Tag Archives: Prop 8 trial

NOM’s Maggie Gallagher Srivastav Attends Dustin Lance Black’s ‘8’ On Broadway Benefit – (Sneaks Food In And Grazes On Munchies In The Balcony).

Last night on Broardway a staged reading play based on last year’s federal court fight over California’s gay marriage ban  using the trial transcript, firsthand observations of the courtroom drama and interviews with the plaintiffs and their families made its Broadway debut on Monday night with an all-star cast. 

Written by Dustin Lance Black and performed to benefit the American Foundation for Equal Rights. The cast included: Morgan Freeman, Ellen Barkin, Anthony Edwards, Bradley Whitford, John Lithgow, Cheyenne Jackson, Campbell Brown, Christine Lahti, Rob Reiner and Larry Kramer, among others.

But according to Towleroad not all the plays characters were on stage.   Maggie Gallagher of NOM had the nerve to go to the play, where she sat in the balcony (And the cow had the nerve to bring a bag of her own munchies!) and then sucked up the limelight after the performance.

Yet the real Gallagher sat up in the balcony apparently having bought a ticket to the benefit. She sat and watched as the drama of the trial played out (she had seen it before, she had participated in it).  So what could Gallagher have hoped to glean from her perch in the balcony? Perhaps she was finally enlightened last night, that her mission is flawed and hateful, that it is futile, that what she has been working for for years destroys families, hurts children, and is ultimately un-American?

I fear that she did not. I fear that what was behind her motivation to sit there and watch her words come out of Houdyshell’s mouth was some sort of ego stroke, a pat on the back, a motivational fuel for her anti-gay engine.

Afterward, she certainly seemed to enjoy the attention she was getting just outside the theatre, even though much of it was negative.

And she obviously knew she was coming for a show. My friends Phil and Ronald sat directly in front of her. You can see Ronald in the top photo. They had a hard time listening to the show because along with her nerve, Ms. Gallagher brought a large plastic bag of loud food, which she rustled and munched throughout the production (she’s still got it on the way out). Perhaps she thought it was a popcorn flick she was going to. In any case, someone should have told her that it’s rude, perhaps even against the rules, to eat in the theatre. But we already know what Gallagher and her organization think of rules.

What an evil megalomaniac cow.  No shame, no soul, and no class.

Another opportunity missed to for me and my fruit pie to make statement as it hits her fat ugly face.  Although I might have to switch to shaving cream on a plate.  She’s just eat the pie.

Read The Official Transcript of Perry v. Schwarzenegger – Prop 8 Closing Arguments

After yesterdays closing arguments in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger – Prop 8 trial Judge Vaugh Walker is expected to rule in Perry v. Schwarzenegger in a few weeks.

Yesterday, Reuters reported on the defense’s (Charlie Cooper’s and the bad guys) stunning (and assinine) statement that they did not need any evidence to prove the purpose of marriage:

Conservative Charles Cooper led the defense, arguing that it is reasonable to fear that allowing same-sex marriage would undermine heterosexual marriage and self-evident that the purpose of marriage was procreating and raising children.

“You don’t have to have evidence” to prove that the purpose of marriage is to bear and raise children, he said in the closing arguments, citing legal precedents.

Months earlier, he had surprised the court by saying he did not know how gay marriage would hurt heterosexuals — and that he did not need to know in order to win the case.

“At the end of the day, ‘I don’t know’ and ‘I don’t have to present any evidence,’ with all respect to Mr. Cooper, doesn’t cut it,” responded Olson on Wednesday.

Walker subjected Cooper to a barrage of questions, turning the lawyer’s closing arguments into a cross-examination about the purpose of marriage, the state’s role, and whether gays deserve special court protection akin to racial minorities.

Cooper contended that the only way to invalidate Prop 8 was to prove there had been absolutely no good reason, or rational basis, for millions of Californians to back it.

Below  is the official transcript from yesterday’s closing arguments:

New Written Arguments Presented At Prop 8/ Perry v Schwarzenengger Trial – Bigots Grasp At Straws And The Craziness Continues To Flow

Lawyers in the first federal trial to examine whether state bans on same-sex marriages are constitutional have submitted new written arguments to the judge who will decide the case.

Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker requested the briefs summarizing the respective sides’ evidence to help him prepare for closing arguments.

In papers filed late Friday, lawyers for the sponsors of California’s gay marriage ban offered new twists on their claim that allowing gay men and lesbians to wed could undermine man-woman unions

“Californians voted for Proposition 8 because they thought it would strengthen the institution of marriage (and) … because they thought it would benefit children,” (Blah, blah, blah)

 But get this.  The “new” reasons they cite is that legalizing gay marriage can lead to giving bisexuals a legal basis for pursuing group marriages and unmarried fathers an incentive to abandon their children..

And they have the nerve to call us fruitcakes.

Hostile Witness (And Homophobic Douchebag) William Tam Takes Stand In Prop 8 Trial – TESTIMONY & UPDATES

2:20 p.m.: Prop 8 leader supports domestic partner rights, also supports linking homosexuality to pedophilia

William Tam, a leading Prop. 8 proponent from San Francisco, has just outlined his primary reasons for supporting a ban on same-sex marriage, under questioning from plaintiffs attorney David Boies. “It is very important for the next generation to understand the historical meaning of marriage,” he said. “It is very important our children won’t grow up to fantasize or think about “should I marry Jane or John when I grow up.—

Tam said these principles are important to the Asian community, which he tried to mobilize in favor of Prop. 8.

Responding to Boies, Tam said he supported domestic partner rights for gays and lesbians, as well as protections in employment and housing. He said he had not “come to conclusion” about whether they
should be permitted to adopt children. He did, however, support the message on a Web site that linked homosexuality to pedophilia.

2:41 p.m.: Prop 8 proponent grilled on views about homosexuality

Plaintifs attorney David Boies is baring his Bush v. Gore fangs on William Tam, a leading proponent of Prop. 8 and ardent foe of same-sex marriage. He’s confronted Tam on his advocacy of Prop. 8 during the campaign, when he said allowing gay marriage would lead to legalizing prostitution as well as legalizing sex with children. Boies pointed to a position from Prop. 8 supporters that gays were 12 times more likely to molest children, a fact Tam said he believes.

Where’d you learn that? Boies asked. I don’t recall, Tam replied.

“I’m asking you what you read?” Boies asked, voice rising, wanting to know how that could be put out to support Prop. 8.

“I don’t remember,” Tam said. “Was it a book?” Boies kept on. “An article?” he asked. “Who wrote it?”

“I don’t know,” Tam said.

Boies continued to press on messages from gay marriage opponents that Tam endorsed, including the fact that San Francisco government was “run by homosexuals.” How could that be, the mayor isn’t homosexual, is he? Boies asked. Tam agreed. Boies asked why he pushed Prop. 8 by saying same-sex marriage would result in legalizing prostitution. “That didn’t have anything to do with Proposition 8, did it sir?” Boies asked.

“Right,” Tam said.

Boies also confronted Tam with e-mails in which he said California would fall into the “hands of Satan” if gay marriage were permitted. The questioning continues

3:30 p.m.: Prop 8 proponent says allowing gay marriage would lead to incest, polygamy

William Tam, the Prop. 8 proponent still on the witness stand, has supplied the day’s sound bite describing his views of same-sex marriage. As plaintiffs attorney David Boies asked him about likening gay marriage to polygamy, incest and other illegal relationships, Tam said:

“I believe if the term marriage can be used beyond one man, one woman, then any two persons of any age, of any relationship, can use the same argument to come and ask for the term marriage. That would lead to incest. That would lead to polygamy. If this is a civil right, what would prevent other groups form asking for the same right.”

Tam uses the phrase “moral decay” to describe allowing gay marriage.

Tam’s testimony is a component of the plaintiffs attempt to show that Prop. 8 was fueled by hostility against gays and lesbians that renders the law discriminatory and a violation of their federal equal protection rights.

From:  mercurynews.com

The Prop 8 Trial Testimony That Prop 8 Supporters DID NOT Want You To See! (Video)

The American Foundation for Equal Rights has posted two deposition videos of witnesses, Paul Nathanson, Ph.D. and Katherine Young, Ph.D., who were withdrawn by the Prop 8 supporters out of the “supposed” concern that the trial was to be videotaped, and they would be putting them in some sort of danger.

After watching the videos the REAL reason becomes more apparent.  Simply out that if Nathanson and Young were to continue to be involved with the case these depositions would do more harm than good.

EXPOSED – The REAL Reason William Tam Wanted Out Of The Prop 8 Trial – The Dirty, Vile, Homophobic and Bigoted, Lies He Spread

Last week  Hak-Shing William Tam wanted to remove himself as a defendant-intervenor in the Prop. 8 trial citing reasons including that it would be “too time consuming” and that he feared “retaliation”. 

Well yesterday in Day Three of the Trial the REAL reasons became apparent. Tam’s deposition was introduced into evidence.and it’s ugly and shows the intense hatred that Tam and his colleagues had toward the LGBT community and was full of homophobic lies that they spewed to get votes.

Via Lisa Leff:

Seeking to strengthen arguments against a ban on same-sex marriage, trial attorneys have introduced statements from a supporter of California’s ban warning voters in 2008 that gay rights activists would try to legalize sex with children if same-sex couples had the right to wed.

The material was presented Wednesday in the third day of a trial brought by opponents of the state’s same-sex marriage prohibition.
San Francisco resident Hak-Shing William Tam, a defendant in the case, discussed a letter to Chinese-Americans church groups during a legal deposition taped last month.

Tam wrote in the letter issued during the 2008 campaign that legalizing same-sex marriage was part of a broader gay agenda.

“On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children,” states the letter, which also cautioned that “other states would fall into Satan’s hands” if gays weren’t stopped from marrying in California.

Lawyers for two same-sex couples introduced the footage to buttress their contention that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional because it was fueled by deep-seated animosity against gays.

Since the trail is not being televised many wil miss the disgusting real reasons behind our foes fight to deny us gay marriage and equal rights.  WE MUST PUBLICIZE THIS TRIAL AND THE REAL INTENTIONS OF THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST IN THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA.

I find it amazing that such liberal mainstream outlets such as The Huffington Post has not had more coverage of the Trial.  Write and email HuffPo, CNN, MSNBC, and write to the newspapers and magazines.  This exactly what needs to get out about those who are against us.  the prrof of thier lies, hatred, and homophobia.    This is the REAL reason that that they fought not to have the trial televised so it is up to us to spread the word of whats happening and to get the mainstream media to report on it as well.

Supreme Court Rules Prop 8 Trial WILL NOT Be Televised

The Supreme Court ruled today that the Proposition 8 trial currently underway will not be allowed to be broadcast.

The Court split 5-4 along Consevative/Liberal lines, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy voting for the stay and Justices Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissenting.

The stay will remain in effect until the Court rules on an appeal challening the televsion order

In an attept to cover thier homophobic asses The Court (Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy) said that it was not basing its decision on whether or not cameras should be allowed in the courtroom, but on what it believes was improper procedure by the lower courts in making the new rule to allow cameras.

Prop 8 Trial Updates – Opening Statement, Courtroom Tweets, News Outlet Coverage

The New York Times reports that the trail opened with some sharp words from Judge Vaugh Walker who repeatedly interrupted the opening statements of both Mr. Olson and the lead defense counsel, Charles J. Cooper, admonishing them to provide hard evidence — not just rhetoric.

Ted Levine aka FedCourtJunkie liveTwittered the following from the packed coutroom today and also talks about a little letter war between Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and the U.S. Judicial Conference in Washington, D.C. The folks back East asked Kozinski to “consider” conference policy against cameras in the court. Kozinski, who has a turbulent history with Conference oversight (Internet firewalls, anyone?), fired back a missive defending the Ninth Circuit’s power to broadcast.

Among other things, Walker asked how Proposition 8 could be discriminatory since California already allows domestic partnerships that carry the same rights and benefits of marriage.

“If California would simply get out of the marriage business and classify everyone as a domestic partnership, would that solve the problem?” the judge asked.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, who represent two same-sex couples who filed the suit, answered that he did not think such a move would be politically feasible.

“I suspect the people of California would not want to abandon the relationship that the proponents of Proposition 8 spent a tremendous amount of resources describing as important to people, and so important it must be reserved for opposite-sex couples,” he said.

Olson quoted the U.S. Supreme Court’s own lofty description of matrimony to demonstrate what his clients were being denied.

“In the words of the highest court in the land, marriage is the most important relationship in life and of fundamental importance to all individuals,” Olson told a courtroom packed with witnesses, reporters and members of the public…..

Also, in his opening statement Theodore Olson went right after common right-wing arguments against marriage equality:

“And, as for protecting “traditional marriage,” our opponents “don’t know” how permitting gay and lesbian couples to marry would harm the marriages of opposite-sex couples. Needless to say, guesswork and speculation is not an adequate justification for discrimination. In fact, the evidence will demonstrate affirmatively that permitting loving, deeply committed, couples like the plaintiffs to marry has no impact whatsoever upon the marital relationships of others.

When voters in California were urged to enact Proposition 8, they were encouraged to believe that unless Proposition 8 were enacted, anti-gay religious institutions would be closed, gay activists would overwhelm the will of the heterosexual majority, and that children would be taught that it was “acceptable” for gay men and lesbians to marry. Parents were urged to “protect our children” from that presumably pernicious viewpoint.

At the end of the day, whatever the motives of its Proponents, Proposition 8 enacted an utterly irrational regime to govern entitlement to the fundamental right to marry, consisting now of at least four separate and distinct classes of citizens: (1) heterosexuals, including convicted criminals, substance abusers and sex offenders, who are permitted to marry; (2) 18,000 same-sex couples married between June and November of 2008, who are allowed to remain married but may not remarry if they divorce or are widowed; (3) thousands of same-sex couples who were married in certain other states prior to November of 2008, whose marriages are now valid and recognized in California; and, finally (4) all other same-sex couples in California who, like the Plaintiffs, are prohibited from marrying by Proposition 8.”

It was a busy and eventful dayand the rest are sure to be just as full

United States Supreme Court BLOCKS Prop 8 Trail Broadcast


From CHRON.com:

The high court on Monday said it will not allow video of the trial to be posted on YouTube.com, even with a delay, until the justices have more time to consider the issue. It said that Monday’s order will be in place at least until Wednesday. Opponents of the broadcast say they fear witness testimony might be affected if cameras are present. Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have allowed cameras while the court considers the matter.

It’s not only amazing that conservatives become such cowards when they actually have to rely on logic and facts instead of overheated emotional rhetoric the mind boggles that how the busy Supreme Court can move so quickly on such a matter like this while other matters languish and die.


Today Is The Day When A New Era In Our Fight Begins – Prop 8 Trial Begins And It’s Not Just About California

It’s been a long time coming, but today we are FINALLY  be taking the fight for our rights where it belongs, through the Federal Justice System

Today the federal trial on same-sex marriages in California begins and the result of Perry v. Schwarzenegger is expected to affect gay marriage legislation nationwide.  We should all watch this trial very closely, because it not just affects Gay’s and Lesbian marriage rights in California but it affects ALL of us not only because Perry v. Schwarzenegger will ask “ultimate question” of whether we have a federal right to marry, but because the case is alleging that Prop. 8 violated the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, the federal court decision will have implications for gay Americans in nearly every arena of public life, from housing to parenting to military service. The court is set to consider questions as wide-ranging as what it means to be gay and whether it affects one’s contribution to society. It’s not just marriage rights on trial it’s veing gay itself and where out country holds us in its eyes.  And whatever the decision, good or bad we should be ready to act accordingly.

The stakes are high. If Perry v. Schwarzenegger reaches the Supreme Court and Boies and Olson are successful, gays and lesbians nationwide would not only have the right to marry, we stand to gain many of the legal rights they have sought for decades. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would be invalidated, as would employment discrimination against gays and lesbians. In the eyes of the law, gay people would be equal to straight people, and any legislation that discriminated against them could be challenged and easily struck down against this precedent. 

Boies and Olson will be arguing that such discriminatory laws are illegal because that we as gay Americans constitute a “suspect class,” such as racial minorities, religious groups, and foreign-born citizens — who qualify for special protection. Laws that target these groups are immediately “suspect” and have to serve a “compelling state interest”. But even if Boies and Olson are not able to establish a suspect classification, there is a Supreme Court precedent against discriminatory laws whose sole motivation is ill will. (In 1996, the court ruled in Romer v. Evans that a Colorado ban on nondiscrimination ordinances was driven solely by anti-gay sentiment and therefore did not have a rational basis.) That’s why Boies and Olson also plan to show that Prop. 8 was motivated by prejudice and also plan to call to the stand the gay couples involded in the suit, experts on the history of sexual discrimination and marriage, and the architects of the ballot measure itself.

Theodore Olson will make the opening argument and David Boies will examine the first witnesses.

The trail will be braidcast with a time delay on YOUTUBE