children will fantasize who they will marry, about marrying a man or a woman. You may say I am a paranoid Chinese parent. However, if domestic partner is defines as it is now, then we can explain to children, yes: same sex partners want a life commitment and we have domestic partnerships for them.
But if you mix up marriages for different kind of sexes, I have parents coming to me asking what shall I tell my children.
Boies: Are you finished?
T: Yes
B: You agree that just because you allow G&*L to marry, you don’t have incest, right?
T: YEs
B: Or polgyamy>
T: YEs
B: Is it also true that you recognize it is important to G&L that they be able to marry?
T: Yes
B: Just as your children beenfit from you and your wife being married, os will children of same sex coupples?
T (pause) No.
B: No?
T: No
B: You don’t think children want trhier parents to be married?
T: not sure what you are trying to get at
B: This: children of same sex couples wnat their parents to be married becauses the word means something.
T: um
B: But you recognize it’s iomportant? Andimportant to those children,right?
T: I guess so.
Boies: New subject, new document from Andy Pugno to you and others.
T: YEs
B: This unity document says there would not be independent strategies for public messaging, correct?
T: Yes
B: And you agreed to this documet?
T: Well, later I did do my own messaging and broke away this document
B: But you are an honest person?
T: Yes
And when you signsomething and make a commitemnet, you take it seriously>
T: Yes
G You agreed that "public communciations by coalition partners must be approved by the campaign manager for strategic messaghe discipline." You agreed to that?
T: Yes I did, but later I broke it.
B: This was signed in July 2008
T: Yes
B: Right?
T: Yes
B: So up to that point you had message discipline?
T: Yes
B: And you didn’t violate the pledge the next day?
T: I don’tknow when
B: When would you guess you violated thepladge>
T: I don’t know when
B: What did you say that violated the pledge?
T: What I told the SJMnews about homosexuality leading to all kinds of diseases. I think I said that and violated this principles in this document.
B: That was publisjhed in the SJMN in public?
T: Yes
B: Did someone from PM.com tell you that was wrong?
T: Someone claled me and (Maybne Mr White) said not to say that.
B: Was that in writing?
T: He called me, I don’t remmeber
B: But the pledge you signed was in writing?
T: Yes
B: But this statement from Mr White, he never wrote that down, he never sent you an email. Right?
T: Yes
B: did you violate the pledge any other time?
T: I might have
B: When Mr White came to you and said, MR Tam you are violating your pledge, did you say Sorry I won’t do that any more?
T: I think I kep my mouth shut
B: So ther was no onther time you violated your pedghe
T: Yes I spoke to a Chinese newspaper reporter
B: What did you say to the reporter?
T: Something about European countries accepting sibling marriage. And that happened in September
B: Did someone from PM.com call you to say not to do that?
T: NO I don’t think PM read the CHinese newspaper where that was published.
B: Let’s go back to PX2199. This is where your onemanonewoman.net websitte linked homosexuals to pedophilia, 12 times more likely to molest. Recall?
T: Yes
B: Did anyone from PM.com tell you to take that off your websitre?
T: This part was established in 2009, it was way after Prop 8 was passed.
B: Dr Tam, look at PX2595. this is clearly before the november election, from onemanonewoman.net. This website was in operation during the campaign, correct?
T: Oh, yes it was. BUt this website is not to belong to the Traditional Family Coalition, and only TFC signed that pledge. Onemanonewoman.net never signed the pledge.
B: You’re saying omow never signed the pledge?
T: Right
B: My quesiton, though, is omow was up and running during the campaign?
T: YEs, but this particular page was not up there then.
B: What if another witnes testified she saw this particular page during the election, would thast refresh your recollection, sir.
T: I don’t know maybe it is but. um. I cannot remember correctlt when, but that is what I thought.
B: Now, ProtectMarriage.com was aware of the onemanonewoman(omow(.net website, right?
T: I don’t know
B: Look at your press invite for the rally?
T: Yes
B: What’s the website listed there?
T: omow.net
B: And the flyer, what does that refer to?
T: omow,net
B: And the flyer for the open-air rally, another one with Prentice speaking?
T: Yes
B: Cosponsored by ProtectMarriage.com
T: Yes
B; and at the very top is listed OneManOneWoman.net?
T: Yes it is.
B: So they knew about OMOW.net at PM.Com, right?
T: You can infer that they knew, but I am not PM.com so I am not sure.
B: Let’s do more than infer, let’s look at that August 22, 2008 memo from Mr Schubert’s firm. What did Schubert’s firm do again?
T: He ran the campaign.
B: A number of p[eoople got this memo.
T: Yes
B: Lots are redacted, but you are not, and neither is PM.COM or Catholic EWxchange.com and CaliforniaFamilies.org?
T: Yes to all
B: And a number of other organizations?
T: Yes
B: Attached are the project marriage weekly grassroots meetings." Did you attend these meetings?
T: Yes
B: Who else?
T: Others, all the grassroots leaders.
B: And what grassroots team were ytou the leader of?
T: Asian American
B: Now look at the last page? Third bullet? REad that please?
T: "A webiste is up, OneManOneWoman.com"
B: Your honor, I have no further questions.
MOSS! For the Defendant-Intervenors: Asks to approach the witness.
(Fluffs her little lawyer jacket as she resumes the podium)
Moss: Let's return to the petition part of the campaign. Was the majority of your work for PM.com during the petition campaign?
OBJECTION LEADING
Moss: when did you do most of your close work with the prop 8 campaign?
T: When we were getting petitions signed, I worked very closely with MR Pugno.
M: How closely?
T: About six or seven phone calls about the technicalities, and I met him one time to pick up forms.
M What mean technicalities?
T: How the forms worked, how they were filed at the SecState's office. He would send me paperwork, I would read it and sign it and send it back.
M. Did you draft the petition language?
T: No
M Did your formulate the messageing
T: No
M How many signatures did you turn over?
T: Not more than 20,000
M Recall your declaration discussed with Mr Boies? PX507?
T: 507?
M: Under direct testimony you said thats PM.com drafted this declaratyion. You was the person who drafted it?
T: Mr Pugno
M: And MR Pugno was you r attorney at the time?
T: Yes
M> And you testified that PM.com told you to participate in debate. Could you have said no?
T: Yes, I could have
M> Statement of Unity,. Boies asked you about PX2633.
T: Yes
M: Under message discipline, was your communications approved by the campaign manager?
T: Repeat?
M: Did you get any of your messaging approved by the manager>
T: No
M: Did you get any PM.Com messaging approved by Schubert/Flynt?
T: No
M: What about OMOW.net communications? Approved?
T: No.
M: All media requests must be forwarded to media contact? DId you forward all press requests to PM.com as requested?
T: No
M: PX 513, second tab: did you post this on the internet yourself?
T: No
M Who are the Dear Friends?
T: TFC mailing list
M: How many?
T: About 100
M: Below your signature Bill Tam, what does it say?
T: Last updateed (9.4.2009)
M: Was this posted before 9.4.09?
T: I don't know
M: Was this sent to PMcom before sent out?
T: No
M PX 2187 DId you draft this>
T: No
M: Cosponsors for rally listed PMcom, do you know why is it says that?
T: No I paid no attention
M: Do you know if PMcom paid for this flyer?
T: I don't know I don't think so.
M PX2343, please?
T: Yes, okay
M I believe the CHinese version was 2343D. Was this flyer submitted to PM/com or Schubert Flynt?
T: NO
M: Did they help create it?
T: No
M: Did they distribute it?
T: no
M Going back to the 2004 articel, how many people have viewed your personal website?
T: About 1,600
M: Now PX527 in our binder? What ist this?
T: A page from my website
M: DOes one have to go to this webstie to get to your aritcels?
T: Yes
M: How many visitors to this website?
T: 1,547
M: How many were lawyers in this case?
[oh, MOss, you slay me!]
T: No I don’t know
M Turn to PX2507 please?
T: Okay
M Is this the same small email list you sent the last email to, the Presence Ministry website?
T: All emails are entitleed Dear Friends of Dear Friends of TFC, very small about 100 people
M Did you send this beforehand to PM.com or the campaign manager?
T: No
M Did you send any of your emails to them beforehand?
T: No
M English version of flyer submitted to PM.com or Schubert Flynt?
T: I don’t think so
M Did they distribute it?
T: No
M: Did they create this flyer?
T: NO
[Moss pauses to check her Hello Kitty note pad]
M Dr tam, during the campaign phase, how many contacts did you have with Ron Prentice?
T: Contact meaning?
M Phone calls?
T: Four times
M: Contact with Schubert FLynt?
T: Really rare, maybe one or two times [resentfully]
M Did you have any role in develoipment of messaging?
T: No
M: Formulating messageing strategy?
T: Not at all. I was acting independently
M: Did PM.com or SFlynt have any input into strategy of your groups?
OBJECTION: COMPOUND
SUSTAINED
REPHRASED:
T: No (to all)
M: When you communicated with members of TFC were you acting on behalf of ProtectMArriage.com?
T: No, not at all,
M: What does ‘working with’ mean when you talk about these documents?
T: Conference calls, \during petition phase, collecting signatures.
M: In these documents that explore your viewpoints, did you share these viewpoints with PM.com or Schubert/FLynt, before or after the campaing?
T: No
Moss is finished. How sad to see only that small amount of Moss.
Tam wants a break; Walker says ten minutes. Will five minutes do?
Tam says that’s fine.
I will start thread number 33 shortly.
94 Comments
It’s TeddyDogLake!
You are doing such an amazing job. Thanks from everyone.
He surely is. Great Great stuff! I love reading it, as if it is happening right now.
(Especially, after a glass of wine.)
Go teddy!
Thank you, Teddy!!!
“Walker: Thendon’t OBJECT every time, it is a standing objection so preserved”
Would this be the equivalent of a judicial “bitch slap”?
Yup!!
You know, it’s hard to tell if Walker is annoyed (then it’s a bitch slap) or having a good time (then it’s a come hither look).
LOL….thanks for the chuckles!
“Walker: Attorney/client privilege?? Really?”
Clearly, a judicial “bitch slap”, yes?
Geezuz, I can’t believe this testimony. He believes that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia.
From Twitter: “All Boies’ q’s refer to onemanonewoman.net, which has strangely disappeared on the web.”
Well, isn’t that strange.
One key part of this: When Helen Zia (who is Chinese-American) testified, she talked about seeing this website. So when they tried to object to letting it as evidence, it was already in. Zia testified that this was the kind of hatred she faced.
Very well constructed–they’ve now tied Tam’s lies to the discrimination that Zia has experienced, and through Tam tied it directly to ProtectMarriage and Prop 8.
Hey, the good news is he doesn’t believe homosexuality is linked to bestiality….very progressive, yes?
He now says he doesn’t believe homosexuality is linked to bestiality.
He’s a proven liar.
The website is still there. It’s 1man1woman.net. The number 1 isn’t written out.
Thanks.
Not strange at all. They’re trying to cover their tracks.
“T: What is the power of the secretary of your company?”
Snippy hostile witness! Or would that be redundant?
“B: What is the Amer Psych Association say about sexual orientation?
T: I don’t know
B: Never tried to find out?
T: No”
Is Dr. Tam living proof that bigotry, like sexual orientation, is genetically hard-wired??
Dr. Tam. How much did that doctorate cost?
probably ONLINE degree from back in the 80′s … gives today’s ONLINE Degrees a very bad name …
[I guess we all understand what Ryan Kendall, sexual orientiation conversion victim of NARTH, was doing here earlier, don't we?]
Yep; with this and Ms. Zia already getting the website submitted earlier, it looks like Boies & Olsen are unleashing seven shades of A grade lawyering from unexpected angles.
This would make such great scripted tv! Every prop and throwaway line in act 1 pops up later for a big reveal!
I agree. I want to give them a hug!
Agree. Very tightly crafted presentation of evidence. It’s nice having the big name lawyers on our side.
I am sure this was an honest accidental typo, but I am still laughing at it coming up during Tam’s time on the stand.I guess it’s too many bad ethnic jokes from the past! Sorry!
Well, on the web, I use “me likee” and “no likee” all the time. I’m not Asian and I never even think back on the bad movie references. I thought it was hilarious but that’s just me. Is Moss of Asian descent?
can’t wait for THE movie … DRAMA !!! (but only after Prop 8 gets rescinded and we have Marriage Equality nationwide.)
True….would make a great courtroom drama….hmmmmmm….Sean Penn as David Boies?
I’m pulling for George Takei as Mr. Tam.
LOL….That’s DR Tam, to you
Now this is a man who bought his doctorate on the black market. Probably from the same people selling bootleg movies on the corner.
ha ha ha … very funny, and probably TRUE.
F5 F5 F5
Am curious….does anybody how many more witnesses will be called by the Plaintiffs?
Only 1 more is expected; a dr. on mental health effects.
Plus I think they have a lot more documents to enter into the record (stuff from the campaign).
Thanks, Julie…..do you also have info re: number of defense witnesses? or can you direct me to info?
There are 2 defense witnesses–the other 4 dropped out (afraid of David Boies). After seeing what he’s doing to Tam, I can sure see why.
Only two?!?! TWO?!?!? They can raise MILLIONS of dollars to take away rights, put THOUSANDS of foot soldiers in the field to take away rights, but they can only find TWO WITNESSES to defend their position?!?!?!
Their other experts all withdrew after the plaintiffs demolished them in deposition. But the plaintiffs have gotten video of testimony of three of those “experts” shown (not sure what got entered into evidence) at the trial.
Just as an example, the guy who they were relying on to show that “biological” (meaning genetic) parents were best thought it best to withdraw after the plaintiffs pointed out that his field defines “biological” to mean intact families, including adopted children.
And they can succeed — without having to defend their position.
Please elucidate, jefferyk….am curious as to how the proponents of Prop 8 can possible expect a victory in this trial.
By “succeed” I was referring to the passage of Prop 8. When I think back to when the campaign was going on, I don’t remember anyone seriously challenging the pro-Prop 8 arguments. Certainly not in a venue with a wide audience, like television. People bought what the pro-Prop 8 people said, no questions asked. That’s what it seemed to me, anyway.
I understand, Jeffery…..maybe the defendants are proceeding on “faith”??? ;)
I completely agree Jefferyk. I didn’t see any honest to goodness fight from the No on 8 side either during the campaign. It was almost as if the No on 8 side sought to lose at the ballot box. And when there was a response it was very weak. The same thing happened in Maine.
Our side really needs to stop playing the role of “Mr. Nice Gay” or “Ms/Mrs. Nice Lesbian.” When the opposition is flat out lying, call them out for what they are, liars. Respect has to go both ways, and considering they have no problem lying to the electorate, then we need to call them out for it. Instead of using weaslers like “misleading” and “mistaken,” etc., call them out as LIES.
The thing is though, clearly the evidence is insanely lopsided in this case — we absolutely win on the merits. But unfortunately, and ironically, we could ultimately lose at the SCOTUS level because of….animus (on the part of justices).
Also, we have to prove that we should be considered a “suspect class”, which means that we are “politcally powerless” (what Segura was trying to prove) and that our sexuality is “immutable” — can’t change (why the conversion testimony yesterday). Those are both mostly true, but there are counter examples. The bar is high!
Admittedly so….still, Justice Kennedy could be the surprise 5th vote on the SCOTUS….the suspense is gonna kill me!
The more and more I think about it, I also have the feeling that Roberts (as “conservative” as he is) just may take our side as well as he was one of the attorney’s behind the scenes fighting in Romer v Evans.
Granted his participation wasn’t out in the open; however, I’m hoping that his involvement in the case opened his eyes to the problems our community faces.
wishful thinking … fingers crossed.
Roberts actually did quite a bit for gays in the Romer v. Evans case. Check out this web site:
http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=611&Itemid=118
for an article on all that he did. He’s very conservative but he helped gays win the case with all his help in Romer.
Thank you for the article. It does give a bit of insight. I think he very well could surprise us all!
Hate to rain on anyone’s parade, but Chief Justice Roberts has been pretty across-the-board conservative since his confirmation hearings.
And as far as his work on Romer is concerned, the article makes it sound more like he’s an ambitious attorney intent on impressing his bosses than that he was acting out of any personal conviction:
“The lawyer who headed the firm’s pro bono department at the time said Roberts did not hesitate when asked to help on the case. “He said, ‘Let’s do it.’ And it’s illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness,” Walter Smith told the newspaper. “He did a brilliant job.”"
The thing most commented-on about Roberts during his confirmation was that he was such a blank slate — it seemed very, very clear that he had long had high court aspirations. What speaks loudest is what he’s done since he’s been there.
Considering that in 2008, the SCOTUS refused to review the Arpaio v Doe case regarding abortion, it is safe to assume that it was likely Roberts who (being the last hold out) made sure the court didn’t hear the case. We ALL know that Scalia, Alito, and Thomas would ALL just love to get their hands on the abortion issue again.
I think Roberts was smart enough to know that ‘social conservatism’ is Constitutionally indefensible- all reliant on sophistry and evasion of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment- and a lost cause.
What he’s been doing on the Court, as far as I can tell, is diminish popular extension of those rights in the economic realm as much as he can get away and increase privileges of the wealthy and corporations. By coincidence today’s result in Citizens United is part and parcel, is epitome, of the thing he’s doing. He’s setting precedent and creating privileges that the next 50-70 years in American politics will be about breaking down again.
You have to keep it in perspective. Religion is not immutable, and yet it is a suspect class. Blacks have considerable political power, and they are a suspect class. In addition, the is the possibility that gays will be found to be a “quasi-suspect” class which is a real plus–not as good as a “suspect” class, but still better than nothing. Also, there is the issue of whether Prop 8 was passed as a “Legitimate” governmental interest as described in the case of Romer v. Evans.
I so hope you’re right! I’m worried that this will be our Plessy or Scopes, but not our Brown or Loving.
Well, Tam tried to drop out as well…he was just one that the prosecution said, “He can drop out and not be a DI, but we already deposed him, and WE want him on the stand.” You have to worry when you opposition wants YOUR witness on the stand more than you do!
One more, a PhD from UC Davis to talk about homosexuality.
From the NCLR twitter:
“Flyer: After Netherlands legalized SSM, went on to legalize incest & polygamy. Tam: Yes, true.”
“Boies: Who told you that? Where did you get that idea? Tam: The Internet. (lol)”
ROFLMAO!!!!!! I guess you can find ANYTHING on the internet.
See how small the group gets here?
This is a human rights issue. And, even here at the Lake the commenters have shrunk to a small group.
I better keep my mouth shut.
Nevertheless. Teddy, you rock. And I am 100% behind you.
(((Bear)))
Hi, demi!
I can’t comment much when I’m at work, but I do check in every half-hour or hour, just to see what’s going on.
(Gotta disappear: thunderstorm.)
As funny as Tam’s testimony is, the sad truth is that his ignorance is shared by a majority of Americans. We’re here “watching” this trial because of that stupidity. Why do we allow dumbasses to legislate by popular vote? We need to do away with the whole ballot proposition system.
And his ignorance lies at the core of the lies told to Californians who then took away the rights of gay men and women. It’s so tragic and stupid, really.
Fat chance. We can’t even get people on TV to rebut idiots like Tam.
Yes, pretty sad. And trash the ballot initiative.
Not so much the American masses, as the religious community that is all too willing to believe what they are told to believe without question. Critical thinking is antiethical to religious fundamentalism.
“B: This: children of same sex couples wnat their parents to be married becauses the word means something.
T: um
B: But you recognize it’s iomportant? Andimportant to those children,right?
T: I guess so.”
OUCH! Cornered!!!!!
Cornered, indeed…perhaps the good Dr will have an epiphany and realize the error of his ways? maybe?
Don’t hold your breath waiting.
what a moron … Dr.(?) Tam is tripping all over himself … he is a classic bigot! He’s unable to rationalize his way of thinking into his own belief system. Hey hates GAYS because of his religious brainwashing …. just be honest about it. What is he actually a Dr. OF ?
Phrenology.
HAH!!
I’ve been following your live-blogging and have been hanging on every update you’ve been posting. But, I have a request regarding:
Please edit this offensive line. I doubt Moss talked in Chinese-pidgin from the 1850s. While it might be true people use this on the internet, it’s still offensive. Especially when you’re using it in the context of a direct examination of an asian-american person.
If you need proof that this is offensive and has been for the last 150 years, see this article from the Harvard Crimson of 1879.
Yeah, well, it’s not offensive if it’s not meant that way, which it wasn’t.
Moss isn’t asian american and i mock her elsewhere lotsa times.
Sorry if you think “me no likee” is an asian american slur but it’s become an internet slur and is used lotsa places in reference to stupid people not liking something.
And no, I won’t change it as I am not editing any of the liveblogging. It’s neither a transcription nor a formal public record. And no slur on asian americans was meant. believe me.
From NCLRights on Twitter: No cross exam. by Tam’s lawyer.
Well, I guess not!
Scientests say…
What Scientists?
Top Men.
Who?
Top… men.
“B: Now, ProtectMarriage.com was aware of the onemanonewoman(omow(.net website, right?
T: I don’t know”
Oh please. Dr. Tam, you are a class-A Idiot! You say you don’t know? And then Boies leads you through several docs. that pretty well prove that PM was aware [more than aware, if you ask me] of omow. Jezus!!
Tam is certainly not going to get flowers and candy from the folks he’s representing IMO.
Hmmm…but think of this-we all better hope that someone is actually looking out for Dr Tam-if something should happen to him (perhaps because of his testimony?) wouldn’t the first fingers be from the PropH8 to back up their arguements that *WE* are a danger to them? A double cross of some sort? Maybe I read too many whodunnits…
Maybe you read too many whodunits, but I follow too many conspiracy theories….Tam is the classic fall guy, taking one for the team, as it were….
Boies is great!
This is an excellent causal linking from Helen Zia to that website to Bill Tam to the larger national conspiracy of bigotry under cover of religion.
Thank you Teddy for all this amazing hard work. I really appreciate it.
I actually feel kind of sorry for Dr. Tam. Seems like he’s been lied to from some seemingly very nice people. His intentions don’t really seem that bad, he just doesn’t seem to be thinking about the big picture (thinking of his own children and his own community, not the children of gays, or the gay community). He sounds like he’s been badly brainwashed.
I’m not saying he’s not responsible, I’ve been brainwashed myself (former fundamentalist ex-gay conservative christian, now a liberal pagan bisexual), but I think people like this should be pitied really. Here’s a guy who hasn’t had the good fortune to know truth, someone whose deepest fears are being used to further some hateful agenda.
I think it’s very sad.
The combination of ignorance, narcissism, and egotism that is easily tapped into makes for evil.
Me thinks our Teddy is soft on Ms Moss…..do I sense a love connection???? Seriously, Teddy, thanks for all your hard work!
Did 33 go somewhere else…to a different area? It looked like court closed after Boise xed Tam elsewhere…
Can anyone point me to a website that has daily analysis of the Prop 8 case?
I appreciate the live-blogging, but it would be great to have a lawyer or someone knowledgeable explaining it to me.
while i might understand the urge to do so, it would be preferable if you could refrain from editorializing. certainly, trivializing a female participant as adjusting “her little lawyer jacket” and referring to her “hello kitty notebook” and using the racist expression “no likee” in reference to an asian participant are editorial comments which are demeaning, undiginified, and detract from the veracity of these transcripts. they can, also, cause some confusion as to whether they were part of the testimony since they are not clearly marked as editorializations.. better to just avoid them entirely.
I believe that ‘no likee’ was a typo (and not the only one).
You might want to turn your sensitivity down just a bit.
THank you for your comments. You will probably enjoy the actual transcripts more than my liveblogging, which are by definition my editorial remarks, which I almost always enclose in [].
Transcripts can be found here.
I appreciate your remarks but, well, sorry. Stop by yourself if you want to hear the real thing.
HERE IS ALL THE MEAT FOLKs!
T: Yes
B: You agree that just because you allow G&*L to marry, you don’t have incest, right?
T: YEs
B: Or polgyamy>
T: YEs
B: Is it also true that you recognize it is important to G&L that they be able to marry?
T: Yes
B: Just as your children beenfit from you and your wife being married, os will children of same sex coupples?
T (pause) No.
B: No?
T: No
B: You don’t think children want trhier parents to be married?
T: not sure what you are trying to get at
B: This: children of same sex couples wnat their parents to be married becauses the word means something.
T: um
B: But you recognize it’s iomportant? Andimportant to those children,right?
T: I guess so.
Got him to actually think about SSFAMILIES!!!!
What a MASSIVE idiot…
“This is very important for Asian families, we don’t want our children growing up to fantasize should I marry Jane or John?”
My asian husband and his family might disagree…
Nothing’s offensive if it’s not meant that way. By that same reasoning, none of Dr. Tam’s remarks are offensive because I’m sure he doesn’t mean to offend anybody by saying them.
I don’t think you’ve said “me no likee” anywhere else except in the examination of Dr. Tam. I see you’re sorry for how I think and others chalk this up to oversensitivity of those crazy ethnic minorities, so if you’re not concerned about how your commentary might be offensive, I’m going to stop reading your liveblog and turn to the transcript or other liveblogs that don’t inject racially and gender insensitive commentary.
Like
http://prop8trialtracker.com/category/liveblogging/
Thanks anyway.