Federal Prop 8 Trial to Hear Closing Arguments on June 16

Federal Prop 8 Trial to Hear Closing Arguments on June 16

Expert blogger (BeyondChron) Paul Hogarth liveblogged the federal Prop 8 trial hearing Wednesday morning for the Courage Campaign’sProp 8 Trial Tracker.  After discussing different dates for final motions on testimony and discovery compliance (Equality California turned over 4,500 documents, including emails), Judge Vaughn Walker set June 16 at 10:am as the date and time for closing arguments in the historic federal challenge to the constitutionality of Prop 8.

Yusef Robb, spokesperson for the American Foundation for Equal Rights, noted that the date must still be worked out with the attorneys’ schedules. AFER Board President Chad Griffin said:

“Kris, Sandy, Paul and Jeff, and millions of Americans like them, simply want to get married, just like their friends and neighbors can. Proposition 8 denies fundamental Constitutional rights and does so for no good reason. Today’s move toward closing arguments brings us that much closer to full equality for every American.”

In an analysis of the hearing, Hogarth noted that Walker also set a date for the defense counsel – the Yes on 8 side – to submit their motion to try to delete portions Dr. Tam’s testimony.  As Ireported last January, Tam was on a video (since taken down) shown in court as representing the Traditional Values Coalition. He was the first to refused to testify in open court for fear of attacks by No on Prop 8 supporters. Through the defenders-interveners, he has asked that part of his testimony – which was submitted by the legal team of Ted Olson/David Boies representing the plaintiffs – be stricken from the record. According to Hogarth’s blog, Walker  said: “I am inclined to grant the defense motion for Dr. Tam’s reconsideration, and want their submission by May 6 and have plaintiffs objection by May 10.”

Covering the trial for The Bilerico Project, Davina Kotulski reported this:

Dr. Tam via pre-recorded video:

Dr. Tam – I communicated with Ron Prentiss, Andrew Pugno, Frank Schubert…I organized several rallies in support of Prop 8 attended by thousands of voters and raised several thousand dollars and support from the Asian-American community.”

Deposing Attorney – How did you attract people?

Dr. Tam – Notices of rallies at churches.

Deposing Attorney – Were these venuespublic?

Dr. Tam – Yeah. China Town Square. Names some Memorial Park.

Deposing Attorney – Who attended the rallies?

Dr. Tam mentions many clergy members and Ron Prentiss and Tony Perkins.

Statement by Dr. Tam as summarized by Professor Chauncey:

Chauncey summarizes Dr. Tam’s remarks. “This is anti-gay rhetoric, it describes the right to marry as the legalization of prostitution, put forth by San Francisco city government (which is under rule of homosexuals) and forced on the people. The next step after gay marriage is legalizing sex with children.”

[cut]

Video shows Dr. Tam describing the Gay Agenda.

“It is legalizing sex with children. Google it,” he says. When asked by the deposing attorney is he believes this is true. He evokes his 1^st amendment right that he doesn’t have to say if believes this.

Tam goes on to express his concern that if gay marriage were legal it would lead not only to legalizing sex with children, but “every child would grow up thinking they could marry John or Jane.”

Dr. Tam expressed concern that because of gay marriage, “My daughter wanted to experiment with girls and had trouble getting boys. So the girls tried girls. The children did an experiment.”

He also expressed concern about gays calling marriage a civil right. He said, “It’s a concern to Asian Americans that gays call it civil rights; civil rights is about skin color. I cannot change it. If homosexuals portray themselves as a minority then any sex preference can become a minority.”

And, in fact, LGBT people are the minority, but as we continue to grow as a society, we will be a part of a majority of people who believe in equality for LGBTQ people.

Here’s part of Hogarth’s analysis:

“So what happens if Dr. Tam’s testimony is taken out?  Dr. Tam was powerful evidence that Prop 8 was driven by animus and a hatred of homosexuals, which would be enough to strike Prop 8 — even under the more lenient “rational basis” grounds set up in Romer v. Evans (1996.)

But while Dr. Tam’s testimony is damning and it should be kept in, there was a whole lot of other evidence that our side presented.  In fact, when it came time for the defense to produce their “experts,” there wasn’t a whole lot of reason they could provide.

If it’s impossible to dream up a “rational” basis for deny LGBT people the right to marry the person they love, and all the reasons the defense provides is merely a subterfuge for bigotry, Prop 8 must be found unconstitutional.

Dr. Tam’s testimony was the most dramatic and forceful, but our side put on a good case tying other “rationales” for Prop 8 to be simply animus.  In fact, I would argue the strongest witness we had for our side was San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders — who explained how he came to the realization that his so-called “friendly” reasons for opposing gay marriage had merely been based out of irrational discomfort.”

As I reported last January, Hak-Shing William Tam asked in his four-page filing to not appear:

“I want to voluntarily withdraw for several reasons. The first reason is because I am fearful for my personal safety and the safety of my family. In the past I have received threats on my life, had property vandalized and am recognized on the streets due to my association with Proposition 8. Now that the subject lawsuit is going to trial, I fear that I will get more publicity, be more recognizable and that the risk of harm to me and my family will increase.”

This has since been picked up as a rallying cry – which the right wing is now using in the Protect Marriage case before the Washington Supreme Court. Please see the report from the Center for American Progress – “Voters as Victims: A Right-Wing Sleight of Hand.”