Tweet
BLEND EXCLUSIVE: Trial analysis by the National Center For Lesbian Rights‘ (NCLR’s) Shannon Minter.
Today was another blockbuster day in the Perry trial, with more razor sharp testimony from Professor Gary Segura, followed by disturbing testimony by one of the official proponents of Prop 8, Dr. Hak-Shing William (“Bill”) Tam.
Yesterday closed with expert testimony from Professor Segura, an authority on political representation. The plaintiffs called Professor Segura to provide evidence that LGBT people lack sufficient political power to effectively protect their own interests through the political process. This will help to establish that laws discriminating based on sexual orientation, like Prop 8, should receive heightened constitutional scrutiny.
Professor Segura returned to the stand this morning for a long, drawn-out cross-examination by the proponents’ attorney David Thompson. Thompson’s strategy seemed to be to ask questions addressing the ways in which LGBT people have made some political progress, as if any evidence of progress indicates that LGBT people do not face discrimination.
Despite repeated promptings from Judge Walker to move things along, Thompson presented Professor Segura with repetitive examples of celebrities, prominent politicians, religious organizations, and businesses that have expressed support for LGBT people. On redirect (brilliantly conducted by Ted Boutrous of Gibson Dunn), Professor Segura demolished Thompson’s attempt to paint a false picture of LGBT people as politically powerful. In a few short strokes, Professor Segura explained that it is meaningless to compare only the number of groups on each side, without looking at their size, influence, and ability to mobilize voters. For example, while hundreds of churches opposed Prop 8, literally thousands supported it. By any reasonable measure, Professor Segura explained, the Prop 8 proponents were able to garner a magnitude of support that dwarfed that given to the other side.
Thompson also asked Professor Segura a series of questions about stories of alleged violence against Prop 8 supporters, including a particularly sensational interview of one alleged victim by Bill O’Reilly. This is part of the defense’s (absurd) effort to show that voters enacted Prop 8 for reasons other than bias against LGBT people. On redirect, Professor Segura testified that it was “doubtful in the extreme” that any significant portion of the Yes on 8 vote was based on alleged violence against Prop 8 supporters. He also testified that there were significantly increased rates of anti-LGBT hate violence in California in 2008, and that any meaningful analysis would consider the incidence of violence on both sides.
Thompson’s cross-examination displayed a surprising lack of knowledge regarding the current state of laws affecting LGBT people. Continuing his attempt to show that LGBT people have political power, for example, Thompson asserted that LGBT have had “great political success” securing adoption rights. Professor Segura corrected him, noting that LGBT people have in fact suffered recent setbacks in several states that have enacted discriminatory adoption laws.
In a powerful final statement, Professor Segura testified that to conclude that gay people have political power after considering all the relevant evidence – from the incidence of anti-gay hate violence to the national juggernaut of anti-gay initiatives would be the equivalent of “political science malpractice.”
After lunch, the plaintiffs called Dr. Tam, an official proponent of Prop 8. Dr. Tam, a leader in the Chinese evangelical Christian community, was actively involved in the signature gathering effort and the Yes on 8 campaign.
Dr. Tam originally intervened in this case as a party to defend Prop 8, but recently sought to withdraw from the case, claiming that he fears harassment from having his name publicly associated with the trial. Judge Walker decided to defer any ruling on whether Dr. Tam will be allowed to withdraw until after his testimony, noting that “there have to be some consequences to joining a case, making the other party litigate against you, and then dropping out.”
David Boies examined Dr. Tam as an adverse witness, meaning that leading questions were allowed as in a cross-examination. It was a privilege to see him in action. At a speedy pace, Boies led Dr. Tam through a series of documents showing that Dr. Tam was a leader in the Yes on 8 campaign and that he coordinated his activities closely with ProtectMarriage.com, the official campaign organization. Boies’s skilled examination, with its laser-like precision, kept everyone in the courtroom on the edge of their seats for much of the afternoon.
Boies’s examination focused on several highly offensive and inflammatory statements that Dr. Tam and organizations in which he is involved have made about homosexuality and the so-called “gay agenda.” By the end of the day, Boies had offered powerful evidence that the official Yes on 8 campaign organization and its campaign manager, Schubert Flint Public Affairs, were well aware of Dr. Tam’s outrageous statements before the election.
Dr. Tam testified that he is the Secretary of an organization, 1man1woman.net, whose website states that “studies show that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia,” and that “homosexuals are 12 times more likely to abuse children.” Dr. Tam testified that, to this day, he believes those statements are true. Dr. Tam acknowledged that another document he authored in support of Prop. 8 claimed that after winning marriage equality, LGBT people intended to “legalize having sex with children.” Dr. Tam also acknowledged saying, as reported in the San Jose Mercury News, “We hope to convince Asian-Americans that gay marriage will cause more children to experiment with the gay lifestyle, and that lifestyle comes with all kinds of disease.”
Boies wrapped up Dr. Tam’s testimony by establishing that the Yes on 8 campaign had a tightly coordinated public messaging policy, that the campaign coalition was well aware of Dr. Tam’s 1man1woman.net website, and that the campaign never asked him to take down any of the material on his website linking homosexuality with pedophilia.
It was clear by the end of Boies’s questioning that no matter how hard the official Prop 8 campaign might try to distance itself from Dr. Tam’s shocking anti-gay rhetoric and lies, Dr. Tam spoke as an official proponent who was also a day-to-day leader with real influence in the campaign. Today’s testimony revealed the true face of the anti-marriage-equality movement, despite its current attempts to portray itself in a more moderate, media-friendly light. Those who actively campaign to deny equality to same-sex couples deliberately exploit the most vicious and false anti-gay stereotypes and create a climate of fear and hostility in which LGBT people are seen as less than fully human.
Tomorrow we will hear from Dr. Gregory Herek, an expert on sexual orientation, who will be the last witness for the plaintiffs.
~~~~~
Related:
* Visit the Blend for exclusive legal analysis of Federal Prop 8 trial by NCLR
* Shannon Minter: Perry v. Schwarzenegger Proceedings, Day 1
* Shannon Minter: Perry v. Schwarzenegger Proceedings, Day 2
* Shannon Minter: Perry v. Schwarzenegger Proceedings, Day 3
* Shannon Minter: Perry v. Schwarzenegger Proceedings, Day 4
* Shannon Minter: Perry v. Schwarzenegger Proceedings, Day 5
* Shannon Minter: Perry v. Schwarzenegger Proceedings, Day 6
* Shannon Minter: Perry v. Schwarzenegger Proceedings, Day 7
* Key commentary from the PHB Shannon Minter live blog on the fed Prop 8 trial
15 Comments
Thank you Shannon for these daily summariesNo wonder Tam didn’t want to get on the witness stand.
Clearly, some sort of judicial scrutiny is needed.
I’m also surprised that Thompson’s team didn’t toss race-baiting out there as well. But…that may be yet to come.
Wow.This is good stuff. I really wish we could watch it on YouTube.
I followed the testimony on Trial TrackerThe Prop 8 proponents had their collective a$$es handed to them courtesy of Tam.
Boies was outstanding! Step by step he conneted the dots so that there was no disconnect of Tam to Prop 8s logistics and it showed a damning amount of false witness by Tam.
Reading these summarieshas been the highlight of my day for the past two weeks. Shannon’s analysis has been consistently clear and concise. The impression I formed during the trial at the CA supreme court–that he is a brilliant legal mind–is being confirmed more and more.
Piecing it all togetherPrior to the beginning of the trial, some religious right groups stated that the trial was probably already lost – for their side.
I dismissed that statement as panic-peddling in an attempt for the RR to raise more money.
Now, I’m beginning to wonder if they weren’t really in panic because they knew 1) their legal representation was completely incompetent; and 2) their arguments were flimsy at best. Of course, there are two sides to every case, and I can’t help wonder if we (LGBT’s) aren’t viewing the proceedings of this case through rose-colored glasses, but one has to wonder…
Just sayin’
Today’s testimony was disturbingbut I’m not sure I get it.
Bill Tam is a bigot who believes a number of false things, and he spent a lot of his time and money repeating those beliefs to others. But that’s not a crime or even a tort, AFAIK.
He’s wrong. Really, deeply, factually and morally wrong. BUt I’m wrong about 68 times a day, and I cherish his right to think dumb and dangerous thoughts, even publish dumb and dangerous words.
So where are the plaintiffs going with this?
TestimonyI’m not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of what’s going on. (Any actual lawyers in the thread, please feel free to correct me!)
So, when Colorado’s anti-gay Amendment 2 went to the Supreme Court, it was struck down because the only motivation was animus. Ideally, Boies & Co. would like the courts to determine that gays are a suspect class, which means that any laws specifically targeting us would have a higher hurdle to jump to be constitutional. Currently, however, laws targeting us only have to meet the “rational basis” standard, which means that as long as there is some rational justification for the law it’s ok, regardless of whether that justification was the one the folks enacting the law used.
So, they’re trying to prove that we’re a “suspect class” but they want to make sure that if that approach fails, that they’ve demonstrated that there is no rational basis to prop 8 — that the whole thing was motivated by prejudice against us. Hence the testimony of Dr. Tam.
AgreedI thought they’d put together a better attempt than this! Our guys are blowing them out of the water. Plus, their witnesses keep dropping out. At the start of the week they had six left, and now that’s down to two!
That is, at the federal levelIn California, we received strict scrutiny in In Re: Marriage Cases, it was intermediate scrutiny in the Iowa Supreme Court judgment.
As far as SCOTUS, I am not sure what to call the standard they have used at times, esp. for Romer v. Evans and O’Conner’s concurrence in Lawrence. The term I’ve seen is “rational basis with bite” which would be something between rational and intermediate scrutiny. I guess.
The difference here is simple.When you’re wrong, you’re not being wrong in a way that’s influencing scores of people to be wrong with you. And, to further the point, you’re not being deliberately wrong just to try and get said scores of people to be wrong with you. The fact that Tam is using his incorrect conclusions (which are contrary to all legitimate studies in the field) to promote a cause which discriminates and spreads hate further is what they’re expounding upon.
Now, you must remember at the beginning of the trial, the judge laid the burden of proof very clear for the parties involved. That burden is such that the attorneys must either prove or disprove that gay marriage would be, in some way, harmful to society in some way (though he worded it not in that exact way). Therefore, if one can prove, through testimony, that a driving motivation of Prop 8 was misinformation and hate towards gay people, the Plaintiffs’ case benefits as a result.
Trust me; these folks are right on track towards a victory. The real issue here is concerning the Supreme Court, in my mind. After seeing their voting trends lately, I’m worried a loss there might be more likely than not.
Prop 8 takes over late tomorrow or MondayProp 8 has not presented its case yet. It will be interesting to see how we all feel when it does. I suspect that they may yet have something up their sleeves, but having hemorrhaged witnesses right and left, it should be a short case to present. I’m not yet ready to declare P-8 toast just yet. I would be thrilled with being declared a (member of a) suspect class, but I’d not shed a tear if Prop 8 was just declared solely the product of animus towards gay people.
Not really feeling the Supremes these daysThe California Supreme Court was more than willing to extend Strict scrutiny and in hind sight you have to wonder why Brown hadn’t taken the prop 8 issue to court on those grounds alone except for the election coming so quickly on the heels of the ruling.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if we won strict scrutiny from the US Supreme Court and then like California the California Supreme court the abdicated their responsibility to protect our subject class in deference to any state constitutional amendment. Its not like the US Supreme Court has shown any concern for any people group other than the majority ruling class or the rich.
I don’t understand
They did try to get P8 taken off the ballot – the CSC ruled the issue wasn’t yet ready to be heard, and dismissed. At the time, legal analysts said this was expected and proper.
And I really don’t expect to get anything – even a suspect class ruling – from this SCOTUS. I think our only hope is if the ruling at this level is narrowly defined, to affect only California and our unique situation, and the SCOTUS passes on hearing an appeal. If they hear it, I expect us to lose, no matter how good our argument is. They don’t seem to have any respect for the actual law, only for what they want.
Gays are anti-religionSo says Mr. Pugno of “Protect” Marriage. Sounds to me like the anti-gay side is so worried that the testimony of Tam and others makes them look like batsh$t freaks that they’ve gone on the offensive to change the discussion. On this morning’s post on “Protect” Marriage they’re back to playing the victim card again. Poor religious people being banged by those nasty liberal elites just because they believe in the Bible. And something tells me this is just the beginning. Ugh…
Tam kept sayingthat he wanted his kids to have a Christian and Chinese family. I really wanted the lawyers to ask him what that entailed. Is he okay with his kids marrying someone white? black? Someone Jewish? Muslim? If no (which I expect would be his answer), why isn’t he endorsing laws against interracial and inter-religion marriages? Why only against same sex marriage?