See below for the summary of Thursday's proceedings in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial, authored by Alliance Defense Fund senior legal counsel Austin R. Nimocks, who is part of the legal team defending the
Stay tuned for updates throughout the trial here (http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/3618) and here (http://twitter.com/ADFmedia).
January 21, 2010
ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks:
Thursday revealed a staggering amount of anti-Christian sentiments put forth in the plaintiffs’ case, in addition to their continued attack against the democratic process. Completing the cross-examination of Dr. Gary M. Segura, the professor of political science from Stanford, was the first order of the day. While Dr. Segura continued his own theme that religion is standing in the way of those who want to redefine marriage from gaining political power, he was also required to make several concessions which were damaging to the plaintiffs’ case.
Among these admissions were several about the reactionary behavior of those who opposed Proposition 8, which resulted in a self-inflicted loss of their own political clout. Though Dr. Segura attempted to diminish the severity of the wound, something already known by those who supported Proposition 8 became abundantly clear for everyone else during the discussion: many who opposed Proposition 8 used threats, harassment, intimidation, violence, and property damage to carry their message, while those who supported Proposition 8 employed lawful means to make their points.
This entire trial has been little more than an attempt by activists advancing the homosexual legal agenda to use emotion and sympathy in order to convince the court that marriage is unconstitutional. But when presented with a real victim, a young girl assaulted by a Castro mob, the mask fell off. The video played, and as the girl described the attack, jeers, scoffs, and giggles filled the courtroom.
Before leaving the witness stand, Dr. Segura made an astounding statement. One of his opinions was that the “gay and lesbian community” possessed no “reliable allies” in the political world. This includes, in his opinion, President Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Rep. Barney Frank, and others whom he dismisses as not being true political allies of those who want to redefine marriage. This was quite an interesting statement because, as Dr. Segura was giving that testimony, I could not ignore that I was sitting at the counsel table, occupying chairs that are supposed to be occupied by attorneys for both the governor and attorney general of the State of
Following the testimony of Dr. Segura, in a desperate attempt to continue to paint the over 7 million Californians who voted “yes” on Proposition 8 as bigots, the plaintiffs called to the stand Dr. Hak-Shing Tam, one of the official proponents of Proposition 8. In the courtroom, Dr. Tam represented many of us who are concerned about attempts to redefine marriage in our country. Dr. Tam is a chemical engineer who cares about his family, his community, and his state. He decided, like so many others, to get involved and make a difference, so he used his contacts with the Chinese press and Chinese churches to help support Proposition 8.
Like millions of Californians, Dr. Tam shared with the court his belief that the redefinition of of marriage in our society will take a grave toll on our communities and children. There is a lot of evidence to prove this fact. Adultery, no-fault divorce, and fatherlessness are just a few of the large problems associated with the erosion of the marriage culture in our country already. Yet, the plaintiffs today possessed no shame in their efforts to mock Dr. Tam for holding these beliefs. Dr. Tam was questioned about his affiliations, his associations, who he knew (and who the plaintiffs demanded that he knew, even though he didn’t know them), and what he believed. In other words, Dr. Tam had his religious and political views placed under a judicial microscope to determine whether they were “correct” in the eyes of the law. Yes, you heard me right. The plaintiffs are trying hard to cast as legally wrong the political and religious beliefs of those who do not agree with them.
As the day lingered on, and the assault on Dr. Tam continued, I couldn’t help but think of a famous moment from the past involving Sen. Joseph McCarthy during his grilling of several American citizens during committee hearings. At a critical moment, when Sen. McCarthy breached an agreement regarding the hearings, Army attorney Joseph Welch came down on him saying, “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator.... You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” Had someone stood up and said this today during the cross-examination of Dr. Tam, it wouldn’t have come a moment too soon.
Nonetheless, marriage in