Prop 8 Supporter Wants Out of Trial; NOM Does Not Expect a Win

A couple interesting pieces of news to emerge as the Prop 8 trial approaches on Monday.

9th A defendant in the Prop 8 case wants out:

"Hak-Shing William Tam was one of the five official sponsors of Proposition 8 who formally 'intervened' in a federal lawsuit challenging the voter-approved ban. The lawsuit officially names the state as the defendant, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown have refused to defend the voter-approved ban.

On Friday, Tam told U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker that he fears for his and his family's safety. In his court filing, Tam's lawyers say the trial will bring him unwanted publicity and expose him to retribution from gay marriage supporters.

Tam also says the case has been more time-consuming and more intrusive into his personal life than expected."

Brown And the National Organization for Marriage's (NOM) Brian Brown sent out a fundraising letter on Friday with this nugget regarding the upcoming trial:

"We do not expect to win at the trial level, but with God’s help, at least five members of the current Supreme Court will have the courage to defend our Constitution from this grave attack."

Brown says NOM will be filing an amicus brief in the case, adding:

"But there’s a topline message here about this trial even many informed voters don’t yet realized: It’s not about California, it’s about the whole country. Gay-marriage advocates are in federal court arguing for a federal constitutional right to gay marriage that would trump not only Prop 8, but the laws of 45 other states, including the 30 other states where the people have passed state constitutional marriage amendments.

That’s right, the Constitution drafted by our Founding Fathers contains a right to gay marriage–in their twisted view. This is judicial activism on steroids, and a flagrant disrespect for civility, common sense, and democracy."

More from Karen Ocamb at LGBT POV.


  1. says

    i wrote the following at another blog about this subject, so please forgive the cut and paste:

    mr. tam: i’m so sorry that your fight to take away people’s rights is proving to be so inconvenient to you. it must be a terrible thing to feel like your family might be in danger from those that don’t believe the same things you do. it must be a terrible thing to feel like people might be willing to cause you physical harm for just trying to live your life the way you see fit. it must be a terrible thing to fear retribution for just trying to exercise your constitutional rights.

    see? you DO have a LOT in common with many gay people in the USA today.

  2. says

    Excellent uplifting news Andy! Thanks so much for staying on top of this and bringing us these updates. There IS hope.

    The trial SHOULD BE TELEVISED LIVE just like the OJ trial and not selectively edited and uploaded to YouTube. Would a judge do that if this were a case involving the Black, Hispanic or Asian community? Absolutely not but once again, the gay comunity is treated as second class citizens.

  3. TANK says

    OS2, aren’t you surprised that none of this has anything to do with marc jacobs and his magical powers to subdue the enemy? This is your LIFE! ROTFLMAO!

  4. Kitty Boots says

    Tam said that this abortion of Constitutional re-writing is ‘more intrusive to his personal life than he expected”??? Has anyone questioned his right to love his wife? Has anyone called his children parents ‘illegitimate’?
    LGBT people DEFEND themselves against assholes like this everyday and fear bodily harm their small-minded followers. It’s about time will finally dished it out.
    I hope he experiences job discrimination, physical violence, and is threatened with having his children taken away from him. then he will learn God’s ultimate lesson, ‘Do unto others motherfucker…”

  5. says

    Poor Tam – thought he could be a ‘Phobe from afar. Who knew people got pissed when their rights were snatched away.

    And you notice how the right loves to throw around the term “judicial activism”? Who needs a consensus of judges with decades of legal experience under their collective belts, we you can spread lies and fear and then count on the reactionary, and typically ignorant voter to bend to your will?

  6. Dan W says

    Dan A:

    There would not be an automatic stay, but either Judge Vaughn or the appeals court would almost certainly stay the order until the appeals are finished because it is easier to manage the implementation of the order once the appeals are finished and there is no question of it being overturned.

  7. says

    So let me get this straight, Hak-Shing William Tam believed so fervently that marriage should only be between and man and a woman, that he took the time, money and effort to defeat Gay Marriage in California, but doesn’t believe in it enough to actually show up for court because he “fears for the safety of his family?” What does he think, he’s going to be pelted with a 1,000 wedding boquets?

  8. Garst says

    So, Mr. Tam wants out the back door after parading through the front. Fat fucking chance! He knew that this was going to be a big deal when he signed up for the campaign.

    This trial BETTER BE televised. It has a direct impact on the first amendment. NOM is and has always been a religious organization. Using the path they did to squash anyone’s right to marry IS unconstitutional.

    @DAN A
    I doubt any judge would bar anyone from marrying if anyone tries to bring it in front of the supreme court. It’s likely that if NOM loses this case that people can marry up to and most likely after the supreme court makes its decision.

    And I hope no court even thinks that NOM can be considered a “friend of the court.” It’s the reason that there is this trial to begin with.

  9. John says

    Automatically stayed. California is always full of false hope though, so I am not getting to excited regardless of the outcome. I am probably not the only one who’s sick of California and its drama queen approach to this topic.

    A short history of the Marriage Movement from Hell:

    I do – Newsom issues marriage licenses in San Francisco (Spring 2004)

    I don’t – State Supreme Court voids all of those marriage licenses (Summer 2004)

    I do – Trial court judges in San Jose, San Francisco, and Sacramento rules same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, but all those decisions are stayed pending appeal (2005)

    I do – General Assembly approves same-sex marriage legislation (2005 & 2006)

    I don’t – Arnold vetoes aforementioned legislation (2005 & 2006)

    I don’t – First and Third Circuit Court of Appeals upholds same-sex marriage ban; LGBT supporters appeal to the State Supreme Court and ask for consolidation of all the different cases (2006)

    I do – State Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional (Summer 2008)

    I don’t – Proposition 8 passes (Winter 2008)

    I don’t – State Supreme Court rules *new* same-sex marriage ban constitutional (Spring 2009)

    I do, sort of – General Assembly passes legislation recognizing out of state marriages before November 2008 and it is signed by Arnold

  10. Sargon Bighorn says

    “That’s right, the Constitution drafted by our Founding Fathers contains a right to gay marriage–in their twisted view” WTF but according to Brown it contains the right for bigots to DENY marriage to people they don’t like? One has to watch these oily bastards closely. This sort of statement has lots of people saying, “Yeah that’s right it goes not guarantee “Gay Marriage”

    The constitution does not address Marriage. It deals with treating ALL citizens equally under the law. Focus on THAT Constitutional Truth.

  11. walter says

    too bad tam nobody forced you to become involved in other people’s lives you took that on yourself now that things are getting tuff you want to hide way too late for that

  12. Tyler says

    So, what happens if we win, and the appellate court decides not to hear it? Or if the Supreme Court decides not to hear it (which is a legitimate possibility)?

  13. Garst says

    Whoever wins, if the appelate courts and the supreme court decide not to hear it, I’m pretty certain then this case becomes law that cannot be challenged. But the supreme court will rule on what is a legal marriage because it IS one of those things that cannot be ignored seems how it has the potential to change the Bill of Rights.

  14. John says


    Then the trial court’s decision stands.

    However, it will apply only to jurisdiction in which it was decided (i.e. the District of Northern California). If Judge Walker rules against Prop. 8 and there are no appeals, this may create the unusual circumstance of same-sex marriage being legal in only half of the state.

    I doubt the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals would leave it alone for that reason.

    They will intervene one way or another.

    Of course, the reason Olson and Boies filed the lawsuit in San Francisco rather than Los Angeles in the first place was because Southern California judges are more conservative in general. This is all very strategic. It is a chess game with extremely high stakes.

  15. chris says

    hopefully mr. tam is starting to realize that what two men or two women choose to consensually do would have NO impact on his marriage—had he not made it his own personal issue and decide to butt his head into THEIR personal lives, he would not have all these “problems”.

  16. geglesias says

    Brown, from (NOM) is a big joke. He tries to sound dramatic by saying- “This is judical activism on steroids, and a flagrant disrespect for civility, common sense, and Democracy.” haha he says Democracy, “BUT what he really wants is a Theocracy.”; Which is certainly NOT what our Founding Fathers wanted; “IT IS CLEARLY STATED RIGHT IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF our CONSTITUTION.”” (Brown should read it)

  17. jonny says

    Not to be caddy, but Sweet Jeezus, did Brian Brown eat maggie gallagher for lunch? Those two are exponentially expanding under the stresses of fervently hating and oppressing people.

  18. says

    @ JT

    You’re a douchebag. And like most douchebags, an anonymous one. The thing with us real people responding to real situations in real time, we sometimes jump the gun in reactionary fashion. This is the time or place to defend myself.

    It would have been nice if you’d had one comment pertinent to this thread, but of course not, because you’re a douche.

  19. Donald says

    i⋅ro⋅ny1  [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]
    –noun, plural -nies.
    1. Tam also says the case has been more time-consuming and more intrusive into his personal life than expected.


    Now this is curious. Tam drops out because he fears for the safety of his family. And then goes on to make himself front page news and the focus of thousands of readers on the internet. Contradictory. Smell something?
    And the announcement from the Yes on 8 crowd that they do not expect to win in court BEFORE THE TRIAL HAS EVEN BEGUN. The most expensive part of legal work is the day(s) in court. Why even bother to proceed if they don’t see a prospect of winning? Curious. Smell something?

  21. says

    Djokovic is an all-court player with emphasis on offensive baseline play. His greatest strengths are his groundstrokes, serve and defense. He is consistent off both wings, although his backhand is his preferred stroke.

Leave A Reply