Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  terrible people

Why Does William Tam Want Out of Perry? Because His ‘Sex With Kids’ Claim Is Hurting the Defense

Hak-Shing William Tam, who has, hilariously, so far not been granted his request to leave the Perry Prop 8 lawsuit, which he volunteered to join as an intervenor, became the star of yesterday’s courtroom when his public letter to Chinese-Americans church groups — arguing gay marriage was only a stepping stone in the radical homosexual agenda to get to the ultimate goal of legalizing sex with children — was presented.

And if California didn’t pass Prop 8? Then “other states would fall into Satan’s hands,” the letter read, as footage of Tam giving a deposition last month played for the court.

David Thompson, representing the defendants ProtectMarriage.com, argued that Tam wasn’t part of the official Prop 8 campaign, and thus his letter wasn’t valid to attach homophobic animus to the case. You know, notwithstanding that ProtectMarriage.com handily added Tam to the list of five defendants-intervenors in Perry.

Oh, so it’s Tam’s ridiculous characterization of the gay agenda that has the defendants looking to remove him? Got it.

ON THE NEXT PAGE: Tam’s full (ridiculous) letter to religious supporters.


  • 18 Comments
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      Whenever someone is obsessed with diddlin’ kiddies it raises a red flag in my mind. Someone shoud see what kind of small skeletons are in Hack Schmuck’s closet……..

      Jan 14, 2010 at 3:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michelle
      Michelle

      Totally with you on why Tam wanted out of the case. It wasn’t because of the impact and abuse that he believed he and his family would suffer it was because he began to realise that his arguments would hinder the case. So far it looks like they definitely are, whether it will act to have a strong enough on the final outcome we’re going to have to wait to find out!

      Jan 14, 2010 at 4:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChadSF
      ChadSF

      If we can’t have the cameras in the court room, we could at least have ALL of the players behind this bigoted proposition in front and exposed. William Tam is a coward and hides behind the cloak of religion, just like everyone in his group. He even posted this Craigslist post on Monday saying that all f****ts are liars.

      http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/rnr/1548312093.html

      and here’s the response he got, lol!

      http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/rnr/1548091961.html

      and here’s his pathetic website:

      http://tfcus.homestead.com/

      Coward!

      Jan 14, 2010 at 5:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      The thing is, it is obvious that the only reason to deny Marriage is due to bigotry. Something like this just makes that fact harder for the justices to gloss over.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 5:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scott ny'er
      scott ny'er

      is Tam a lawyer, doctor or something? If he is well educated, for someone so smart, he’s very stupid.

      And yes, I agree, there’s something suspicious when someone is obsessed with “diddlin’ kiddies”.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 5:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      QUEERTY: David Thompson, representing the defendants ProtectMarriage.com, argued that Tam wasn’t part of the official Prop 8 campaign, and thus his letter wasn’t valid to attach homophobic animus to the case.

      Check out http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=1972 which has a copy of an article written in 2007 that
      mentions Tam, and http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_8 (in Swedish, unfortunately for us) talks about Proposition 8 and indicates that Tam sponsored or introduced it (I think – you’ll have to find someone fluent in Swedish to check.)

      According to http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Live_Blogging_the_Federal_Prop_8_Trial_7710.html William Tam was “one of five official proponents of Prop 8.”

      http://www.minnpost.com/worldcsm/2010/01/14/14960/prop_8_trial_did_animosity_drive_californias_gay_marriage_ban indicates that Tam is the “executive director of Traditional Family Coalition”.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 9:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lukas P.
      Lukas P.

      Lucky for you, you know a Swede! Unfortunately, the Swedish Wikipedia page only lists Tam, Knight, Hollingsworth et al. as parties involved in the case, and the pages hasn’t been “uppdaterad” since the trial started.

      Mr Tam-trum’s own writings could be used, if allowed, to demonstrate the level of anti-gay rhetoric that fueled the proposition. The Prop 8 side would do well to keep him as far as possible.

      I wonder if Mr Tam is aware of the discrimination and bigotry faced by Chinese-Americans when they immigrated to this country and wanted to stay?

      Jan 14, 2010 at 11:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Thanks Lukas. Given a document I just found, Tam definitely was one of the proponents of Proposition 8 (one of the people involved in filing the paperwork necessary before signatures could be gathered).

      http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/prior/2007/DB07_036.pdf has a copy of a document (July 17, 2007) from a California state official naming Tam. Even if not involved in the campaign itself, someone who filed the initiative is obviously a reasonable witness for the plaintiffs to call to determine if the initiative was motivated by bias.

      Jan 15, 2010 at 12:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lukas P.
      Lukas P.

      @B: my legal Swedish is almost non-existant, but I do read the human sexuality research in that language at work! Much easier than legalese to decipher. In any language.

      Thanks for the link to the orig. documents related to Knight, Hollingsworth, Tam et al. Good but scary stuff. Lots of docs out there on file.

      Today’s hearing focused on the economic and social impacts of same-sex marriage, and the witness for our side handled him self very well on cross exam, and has impec credentials. Trying to be objective, I’d say the Pro-Prop 8 folks are grasping at straws so far. Trying to prove that same-sex marriages would harm straight marriages or the (CA) economy will be tough for the Pro side because there aren’t many academics who study that stuff and their conclusions are pretty consistent that marriage has benefits to society, not just to those who marry.

      Jan 15, 2010 at 1:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      B, Thank you for the links. What a sleaze-bag Tam is! They should be so ashamed. No wonder they didn’t want this televised.

      Jan 15, 2010 at 7:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lukas P.
      Lukas P.

      The reason they don’t want the case televised? Bright lights scare cockroaches and other scary prehistoric creatures!

      Jan 15, 2010 at 8:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      Not only is he a hateful scumbag, he is one of the most distrubing looking individuals I have ever seen……..
      he fell from the top of the ugly tree and hit every
      branch on the way down………..

      Jan 15, 2010 at 8:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      No. 1 ยท terrwill

      I/m with you, kiddo!

      Jan 15, 2010 at 3:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jallon
      Jallon

      So failing to pass Prop. 8 = every child wanting to grow up gay. Wow. There must be a pretty powerful inherent desire for all people to be gay. You’d almost think it was a natural inclination or something. At least now we know why it’s so important for marriage to stay between a man and a woman: who the hell in their right mind would marry the opposite sex if they had a choice?

      Jan 16, 2010 at 7:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • James UK
      James UK

      Tam is to be called by the plaintiffs as a hostile witness, towards the end of next week. He was apparently destroyed as a credible witness in the pre-trial deposition phase of the proceedings.

      Whilst we can’t know absolutely yet, it is do do with the stuff on his website and letters, also published there but not exclusively, to his followers which objectively demonstrate animus.

      He has sought to alight from the Prop 8 bus in an attempt to avoid his naked animus being put into evidence, which might cause the court to apply a higher standard of scrutiny. There are 3 levels. If the court applies either strict or heightened(aka intermediate) scrutiny, Prop 8 will fail. Worse, from the defendant’s point of view, there is the risk that LGBT people will be judged to be a protected class and the whole house of cards will collapse, on marriage, DOMA, DADT and the rest.

      He’s gotten off the bus so that the remaining pro-Prop 8 passengers have more room to swing. Don’t imagine for one second that he has been thrown underneath it. If they win, here or at SCOTUS, he’ll be at the celebrations.

      Jan 17, 2010 at 1:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lukas P.
      Lukas P.

      @James UK: So they can’t hide Tam under a rock after all; this is good news!

      Thanks JamesUK for the clear info. I need to do a little research on how hostile witnesses play a role in such a case [big gap in my education]. Loved the “naked animus” phrase. Jung must be smiling!

      There really is a lesson in this for any of us who might want to be activists for/against any cause: Be careful whom you choose to fight your battles with — some “allies” can do your cause more harm than good.

      Jan 17, 2010 at 2:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul
      Paul

      Someone needs to tell that ugly gook to go back to China. He can keep his chink ass beliefs in his run down communist shit hole China. What an ugly mofo too, obviously jealous that he can’t even get a girl with his 2″ penis while most gay guys can get more guys AND girls than he could ever dream of.

      Feb 7, 2010 at 3:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scott ny'er
      scott ny'er

      @Paul: OH NO YOU DIDN’T! I would flag your post but I want everyone to see your racist post. I’ll assume your gay. And really since your gay you should have more understanding of being called names, etc. Your post disgusts me.

      Feb 7, 2010 at 4:21 pm · @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.