Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  prop 8

William Tam’s Incest + Polygamy Theories Are the Best Thing to Happen to Perry Yet

After we heard the plaintiffs in Perry would be calling to the stand William Tam — the defendant who tried removing himself from the case because it was becoming, ahem, too burdensome — all we could think about was what sort of crazy things he would put in the court’s record. We’re happy to report: He did not disappoint!

Following up his fearmongering letter to church supporters wherein he claimed legalizing same-sex marriage would force “every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex,” he stuck to his guns on the stand, relaying his theory about how pedophilia was destined to blossom if Prop 8 hadn’t passed.

In federal court, attorney David Boies spent time walking Tam through a Web site for a Chinese-American evangelical Christian group that featured a headline reading “Studies Show That Homosexuality Is Linked to Pedophilia.”

Tam serves as secretary of the group, known as the American Return to God Prayer Movement.

The Web site also contained a link to another article claiming gays were 12 times more likely to molest children.

“So you supported this Web site making these kind of statements?” Boies asked.

“Uh, yes,” Tam said.

“Do you believe that homosexuals are 12 times more likely to molest children?” the lawyer continued.

“Yeah, based on the different literature that I have read,” Tam replied.

You know, the literature he read on the Internet. Because everything published there is rooted in reasoned analysis and fact!

Under questioning by Boies, Tam also said he agreed with a statement on the Web site for the Chinese-American Christian group that said if same-sex marriage was treated as a civil right, “so would pedophilia, polygamy and incest.”

“And that is what you were telling people in encouraging them to vote for Proposition 8?” Boies asked.

“Yes,” Tam answered.

Tam said he drew that conclusion after reading an Internet article that claimed incest and polygamy were legal in the Netherlands, a country where same-same marriages became legal in 2001.

Boies: “You are saying here that after same-sex marriage was legalized, the Netherlands legalized incest and polygamy?”

Tam: “Yeah, look at the date, Polygamy happened afterward.”

“Who told you that? Where did you get that idea,” Boies asked incredulously.

“It’s the Internet,” he said. “Another person in the organization found it and he showed me it. … I looked at the document and I thought it was true.”

For the record, polygamy is not legal in the Netherlands.

And now that it’s out there, the defense (that’s ProtectMarriage.com) must also work to distance itself from Tam’s claims. Because they are fucking crazytown. Luckily for them, Tam knows this, and is also working to put on the record that he wasn’t terribly involved in Yes On 8.

During a news conference outside court, lawyer Andy Pugno, who represents Proposition 8 backers, said Tam had “next to nothing” to do with the campaign, even though he was one of the measure’s official proponents.

Tam said he spent a lot of time working on the campaign and frequently communicated with its leaders but modestly added he did not consider himself a major player.

Tam explained that he got involved in early efforts to promote the gay marriage ban in 2007, gathering signatures to qualify it for the ballot. He became an official proponent because of his concern that legalizing same-sex marriage would encourage young people to pursue gay partners, he said.

“I think it’s very important for the next generation to understand the historical meaning of marriage,” he said. “I think it is very important that children won’t grow up to fantasize or think about should I marry Jane or John when I grow up, because this is very important for Asian families.”

People. This stuff is excellent. Beautiful, even. Because while Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia may find a way to agree with Tam’s idiocy, few reasonable people will. And it will be easy for Olson/Boies to continually point to this testimony — from an official unofficial Yes On 8 leader — as to why passing Prop 8 wasn’t just a move to endorse discrimination, but was rooted in a fantasyland.

Shortly before Tam left the witness stand, Boies asked him if he had spoken to his lawyer during a 5-minute break in his testimony. Tam said he had.

“I said I felt like naughty boy being put in front of a classroom and being mocked at,” he said.

Prop. 8 backer stands by views on pedophilia [AP]


  • 91 Comments
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      As I have stated before, alarms go off big time wheneva I hear someone who is so damm obsessed with children and kiddie diddlin’….What kind of very small skeletons are in this subhuman scumbag’s closet?????

      Jan 22, 2010 at 9:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • survivingInVirginia
      survivingInVirginia

      We had Jerry Springer the Opera. Now I’m waiting for Bill Tam the Opera. Jerry Springer had tap dancing KKK. Now I want to see tap dancing Chinese Amercian’s like Tam.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 9:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian NJ
      Brian NJ

      What a delicious little angry monkey, removing his skull cap, allowing us all to feast on his closet-blue brains while we watch no change in his words or ideas.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 11:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      And not for nuttin’ but he is the most disturbing looking ugliest motherfuka I have ever laid my eyeballz on………..

      Jan 22, 2010 at 11:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      ………with that $9.99 Kmart special toupe’

      Jan 22, 2010 at 11:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert
      Robert

      So I have a question. Even if Proposition 8 was rooted in fantasy-land theories that Homosexuality = Child Predator… is that going to invalidate the legislation?

      Yes, it might make people think that they voted in error- but is it going to result in an immediate striking of Prop 8 from the legislation? If not… I don’t see what good this guys quack theory is going to do.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 11:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Brilliant, “What kind of very small skeletons are in this subhuman scumbag’s closet?”

      Jan 22, 2010 at 11:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      @Robert: Because everytime this subhuman scumbag little test monkey opens its mouth it shows what a complete moron it is, and that the entire Prop 8 movement was based on hate. Many people who voted for this expressed reservations about having supported the measure and there were polls out weeks after that showed the outcome would have been different. The haters realize that they no longer have the majority of the voters in California. And this little creatures ranting and quoting everything it gleams from the internets as fact are further eroding their cause…..

      Keep dancing you horrible little monkey……….

      Jan 22, 2010 at 11:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Xtian99
      Xtian99

      simple equation that most simples minds like Mr. William Tam cannot/do not want to grasp”

      adult human being = consent possible

      children, dogs, turtles, amphibians, desk lamps = no consent possible, so not the same things as two consenting adults fulfilling their desires with each other – and stop fearmongering with ridiculous analogys of “what comes next”

      Mr. Tam, your obviosuly intellectually stunted and physically challenged (to say the least), so please stop pretending to know anything about gays. And if i were to stoop to your level, I’d say just worry about getting my # 69 with brown rice and extra spring roll to my door on time… but I wont say that… because that would be bad…generlaizing all Asians in a derogatory way… denigrating them based on false stereotypes…. kind of like what you do with gays..
      chop chop!

      Jan 22, 2010 at 11:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • edgyguy1426
      edgyguy1426

      well, you know what happens to naughty boys…

      Jan 22, 2010 at 11:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Ehrenstein
      David Ehrenstein

      Here’s an exclusive video of William Tam’s law professor –

      Jan 22, 2010 at 11:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      Based on his disturbing obsession with kiddie diddlin’ me thinks this little monkeys favorite dish may be “sum yun guy”…… : P

      Jan 22, 2010 at 11:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Terrwill _ I’m ashamed of you! You post so many good things and then evaluate this man on his looks (or lack thereof) Whether he is ugly or not is irrelevant and beneath you to make that kind of comment.

      That said, I agree that the religious right will be running from his crazytown comments & involvement with Prop 8 as fast as possible, because we all know Jesus encourages lying and falsehoods.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 12:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      @Jaroslaw: I appreciate your props, but when someone goes so far off the rails and spews such incredible hatred towards the community and uses us as a freakin pinita’ I sometimes feel the need to stoop to their level just to let off some steam………………………

      Jan 22, 2010 at 12:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      My hope is that he will really examine his words with a more enlightened mind and see how wrong it is to read an article on the internet and then spread that around under the auspices of Chinese-American Christianity. If he is backed too mercilessly into a corner after the trial is over, a monster will become of him. If understanding, mercy, and patience can show him that he has been taught things that were not true, he might examine this and change his mind. Life is about learning. This guy is learning that words are very powerful. They can disrupt other peoples’ lives, but then can also turn around and disrupt your own life as well. He has an opportunity to grow and to learn from this experience. I bet he never thought he would be so scrutinized. I could see why he visualizes himself as a child. This would be terribly overwhelming. In his mind, to recant what he said is to admit that he was wrong, but also it could be seen as a betrayal of his staunchly held beliefs. Indeed, he is in a pickle. If he still believes his mindset after having had the chance to hold it up to the light, then that is a spirit unwilling to empathize, even for an instant. Empathy often accompanies love. It’s not a betrayal to Jesus to change your mind about other peoples’ opinions and prejudices.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 12:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Xtian99
      Xtian99

      TERRWILL … of course you need to let off steam– this half wit is using gays as a pinata – and using faulty facts and accounting- but would be oh so offended if that same tact was taken with him on the basis of his ethnicity, looks, culture etc.

      Why are all gays pedopiles but not all priests – since a few priests molested some kids, shouldn’t they all get painted with that broad bruch like the gays are?? maybe the priesthood leads to pedophila????

      And why are not all straigh people pedophiles since some straight people are pedophiles…why does heterosexuality not lead to pedophilia??? sure are ore straigh pedohiles than gay????

      b.c that is absured …but acceptane of homsexuals leads to pedophelia, then of course to pumpkin and puppy fu*cking

      Jan 22, 2010 at 12:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 6 · Robert wrote, “So I have a question. Even if Proposition 8 was rooted in fantasy-land theories that Homosexuality = Child Predator… is that going to invalidate the legislation?” … you asked the wrong question.

      Proposition 8 would not be invalidated by the court if it was merely rooted in fantasy land. The issue is rather whether it was rooted in bias or bigotry. Olsen and Boies are arguing that Proposition Eight should be overturned because it was motivated by bias because a different anti-gay measure was invalidated by a federal court for that reason in another state.

      Tam is obviously biased and he is one of the handful of individuals who filed Proposition Eight. It might be sufficient to simply show that the people who drafted or filed it were motivated by bias regardless of what they did during the campaign, but the validity of that conjecture is something I’d have to leave to a lawyer.

      My guess is that Tam was reading the World Net Daily or similar right-wing homophobic sites. Some years ago, they were whining about gay groups in Europe demanding that the age of consent for gay sex be lowered to what it is in those countries for straight sex. They just wanted parity so an 18 year old gay kid with an X year old boyfriend wouldn’t be treated any differently than an 18 year old straight kid with an X year old girlfriend. But the age of consent for straights was lower than in the U.S., so the wing nuts used some selective reporting to try to slant the story.

      No wonder Tam didn’t remember where he read this stuff! If he showed he read it from a homophobic/biased source, he would be proving that he helped file Proposition Eight because of bias. So whether he really didn’t remember or not, it was definitely in the defense’s interest for his memory to be poor.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 12:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wade macMorrighan
      Wade macMorrighan

      I should LOVE to see how ol’ Mags attempts to spin Mr. Tam’s testimony for our side! :oP

      Jan 22, 2010 at 12:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Right on, B

      Jan 22, 2010 at 12:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scott ny'er
      scott ny'er

      “I said I felt like naughty boy being put in front of a classroom and being mocked at,” he said.

      Ummm. WTH? Conscious getting to you? I’m ashamed that this loser is a Chinese American. I know that being an idiot does not discriminate but still. And of course, religion is what colors this man’s perspective wrongly. Sad, little, man.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 12:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wade macMorrighan
      Wade macMorrighan

      Hey, if it was proven that NOM (via Brian Brown) was directly involved with Protect Marriage, why was this not specificly made blatantly clear by Boies, for example, asking Mr. Tam “Who is Brian Brown?” And, why won’t NOM< and specificly Maggie Gallagher be called to testify, huh? I'd pay for tickets to go see THAT! :o)

      Jan 22, 2010 at 12:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wade macMorrighan
      Wade macMorrighan

      Say, does anyone know if Boies/ Olson are going to admit testimony, or make it clear, that despite the numerous other religions in the US (even Paganism) that the Christian denominations are attempting to define who can or cannot legally/ civilly/ secularly marry onto atheists, and every single other religion in the US.?

      Jan 22, 2010 at 1:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • LC Republicans
      LC Republicans

      Did you know that

      Andy Pugno, who represents Proposition 8 backers is running for the California State Assembly.

      It has been reported that he has over $400,000.00 in the bank from backers of Proposition 8

      Jan 22, 2010 at 1:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FakeName
      FakeName

      B sez: Olsen and Boies are arguing that Proposition Eight should be overturned because it was motivated by bias because a different anti-gay measure was invalidated by a federal court for that reason in another state.

      It’s more complex than that. The argument is that marriage is a fundamental right under the Constitution. This has been established in any number of cases, including Loving v. Virginia, the granddaddy of marriage equality cases. Any law that impinges on a fundamental right is subject to one of three levels of review.

      Boies and Olson are trying to establish that homosexuality meets the test for being a “suspect classification”. They need to prove that Prop 8 targets a “discrete” or “insular” minority who possess an immutable trait (except in the case of religion), share a history of discrimination and are powerless to protect themselves via the political process. That’s why they put up witnesses to talk about how reparative therapy doesn’t work, how ineffectual the national gay groups are and so forth.

      They need to prove this so that Prop 8 will be subjected to “strict scrutiny”, the highest level of judicial review. Strict scrutiny requires that a statute must serve a “compelling” state interest, that the statute is “narrowly tailored” to fulfill that interest and that the statute is the “least restrictive means” to achieve that interest. That’s why the testimony about the economic benefits of same-sex marriage both for the couples and for the state, the testimony about the impact of SSM in other countries and so on.

      Historically no federal court has found that homosexuality constitutes a suspect class or a “quasi-suspect” class, which would trigger “heightened scrutiny” which is easier for the government to meet but still a fairly high hurdle. Federal courts have instead applied “rational basis review” to questions of sexual orientation. The easiest threshold to meet, it merely requires that a state act be “rationally related” to some “legitimate state interest”. In the case to which you refer, Romer v. Evans, SCOTUS (and no other federal court since the appeal was of a Colorado supreme court opinion) found that animus toward homosexuals did not constitute a legitimate state interest. That’s why the testimony about the motives of those who supported Prop 8.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 1:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FakeName
      FakeName

      Wade MacMorrigan sez: Say, does anyone know if Boies/ Olson are going to admit testimony, or make it clear, that despite the numerous other religions in the US (even Paganism) that the Christian denominations are attempting to define who can or cannot legally/ civilly/ secularly marry onto atheists, and every single other religion in the US.?

      The plaintiffs have called their last witness, who is being cross-examined now. So, no.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 1:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wade macMorrighan
      Wade macMorrighan

      “I think it’s very important for the next generation to understand the historical meaning of marriage,” he said. “I think it is very important that children won’t grow up to fantasize or think about should I marry Jane or John when I grow up, because this is very important for Asian families.”

      Incidentally, this is precisely Mags’ view when she declares that she wants us to return to a–HER vision of a, actually–”marriage culture” in which people will think of a “marriage couple”, or “marriage” and immediately imagine a man and a woman who want to be a “mommy and a daddy”! ‘Course, mags has said over the years that SHE doesn’t think that she should be placed in the oh-so-uncomfortable position to have to pretend that the marriage of a Gay couple is equal in standing to her’s (poor Mags, so discriminated against!). She also believes that marriage is so that a child may know his or her biological parents (after all, everyone KNOWS that biological parents are ALWAYS the best parents to one’s child, right?); but what she’s REALLY saying is that she wants Gays to be banned from adopting! In fact, I have heard from a reputable source 9can;’t remember who off the top of my head), but this was the plans of Evangelical Christians and NOM, once they have been successful banning Marriage Equality throughout the entire country! Scary, huh?

      Jan 22, 2010 at 2:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wade macMorrighan
      Wade macMorrighan

      >>>”I think it’s very important for the next generation to understand the historical meaning of marriage,” Tam said<<<

      Gee, well then I'll bet money on the fact that nothing prop 8's witnesses said regarding cultures all over the world and throughout time that allowed and condoned marriages between TWO MEN or TWO WOMEN made no impact on him, 'eh?

      Jan 22, 2010 at 2:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 24 · FakeName wrote, “B sez: ‘Olsen and Boies are arguing that Proposition Eight should be overturned because it was motivated by bias because a different anti-gay measure was invalidated by a federal court for that reason in another state.’ It’s more complex than that.” … you need to read comments in context. I was commenting on another person’s comments about Tam and why “fantasy-land” is not the issue but bias is.

      Any arguments that Olsen and Boies make about suspect classes, fundamental rights to marry, etc., have nothing to do with Tam.
      They called Tam as a witness because he was significantly involved (one of the few individuals who filed the initiative, for example) and because he is essentially a Chinese equivalant of Archie Bunker, and thus a perfect witness for showing bias.

      Keep in mind that in the Supreme Court’s decision in Romer v Evans (which overturned an anti-gay amendment in Colorado, see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=U10179 ), the Supreme Court’s decision included the following statement: “First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.”

      You can trivially argue that Proposition Eight imposes a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group because marriage can be extended to other groups without requiring a state constitutional change. An example: someone might want to change the age at which one can be married in such a way that individuals who turn 18 in their senior year in high school (assuming they did not skip a grade) can marry anytime during the school year. That can be done in principle through the legislative process. Yet changing the rules about same-sex marriage cannot be changed legislatively given Proposition Eight. Currently Olsen and Boies are showing that bias (e.g., animus) was the motivation for Proposition Eight. Once bias is shown, one can use the Supreme Court’s ruling in Romer v Evans to invalidate Proposition Eight without dealing with questions about marriage. It becomes a more or less airtight argument.

      BTW, while LGBT is a suspect class in California, it is not fully under federal law ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause#Suspect_classes ). You can try to argue that it should be, but you can’t depend on that outcome, particularly since so many decisions involving LGBT cases are split 5/4 or 4/5. So having an argument that is based completely on existing precedents is very useful, particularly if the court does not want to do anything that would create a new precedent that could be used to invalidate DOMA.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 2:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Your last paragraph is such a bummer, B.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 3:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Everything rides on precedents established by this case. Shooooot, I’m looking out over the precipice. Equality has to win out. Discrimination cannot be tolerated

      Jan 22, 2010 at 3:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      I’m surprised Boies didn’t ask this idiot how he could explain the reason why polygamy is allowed in Islamic cultures? I wonder what kind of an answer he’d give since gays in those countries have no rights whatosever and in some cases are executed for being caught inflagrante delicto? I’d love to see him respond to that one. Why not raise the Mormons who once practiced it where there was no same-sex marriage on the radar let alone rights. Comments that Tam has made can only harm the proponents of Prop 8′s case less convincing.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 3:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Leave a little piece of the liver, so that it can regenerate.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 3:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FakeName
      FakeName

      B sez: you need to read comments in context. I was commenting on another person’s comments about Tam and why “fantasy-land” is not the issue but bias is.

      Bias is not the only or even the primary issue and your answer in whatever context makes it seem that it is. It is something that needs to be established if the main argument, that this should be a strict scrutiny case, is not accepted by the court. But the better result is that sexual orientation is accepted as a suspect class and the plaintiffs are in no way hanging the entire case on establishing bias.

      B sez: BTW, while LGBT is a suspect class in California, it is not fully under federal law.

      It is not at all under federal law. Either something is a suspect class or it isn’t. And I already knew that it isn’t and said so in my post.

      B sez: You can try to argue that it should be, but you can’t depend on that outcome

      No one is depending on that outcome. The plaintiffs are pursuing multiple strategies, of which the last resort is proving that Prop 8 fails rational review.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 3:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • victor
      victor

      Do we really have to call a person of color a “monkey”?

      The guy’s a putz, but dehumanizing him is wrong.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 4:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mike
      mike

      as an ex-gay, I hope that the moronic rantings of Tam is seen for what it is, and i asure you I’m no hoax….

      Jan 22, 2010 at 4:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mike
      mike

      Monkies ? I have heard much worse from Gay people, much, much worse

      Jan 22, 2010 at 4:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 33 · FakeName wrote, “B sez: ‘you need to read comments in context. I was commenting on another person’s comments about Tam and why “fantasy-land” is not the issue but bias is.’ Bias is not the only or even the primary issue and your answer in whatever context makes it seem that it is.”

      I.e., you can’t read in context – we were talking about Tam. The only thing Tam had to offer besides some schadenfreude at watching him squirm was an illustration of how biased the Prop 8 people are.

      Showing bias is the only reason Olsen and Boies called Tam as a witness (a hostile one).

      Jan 22, 2010 at 5:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 33 · FakeName wrote, “B sez: ‘BTW, while LGBT is a suspect class in California, it is not fully under federal law.’ It is not at all under federal law. Either something is a suspect class or it isn’t. And I already knew that it isn’t and said so in my post.”

      The full quote was “BTW, while LGBT is a suspect class in California, it is not fully under federal law ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause#Suspect_classes ).” I was obviously summarizing a citation. Here’s the quote since you seem incapable of knowing when to follow a link: “The Supreme Court has seemed unwilling to extend full ‘suspect class’ status (i.e., status that makes a law that categorizes on that basis suspect, and therefore deserving of greater judicial scrutiny) to groups other than racial minorities and religious groups.” That article also refers to “intermediate scrutiny”, citing Koppelman, Andrew (1994). “Why Discrimination against Lesbians and Gay Men is Sex Discrimination”. New York University Law Review 69: 197. ISSN 00287881

      It seems you should be arguing with the wikipedia authors if you disagree.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 5:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 29 · 1EqualityUSA wrote, “Your last paragraph is such a bummer, B.” …. if we are lucky, Obama will get to make another Supreme Court appointment, replacing a conservative, before the case gets there.

      I think Olsen and Boies are cognizant of the risks, which is why they are providing what is hopefully an airtight argument regarding bias. You don’t want to risk delaying progress by several decades due to a bad Supreme Court decision.

      It would be hilarious if some LGBT group gave Tam an award for meritorious service in overturning Proposition Eight, since he might actually deserve it in a twisted sort of way (assuming the decision is favorable).

      Jan 22, 2010 at 5:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      If we showed Mr. William Tam that he’s been given flawed information, he might turn around and confront his own discomfort or fears about same-sex couples. His bigotry might be transient. Coakley losing is a complication. Just as in the case of the nine Supreme Court justices, sometimes the decision rests on the shoulders of just one person. That’s a lot to put on the shoulders of a mere mortal, isn’t it?

      Jan 22, 2010 at 5:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      I’m still trying to figure out why plaintiffs called Tam, and what they wanted to prove by his testimony. Apparently the judge thought it was something important, because a couple of observers reported that the judge was taking a lot of notes during that period.

      I suspect it has something to do with proving animus. Animus, or prejudice, is one of the elements that goes toward “strict scrutiny”.

      Ideally, if I understand correctly, the case will provide “findings of fact” that each element needed for strict scrutiny does exist with regard to G&L class. And also, “findings of fact” that there is not any rational basis for the prohibition on marriage by same-sex couples. Those findings would set up an almost ideal footing for the appeals that are sure to come.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 6:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FakeName
      FakeName

      B sez: I.e., you can’t read in context – we were talking about Tam.

      Perhaps you can’t write in context. Your response began with “The issue is”. Implying that bias is the only issue. You continued “Olsen and Boies are arguing that Proposition Eight should be overturned because it was motivated by bias because a different anti-gay measure was invalidated by a federal court for that reason in another state.” Which is not only an incomplete answer but further implies that this is the only argument. I can’t help it if you don’t write unambiguously.

      B sez: I was obviously summarizing a citation.

      And you did it in such a way as to create the impression that there is such a thing as less than “full strict scrutiny”. Intermediate scrutiny is not “less than full strict scrutiny”.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 6:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FakeName
      FakeName

      Steve sez: Animus, or prejudice, is one of the elements that goes toward “strict scrutiny”.

      No, it isn’t. State actions are subject to strict scrutiny when a suspect class is affected. A class is considered suspect, as I said above, if it is 1) a “discrete” or “insular” minority who 2) possess an immutable trait (except in the case of religion), 3) share a history of discrimination and 4) are powerless to protect themselves via the political process. While animus may be the motivation for the history of discrimination or the powerlessness of the class, it is not legally required to trigger strict scrutiny.

      Where “animus” enters the equation is that under Romer v. Evans the US Supreme Court analyzed Colorado’s Amendmet 2, which repealed all of Colorado’s existing anti-discrimination laws and prevented the passage of any new ones, under rational basis review (the lowest standard and the one the Court has traditionally used for LGBT-related cases). The Court found that animus was the impetus behind the amendment and that animus against homosexuals was not a “legitimate state interest”, the relevant standard.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 6:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      FakeName, There are two tiers now, some got married and now some cannot, due to one set of Americans beliefs that another set of Americans should be excluded from the contractual language called, “marriage.” Is this not “legitimate state interest”? It won’t fly. Equality is inevitable.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 7:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      @FakeName:
      Thank you. I think I understand now. This is part of showing absence of rational basis. By showing that a principle acted without factual knowledge of the issues, they discredit claims of other rational bases. And, the showing of animus is particularly aimed at meeting the Romer test.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 7:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jake from Boston
      Jake from Boston

      @Mike No. 35 I’m sorry, but you’re still GAY and no amount of “Gay Away” camp is going to change that. Gay is biological, not a “lifestyle choice”. You’ve been brainwashed, and you know you’re going to slip up and suck c*ck one of these days. I just hope you’re not married to a woman and ruin her life because you didn’t tell her when you were dating you used to have sex with guys. I wish you the best of luck and hope you find your path in life that makes you happy.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 7:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 42 · FakeName wrote, “B sez: I.e., you can’t read in context – we were talking about Tam. Perhaps you can’t write in context. Your response began with ‘The issue is’.” Not true at all, so you not only can’t you read in context, but you have a general reading comprehension problem: in No. 17, replying to Robert, I wrote, “Proposition 8 would not be invalidated by the court if it was merely rooted in fantasy land. The issue is rather whether it was rooted in bias or bigotry.”

      Note also what I quoted (Robert’s statement about Tam’s testimony and fantasy land) and the use of the word “rather”. You wouldn’t see “rather” there if I wasn’t referring to something said previously. So either you can’t read (didn’t see the next word in the sentence or understand its useage) or you are dissembling.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 7:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 42 · FakeName wrote, “B sez: I was obviously summarizing a citation. And you did it in such a way as to create the impression that there is such a thing as less than ‘full strict scrutiny’. Intermediate scrutiny is not ‘less than full strict scrutiny’.”

      Still can’t read, can you? I was paraphrasing the terms used in the citation and gave a reference to it, and that citation did use the word “full” in that sense.

      Looks to me like you just want to start a pointless argument.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 7:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 31 · Robert, NYC wrote, “I’m surprised Boies didn’t ask this idiot how he could explain the reason why polygamy is allowed in Islamic cultures?” Because anyone who thought at tad about it would realize that polygamy could have multiple causes, including being still accepted in a culture after thousands of years simply because nobody dropped it.

      Tam might be too much of an idiot (or just too nervous) to think of that, but Prop 8′s lawyers are going to be a lot more astute and can raise such issues during cross examination, sort of guiding Tam along. Then they’d try to harp on that – when they have a weak case, they’ll jump on any possible diversion in order to bury the opposition in BS. So Olsen and Boies have to make sure they don’t give the other side an opening.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 7:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • perhapsnot
      perhapsnot

      I thought kids molested gays ?

      ugh this guy needs to hate on himself more instead of the world.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 8:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FakeName
      FakeName

      @1EqualityUSA sez: There are two tiers now, some got married and now some cannot, due to one set of Americans beliefs that another set of Americans should be excluded from the contractual language called, “marriage.” Is this not “legitimate state interest”?

      I think you are misunderstanding what “legitimate state interest means. It means that the state (or in this case the intervenors since the state has refused to defend this suit) have to show that denying same-sex couples the ability to marry in California serves to further something that is of proper concern to the state. It’s not about “the way things ought to be”; it’s about “to what state purpose is this related?”

      Jan 22, 2010 at 8:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wade macMorrighan
      Wade macMorrighan

      @ FakeName said: “It’s more complex than that. The argument is that marriage is a fundamental right under the Constitution. This has been established in any number of cases, including Loving v. Virginia, the granddaddy of marriage equality cases. Any law that impinges on a fundamental right is subject to one of three levels of review.”

      Incidentally, FN, *I* have heard from a very conservative right-wing troll, who peruses any pro-Gay vid. over at YouTube, and declares (as I’m sure Scalia and his Judicial ilk would) that there is NO fundamental, let alone, Constitutional “right” to marry; those words, he argues, are NOT within that doc. So, when one attempts to argue that Loving v. Virginia declares “marriage to be a human right”, he’s all-too quick to remind us that the Fed. Court ruling explicitly limits marriage rights to bi-racial couples (presumably of the opposite gender). Furthermore, he argues, “the onus” is on us to prove how marriage would be beneficial to the State, rather than crying around that we are left without dignity, equality, or that we are being discriminated against and demonstrably left to feel inferior!

      How would one respond to such arguments in our defense?

      Jan 22, 2010 at 8:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FakeName
      FakeName

      @B: Whatevs, B, I’m not the one who started in with the snide comments.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 8:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Same-sex marriage stabilizes families and points to the couple to be responsible for one another financially, emotionally, and legally. Would that not be beneficial to the state?

      Number 51 FakeName, thanks for spelling it out. I read it three times more. It’s very difficult to understand this.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 8:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FakeName
      FakeName

      Wade MacMorrigan sez: *I* have heard from a very conservative right-wing troll, who peruses any pro-Gay vid. over at YouTube, and declares…that there is NO fundamental, let alone, Constitutional “right” to marry; those words, he argues, are NOT within that doc.

      There are a lot of words that are not within the Constitution yet courts make decisions about them every day. The word “corporation” does not appear, nor does the word “computer” or “automobile” or “broadcast television”; does the Court have no power to rule on issues involving computers or cars, corporations or television?

      Further, the Ninth Amendment specifically states that just because a right is not enumerated within the Constitution that does not mean that the right does not exist.

      Wade continues: So, when one attempts to argue that Loving v. Virginia declares “marriage to be a human right”, he’s all-too quick to remind us that the Fed. Court ruling explicitly limits marriage rights to bi-racial couples (presumably of the opposite gender).

      There is nothing in the text of Loving that specifically limits its scope either to bi-racial couples or to mixed-sex couples. There have been at least two marriage rights cases that rely on Loving (and other cases) that establish marriage as a fundamental right. This is well-settled law. Further, those cases (Zablocki v. Redhail and Turner v. Safley) found that denying the right to marry violates both the Equal Protection (Zablocki) and the Due Process (Turner) clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. On the latter case, Scalia was in the majority that confirmed again that marriage is a fundamental right and in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas Scalia wrote that the decision probably makes anti-marriage laws unsustainable. Scalia hates to contradict himself, so it’ll be interesting to see if he really thinks that Lawrence mandates striking down anti-SSM laws.

      Wade MacMorrighan sez: Furthermore, he argues, “the onus” is on us to prove how marriage would be beneficial to the State…

      Nonsense. There is no obligation on the plaintiffs to prove any such thing. Ask him on what case law or statute he bases this legal conclusion.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 9:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lukas P.
      Lukas P.

      We have very legal-savvy people arguing here, and I’m trying — as a non-attorney — to figure out the BASICS of (a) what is agreed on and (b) what the dispute is over. If someone could explain that in terms that the average person (like me) can grasp, I would be very grateful.

      Thanks in advance!
      lukas p.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 9:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 53 · FakeName wrote, “@B: Whatevs, B, I’m not the one who started in with the snide comments.” LOL. You went on about it being “more complex than that” when in fact you failed to notice the context – we were talking about Tam and why bias, not his fantasies, was the issue (regarding why Tam was a witness).

      Jan 23, 2010 at 3:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      @Lukas P.:

      As a readable, English explanation of what this is all about,
      this is pretty good:

      http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/our-work/perry-v-schwarzenegger/

      Jan 23, 2010 at 4:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lukas P.
      Lukas P.

      @Steve: Thanks for the link! That clears up a lot. I’ve been following coverage of the hearings every day, [thanks BoxTurtleBulletin.com!] but B and FakeName are, sadly, much more focused on battles of “ego vs ego” than on helping the rest of the us follow the issues at stake.

      Ever since “B.” and “FName” started going back and forth I was trying to keep track of what’s what, who’s who, etc., but I was losing sight of what they were butting heads about. Maybe they forgot or don’t care that non-attorneys were watching their debate and couldn’t keep score or weigh in without legal counsel present?

      Tam’s own words showed that ignorance and religiosity caused him to get fired up and involved in an issue he didn’t take the time to fully research and understand. He wasn’t alone in buying the anti gay marriage “party line” but as a “hostile witness” he may show that “animus” fueled the Prop 8 supporters, rather than facts, logic, or research.

      Jan 23, 2010 at 7:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sixsixpalmsprings
      sixsixpalmsprings

      @Jaroslaw: Run from him? If the Republican party’s past performance is any indication, I’d say the only running he’ll be doing is as Sarah Palin’s running mate!

      Jan 23, 2010 at 8:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      B #49, thank you.

      FakeName #43:

      You said…”State actions are subject to strict scrutiny when a suspect class is affected. A class is considered suspect, as I said above, if it is 1) a “discrete” or “insular” minority who 2) possess an immutable trait (except in the case of religion), 3) share a history of discrimination and 4) are powerless to protect themselves via the political process. While animus may be the motivation for the history of discrimination or the powerlessness of the class, it is not legally required to trigger strict scrutiny.”

      In number 2, would you describe sexual orientation an immutable trait? I’m sure you don’t. Personally, I don’t just as I believe a heterosexual orientation isn’t. As for religion, I would strongly state that religion is immutable. My reason for saying that is that nobody comes into this world religious, its learned behavior. People freely and willingly choose to believe for the most part. Or am I totally misconstruing what you said in your discussion with Steve in regard to strict scrutiny? My apologies if I am.

      Jan 23, 2010 at 9:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FakeName
      FakeName

      Again, B, what-the-fuck-ever. If your pissy attitude and denialism give you comfort, then bless.

      Jan 23, 2010 at 9:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FakeName
      FakeName

      Robert, NYC sez: In number 2, would you describe sexual orientation an immutable trait? I’m sure you don’t. Personally, I don’t just as I believe a heterosexual orientation isn’t. As for religion, I would strongly state that religion is immutable. My reason for saying that is that nobody comes into this world religious, its learned behavior. People freely and willingly choose to believe for the most part.

      “Immutable” means “unchangeable”. The evidence strongly suggests that sexual orientation (as opposed to sexual behaviour) is unchangeable. That’s why the plaintiffs called witnesses to discuss the failure of reparative therapy and such. Religion is changeable, but because of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion the courts have deemed state actions that impinge on religion to be subject to strict scrutiny.

      Jan 23, 2010 at 9:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      FakeName, my fault. You’re right, immutable most certainly does mean not subject to change, I stand corrected.

      If you recall, John Boehner, house republican minority leader recently stated in regard to denying same-sex marriage that religion is immutable while homosexuality isn’t. He obviously buys into the ex-gay mythology. I find it ironic that not one democrat has countered that statement. Truly amazing. If he’s saying that ours is changeable, then that must apply to heterosexuals too, but he and others of his ilk will argue that point by saying they were born “normal” and cannot be changed of course.

      Jan 23, 2010 at 11:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • soul_erosion
      soul_erosion

      @No.21WADE MACMORRIGHAN:”Hey, if it was proven that NOM (via Brian Brown) was directly involved with Protect Marriage, why was this not specificly made blatantly clear by Boies..?” Wade, I was certainly wondering the same thing during this short exchange:

      (B=Boies, T=Tam)
      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 Brian Brown and why is he speaking for us?” Who is the “US” there?
      T: Those people who are within the ProtectMarriage.com
      B: Including you and Traditional Family Coalition
      T: To a certain extent, yes

      I was so hoping the next two questions would have been,(1) What was said by Brian Brown that made you ask that question?and when and where did he say it? and (2) What was Lynn Feschell’s answer to your inquiry?

      Jan 23, 2010 at 2:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 62 · FakeName wrote, “Again, B, what-the-fuck-ever. If your pissy attitude and denialism give you comfort, then bless.” “Prissy attitude” for suggesting that you quote people accurately (not using “starts with” to describe three words in the second sentence of a comment that clearly refers to the first sentence)? LOL.

      Jan 23, 2010 at 7:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 59 · Lukas P. wrote, “Ever since “B.” and “FName” started going back and forth I was trying to keep track of what’s what, who’s who, etc., but I was losing sight of what they were butting heads about. Maybe they forgot or don’t care that non-attorneys were watching their debate and couldn’t keep score or weigh in without legal counsel present?”

      It’s not really a legal debate. I made a comment, replying to Robert about Tam and why what was of interest was not his fantasies but his bias. FName probably skimmed it, didn’t realize the context, and went on about how it was “more complex than that”, when it wasn’t at all regarding Tam. That’s mostly because Tam has nothing meaningful to contribute other than to be a poster boy for prejudice. Showing bias (bias due to hatred, not bias due to sloppiness) implies animus, which is one of the factors leading to a Colorado amendment being overturned.

      Olsen and Boies are simply checking off items on a list, with a goal of then showing that all the preconditions needed to overturn Proposition Eight (given the Romer v Evans decision) are met. They may make other arguments as well with a goal of getting as much mileage as possible, but naturally they would want a more or less airtight argument that would ensure that they win.

      Jan 23, 2010 at 8:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lukas P.
      Lukas P.

      Still waiting for the keen legal minds of “B” and “FakeName” to explain what they agree on and where they differ — in terms those of us who are not attorneys can grasp.

      Por favor. S’il vous plait. Om Ni vill. Per piacere. Please.

      Jan 23, 2010 at 8:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lukas P.
      Lukas P.

      @B: Sorry, our posts crossed. Typing isn’t anything I do quickly.

      So, for those of us who didn’t take the LSAT or pursue the JD, can someone (anyone) tell me if the Prop 8 defenders and anti Prop 8sters seems to have the upper hand, the advantage, the best arguments so far?

      Jan 23, 2010 at 8:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Read post #53 at the queerty article about gay Inc, LukasP. Interesting notion written by Steve. Here’s the link, or you can just scroll back to the board and click on it.

      http://www.queerty.com/gay-inc-is-starting-a-new-secret-group-to-do-everything-hrc-co-cannot-this-sounds-like-a-terrible-idea-20100122/

      Jan 23, 2010 at 11:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lukas P.
      Lukas P.

      Thanks, @1EQUALITYUSA. (#70) That does clear up a big part of the debate! Tam’s testmony and his ill-informed support of Prop 8 seem to show that that opposition to same-sex marriage is based on hatred, prejudice, bad data and animus, rather than anything related to what’s in the best interest of the state of California, its citizens, economy, or families.

      Meanwhile B and FakeName prefer to engage in “legal ego v. legal ego” rather than conversing with mere mortals such as myself!

      Jan 23, 2010 at 11:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kris
      Kris

      Did this man have any type of education?!? I mean for someone who blames everything on “homesexuality” causing all of these “pedophilia,incestry, and palygamy”, is he absolutely fucking nuts?? That is not education, that is bigotry. PERIOD.

      Jan 24, 2010 at 2:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Who knows what his parents did to him.

      Jan 24, 2010 at 10:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FakeName
      FakeName

      @B: Jesus, you’re still going on about this? How important is it to you that everyone agree that you’re right, that you have to make this many posts about it?

      Jan 24, 2010 at 10:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FakeName
      FakeName

      Lukas P sez: So, for those of us who didn’t take the LSAT or pursue the JD, can someone (anyone) tell me if the Prop 8 defenders and anti Prop 8sters seems to have the upper hand, the advantage, the best arguments so far?

      I haven’t read the transcripts but the coverage I’ve seen suggests that the plaintiffs have the stronger argument at the moment. This is not surprising since only the plaintiffs have presented their case. The defense begins Monday.

      Jan 24, 2010 at 10:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 69 · Lukas P. asked, “So, for those of us who didn’t take the LSAT or pursue the JD, can someone (anyone) tell me if the Prop 8 defenders and anti Prop 8sters seems to have the upper hand, the advantage, the best arguments so far?”

      … the defense (the pro-Prop8 side) has not yet presented its case. It’s premature to say which side has an advantage until the defense finishes (the plaintiffs just did and the defense has not yet started to present its case, but should start tomorrow).

      So far, Olsen and Boies have made a reasonable argument that Proposition Eight puts gays at a disadvantage and that Prop 8 was introduced as the result of prejudice (implying animus). They seem to be succeeding in showing that all the preconditions needed to invalidate Proposition Eight on the basis of existing court decisions hold. The defense will most likely bring in witnesses to dispute as much of that as possible (but they’ll have a hard time showing there was no animus after their poster child Tam was trotted out and after a letter from the Mormons regarding “plausible deniability” was introduced – you don’t talk about plausible deniability unless you are up to no good).

      Jan 24, 2010 at 4:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lukas P.
      Lukas P.

      @FakeName & @B. Thanks for the updates and clarifications. I’ve been reading the daily recaps (such as over at Box Turtle Bulletin) but get lost sometmes on the procedural issues. I appreciate the big picture AND the specifics you two provide.

      Jan 24, 2010 at 5:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FakeName
      FakeName

      They have also laid a strong foundation for viewing sexual orientation as a suspect classification, by introducing testimony about the immutability of sexual orientation and the lack of political power we have. Ironically, the fact that voters pass anti-gay initiatives so frequently may ultimately be the linchpin that secures LGBT rights.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_ballot_initiatives_to_repeal_LGBT_anti-discrimination_laws

      Jan 24, 2010 at 5:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 74 · FakeName wrote, “@B: Jesus, you’re still going on about this? How important is it to you that everyone agree that you’re right, that you have to make this many posts about it?” LOL – I was merely insisting that you respond to what I actually said in context!

      Jan 24, 2010 at 8:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 72 · Kris wrote, “Did this man have any type of education?!? I mean for someone who blames everything on ‘homesexuality’ causing all of these ‘pedophilia,incestry, and palygamy’, is he absolutely fucking nuts?? That is not education, that is bigotry. PERIOD.”

      Other sources indicate that he has a doctorate and one mentioned chemical engineering. Hopefully he is a lot more objective at work, but what he is doing for Prop 8 has nothing to do with what he supposedly studied.

      He probably figured he was simply collecting “talking points” for a religious group and never expected to have to justify that stuff to anyone.

      Jan 24, 2010 at 8:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bianca
      Bianca

      What a fuckin’ idiot! I guess the millions of girls everywhere past, present and future that have been (and will be) molested and raped, were raped by gay men/lesbians, right?

      Jan 25, 2010 at 1:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      #78 FakeName….I only hope you’re right about that. Imagine if the court rules in our favor and what that portends for Maine, New York and New Jersey. Its all well and good to have legislatures approving our equality but if the courts are the only resort left to us, then I say lets go for it, using the hopefully positive outcome in California as a precedent. The next target for NOM et al is Iowa.

      Jan 25, 2010 at 10:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      #80 B….it doesn’t matter if Tam is educated or not. There are many highly educated homophobes out there. We have one right here in NYS called William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a watchdog that keeps an eye on the media and catholic bashing. He holds a doctorate in sociology and claims that pedophilia = homosexuality, period. He also claims that pedophilia has low incidences among the straight population which we all know isn’t true. People believe it though. Even the most ignorant people can be pro equality, so don’t fall for the education thing. Means nothing.

      Jan 25, 2010 at 10:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • art
      art

      “I said I felt like naughty boy being put in front of a classroom and being mocked at,” he said.

      He should feel like a criminal who was put on trial and had all of his fear mongering lies exposed.

      Jan 25, 2010 at 10:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      FakeName, In post #78:

      “Ironically, the fact that voters pass anti-gay initiatives so frequently may ultimately be the linchpin that secures LGBT rights.”

      This is delicious.

      Jan 25, 2010 at 10:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 83 · Robert, NYC “#80 B….it doesn’t matter if Tam is educated or not.” …. except that I was replying to No. 72, where Kris asked what sort of education he had! It was more than sufficient for him to know what sort of critical questions you could be asked for spouting nonsense. Since he didn’t like being turned into a laughing stock in court, I’d surmise that he originally thought he would never be questioned on any of it, and wanted “out” when he found out that his assumption was false.

      Since he is supposed to have a doctorate in chemical engineering, he would have had to defend a dissertation. That includes having a some professors throw rocks at any hokey assumptions and wishful thinking in it. So he probably had a good idea of what to expect from Boies and realized just how painfully he’d be called on the BS he had previously spouted. No wonder he wanted to drop out!

      Jan 25, 2010 at 4:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      #60 about RR & Rethuglicans (should be) running away from Tam – sadly, you’re probably right about him as a possible candidate!

      I’m probably a bit late to join the brouhaha but I think everyone here is missing a major point.

      First I’m not saying I agree with this, but most people are historically ignorant and to the masses and even to our supposedly educated classes, marriage has “always” been between a man and a woman. To ignore the idea that two men or two women marrying is a new twist ignores how deeply people feel about this at a gut level, religious level or whatever. This includes lawyers, legislators and judges.

      To me at least, this is a major reason why equality is moving so slowly. Otherwise, it seems plain that court decisions that declare “marriage is the most personal, fundamental right etc.” would have applied to us long ago.

      Jan 26, 2010 at 8:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bob
      Bob

      Actually… the Netherlands no longer prosecutes consensual incest. Is that because of gay marriage? Probably not directly. But all issues concerning restrictions on marriage are related. Sweden, for example, now allows sibling marriages.

      So, despite your title, I notice that your post only contradicts the polygamy claim… because the incest claim is actually half-true.

      Come on — be honest about these things here. Breaking down various marriage taboos is going to lead to breaking down others as well.

      As for the idiot spouting crap about pedophilia… that’s another problem.

      Jan 28, 2010 at 11:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      No. 88 Bob…..your claim that the Netherlands allows sibling marriages in innacurate. It applies only to half-siblings. The U.S. allows first cousins to legally marry, on the books for many years, long before same-sex marriage was in anybody’s consciousness but is not considered incest. In this society underage children are allowed to marry and have sex, in some states, the minimum age is 14, others 16. So what does that say about same-sex marriage? Then there was polygamy sanctioned by the Mormons in the 19th century and later abolished. Hardly the fault of homosexuality. Its quite clear that same-sex marriage has absolutely not had any impact on any of it, just as it had nothing to do with Islam permitting polygamy to this very day.

      Moronic idiot Tam probably believes that same-sex marriage caused Governor Sanford and John Edwards to commit adultery and in Edwards case, father a child out of wedlock, both marriage equality foes. Tam’s statement is absurd.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 8:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      (thanks Robert NYC good answer)

      But another thought – legalization doesn’t necessarily increase behaviors of any stripe, it just allows them to be out in the open without penalty.

      I could say other things, which I will limit myself to one more- I don’t see too many siblings marrying each other even if they could.

      Feb 3, 2010 at 3:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jamie
      Jamie

      “…because this is very important for Asian families.”

      When did this start involving Asian families exclusively?

      Feb 8, 2010 at 2:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.