In a face-to-face encounter, President Barack Obama chastised Republican lawmakers Friday for opposing him on health care, economic stimulus and other major issues.
AP – President Barack Obama is shifting his administration’s emphasis to battling unemployment, the scourge that is hurting households nationwide and threatening to inflict heavy losses on Democrats in November’s elections.
Initiatives are part of broader push that includes unprecedented coordination with Saudi Arabia, Arab militaries aimed at thwarting Iran attacks.
AP – The Obama administration is proposing a 0 million fund to help pay for security costs in cities hosting the trials of accused terrorists such as Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
The Perry v Schwarzenegger trial to decide the fate of California’s Proposition 8 is now recessed until February 26th, when closing arguments begin–so we won’t have breaking news for a while. But the we checked in on Perry v Schwarzenegger, I wrote that things could get a little more dicey with the defense witnesses about to take the stand. Turns out that was correct; little did I know, however, that they were about to get very dicey for the defense.
It turns out, in fact, that the witnesses from the defense were one part crazy and one part concession.
If you only read the testimony of one witness from the trial, you should make sure it’s that of Dr. William Tam, an original proponent of Proposition 8. Tam’s testimony is damning–not just for documenting the despicable tactics that the campaign knowingly encouraged to drum up support for Proposition 8, but also for demonstrating the ultimate point: that the measure was significantly motivated by animus towards a suspect class. Here are some excerpts from the testimony, courtesy of the –Dr. Tam under examination from David Boies:
B: You told people that next will be legalizing sex with children. That’s the homosexual agenda. Do you believe this?
T: Yes.
T: Asks and B gives permission to talk. “I’m afraid of the liberal trend. Canada and Europe are liberal and they allow age of consent 13 or 14 and children can have sex with adults and each other.”)
B: You did not mention age of consent in the fourteen words you wrote?
T: No.
B: Age of consent has nothing to do with this [But Tam admitted that he told people that’s what would happen if 8 lost.] Age of consent did not change because of passage of ss marriage in Canada or Europe, right?
T: Canada right. I cannot say about Europe.
The rest of Dr. Tam’s testimony is equally as astounding, and I won’t quote any more of the transcripts lest the site start turning up in the wrong sorts of web searches–but feel free to explore the full thing in all its gruesome detail and with commentary
Dr. Tam’s testimony–and his close association with the Proposition 8 campaign–isn’t just an embarrassment for the defense, it’s also pretty catastrophic from a legal point of view: Dr. Tam’s testimony was not only devoid of any facts documenting adverse societal consequences resulting from gay marriage; even worse, it was full of complete falsehoods and exaggerations. This further substantiates the plaintiff’s arguments that Proposition 8 causes substantial harm to LGBT Americans without any “greater goods” benefiting society as a result, but was also the result of unreasonable animus on the part of the proponents.
But even better than exposing the craziness of the proponents? Getting them to argue your side for you. David Boies generally did a marvelous job dismantling the defense’s “expert witnesses” and proving that they weren’t really experts in anything; he performed a coup de grace on the defense’s case by getting the final witness to admit the plaintiff’s case. During his final cross-examination, Boies got David Blankenhorn first to that he wasn’t really an expert in anything:
DB: “I’m simply repeating things that they say.”
DB: “These are not my own conclusions.”
DB: “I’m a transmitter here of findings of these eminent scholars.”
And then, during the course of his expert testimony, Blankenhorn fully admitted the proposition’s case, including these quotes that sound like they were written by the equality movement:
“Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably reduce the proportion of homosexuals who marry persons of the opposite sex, and thus would likely reduce instances of marital unhappiness and divorce.”
“Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion. It would likely decrease the number of those in society who tend to be viewed warily as ‘other’ and increase the number who are accepted as part of ‘us.’ In that respect, gay marriage would be a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea.”
“Because marriage is a wealth-creating institution, extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably increase wealth accumulation and lead to higher living standards for these couples as well as help reduce welfare costs (by promoting family economic self-sufficiency) and decrease economic inequality.”
Just to re-emphasize: that was a witness against gay marriage. While we all need to wait for closing arguments in the coming weeks–and then for Judge Walker to make his final ruling–the absolute beatdown that Olson, Boies, and the other attorneys have given the defendant-intervenor is making pro-equality observers relatively confident in the outcome of this trial.
Lastly–as we wait for the closing arguments, a special thanks is owed to all the on-site bloggers who have provided blow-by-blow coverage of this case. Liveblogging a trial is an arduous task that requires specialized knowledge and experience, and few situations could better document the impact of the netroots on coverage of current events than the influence the movement and its people have had on this trial.
Can you have it both ways? I guess you can try. Here’s Claire McCaskill :
“As I said to somebody last night:, everybody needs to get the Washington wax out of their ears and listen and pay attention that people out there believe that we are going too far, too fast.”
Here’s a fundraising letter McCaskill is circulating this past week for the (quite excellent candidate) Robin Carnahan.
Rush Limbaugh and the Republican powerbrokers… know that Obama represents far more than one person or one office. He represents a movement of millions of Americans — people like you and me — who believe in hope and are working for change. …
It takes a special gumption for the politicians who got us into this crisis to complain about the leader who’s trying to get us out.
How much gumption would that be? As much as it takes to trade on attacking the president’s agenda one week and campaigning on it the next?
Robin Carnahan is a good candidate, possibly the most talented of a political family that has done a lot for Missouri. But right now, my advice to the Carnahan campaign is that sending out letters from a senator who doesn’t seem to believe in what she’s selling, might not be the best approach to Democratic voters.
Reuters – It’s frigid outside but inside the basketball arena, conservative activists give a warm welcome to former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich who lectures them on the importance of social media in winning elections.
And straight to the weekend links. No, not the golf links, as enviable as that might be.
The Obama administration proposes a 0 million fund to help pay for security costs in cities hosting the trials of accused terrorists.
AP – Ever make a personal call on your company cell phone? Did you record the value of that call as taxable income, as required by law?