Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Opponents of California's ban on gay marriage are using an anti-gay activist's claims against him in a landmark gay marriage trial taking place in San Francisco.
Lawyers working to have Proposition 8 -- California's ban on gay marriage -- overturned as unconstitutional played a videotape of William Tam, a leading proponent of Proposition 8, arguing that allowing gay marriage would lead to the legalization of sex with children.
Opponents of Prop 8, who launched the constitutional challenge, are using Tam's comments "to buttress the contention that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional because it was fueled by deep-seated animosity against gays," reports the Associated Press.
Earlier this week, as the trial got underway, Tam asked to have himself removed from the case, in which he was acting as a defendant. (Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Attorney General Jerry Brown, who are named as the defendants in the lawsuit, declined to defend Prop 8, leaving the court to appoint Prop 8 backers as defendants.)
Tam, one of the principal mobilizers of the movement to pass Proposition 8, had argued that he wanted out because the publicity surrounding the case was endangering him and his family.
''In the past I have received threats on my life, had my property vandalized and am recognized on the streets due to my association with Proposition 8,'' Tam told the court. ''Now that the subject lawsuit is going to trial, I fear I will get more publicity, be more recognizable and that the risk of harm to me and my family will increase.''
But blogger Timothy Kincaid, writing at Box Turtle Bulletin, didn't believe that explanation, and argued that Tam's decision to withdraw had everything to do with his prior statements that gay marriage would lead to legalized child rape.
[Tam's] concerns about being recognized didnt seem to have dissuaded Bill Tam from giving interviews and making videos and participating in debates during the campaign.
And the worrisome issues didnt give him enough concern to keep him from petitioning the court in May 2009 to be added as a defendant.
And Tam provides no instances since May in which anyone recognizing him has been anything other than friendly.
Kincaid pointed to news reports that Tam had sent a letter to his supporters in which he outlined the "disastrous consequences" of gay marriage to California.
"One by one, other states would fall into Satan's hands," Tam reportedly wrote. "Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex. More children would become homosexuals."
Lawyers challenging Prop 8 played a video of a deposition Tam gave the court in December during the testimony of Yale law professor George Chauncey, who is testifying in favor of gay marriage. In the deposition, Tam describes the letter he sent out linking gay marriage to child sex.
The San Jose Mercury-News live blog of the trial reports that Chauncey said Tam's letter "is consistent in tone with a much larger history of anti-gay rhetoric."
Lawyers for Prop 8 supporters argued that homosexuals do not need to be protected from discrimination because the US has become more tolerant towards gays and other minorities.
"The bottom line is that there has been a significant shift in public opinion toward acceptance of gay rights, correct?" Prop 8 lawyer David Thompson asked, as quoted at the Mercury-News blog.
"There has been a shift in public opinion and growing support for gay people, and gay people continue to encounter enormous hostility," Chauncey replied.
He wants out after having went all over the media and the state of CA. spreading his hateful lies and propaganda?SAN FRANCISCO—Lawyers seeking to overturn California's same-sex marriage ban are opposing attempts by a defendant to drop out of the federal case.
Hak-Shing William Tam had voluntarily joined the case to support sponsors of California's Proposition 8 in the trial challenging its constitutionality. A judge approved Tam and four others to "intervene" because California Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to defend the ban.
But Tam told the judge last week that the case was more time-consuming than expected and that he feared it would expose him to retribution from gay marriage supporters.
Plaintiffs lawyers scoffed at Tam's claims in a court filing late Tuesday.
The lawyers say allowing Tam to drop out now is unfair because they spent time preparing for his testimony.
To "prove" their case, the plaintiffs must show that California has no legitimate -- let alone compelling -- interest in regulating who gets married. So the witnesses are "testifying" about the history and meaning of marriage, the profoundness of their love for one another, the morality of homosexuality and animus about gays. Guess what. Legal procedure won't resolve these "facts."
The participants in Perry are already on camera, like it or not. The case is part of a national drama over gay rights in which the participants choose to take a part. There is one legitimate concern about cameras. Opponents of Proposition 8 have used modern technology to "out" the donors to the campaign against gay marriage, and some of the latter have been harassed.
This sort of behavior is troubling no matter who engages in it; the law protected donor lists to the NAACP in the South for similar reasons. But, as the Supreme Court dissent pointed out, the witnesses already are fully in the public eye.
The current trial is but the first step on a ladder that was always designed to end in the Supreme Court. Cases like Perry have almost nothing to do with the parties in them (though those parties will surely be affected). They are aimed at social change, and in this dispute, some see the Supreme Court as the brass ring.
The thing about social change through the courts is that it invariably rests on what the broader public thinks. Consider the famous social change cases: Brown vs. Board of Education on segregation in public schools; almost any abortion case; Lawrence vs. Texas on gay rights and anti-sodomy laws. In these cases the court did not buck or define social views so much as confirm them. More and more, for better or for worse, Supreme Court decisions on social issues reflect opinion polls.
That's why the plaintiffs in Perry want the trial televised, and the defendants do not. There's a huge national to and fro going on over gay marriage. The plaintiffs hope to out the opposition to gay marriage as nothing but irrational hatefulness. The trial record is intended to be Exhibit A in the Supreme Court. But to prevail, the plaintiffs and their supporters ultimately must capture the hearts and minds of the American people.
what does immie think?But blogger Timothy Kincaid, writing at Box Turtle Bulletin, didn't believe that explanation, and argued that Tam's decision to withdraw had everything to do with his prior statements that gay marriage would lead to legalized child rape.
[Tam's] concerns about being recognized didnt seem to have dissuaded Bill Tam from giving interviews and making videos and participating in debates during the campaign.
And the worrisome issues didnt give him enough concern to keep him from petitioning the court in May 2009 to be added as a defendant.
And Tam provides no instances since May in which anyone recognizing him has been anything other than friendly.
What matters is that Prop. 8, is a petition seeking to take away a right already granted as legal by the courts.""to buttress the contention that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional because it was fueled by deep-seated animosity against gays,""
I hate prop 8 as well but why should this matter?
Shouldn't all that matter is whether or not the law coincides with the limits the government has and the rights granted to citizens?
If a good law was made for really stupid reasons should it be thrown out?
Opponents of California's ban on gay marriage are using an anti-gay activist's claims against him in a landmark gay marriage trial taking place in San Francisco.
Lawyers working to have Proposition 8 -- California's ban on gay marriage -- overturned as unconstitutional played a videotape of William Tam, a leading proponent of Proposition 8, arguing that allowing gay marriage would lead to the legalization of sex with children.
Opponents of Prop 8, who launched the constitutional challenge, are using Tam's comments "to buttress the contention that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional because it was fueled by deep-seated animosity against gays," reports the Associated Press.
Earlier this week, as the trial got underway, Tam asked to have himself removed from the case, in which he was acting as a defendant.
what does immie think?But blogger Timothy Kincaid, writing at Box Turtle Bulletin, didn't believe that explanation, and argued that Tam's decision to withdraw had everything to do with his prior statements that gay marriage would lead to legalized child rape.
[Tam's] concerns about being recognized didnt seem to have dissuaded Bill Tam from giving interviews and making videos and participating in debates during the campaign.
And the worrisome issues didnt give him enough concern to keep him from petitioning the court in May 2009 to be added as a defendant.
And Tam provides no instances since May in which anyone recognizing him has been anything other than friendly.
""to buttress the contention that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional because it was fueled by deep-seated animosity against gays,""
I hate prop 8 as well but why should this matter?
Shouldn't all that matter is whether or not the law coincides with the limits the government has and the rights granted to citizens?
If a good law was made for really stupid reasons should it be thrown out?
what does immie think?But blogger Timothy Kincaid, writing at Box Turtle Bulletin, didn't believe that explanation, and argued that Tam's decision to withdraw had everything to do with his prior statements that gay marriage would lead to legalized child rape.
[Tam's] concerns about being recognized didnt seem to have dissuaded Bill Tam from giving interviews and making videos and participating in debates during the campaign.
And the worrisome issues didnt give him enough concern to keep him from petitioning the court in May 2009 to be added as a defendant.
And Tam provides no instances since May in which anyone recognizing him has been anything other than friendly.
I don't see anywhere in the posts that you made, that shows that he was a liar.
What I see is a blogger that says he is inconsistent.
And we all know bloggers are always right.
Immie
true, but you're not in class.limits on the rights of government isn't really the issue.
the real issues is whether the state can utilize it's right to determine status (e.g., marriage) can be used in such manner that it would deny the status of marriage to people because of their sexual orientation. (so the argument is one of equal protection).
oh...and that's why it matters... because you can't adversely act against a suspect class on an issue of fundamental rights because of prejudice.
what does immie think?But blogger Timothy Kincaid, writing at Box Turtle Bulletin, didn't believe that explanation, and argued that Tam's decision to withdraw had everything to do with his prior statements that gay marriage would lead to legalized child rape.
[Tam's] concerns about being recognized didnt seem to have dissuaded Bill Tam from giving interviews and making videos and participating in debates during the campaign.
And the worrisome issues didnt give him enough concern to keep him from petitioning the court in May 2009 to be added as a defendant.
And Tam provides no instances since May in which anyone recognizing him has been anything other than friendly.
I don't see anywhere in the posts that you made, that shows that he was a liar.
What I see is a blogger that says he is inconsistent.
And we all know bloggers are always right.
Immie
true, but you're not in class.limits on the rights of government isn't really the issue.
the real issues is whether the state can utilize it's right to determine status (e.g., marriage) can be used in such manner that it would deny the status of marriage to people because of their sexual orientation. (so the argument is one of equal protection).
oh...and that's why it matters... because you can't adversely act against a suspect class on an issue of fundamental rights because of prejudice.
speak English. LOL
14th amendment...
equal protection and due process? (*tired)
what does immie think?
I don't see anywhere in the posts that you made, that shows that he was a liar.
What I see is a blogger that says he is inconsistent.
And we all know bloggers are always right.
Immie
The blogger didn't merely "say" he was inconsistent, he offered verifiable "proof" that he was inconsistent.
And this has nothing to do with the validity of the claims.
what does immie think?
I don't see anywhere in the posts that you made, that shows that he was a liar.
What I see is a blogger that says he is inconsistent.
And we all know bloggers are always right.
Immie
The blogger didn't merely "say" he was inconsistent, he offered verifiable "proof" that he was inconsistent.
