Ok, I am literally crying with laughter right now. I copied and pasted my favorite highlights to a friend over AIM, if you can't be bothered to read the whole transcript, don't miss these:
T: Homosexuals are not minority.
B: How many are there?
T: I am a minority. Minority is based on skin color.
T: I believe if marriage is beyond a man and a woman that any person can come to ask for marriage for incest and polygamy. If this is a civil right what would stop anyone from using marriage.
B: Can two siblings become DPs? Can man and girl of young age become DP?
T: No.
B: DPs exclude people of certain age and relationship.
T: Right.
B: You know that?
T: Yes.
B: So you see that DP does not lead to incest.
T: Yes. Oh I see your logic.
B: You agreed that multiple campaign committees and independent messaging and independent strategies and fundraising and membership building are counterproductive?
T: Yes. But later on I forgot about this document and made some statements that were independent of PM.com.
B: Do you consider yourself an honest man?
T: yes.
B: You would not sign something in which you did not agree?
T: No.
B: It says here under message discipline that all messaging/public statement s must be approved by campaign manager.
T: I agreed to that but later on I did some things on my own.
B: You did not start violating this agreement the next day did you?
T: No, but I did later.
B: When?
T: I don’t remember.
B: What did you say?
T: I think I said to SJ Mercury News that same sex marriage can lead to all kinds of diseases.
B: Did anyone from ProtectMarriage.com contact you to say anything about this?
T: Mr. White called me and said I should not have said that.
[Miss Moss of Prop. 8 is now trying to prove that Mr. Tam is a rogue.]
B: Whom did you talk to during the break?
T: My lawyer.
B: What did you say to your lawyer?
T: That I felt like a naughty boy being put in front of the classroom being mocked.
I get the feeling that the defense counsel just doesn't give a shit. Like, it's a foregone conclusion that they'll be heading to the 9th circuit, and the only thing they care about is being prepared for the actual battle there or in SCOTUS.
IANAL, or terribly educated on this for that matter. But 99.9999% of my brain cells are in my gut so you should totally listen to my opinions
T: That I felt like a naughty boy being put in front of the classroom being mocked.
B: What did he say?
T: He laughed.
oh god. oh god. the laughter. it won't stop
nescientist on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited January 2010
Unfortunately, a law merely being a silly goose does not make it unconstitutional. The defense can make the weakest case possible and there is still a chance the plaintiff will not prevail.
Hachface on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited January 2010
It's going to get appealed either way. The defense would probably be best served by trying to create as many openings for dismissal on legal technicalities as possible.
I really dislike when people argue that homosexuals are asking for more rights by wanting marriage.
That's practically denying homosexuality as an option period. "We already have equal rights, I can marry a woman, and so can the gay guy."
Are you an idiot?
Yeah, I'd say you should just argue "But I can marry someone I love, gay people can't," but I doubt that would get anyone homophobic to agree.
I honestly am of the opinion that if someone can say "they already have the same right I do - to marry someone of the opposite sex" or an analogue with a straight face, then they are probably a lost cause. In most cases the only sane response is to wait patiently for the bigot to die of old age.
EDIT: wait I thought that was a joke, there's actually a rule about using the word "bigot" now? Not as strict as the only other restricted word on these forums, I hope? (if so oh god please do not castrate me mods)
I really dislike when people argue that homosexuals are asking for more rights by wanting marriage.
That's practically denying homosexuality as an option period. "We already have equal rights, I can marry a woman, and so can the gay guy."
Are you an idiot?
Yeah, I'd say you should just argue "But I can marry someone I love, gay people can't," but I doubt that would get anyone homophobic to agree.
I honestly am of the opinion that if someone can say "they already have the same right I do - to marry someone of the opposite sex" or an analogue with a straight face, then they are probably a lost cause. In most cases the only sane response is to wait patiently for the bigot to die of old age.
Yeah.
Incidentally, I don't know if SkyGheNe is gay or not. Sorry for making an assumption. The argument works better if it's abstracted anyway. Or if you use "You" instead of "I."
I really dislike when people argue that homosexuals are asking for more rights by wanting marriage.
That's practically denying homosexuality as an option period. "We already have equal rights, I can marry a woman, and so can the gay guy."
Are you an idiot?
To borrow from South Park:
THIS IS WHAT THESE PEOPLE REALLY BELIEVE
I was listening to an interview with John Oliver today, and they were asking him about the segments where he goes out and effectively trolls crazy people in real life. His response was something along the lines of; "To us it's funny. It's a joke. When this person says something completely insane and stands there looking like I should be jumping to agree with him, it's funny. And it really is, it's hilarious. To US. To him, it's a deeply held belief. It's more than that, actually. To him this thought, this crazy thing that is making us laugh, is incontrovertible fact. It would be more funny if it weren't absolutely terrifying."
You can also point out the equality-of-the-sexes argument. Women have a civil liberty I, a man, do not- they can marry men. I, a man, have a civil liberty women do not- I can marry women.
You can also point out that the argument could just as easily be, "What's the problem? We all have the ability to marry someone of the same race..." Then they have to answer why race is different from sexual orientation from a legal perspective and you've pretty much got them.
Professor Phobos on
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
edited January 2010
Good points.
Though, I think you've generally "got them" by the time the argument starts. You won't be able to convince them that that's the way things are, however.
Shivahn on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Though, I think you've generally "got them" by the time the argument starts. You won't be able to convince them that that's the way things are, however.
That's what's so great about it being in trial form now. We don't have to care about convincing Tam; we just have to expose his idiocy in front of the judge, who's a much better... judge of what's logical and what's not.
Though, I think you've generally "got them" by the time the argument starts. You won't be able to convince them that that's the way things are, however.
I find it very difficult to convince people who are set in their ways to change. Concessions and growth are interpreted as weakness in our culture: you see it with politicians and very public figures. They cannot and will not admit that they made a mistake, and if they do, "mistakes were made," as it was famously put.
Lately I've subscribed to simply asking questions as calmly as I can. Typically it eats away and to any person with a shred of empathy and humanity in them, the verbal filth coming from their mouth will be as clear to them as the necessity of food to a starving beggar.
I think that's why I'm enjoying these testimonials; to destroy their arguments requires simple questions, nothing more.
Though, I think you've generally "got them" by the time the argument starts. You won't be able to convince them that that's the way things are, however.
I find it very difficult to convince people who are set in their ways to change. Concessions and growth are interpreted as weakness in our culture: you see it with politicians and very public figures. They cannot and will not admit that they made a mistake, and if they do, "mistakes were made," as it was famously put.
Lately I've subscribed to simply asking questions as calmly as I can. Typically it eats away and to any person with a shred of empathy and humanity in them, the verbal filth coming from their mouth will be as clear to them as the necessity of food to a starving beggar.
I think that's why I'm enjoying these testimonials; to destroy their arguments requires simple questions, nothing more.
sooooooo much lime. I would lime the entire quote, but then I'd have to go and make the part I did lime 36-point font in order to give it the proper gravitas.
nescientist on
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Picture a bunch of people talking for eight hours. It's a lot of fucking text. And the reporter types in shorthand, which can only be transcribed by her. They're fast, but they're not that fast, and the thing does need to be entirely re-transcribed again. So, if there are eight hours of talking, if you can re-transcribe it in only five or six hours, that's hella fast. Realistically speaking, though, you just spent eight hours writing it all down while they were talking in shorthand; are you really going to immediately start transcribing? I seriously doubt it. So, proper transcriptions take a few days.
Picture a bunch of people talking for eight hours. It's a lot of fucking text. And the reporter types in shorthand, which can only be transcribed by her. They're fast, but they're not that fast, and the thing does need to be entirely re-transcribed again. So, if there are eight hours of talking, if you can re-transcribe it in only five or six hours, that's hella fast. Realistically speaking, though, you just spent eight hours writing it all down while they were talking in shorthand; are you really going to immediately start transcribing? I seriously doubt it. So, proper transcriptions take a few days.
Actual court reporters anymore are weird. Just record it all digitally then have someone transcribe it from the recording.
Picture a bunch of people talking for eight hours. It's a lot of fucking text. And the reporter types in shorthand, which can only be transcribed by her. They're fast, but they're not that fast, and the thing does need to be entirely re-transcribed again. So, if there are eight hours of talking, if you can re-transcribe it in only five or six hours, that's hella fast. Realistically speaking, though, you just spent eight hours writing it all down while they were talking in shorthand; are you really going to immediately start transcribing? I seriously doubt it. So, proper transcriptions take a few days.
Actual court reporters anymore are weird. Just record it all digitally then have someone transcribe it from the recording.
Isn't that the whole problem? Can't do any recording (technically you can but only the judge can view it now thanks to a stupid SCOTUS)
Picture a bunch of people talking for eight hours. It's a lot of fucking text. And the reporter types in shorthand, which can only be transcribed by her. They're fast, but they're not that fast, and the thing does need to be entirely re-transcribed again. So, if there are eight hours of talking, if you can re-transcribe it in only five or six hours, that's hella fast. Realistically speaking, though, you just spent eight hours writing it all down while they were talking in shorthand; are you really going to immediately start transcribing? I seriously doubt it. So, proper transcriptions take a few days.
Actual court reporters anymore are weird. Just record it all digitally then have someone transcribe it from the recording.
Isn't that the whole problem? Can't do any recording (technically you can but only the judge can view it now thanks to a stupid SCOTUS)
Yeah I guess it wouldn't be able to be publicized till after the whole thing was over.
One of my favorite bits. Especially since I was able to use it on a forum against someone today.
T: Homosexuals are not minority.
B: How many are there?
T: I am a minority. Minority is based on skin color.
B: How many are there?
T: 2-4% of population.
B: So they are a minority?
T: yes.
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
This reminds me of my college days. (not the cocaine thing, the minority thing)
We had a very diverse student body, so we had a great council-type group that organized events and such. Any time they used the word minority to describe an event, the GLBT club would get snubbed. We'd ask if there was anything we could do and they would just stare at us. It was a bit depressing.
Was still a great school though.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
It's going to get appealed either way. The defense would probably be best served by trying to create as many openings for dismissal on legal technicalities as possible.
Not really, since that just means that the door remains open for future litigation. They've already telegraphed their gameplan - they don't care about the district or circuit level, as they're more or less convinced that they can't win there (especially with the 9th Circuit.) Their goal is to get this ruling to the Supreme Court, where they believe that they can win this case once and for all.
The sad part is that their belief in this isn't exactly irrational. Three of the justices there (Scalia, Alito, and Thomas) will rule for them, no matter what sort of twisted shape they have to torturously bend the law into to get there. The problem is that Kennedy and Roberts are on the fence, and they need both to win. So their strategy right now is to muddy the legal waters as much as possible, in order to provide Roberts and Kennedy the cover to rule in their favor.
It's a fucking twisted strategy, and the saddest part is that it's a rational and viable one.
One of my favorite bits. Especially since I was able to use it on a forum against someone today.
T: Homosexuals are not minority.
B: How many are there?
T: I am a minority. Minority is based on skin color.
B: How many are there?
T: 2-4% of population.
B: So they are a minority?
T: yes.
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
This reminds me of my college days. (not the cocaine thing, the minority thing)
We had a very diverse student body, so we had a great council-type group that organized events and such. Any time they used the word minority to describe an event, the GLBT club would get snubbed. We'd ask if there was anything we could do and they would just stare at us. It was a bit depressing.
Was still a great school though.
Minorities only count if they make good photo-ops. Maybe if they're really flaming or have a dikey haircut or something, but too many gays these days look like normal people.
Picture a bunch of people talking for eight hours. It's a lot of fucking text. And the reporter types in shorthand, which can only be transcribed by her. They're fast, but they're not that fast, and the thing does need to be entirely re-transcribed again. So, if there are eight hours of talking, if you can re-transcribe it in only five or six hours, that's hella fast. Realistically speaking, though, you just spent eight hours writing it all down while they were talking in shorthand; are you really going to immediately start transcribing? I seriously doubt it. So, proper transcriptions take a few days.
Actual court reporters anymore are weird. Just record it all digitally then have someone transcribe it from the recording.
What's the point of recording it and then having someone transcribe it, when you can just have someone transcribe it right there?
What's the point of recording it and then having someone transcribe it, when you can just have someone transcribe it right there?
Uh, a pause button? Verification that the court reported transcribed it correctly? History?
edit: And I don't just mean this case. There is no technological reason that all government proceedings can't be recorded and made available to the public. If the government has the money and the means to listen in on every call and data stream in the US it can damn sure provide us the ability to listen in on them.
Judging by the noises coming out of NOM they're getting desperate.
Do explain. I rather enjoy NOM-flavored schadenfreude.
Though I have a feeling that it's probably around the fact that the plaintiffs are doing an excellent job of nailing down the legal issues - which fucks up their "muddy the waters and go to SCOTUS" strategy.
Posts
IANAL, or terribly educated on this for that matter. But 99.9999% of my brain cells are in my gut so you should totally listen to my opinions
oh god. oh god. the laughter. it won't stop
That's practically denying homosexuality as an option period. "We already have equal rights, I can marry a woman, and so can the gay guy."
Are you an idiot?
Did some quick edits for mechanical issues there; I think this really enhances the clarity of your post.
Yeah, I'd say you should just argue "But I can marry someone I love, gay people can't," but I doubt that would get anyone homophobic to agree.
Edited to comply with new forum rules.
I honestly am of the opinion that if someone can say "they already have the same right I do - to marry someone of the opposite sex" or an analogue with a straight face, then they are probably a lost cause. In most cases the only sane response is to wait patiently for the bigot to die of old age.
EDIT: wait I thought that was a joke, there's actually a rule about using the word "bigot" now? Not as strict as the only other restricted word on these forums, I hope? (if so oh god please do not castrate me mods)
THIS IS WHAT THESE PEOPLE REALLY BELIEVE
Yeah.
Incidentally, I don't know if SkyGheNe is gay or not. Sorry for making an assumption. The argument works better if it's abstracted anyway. Or if you use "You" instead of "I."
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
You can also point out that the argument could just as easily be, "What's the problem? We all have the ability to marry someone of the same race..." Then they have to answer why race is different from sexual orientation from a legal perspective and you've pretty much got them.
Though, I think you've generally "got them" by the time the argument starts. You won't be able to convince them that that's the way things are, however.
That's what's so great about it being in trial form now. We don't have to care about convincing Tam; we just have to expose his idiocy in front of the judge, who's a much better... judge of what's logical and what's not.
It won't help me not want to choke people making stupid arguments through the internet though.
"Hello"
"Gay Dude, is it true that you are 100% gay, and not at all a random guy from outside the courthouse we paid $100?"
"Totally."
"And what do you think of prop 8?"
"It's fine. I still have the right to marry a woman if I want to...... Which I don't. Because I'm gay. Of course."
"The defense rests, your honor."
"Your honor, opposing council is clearly trying to defile Jesus and everything he stands for."
I find it very difficult to convince people who are set in their ways to change. Concessions and growth are interpreted as weakness in our culture: you see it with politicians and very public figures. They cannot and will not admit that they made a mistake, and if they do, "mistakes were made," as it was famously put.
Lately I've subscribed to simply asking questions as calmly as I can. Typically it eats away and to any person with a shred of empathy and humanity in them, the verbal filth coming from their mouth will be as clear to them as the necessity of food to a starving beggar.
I think that's why I'm enjoying these testimonials; to destroy their arguments requires simple questions, nothing more.
sooooooo much lime. I would lime the entire quote, but then I'd have to go and make the part I did lime 36-point font in order to give it the proper gravitas.
It is shortened for the transcript, so some poor secretary doesn't write everything out verbatim, it is in shorthand.
Picture a bunch of people talking for eight hours. It's a lot of fucking text. And the reporter types in shorthand, which can only be transcribed by her. They're fast, but they're not that fast, and the thing does need to be entirely re-transcribed again. So, if there are eight hours of talking, if you can re-transcribe it in only five or six hours, that's hella fast. Realistically speaking, though, you just spent eight hours writing it all down while they were talking in shorthand; are you really going to immediately start transcribing? I seriously doubt it. So, proper transcriptions take a few days.
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
Actual court reporters anymore are weird. Just record it all digitally then have someone transcribe it from the recording.
Isn't that the whole problem? Can't do any recording (technically you can but only the judge can view it now thanks to a stupid SCOTUS)
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
This reminds me of my college days. (not the cocaine thing, the minority thing)
We had a very diverse student body, so we had a great council-type group that organized events and such. Any time they used the word minority to describe an event, the GLBT club would get snubbed. We'd ask if there was anything we could do and they would just stare at us. It was a bit depressing.
Was still a great school though.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Not really, since that just means that the door remains open for future litigation. They've already telegraphed their gameplan - they don't care about the district or circuit level, as they're more or less convinced that they can't win there (especially with the 9th Circuit.) Their goal is to get this ruling to the Supreme Court, where they believe that they can win this case once and for all.
The sad part is that their belief in this isn't exactly irrational. Three of the justices there (Scalia, Alito, and Thomas) will rule for them, no matter what sort of twisted shape they have to torturously bend the law into to get there. The problem is that Kennedy and Roberts are on the fence, and they need both to win. So their strategy right now is to muddy the legal waters as much as possible, in order to provide Roberts and Kennedy the cover to rule in their favor.
It's a fucking twisted strategy, and the saddest part is that it's a rational and viable one.
Minorities only count if they make good photo-ops. Maybe if they're really flaming or have a dikey haircut or something, but too many gays these days look like normal people.
What's the point of recording it and then having someone transcribe it, when you can just have someone transcribe it right there?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Uh, a pause button? Verification that the court reported transcribed it correctly? History?
edit: And I don't just mean this case. There is no technological reason that all government proceedings can't be recorded and made available to the public. If the government has the money and the means to listen in on every call and data stream in the US it can damn sure provide us the ability to listen in on them.
Do explain. I rather enjoy NOM-flavored schadenfreude.
Though I have a feeling that it's probably around the fact that the plaintiffs are doing an excellent job of nailing down the legal issues - which fucks up their "muddy the waters and go to SCOTUS" strategy.
NOM?