Discriminatory Motivations of Prop 8 Exposed in Court Today

Earlier today, I posted guest blogger Davina Kotulski's account of today's exchange in the Prop 8 trial hearing. In it, she wrote about Dr. William Tam of the Traditional Family Coalition and the airing of his video taped deposition. It exposed his prejudiced POV of the LGBT population.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights, the group behind the challenge to Prop 8, just released the following press release which contains more detail and evidence of discriminatory motivations behind those responsible for Prop 8. Proving that Prop 8 proponents acted with animus towards gays and lesbians is the challenge for the plaintiffs in their efforts to show that Prop 8 is unconstitutional and should be thrown out. The press release:

**Deposition Video and Campaign Communications from One of Five Official Proponents of Initiative Presented in Court Today

**Official Proponents Personally Responsible for Putting Prop. 8 on ballot, and Taking Over Defense of Prop. 8 in this Trial through Intervention

Evidence introduced today during the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial exposed the discriminatory motivations of Proposition 8, as demonstrated by campaign communications and statements by William Tam, an Official Proponent of the initiative. Video of Tam's deposition, which was taken on Dec. 1, 2009, was shown in court today.

Question: “And it is your understanding that part of the gay agenda is legalizing underage sex?”

Answer: “Right.” (Page 43 of deposition)

On Monday and Tuesday, the court viewed Yes on Prop. 8 ads urging voters to “protect our children.” Now it's apparent that this message was working in concert with the type of discriminatory communications we heard today from an Official Proponent of Prop. 8. This is powerful evidence.

“They lose no time in pushing the gay agenda --- after legalizing same-sex marriage, they want to legalize prostitution. What will be next? On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children.” (Pro-Prop. 8 email by Tam, page 78 of deposition and full text of email below)

“We hope to convince Asian-Americans that gay marriage will encourage more children to experiment with the gay lifestyle and that the lifestyle comes with all kinds of disease.” (Pro-Prop. 8 media interview by Tam, page 77 of deposition)

“Question: And how did that come to be? How did it come to be that you were part of that debate? "

“Answer: I was told by Protect Marriage to take part in that debate."

“Question: What do you remember saying on that topic of children and Prop 8?"

“Answer: Oh, I was saying that if same -sex marriage is legalized, then every child can grow up thinking whether he would marry John or Jane when they grow up.” (Tam discussing his arguments during a Pro-Prop 8 debate, page 73 of deposition)

Tellingly, Tam last week asked the court for permission to withdraw from the case. As an Official Proponent of Proposition 8, Tam was personally responsible for putting Prop. 8 on the ballot and voluntarily taking over the initiative's defense through intervening in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Tam's withdrawal request came on the heels of an unsuccessful, months-long effort to conceal widespread campaign communications, and extensive efforts to prevent any broadcast of the trial, even to other federal courtrooms.

“I voluntarily sought to intervene in the subject case along with the four other Official Proponents of Proposition 8. Our motion to intervene was granted June 20, 2009.” (Declaration of Tam in support of his request to withdraw from the case)

“As an official proponent, I invested substantial time, effort, reputation, and personal resources in campaigning for Proposition 8. For example, I dedicated the majority of my working hours between January 2008 and November 2008 toward qualifying Proposition 8 for the ballot and campaigning for its enactment.” (Declaration of Tam in support of proposed intervenors' motion to intervene)

TEXT OF TAM PRO-PROP 8 LETTER FROM WILLIAM TAM

Dear Friends:

This November, San Francisco voters will vote on a ballot to "legalize prostitution". This is put forth by the SF city government, which is under the rule of homosexuals. They lose no time in pushing the gay agenda --- after legalizing same-sex marriage, they want to legalize prostitution. What will be next? On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children. I hope we all wake up now and really work to pass Prop 8. We have only 48 days left. Even if you have church building projects, mission projects, concert projects, etc, please consider postponing them and put all the church man/woman power to work on Prop 8. We can't lose this critical battle. If we lose, this will very likely happen......

1. Same-Sex marriage will be a permanent law in California. One by one, other states would fall into Satan's hand.

2. Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex. More children would become homosexuals. Even if our children is safe, our grandchildren may not. What about our children's grandchildren?

3. Gay activists would target the big churches and request to be married by their pastors. If the church refuse, they would sue the church. Even if they know they may not win, they would still sue because they have a big army of lawyers from ACLU who would work for free. They know a prolonged law suit would cripple the church. They had sued the California government many times before. They sue until they win. They would not be afraid to sue a church. The church would have to spend lots of money in defending the case. The court fight would be long and the congregation would be discouraged and leave --- how long are they willing to shoulder the law suit costs. The church may give in and accept them, their membership would grow and take over the church. Then a righteous pastor would have to leave. Such scenarios have happened in Scandinavian countries. At that time, churches would keep quiet, hoping that they won't be picked as the next target.

If your church is sued, don't expect others to help your church. You would be in the battle alone, and chances are you would lose. If that happens, whatever nice building your church have built now would become meaningless.

In order not to let this happen, we better team up at the current battle to defeat same-sex marriage. Collectively, we have a chance to win. Right now, each church sacrifice a little. For 48 days, delay your projects, put your resources ($ and manpower) into Prop 8. We'd have great power if we pool our resources together. Let's win this battle. After victory, your congregation would be energized and go back to the original projects with joy and cheer. They may want to give more and build a bigger building to thank God. Our God would be pleased and bless us more. But if we lose, our congregation would lose heart. They might not want to work as hard. Our opponents would be overjoyed. They would do more and change more laws so as to persecute us easier. Churchs would have a much much harder time to survive. We would be collecting offerings to fight law suits instead of building new buildings. I pray that day would not come. The choice is yours. Talk to the leaders of your church. Your actions would change the history in either direction.

Thanks for your efforts,

Bill Tam

Traditional Family Coalition

See actual email sent out by Tam on the last page of the court filing below.

Plaintiff's Trial Brief Challenging Prop 8

Interview contained in this video with Tam expressing his views.

VIDEO: New Anti-LGBT Ad Urging Kalamazoo Residents to Vote For Discrimination

Kalamazoo, MI voters will decide tomorrow whether or not to overthrow the city's new anti-discrimination ordinance which will make it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity in housing, work and public accommodations.

The opposition has spewed misinformation, claiming women and children will be the prey to sexual predators in restrooms. And now they have released this ad:



And an other ad:



How blatantly wrong is that? They're claiming that assault was made legal. Such liars.

View this local news report about more attacks on LGBT residents.



Help the One Kalamazoo campaign today to help protect LGBT residents from discrimination!

Kalamazoo Gazette Endorses Voting 'Yes' to Non-Discrimination Ordinance

Kalamazoo, MI residents have a choice to make at the ballot this November - that is, whether they will vote in favor of the city's new non-discrimination ordinance which will bar discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, or vote to reject it.

The Kalamazo Gazette has endorsed the new ordinance and says so in its editorial, "Kalamazoo should stand for equality."

Either we are all equal, or we are not.

Is it right, then, that a person in Kalamazoo can be fired or denied employment or housing simply for being gay? Voters in the city have the opportunity on Nov. 3 to remove that inequity and deliver a strong message about the type of community we want to have.

Of course we’re referring to City of Kalamazoo Ordinance No. 1856, the city’s non-discrimination ordinance, which is on the ballot seeking to add “sexual orientation or gender identity” to the list of traits for which discrimination is prohibited. The ordinance already prohibits discrimination against people because of their race, religion, age, marital status and other characteristics. (You can read the entire ordinance, as proposed with the new inclusions, here. A new window will open up.)

The ordinance change, approved unanimously by the Kalamazoo City Commission, has been the subject of vigorous public debate in our community for more than a year. Other debates are being held across the country on issues relating to rights for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people — such as gay marriage and hate crimes legislation — but we must not concern ourselves with any of those or confuse them with the issue at hand.

The ordinance we have before us, we believe, has been carefully considered and constructed. We have read it, talked with city commission members and other candidates about it and met with groups advocating for and against it. We have read the Letters to the Editor and Viewpoints submitted for publication here, listened to the public debates and forums and done our own research. And we have concluded that amending the ordinance as proposed is fair, reasonable and necessary.

-----

Together, we can send the message that Kalamazoo is open, inclusive and values equality enough to say that our city will not discriminate against anyone. Vote “Yes” to pass this ordinance.

Thank you, Kalamazoo Gazette, for seeing past the lies and fear tactics and getting to the truth of the matter.

Get involved in protecting the basic freedoms of LGBT citizens of Kalamazoo. Go to One Kalamazoo.

White House Issues Statement on Maine/Washington Referenda . . . Sort Of

The amazing Kerry Eleveld, the Advocate's White House correspondent, asked the White House for a statement on the discriminatory referenda taking place in Washington state and Maine.

She got a response.

“The President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples, and as he said at the Human Rights Campaign dinner, he believes ‘strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away.’ Also at the dinner, he said he supports, ‘ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country.’"

UTF readers already know that, though I applauded President Obama for speaking at the HRC fundraiser and reiterating his support for LGBT rights, I was critical of the fact that it was just a repeat of his campaign promises.

This new statement reflects the same tactics and doesn't mention Washington or Maine directly. Obama's been clear that he supports civil unions and not particularly marriage equality, so direct reference would be rather difficult for him to pull off without ramifications to him. Though of course I would love it if he had.

Yet, this statement does provide a lot of fodder for the Approve Referendum 71 and NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaigns to use in their media, direct mail and phone banking.

So though I hope more from President Obama, I am grateful for this statement.

Anti-Discrimination One Kalamazoo Campaign Releases First Campaign Ad

From the One Kalamazoo campaign website in Michigan: "One Kalamazoo is the campaign to educate voters about the need to vote YES this November and support the Kalamazoo Non-Discrimination Ordinance. A grassroots organization, one Kalamazoo believes that all people—including gay and transgender people—should be treated fairly and equally when they live, work, or visit Kalamazoo."

This is the campaign's first ad.



Check out a little bit of irony about the images used by One Kalamazoo at Good As You.

Coffee Chain Tim Hortons Drops Sponsorship for NOM Event After Outrage from LGBT

UPDATE: NOM responds to Tim Horton's dropping sponsorship.

OK, I've been pretty busy reporting on this past weekend's Next Steps Working Meeting, so this story sparked and spread quickly and became resolved before I had time to write on it. But it's a good story with a happy ending, so here it goes.

Coffee and doughnut chain Tim Hortons, which boasts being the largest food service chain in Canada and with stores in the U.S. Northeast, came under fire from the LGBT population when it offered its sponsorship to the uber anti-marriage equality National Organization for Marriage's (NOM) 'Rhode Island’s First Annual Celebrate Marriage & Family Day.'

This news spread quickly across the LGBT blogosphere today with posts on Towleroad, Change.org, Pam's House Blend and more.

Tim Horton's didn't take long to respond. Today, they posted this response on their website:

Recently, Tim Hortons was approached in Rhode Island to provide free coffee and products for a local event, as we do thousands of times a year across Canada and the United States.

For 45 years, Tim Hortons and its store owners have practiced a philosophy of giving back to the communities in which we operate. As a company, our primary focus is on helping children and supporting fundraising events for non-profit organizations and registered charities.

For this reason, Tim Hortons has not sponsored those representing religious groups, political affiliates or lobby groups.

It has come to our attention that the Rhode Island event organizer and purpose of the event fall outside of our sponsorship guidelines. As such, Tim Hortons can not provide support at the event.

Tim Hortons and its store owners have always welcomed all families and communities to its restaurants and will continue to do so. We apologize for any misunderstanding or inconvenience this may have caused.

Let this be encouragement to us nationwide that when we speak up as a whole, things can and will change. Unite the Fight experienced this recently when I discovered the content filter system, OpenDNS, that Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf used for its wi-fi, blocked certain LGBT sites, citing them as "adult." In no time flat, the news spread and the Advocate picked up the story. Within 48 hours, the sites were unblocked with an official apology from all parties.

Sometimes we feel discouraged, facing constant discrimination not only from our government but also from friends, neighbors and family. But if we speak up, we can make a difference.

Inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act Introduced to U.S. Senate Today for the First Time in History

UPDATE: The Senate ENDA has 38 sponsors and counting . . .

Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley made history today by being the first to introduce an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in the U.S. Senate with bi-partisan support from long-time sponsor Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine).

The first-term Sen. Merkley told the Washington Blade he’s sponsoring the legislation because “it stems from core conviction” about his belief in fairness and equality.

“For me, one of the huge issues that I’ve cared a lot about is equality under the law and fairness to all Americans, and this was just a core part of the way I view the world,” he said

In an official press release, Sen. Merkley wrote, "There is no place in the workplace for employment discrimination. No worker in America should be fired or denied a job based on who they are. Discrimination is wrong, period. I'm proud to join Senator Kennedy, who is a civil rights legend, and Senators Collins and Snowe, both champions for equality, in taking this next step in our ongoing effort to create a more perfect union and guarantee every American, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, the right to earn a living."

In response, Human Rights Campaign launched a lobby effort today, to rally the community to contact senators through email, urging their support.

In an e-mail blast, the HRC states, "In 29 states, you can be fired solely because you're gay – and if you're transgender, that's 38 states. It's outrageous, and it's unacceptable."

Current federal law prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, age, and disability.

Rea Carey of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, whose organization has pushed for this bill since 1974, said, "People recognize that our nation as a whole benefits when everyone is allowed to contribute their talents and skills, free from discrimination, which is all ENDA seeks to do."

Rep. Barney Frank, the lead sponsor for the inclusive ENDA bill in the House, has stated he is optimistic about its chances in the House, but is more reserved about the Senate. In order for the bill to be filibuster proof in the senate chamber, 60 votes will be needed, although 51 votes will be all it needs to pass. Right now, it's not clear if the 60 votes are in hand, and some have expressed that they do not want the bill to hit the Senate floor for a vote if it is not filibuster proof.

President Obama promised in his campaign to sign an inclusive ENDA bill if it reached his desk. With Obama being adamant that Congress be the key to protecting LGBT rights through legislation, it will be interesting to see if and how the White House pushes Congress to pass ENDA.

Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf Did Not "Willingly Block LGBT Internet Sites"

I just finished a very cordial conference call with Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf and discussed what has now become the hot topic of their complimentary wi-fi service blocking some LGBT news blogs, such as Towleroad and Pam's House Blend.

In a statement to Unite the Fight, Coffee Bean said:

First and foremost I want to thank you for bringing the issue of the two blocked LGBT websites to our attention. Let me be 100% clear from the onset. It is not, and has never been, the policy of Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf to willingly block or prevent access to LGBT Internet sites.

After you brought this to our attention yesterday we took immediate steps to resolve the issue and investigate exactly what happened. We found the OpenDNS Web content filtering system had miscategorized these two web sites as having sexual content, and thus prevented customers from accessing those sites. With the help of OpenDNS, we were able to override the filter immediately when it was brought to our attention.

No web content filter is perfect, but we are able to change misclassifications when they are brought to our attention. To be clear, the words “gay” or “lesbian” are not flagged in the OpenDNS Filter. We believe that censorship of any site that offers news and opinions is wrong and goes against everything we stand for as a company and a member of the communities in which we operate.

To those who came to Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf's defense - you were spot on. And I want to thank the coffee and tea chain for their fast action on correcting the situation.

I personally want to state that my frustration wasn't with Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf, but with OpenDNS' flagging method, the content filter provider for Coffee Bean's wi-fi. As I've stated already, these faulty but many times purposeful flagging methods usually lead to "technical discrimination," which we LGBT face at work, libraries and other public places offering internet services. And in the case of OpenDNS, it took just a view homophobic viewers to flag these LGBT sites and effectively block them for all.

When OpenDNS responded to my first email claiming it was Coffee Bean who was responsible, it immediately stirred a lot of people up against Coffee Bean, but inaccurately. I then wrote Coffee Bean. They responded immediately to me.

In the interim, the Founder of OpenDNS' clarified his company's original statement, stating that all of this was a "technical mistake" on their end.

In this case, it was a mistake. But in other cases, it isn't. Under Towleroad's story on this issue, many commentators have mentioned all the other places where they found the site to have been blocked. Other's have mentioned the same for Pam's House Blend, a site purely news and editorial.

What this boils down to is our continued need to change hearts and minds about the LGBT population. What needs to change is the automatic correlation between who we are and what is deemed offensive, hence the need for many to block any site that deals with our issues and, unfortunately, our labels.

And it was this frustration that I experienced which launched all of this in the first place. Hopefully, the good that will come out of this isn't just a stronger relationship between Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf and the LGBT population. What can come out of it is a message, first to us, that if we speak up, things can change. But secondly, a message to the public that we simply will not, cannot take, not only "technical discrimination," but all discrimination.

Unite the Fight Is to Talk with Coffee Bean - Statement Issued From Content Filter Co. Founder

I just talked to Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf's PR firm and I will be having a conversation with Coffee Bean later this afternoon.

I want to say right now though, that the PR firm has stated that they too are aghast at how the coffee shop's wi-fi system works and reiterated that these sites should not be blocked. They mentioned Coffee Bean feels the same. I'll know more about what they have to say this afternoon.

Furthermore, Pam's House Blend, a blocked site, is also aware of the issue. David Ulevitch, the founder of OpenDNS, the company that filters content for Coffee Bean's wi-fi, issued this statement in Pam's comments section (which someone was also kind enough to post under our comments here as well):

I don't want to jump in front of my staff who are going to respond to this better than I can, but this was just a mistake on OpenDNS's part in two ways: 1) blocking your site and 2) having a support response that was a bit more biased than it should have been.

I love our support department because our team is not outsourced to some far off country and is made up of real human beings in San Francisco with real opinions and who really care about giving our customers and users high-quality support. 99.99% of the time, that's awesome. Every once in a while (this might be the first time) I look at an answer and scratch my head wondering what they were thinking. I think you'll find this all gets cleared up in a couple of hours as folks roll into work and we'll send responses to UniteTheFight and the other sites.

Also, in case anyone wonders... no "heads are going to roll" as a result of this, it was just a technical mistake and a slightly blunt support response from a well-meaning person on my team. I'm confident neither will happen again. :-)

Thanks,
David Ulevitch
Founder, OpenDNS

ps, the irony is that I can say with a very high degree of confidence that nobody at OpenDNS, least of all our support department, has any issue with LGBT sites. If you ever see our blocked page again in error just flag it for review.

This is developing very well. My issue, from the beginning, was "technical discrimination." Unless someone, an actual person, other than users who are homophobic, are causing these sites to be flagged, then it's a technical issue. (Which is why I wrote my email to OpenDNS.) But behind this issue is the association of "gay", "lesbian" and "homosexual" to smut, thus causing their systems to block essential, clean and legitimate LGBT sites.

The beautiful result of all of us speaking up about this is that Coffee Bean and OpenDNS are wanting to work with us on solving this issue. They think it's wrong, too. But if we don't ever speak up, what offends us will never be fixed.

UPDATE: Internet Problems and "Technical" Discrimination

UPDATE: Received a response from OpenDNS regarding the Coffee Bean wi-fi:

We only provide network admins with the tools to block content on their networks, we as a company do not block anyone for any reason. If this user (i.e.business) chooses to block a particular type of content on their network, we cannot interfere.

You however, as a consumer, have every right to boycott their business for the way they choose to block content on their networks.

If you have any other questions or need further assistance, please don't hesitate to ask - we are more than happy to help!

Interesting. And I want to be clear. I never mentioned a boycott. That was them. Waiting to hear from Coffee Bean themselves.

This post generated a bigger response than expected, from Facebook, Twitter, comments here and email. I'm glad to see I'm not alone when experiencing "technical discrimination." (Naturally, I never thought I was, hence my ranting.)

I will keep you posted on development. As Jeffrey posted under comments here, hopefully with a friendly request, we can rectify the situation and have one less place that blocks genuine LGBT content.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi UTF Readers,

Unfortunately, I'm experiencing internet problems and am unable to post as usual. But here's a quick story.

As a result of AT&T failing me on my internet connection, I went to a Coffee Bean where free wi-fi is advertised as a reason to come and sit around and drink their coffee.

Yeah!

Kind of. As I am going through my news feed and clicking on different blogs, I get this message:


If you can't read it, it says that Pam's House Blend is blocked due to "sexuality." (Same thing for Towleroad among others.) Click on it to enlarge.

Sure, this shouldn't be anything new to us - we experience "technical" discrimination all the time when we try to visit newsworthy sites issuing stories on LGBT issues, while at work or at the library, simply because the word "gay", "lesbian", the dreaded "homosexual" and other similar key words are detected. As a result, we're immediately blocked for the reason, as described above by OpenDNS, the wi-fi source for Coffee Bean, of "sexuality."

Naturally, I wrote a rather angry email telling them they need to do a better job determining what is porn or "adult" and from what is a news or editorial blog. If I typed in "heterosexual", would the sites pulled up be blocked?

I doubt it.

I've heard the excuses before from techies about how hard it is to filter porn out while still trying not to block non-adult LGBT sites.

But then we reach a deeper issue. Is the LGBT population feeding the popularity of LGBT porn, thus making the "homosexual" key word more equivalent to porn than a description of who we are (though many of us hate that word), thus justifying the wingnuts arguments against us about being simply a sexually driven population? Or is it simply so many people are in the closet and make these LGBT porn sites and their corresponding key words so much more popular than we possibly could on our own? (Again, another issue there.) Or is it just downright discrimination?

Or is it all these things?

I don't know. What I do know is that I'm trying to continue to blog on LGBT issues - just bear with me as I weed through "technical" discrimination.