News

Prop. 8 sponsor warns same-sex marriage could lead to 'social moral decay'

Federal trial on constitutionality of measure now in 9th day in SF courtroom

An official sponsor of Proposition 8 testified in federal court in San Francisco Thursday that he believes same-sex marriage would lead to "social moral decay."

Hak-Shing William Tam of San Francisco, a chemical engineer who directs a group called Traditional Family Coalition, is one of five sponsors of Proposition 8, the same-sex marriage ban enacted by state voters in 2008.

He was called to the stand at a trial before U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker as a hostile witness by lawyers for two same-sex couples who claim the measure violates their federal constitutional rights.

The couples are seeking to use his testimony to support their argument that one reason for striking down Proposition 8 is that it was improperly motivated by moral disapproval of gays and lesbians.

Under questioning from plaintiffs' attorney David Boies, Tam said, "If same-sex marriage is legal, it would encourage children to explore having someone of the same sex as their future marriage partner.

"From both the Asian cultural view

and also from the Christian angle, we think this is social moral decay," he said.

Tam said he believes same-sex marriage could lead to allowing incest, pedophilia and polygamy.

In cross-examination, Nicole Moss, a lawyer for Proposition 8 defenders, sought to show that Tam wasn't acting with approval of the measure's campaign committee, ProtectMarriage.com, when he made such statements.

"I was acting independently," Tam said.

But under return questioning from Boies, Tam agreed he had participated in weekly campaign conference calls, invited campaign chairman Ron Prentice to an outdoor rally and, together with a colleague, received campaign funding for television and newspaper ads.

The trial, was in its eighth day Thursday, is nearing the end of the plaintiffs' case.

The same-sex couples will present their last witness today. The Proposition 8 sponsors will present at least two experts as defense witnesses to testify about the institution of marriage and the political power of homosexuals.

The trial is scheduled to end Tuesday and the judge, who is hearing the case without a jury, will issue a written ruling later.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by No on Prop 8
a resident of Valley Trails
on Jan 22, 2010 at 8:39 am

There are plenty of heterosexual people that contribute to the 'moral decay' of our society and it has nothing to do with who they are married to. And there are many heterosexual MARRIED people who are sexual predators, pedophiles, & polygamists (some even get married while in jail for their crimes). Tam is an ignorant idiot to say that same-sex marriage will lead to these things. They already exist in our opposite-sex marriage society and have nothing to do with someones sexual orientation or marital status.


Like this comment
Posted by Sue
a resident of Valley Trails
on Jan 22, 2010 at 8:52 am

No on Prop 8:

Tam is an Idiot because he doesn't agree with your beliefs? Marriage should be between a MAN and a WOMAN, period! Stop teaching our children to be all screwed up!


Like this comment
Posted by werg
a resident of Canyon Meadows
on Jan 22, 2010 at 8:55 am

All bigotry has a reason, or should I say all bigots have 'their' reasons. Without them they would have to admit to themselves they are flat out prejudiced. Tell me something that you don't like or support without reason. Even if it's a bad argument it's a arguement. My favorite is that 'It's my religion that says..." This takes the blaim for their position off themselves and onto god. Can't reason with that and it leaves the 'believer' in a positon of innocence. As if they would love gay people if they found a passage to support that belief.


Like this comment
Posted by Rick
a resident of Canyon Creek
on Jan 22, 2010 at 9:17 am

Wow, Werg, "This takes the blaim, perhaps did you mean BLAME for their position OF themselves and onto God? Leaves the "believer"in a POSITION of innocence, rather than positon of innocence?

Perhaps before you start slamming others, you might consider reading a dictionary and learning how to spell?


Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 22, 2010 at 9:36 am

We should stop dancing this issue and agree to treat gay-ness as the mental disorder that it is.
Only then, can they receive the treatment they need to correct this behavioral disorder.


Like this comment
Posted by Rick
a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Jan 22, 2010 at 9:42 am

Amen! Couldn't have said it better myself.


Like this comment
Posted by No, No, No on 8!
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 22, 2010 at 9:44 am

Hey Steve, I would characterize hubris as a mental disorder over "gay-ness" any time.


Like this comment
Posted by Sue
a resident of Valley Trails
on Jan 22, 2010 at 10:13 am

I'd rather be arrogant any day than gay. Gay USED to mean; joyous and lively, bright. The definition sure got messed up over the years, especially when they added the 3rd definition - homo.


Like this comment
Posted by Tom
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 22, 2010 at 10:19 am

Haven't the people of California already decided on this? Twice in fact. If it does not lead to moral decay, it sure leads to democracy decay.


Like this comment
Posted by No, No, No on 8!
a resident of Valley Trails
on Jan 22, 2010 at 10:22 am

Sue, you'd OBVIOUSLY rather be arrogant than gay. Good for you. I'm sure the gay population is glad you're arrogant and not gay, too. So everyone's happy! Now, let's just give homosexuals the same legal rights as heterosexuals and we can all go about our business. Otherwise, maybe we'll need to start a petition to outlaw the rights of arrogant people, too. See, I don't have a problem with gays, but I REALLY don't like arrogant people...


Like this comment
Posted by No, No, No on 8!
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 22, 2010 at 10:23 am

Tom, if you know anything about our democracy you know the importance of the Constitution in upholding the righs of the minority over the tyranny of the majority.


Like this comment
Posted by Sue
a resident of Valley Trails
on Jan 22, 2010 at 10:29 am

That's pretty interesting No, No, No on 8. You obviously do not even know what neighborhood you live in, yet you sign on to slam people that do not agree with your beliefs. You crack me up, originally you lived in Valley Trails, now you live in another Pleasanton neighborhood?

You are way too confused to carry on any half way intelligent conversation.

Yessssssssss on 8!


Like this comment
Posted by No, No, No on 8!,
a resident of Valley Trails
on Jan 22, 2010 at 10:41 am

Oh, Sue. Attacking my intelligence for clicking the wrong button? That's some argument.
Is that why you signed in - to slam people who click the wrong button? Because I signed in to stand up for the fundamental civil rights of my fellow citizens in the face of appalling ignorance, bigotry, and arrogance.


Like this comment
Posted by Mr. Geeneeyus
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 22, 2010 at 11:09 am

First there's gay marriage, next thing you know there's riots in the streets, dogs and cats living together, it'll be mass hysteria!


Like this comment
Posted by Bob
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Jan 22, 2010 at 11:45 am

Argh, Mr Geeneeyus beat me to the Ghostbusters quote!

Also, I'm pretty sure Tom, Rick, and Steve are all the same person.


Like this comment
Posted by Sad & hurt
a resident of Birdland
on Jan 22, 2010 at 1:08 pm

It makes me sad that there are people out there that actually feel that being gay is a mental condition. That hating gay people is not showing ignorance. I hope that you continue to be as loving and perfect as you are now - until the day comes that you meet your maker. That is the day that you will realize how wrong, close minded and full of hate you are. It makes me very sad and embarrassed for you.


Like this comment
Posted by Sky
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 22, 2010 at 4:39 pm

Let's say it again - The term marriage comes from religion that goes back a few thousand years. The term marriage has always meant between man and woman - COME UP with a new term that EVERYONE IN the STATE must use and have on their license and let the religious have their term for their sacred vows in a church.
Perhaps - LEGAL Coupling ? instead of taking away something that they have "owned" for thousands of years and the states just adapted it - COME up with a new term that EVERYONE must abide by. Be original and maybe the arguments can end and we can all live in peace.
Quit with the Homo - Hetero arguments - "Any 2 consenting ADULTS " from this point forward shall be " ????????? " older connections shall be grandfathered in and the new term for the coupling from this point forward shall be inforced from this point on. Everyone has to get a state license right - make it part of that and whatever church affiliation has a second and separate form.
Come on - do we really need to pay all these lawyers to do this and take up criminal court time?

BTW - we've ALREADY gone down that slippery slope - the reason the polygamy show is on HBO is gain acceptance and make that life more normal - so we see that perspective, although I'd never understand women willing to share one man - we will always be fighting the immoral idiot pedophiles, and incestuous jerks that prey on younger relatives.


Like this comment
Posted by Domestic Partnerships For All
a resident of Ruby Hill
on Jan 22, 2010 at 6:07 pm

Marriage licenses should be eliminated from the civil courts. Every couple can apply for a "domestic partnership" and later for a "dissolution of domestic partnership." Allow all to have the "marriage tax", responsibility of offspring whether or not both partners contributed biologically.

Let the religious have marriages and they can say "only between a man and a woman" if they so desire.


Like this comment
Posted by Seriously?
a resident of Ruby Hill
on Jan 22, 2010 at 7:26 pm

We're going to argue over a stupid term? Give me a break. Marriage pre-dates Christianity. It goes as far back as Mesopotamia, definitely NOT a Christian nation. Not to mention that in Christian (and other) times it was a way to gain riches and power. Lets not forget all of the Christians in the Bible who had more than one wife.

The entire "voters have decided" argument is ridiculous. In the beginning of this country, the voters would have decided that owning another person based on the color of their skin was their right.


Like this comment
Posted by Kelly
a resident of Canyon Meadows
on Jan 23, 2010 at 3:44 am

Prop 8 went before the voters and "We the People" voted to protect Marriage between one man and one woman.

Traditional marriage is the foundation of society and has served our state well for centuries. California’s constitutional marriage amendment exists to strengthen society, encourage monogamous and loving marriages and to provide the optimal environment to ensure the well being of children. Thirty-one other states, including California have voted on this issue and every single one decided against legalizing same-sex marriage and instead upheld traditional marriage. California has voted on the issue twice and the people’s voice has been resounding: marriage is between one man and one woman.

The benefits to society of traditional marriage are overwhelming. Read a reports from The Witherspoon Institute, and an analysis of the arguments for and against marriage prepared by Harvard Report found at the links below.
Web Link

Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Homeowner
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 23, 2010 at 11:54 am

Kelly,

Like most prop 8 proponents, you obscure the facts and misrepresent reality.

The vote on Prop 8 was not "resounding." The yes votes were approximately 52% of the vote. A majority of the votes cast, but resounding? Hardly.

The first link provided is from The Witherspoon Institute, with ties to the Family Research Council and Roman Catholics. The report is an opinion piece, supported by actual research and facts only when meaningless to the core arguments.

The second link, intentionally misrepresented by you as prepared by Harvard, is an one-sided legal analysis by Monte Stewart, a Mormon attorney who is president of the Marriage Law Foundation. This is not a neutral Harvard University legal analysis, but is the work of a bigoted Prop 8 supporter.

I appreciate your "we the people" paean, but get your same-sex marriage facts straight.

My personal opinion on all this: The State should issue a Civil Marriage to gay or straight couples that wish to marry. Couples may also optionally get a Religious Marriage certificate or endorsement from their church or other supernatural institution of choice.


Like this comment
Posted by reasonable
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 23, 2010 at 6:09 pm

Most people (even traditionalists), if they end up with a gay son or daughter will suddenly change their minds about gay marriage. A gay wedding might make Uncle Joe uncomfortable but wont' stop traditional marriage at all. Your daughter is not going to say "hey, I'm going to break up with my boyfriend and go be gay instead!" or "since gays can get married, I'm going to stay single forever" Come on guys, sexuality is not THAT fluid! The heterosexual majority will still want pretty weddings, kids, and SUVs.


Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 25, 2010 at 9:14 pm

As a conservative, I would say that any solution to the problem of marriage should be market based and free from government meddling and interference. Allow the efficiencies of the free market to work. If you you want to preserve the institution marriage of marriage, then what you want is tax cuts and deregulation.


Like this comment
Posted by just sippin
a resident of Downtown
on Jan 26, 2010 at 7:58 am

...and the small group dispersed. Ty picked up the worn soap box and looked for another corner that people might be gathering.
So much knowledge and wisdom that needed to be sprinkled on the poor ignorant masses


Like this comment
Posted by Go Canucks Go
a resident of another community
on Feb 2, 2010 at 9:46 pm

Its people like Sue, Peter, Paul, and Mary who puff the magic dragon that makes US of the A look horrible! For a country who claim to be the strongest nation, they sure are not the fore front of a country to follow but to learn from what NOT to do. Thank you USA for teaching the world to not be like you. OH CANADA!


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Couples: Do you Really Agree or are you Afraid of not Agreeing?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 901 views

Dublin agencies find creative partnership for new school site
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 419 views

Lab scientists find better ways to ID individuals who die in catastrophic events
By Jeb Bing | 2 comments | 256 views