The first of John Ireland’s Perry trial reenactments is online. And it’s every bit as boring as sitting through a real trial might be! But man are we enjoying the puss on Judge Vaughn Walker’s face as he deals with these imbeciles before the court.
I hope you struggled to decide what the title of this story would be. Someone’s actually lifting a finger to help us visualize what’s happening in this trial for those of us who aren’t local and can’t see it in person…and you have to TRASH them for being dull? I generally like this site but that headline sucks. We don’t need brats right now, we need hope for the best and thank anyone who gives a crap about trying to help us follow this case.
Dear Queerty editors, this headline should read: Valiant Filmmakers Snub Their Noses At United States Supreme Court
Actually, this can’t possibly be the first ep. because it’s only a few mins. long! In fact, according to the actual website, this “ep.”, here is more of an appetizer for things to come. http://marriagetrial.com/
This blog’s attitude stinks.
The video is boring (just sound bytes) but the real trial isn’t. Here’s what’s going on this afternoon (Tam just started to testify). The transcript below is from the prop8trialtracker site. They are just getting started on grilling Tam.
(In the following, ‘B’ is Boies, ‘T’ is Tam)
B: She addressed this to you as leadership of the Protect Marriage dot com? You were part of the leadership?
T: She did that to be nice. I don’t think I’m part of core group.
B: What do you mean by core group?
T: I don’t know but I heard you talking about core group while sitting in the courtroom and I know I’m not part of it.
B: So that’ something you picked up in the course of this trial?
B: You sent an email on April 26, 2008. You remember that you said Fishel was just being nice to you when she called you part of the PM.com leadership?
Thompson objects that is attorney client priv.
Judge: Email sent by the witness?
Judge: Objection overruled.
B: You say in this email that Tam is playing major role to limit marriage to one man and one woman. You say that you worked closely with PM.com to collect 1.2 million signatures.
T: Yes. I played a major role. I spent a lot of time setting up petitions and collecting them. Worked with PM.com to get petitions off to Chinese churches. True statement, working closely with them (PM.com).
T: This document contain a lot of sensitive numbers that I would not like to disclose to public.
Thompson: I object. Attorneys eyes-only. Salary numbers. Budget numbers. Information about Dr. Tam’s family. Falls strictly into attorneys’ eyes-only.
T: This letter is my letter to pastors and leaders. Most of the things I’m talking is my personal information and they will be offended if this is in the public eye.
B: We’ll be happy to redact everything after those two sentences. I’m not sure I agree with Mr. Tam’s counsel, but in the spirit of cooperation, we’ll agree to redact.
Judge: Very well. That should take care of the problem.
B: Shows document in which Tam says that we cannot lose 8 because it is god’s definition of marriage.
T: Other reasons it is very important that next generation understands the meaning of marriage. That our children not grow up fantasizing about should I grow up to marry John or Jane when I grow up. This is very important for the stability of Asian families.
B: You want the next generations to be educated about the historical meaning of marrying?
B: To prevent gays and lesbians from marrying?
T: I did not think of it that way.
B: You support civil unions, equal rights in house for gays?
T: I have not come to a conclusion on that.
B: You consider yourself hostile to gays and lesbians.
T: No, I don’t.
B: let me ask you about website Onemanonewoman.net
T: You are familiar with that?
Judge: Lay foundation?
B: Dr. Tam, may I have your attention? What is your connection to this website?
T: Part of group called America Return to God Prayer Movement.
B: Your relationship to that group?
T: I’m secretary of that group.
B: Who else is in that group?
T: Various Chinese pastors.
B: If you saw something on the website that you did not approve of, you’d tell them?
T: Yes, but they might not listen.
B: What did you want to put on or take off that they did not do?
T: I objected to mention of bestiality on website?
B: And they left it on the website?
T: I don’t know.
B: Why did you object to this reference to bestiality?
T: Because it is not related to homosexuality.
Comments are closed.