Obscanity: You'll know it when you see it

Protect Marriage avoids inconvenient truths.

Then Thursday, for the first time (we believe) ever in a court of law, a proponent of a voter initiative was put on the stand to be interrogated under oath about his own political, moral and religious views. Not only was the Prop 8 supporter forced to reveal his political and religious views under penalty of perjury, but he was further forced to defend and substantiate his views so the court can decide whether his views are “improper.”

They make it sound like Plaintiffs plucked a random guy off the street. This was an OFFICIAL PROPONENT of the amendment, and also the executive director of one of the campaign coalition organizations. This was a guy who JOINED as a Defendant Intervener (despite efforts to withdraw under pretense of fear once he realized he was making matters worse by being there)! That makes him a VOLUNTARY PARTY TO THIS CASE. Why shouldn’t he be put on the stand under oath and interrogated as to his actions and motives? Tam voluntarily stepped into the public eye in order to make outrageous claims about the “gay agenda.” He participated in public debates on behalf of the Yes on 8 campaign. And perhaps most importantly, Tam’s beliefs reflect those of a great number of Prop 8 supporters – and that is entirely relevant to this case, because the Plaintiffs need to show that animus was the driving factor. Tam SHOULD be held accountable for his public statements, especially because he not only inserted himself into the campaign, but also inserted himself into the very case in which he is being examined.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.