Downloaded from YTS.MX
Official YIFY movies site: YTS.MX
♪ ♪
Ted Olson: Mr. Chief Justice
and may it please the court:
Proposition 8 built a constitutional wall around marriage
and excluded gay and lesbians from access
to the most important relation in life.
Paul C.: But, Mr. Olson, I want to understand
your due process thinking.
Is your view that something that has never been protected
or allowed can nevertheless be
a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause?
A fundamental right to the pursuit happiness
is being taken away from someone as the result
of their status or their classification.
You would agree that the people who wrote the 14th Amendment,
that has both the Due Process Clause
and the Equal Protection Clause,
would never in a million years
have thought they were-- they were
requiring states to marry two people of the same sex?
Well, I think someone might've said the same thing--
in fact, the same argument was made in the Loving case--
It may well be. I just want to know
the answer to my question.
Well, of course they did not think about--
Paul S.: So you basically are asking us
to depart from the original intent
of the 14th Amendment, is that--
No, the intent of the 14th Amendment was to prescribe equality.
Amir Tayrani: You make much
of the fact that 14 times
this court has emphasized that marriage
is a fundamental right.
Are you suggesting that in any of those prior cases
we were talking about marriage between
persons of the same sex?
No, you were not.
You were talking about the right of marriage.
Paul S.: Mr. Olson, what do we do with the fact
that the state of California treats
same-sex couples and heterosexual couples identically,
except with respect to the word that they use to label the legal status?
Can it really be this big a deal?
The word means something. It's as if the word "citizenship"
were in play here, and the individuals were
being given the right to vote and the right to travel,
but not the right to call themselves citizens.
Vincent C.: Well, let me ask you about that.
Because the point you wanna make is that same-sex couples
are just as good at parenting as opposite-sex couples.
Olson: That's-- But you say that the science says
that children of gay parents are just as well-adjusted.
If that's true,
then how is it that denying them marriage
causes them harm? They're just as well-adjusted
in terms of the relationship with their parents,
but everywhere they go, they are discriminated against
or subject to discrimination
because they can't call their parents married.
The theme of the Proposition 8 campaign was
"Protect Our Children."
Protect our children from thinking
that those people over there who are gay are okay.
If this is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional today.
That's why we have a constitution,
that's why we have a 14th Amendment
and that's why you have the job that you do.
( phone ringing )
Good morning, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher.
May I help you?
( chattering )
Chris Dusseault: Here's what's gonna happen.
So, things start on Monday.
The very first thing
that will happen is opening statements.
The opening statements are very short,
15 minutes per side.
The current starting point plan is that the order will be
Jeff first, then Paul,
then Chris and then Sandy.
And then two historians--
a historian about the history of marriage
and the history of discrimination-- to kinda lay the background.
Why would we be first versus the experts?
And that actually is kind of interesting to me
that we're really different than them. Yeah. Yeah.
They have a very different sort of set of credentials.
What we ultimately decided was...
that you guys are the reason
the case is happening.
You are the case, really.
And everything else is
evidence that explains why what you're saying is right,
but it all flows from you.
Olson: It's an awkward thing to be stuck in the middle of this
and made into a symbol, you know, and so forth.
But that's a role that you're in.
And you might be uncomfortable
talking about yourselves a little bit,
but you sort of have to do that.
So should we do a little bit of this? Sandy Stier: Sure.
You were married? Stier: Yes, I was.
Tell us about that.
He was the kind of man
I always anticipated I would marry.
He was a nice person, had similar goals.
What if someone were to say, "Well, you've just chosen"
at one point in your life to be with a man,
and now you've chosen at another point in your life
to be with a woman.
"Could you choose to be with a man again?"
Stier: When I met Kris and fell in love with her,
it was actually the first time I could even
identify with the phrase "being in love."
I felt that feeling of being completely...
taken over by my emotions in such a life-shifting way
that it's difficult to even explain.
But something that I felt like, "This is so big, powerful
and wonderful,
I can't ignore it and I won't ignore it."
And at 37 years old, I discovered something about myself
that I hadn't known before.
I feel like I can choose what to do with the information
I've learned about myself, but I can't change who I am.
I simply am who I am.
And that is a lesbian? That is a lesbian.
Mr. Katami, are you gay? I am.
How long have you been gay?
As long as I can remember.
Um, did you choose to be gay?
No.
Do you think you have the ability to choose not to be gay?
I do not.
Do you wanna get married? I do.
Who do you wanna get married to?
To Jeff Zarrillo.
Why haven't you and Paul had a family?
Because we're not married. We think--
We're strong believers that--
we want any child that we have to
have the protections that an opposite sex couple's family
and children would have. That's very important to us.
( elevator dings )
( chattering )
Ted Uno: Schubert & Flint, who were hired
in early June as the campaign managers
said that they would not win,
they would not get 50% of the vote
if they just affirmed the value of marriage.
They had to stress consequences to other people.
And the primary ones were that it's gonna be taught in public schools,
it is going to erode religious freedom
and it's going to erode the freedom of expression.
♪ ♪ Tony Perkins: Proposition 8 is very straightforward.
It defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.
That's it.
If Prop 8 fails, it opens up the door
for all the other laws that the homosexual agenda wants to enforce.
If California loses on the subject of marriage, then this goes nationwide.
How California goes, the rest of the country will go.
Nationwide.
McPherson: Let me encourage you to stand up for what's right,
and go to the polls and vote yes on Prop 8.
♪ ♪
I just didn't think it would pass.
You know, I saw the propaganda,
but I really thought, "It's not gonna pass in California.
There's just no way."
♪ ♪ ( ovation )
Zarrillo: I remember sitting on the couch,
and on the TV came this chyron that said,
"Elected 44th President of the United States."
And I remember thinking,
"I didn't know if I'd ever see the day
when an African-American would be elected President."
And I was so proud.
Perry: I'll never forget seeing them walk out that night
and feeling like
this unbelievable achievement had occurred.
Barack Obama, 47 years old,
will become the President Elect of the United States.
This is a moment so many people
have been waiting for and they're really excited.
News anchor: I believe we've got some pictures out of San Francisco.
♪ ♪ Some of the celebration pouring out in the Castro district.
Rachel Maddow: That may not all be celebration if it's in the Castro
and we haven't got the results of Prop 8 yet--
Chad Griffin: It became clear to us as Obama
was giving his acceptance speech--
a historic moment in our nation's history--
that Proposition 8 in California was going to pass.
Zarrillo: And I remember being so drained
emotionally because I had been on such a high,
and then to feel the lowest of lows, to know that
my fellow citizens in California
had voted to take away my right to marry.
Griffin: And all I could think about
was the horrific message that would be sent
to the thousands upon thousands of young people
in California and around the country...
that they were second-class citizens,
and they had been told so by a popular vote of the people.
♪ ♪
Griffin: A few days after the election,
I was having lunch with Kristina Schake and Rob and Michele Reiner.
Kristina Schake: And that lunch was particularly
long and emotional
because of the aftermath of Prop 8.
And while we were talking, a woman came up to the table
just to say hello to Michele,
and she said, "What are you talking about?"
And Rob recapped what we had been going through,
and he said, "You know, we're actually thinking that maybe
the best way to do this might be to file a court case."
And she said, "My former brother-in-law is Ted Olson,
and he might be interested."
My reaction was I didn't believe it.
Ted Olson had been on the other side of everything
I'd ever done in my life.
But we all kinda thought, "But what if?
What if?"
My gosh, that would change everything.
We all knew that's he's the most prominent conservative lawyer in America,
that he was President Bush's Solicitor General
and he won the most contentious case
in front of the United States Supreme Court in our history.
♪ ♪ ( clamoring )
David Boies: This was a court decision
that determined who was President of the United States.
( camera shutters clicking )
President Bush's lawyer, Ted Olson,
was trying to get the Supreme Court
to stop the Florida recount.
And myself, as Vice President Gore's lawyer,
was trying to convince
the Supreme Court to stay out of it
and let the Florida courts decide.
What we've had is a series of steps
by the Republican Party to try to delay the recount.
What we're seeing is, unfortunately, an increasingly
desperate degree of statements,
measures, litigations and efforts
by the Gore campaign to prolong this.
♪ ♪
Griffin: Ted Olson won Bush v. Gore.
He gave us George Bush.
I couldn't imagine that Ted Olson and I
agreed on anything.
I told no one that I was going to D.C.
And so I took the train in
and I went straight to Ted's office.
It was sort of a Republican Hall of Fame, quite frankly.
Olson: Chad Griffin was the person who first spoke to me
to check me out... ( chuckles )
to see whether I was the real thing
and I was someone that they wanted to handle this case.
Since I'd grown up in California,
I was very disappointed with the people of California.
So when Chad came to talk to me,
I said, "Yes, I would be interested,
provided that we did it the right way."
So that when, as, and if
that case got to the United States Supreme Court,
it would be based upon the best foundation
that you could possibly prepare.
Griffin: I quickly realized that
I was talking to someone who believed passionately
in the right to marry for all loving couples.
Marriage is a conservative value.
Two people who love one another
who want to come together
and live in a stable relationship,
to become part of a family, part of a neighborhood
and part of our economy.
We should want people to come together in marriage.
See you tomorrow. See you tomorrow.
Griffin: Ted and I also discussed the importance of...
finding someone that could partner with us
and to be his co-counsel
that was on the other side of the aisle-- a Democrat. ♪ ♪
Boies: We really became friends during Bush v. Gore.
There comes a point in every case like that
when none of your friends and even your children
and spouses don't wanna talk to you about the case anymore.
And the only person that's as obsessed with it as you are
is the person on the other side.
Bush versus Gore, I remember admiring David
because he would come out and they'd ask him a question,
and he'd say, "Well, we want this and we want this.
And this is the right thing to do,"
and so on and so forth. I'd find myself nodding my head.
( men laughing ) I'd go, "Stop that!"
♪ ♪
Olson: We'd sort of talked about the fact
that it would be fun to work together on something,
and here was this greatest opportunity of all.
( chuckles ) Good to see you.
Welcome. ( indistinct chatter )
Boies: We came together as a single firm.
Everybody on that case
had a sense that what was important was the mission.
( chattering )
( speaking indistinctly )
No time.
Griffin: Once the decision was made
to file the case, we needed plaintiffs, obviously--
two committed loving couples who wanted to get married.
But you also had to find people who were willing to
share their stories with the world.
Boies: People who were
just like everybody else
and who were obviously just like everybody else.
And those are two different things.
Schake: We went through a very extensive vetting process,
much like you would with a political candidate.
We hired private investigators to look into their past.
We hired opposition researchers that we knew from politics
to look at every public document that we could find about them.
We looked at photos. We looked at records.
We looked at taxes. We looked at everything,
because we wanted to make sure
that they were absolutely safe choices
to put in the spotlight that we were about to put them in.
( cellphone ringing )
Hi, Elliot.
( man speaks over phone )
I'm almost there. Where are you?
Are you in the back? Out in front.
Oh. Well, then I'll probably see you in one second.
Hey, Mom. ( car door closes )
Tanner really doesn't need a ride?
Hm-mmm. Are you sure? 'Cause I don't mind.
Tanner's catering at a wedding.
He's making like 130 bucks. Wow.
And I was like, "Can I get in on that?"
He's like, "No." I was like, "Oh!"
( laughing ) Nice!
You want a little omelet with avocados?
No. How about a tortilla
with an egg and a little bit of hot sauce?
Okay.
Perry: Sandy and I have four sons.
Each of us brought two sons to our relationship.
She has Frank and Tom that are two years apart.
And then I have Spencer and Elliot
that are-- they're twins.
Stier: We really raised our kids together.
My kids were a little bit older.
Spencer and Elliot were going to kindergarten.
When we started living together, they were going to kindergarten.
So, we walked them to school the first day together.
Sniper. ( gunfire on TV )
Good shot.
Perry: I am so glad to be a mom. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Love that.
Even if they are doing something right now that I wish they weren't doing.
It's so unnerving how they twitch after they're dead.
You know? Yeah.
Stier: When I first learned about the possibility of the case,
it was actually from Kris.
We decided that we were interested in it,
but we didn't wanna pursue it unless our four boys
could also be supportive and feel okay about it.
Perry: We met with them individually.
We actually had made a decision that if anybody said no,
we wouldn't do it, but none of them said no.
I really don't think about it very much.
That we're a gay family. I just--
I don't know. It seems so secondary
to everything else. ( scoffs )
But it's more about family-to-family relationships
than just, you know, other kinds of activist
activities that we don't have time for
at this point in our lives.
But I think that's gonna change.
Katami: You can bend these. ( laughs )
These ornaments are heavy.
( chuckles )
Baby's first Christmas. Mine.
Zarrillo: The decision to become involved with the case
was something we wanted to make sure we talked about
with our families.
My parents were in town visiting us from New Jersey,
so we took 'em to lunch and we started talking about
what this could mean, where it could go.
My mom reached across the table and she said--
she grabbed my hand and she said,
"We'll support you guys 100%."
I want him to be able to marry the person that he loves,
be happy,
have all the rights that we all have.
It's as simple as that.
Katami: My sister was the first person I spoke to,
'cause she's always been an ally and my best friend.
She was like, "Absolutely do this.
You must be this plaintiff. You must do this with Jeff."
And then I was talking to my mom.
I was a little nervous because my mom was very sensitive.
I mean, she literally carries holy water in her purse,
so I thought for sure there was going to be a disconnect.
And it was funny because with my mom,
she was like, "Listen, do you love each other?"
"Yes." She says, "I can see that."
So she said, "This has nothing to do"
with faith or religion. This has everything to do
with you being happy
"and being given the rights that you deserve."
We love Paul. ( both chuckle )
Now I'm starting to get emotional.
( both laugh )
No, we love him. We really do.
If we had to pick anybody for our son, it would be Paul.
♪ ♪
( camera shutters clicking )
We're ready. You ready? Everybody, yup.
Okay. Okay.
( all quietly chattering )
Good morning. My name is Chad Griffin,
and I'm here today as the board president
of the American Foundation for Equal Rights
and to introduce the plaintiffs
and the legal team
that will be fighting one of the most important
civil rights cases in our nation's history.
This lawsuit is about the courts saying
that no matter how blind people may be,
the Constitution guarantees
that everyone deserves the equal rights
that every human being is entitled to.
Boies: When we announced the case,
one of the people at the press conference
stood up and said,
"How can we trust what you're doing
if you're doing it with Ted Olson?"
There was a reaction among conservatives that
I was somehow a traitor to conservative beliefs.
It really is a betrayal of everything that Ted Olson
has purported to stand for.
I don't know what's happened to Ted Olson.
I have no clue. Ted Olson used to be one of us.
Why do you feel so many of your fellow conservatives
are so on the other side of this issue?
Because I haven't had a chance to talk to them all yet.
Boies: There was also
the paranoid backlash
that said, "Ted Olson is a mole.
He has infiltrated the movement
and he's gonna sabotage the case."
Olson: Some of the organizations
that have been laboring in the vineyard for years
to achieve equality were suspect.
They didn't trust me.
Schake: Most of the gay organizations, most of the progressive groups
fundamentally did not agree with our strategy.
They felt like this was too soon.
It was years before this should be happening,
that public opinion had not changed enough
and the makeup of the Supreme Court was not supportive.
In one meeting, actually, one of the lawyers from one of the groups
put together a dossier on Ted Olson
about all the evil and terrible things he had done over the years
and why we couldn't trust him,
and they said they would take it to the press.
And what we said is...
"Please do go to the press with that dossier
because that only helps our case."
And actually, at the end of that meeting,
they threw the memo at us. ( chuckles )
That was how bad it got.
♪ ♪
Yusef: All right, bring me up to speed. What happened there?
They tried threatening us and saying,
"People are gonna be upset. You're gonna cause war and..."
Bring it on.
To think we spend more time
fighting with the LGBT leaders and groups
than we spend on fighting
the right-wing nut jobs
that go after us every day is just mind-boggling.
( elevator dings )
( chatter, laughter )
I like to remind myself and everyone else why
this is so important.
It's for the young LGBT teenager in Kansas,
Louisiana and Arkansas
and in places all over this state
who see themselves as second-class citizens
and who suffer discriminations.
And thank you so much to Ted Olson.
I don't think he realizes the celebrity he will be
in Dupont Circle and West Hollywood... ( laughter )
...and the Castro.
But expect to be on a float someday soon.
( laughter )
I say that jokingly, but in all sincerity
having you and you bringing in David,
has really erased the partisanship out of an issue
that is so personal and so, um, impactful on people's lives.
I'm very very touched by what you just said...
beyond my ability to express it.
This may be-- I think, probably will be
the most important case I've ever handled in my life
and the most important thing that I've ever done as a lawyer
or as a person.
If we can be successful in this case,
we can help millions of people.
♪ ♪
( footsteps approaching )
Griffin: "Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger"
and Democratic Attorney General Jerry Brown are
defendants in the lawsuit by virtue
of their prominent position in California government.
But both men oppose the ban and have refused to
"to defend the suit in court."
So, in come the interviewers,
which are the "Yes on 8" proponents.
These are the individuals who basically
put together the ballot initiative
that became Proposition 8.
So they're the ones who are defending the case.
They're a pretty well-funded group.
They've hired a really really good law firm.
The lawyer that you guys know, that I don't,
but that they've hired is a credible, respected lawyer.
He's a real lawyer. His credibility is on the line.
He's not going to put on crackpots.
The fundamental issue in this case is whether
the people of California, as-- as--
as the ultimate sovereign
for the state of California, have the right
to define marriage as they did in Proposition 8
or whether that issue now is going to be decided
by federal courts and a federal judge.
Reporter: How do you think you would do
if this went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court?
We are confident that the Supreme Court's decisions
and their precedents
in all of the relevant constitutional fields that this case touch on
point clearly to the conclusion that...
( thuds )
...the, uh-- ( laughs )
( crowd chuckles lightly )
To the conclusion that the people of California had
every right under our federal Constitution to
define marriage as they did.
♪ ♪ Chuck Cooper was arguing his motion to dismiss the case.
And Judge Walker asked him,
"What harm would occur if gay people are allowed to marry?"
And this was a big issue in the case,
because that was the argument,
that these harms would occur.
And there was this silence,
and it wasn't two seconds or three seconds.
It was a discernable, lengthy pause.
And Chuck finally said,
"I don't know. I don't know."
And I leaned over to Ted Olson and said,
"He just said 'I don't know.'" And Ted Olson said,
"I know!" ( chuckles )
And we were just stunned,
because it went to the root of the entire case.
Griffin: Let's do categories. Like, how are we getting
to the mainstream national press?
What are we doing to get to the gay press?
And we can't ever have a day where each of those boxes
aren't filled with something.
So every single day, we need to be the ones handing them something
or someone else will be handing them something. Man on phone: All right.
All right, you guys, six days to go.
( light chuckles ) Woman through phone: Whoo-hoo!
Countdown.
♪ ♪
And so it begins.
I'm glad you don't pack light.
I'm glad you don't pack light either.
All right, I'm ready.
Reporter on phone: Okay, you're ready? Good.
I got the "New York Times" coming at 1:30. Okay.
And so, we can either bring them in to do
a quick sit-down interview with you.
Olson: Equal protection
means the protection of equal laws.
We are not providing the protection of equal laws
in California to our gay and lesbian citizens.
We are denying them the fundamental right
on the basis of their sexual orientation.
And that violates
the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause
of our Constitution.
I don't get very many negative e-mails.
You know, you'd think I would. You would think that.
But for every one that's negative,
I get 15 or 20 that's positive.
I'll print out one that I just got.
So she said, "From now on"-- or something like that--
"we're gonna make you an honorary lesbian."
( all laugh ) I said, "That's great."
♪ ♪
Olson on computer: Today the judge decided
that cameras will be permitted in the courtroom
and there will be a transmission of the proceedings
available to the public with a slight delay.
This is a great step for the American people
and everyone affected by Proposition 8
to have the opportunity to see the justice system work.
Boies: It was an issue of enormous public interest.
It was an issue that had so many people who wanted
to attend, and not everybody could get into court.
And you had witnesses who were going to testify
about very complicated, sensitive subjects.
We thought that this was a great case
to be broadcast.
The other side... resisted mightily.
They're still in the discovery hearing?
Male employee: Yeah. Oh, Jesus.
I just got emailed from Chris. Still no--
That's crazy. Wow.
We've been having this fight over documents:
what they will produce, what they won't produce.
And it's now clear that we're entitled
to lots of stuff that they've been withholding from us.
Ethan Dettmer: Just from a presentation point-of-view,
you obviously want to look at Ted and get his leads.
Mm-hmm. And when he--
but it's perfectly okay
to look up at the judge and talk to him.
Okay. So I want to ask you some questions
about your relationship with Ms. Stier.
How long have you and she been together?
For 10 years.
Did you want to get married?
Well, I proposed to Sandy in 2003.
The city and county of San Francisco--
There was a decision to allow same-sex couples to get married
in 2004. ( laughter )
Spencer: Sandy is the perfect match for Kris.
And it's wonderful. ( Audience coos )
( cheering, applause )
Shortly thereafter, it was invalidated.
Then later on, we got a document
from the city and county of San Francisco--
Tell me about the document.
What happens is you get a letter saying,
"Dear Kris Perry and Sandra Stier,
we're letting you know
you are no longer legally married.
That marriage that was performed in San Francisco is invalid.
And if you would like to have your filing fees returned to you,
"you may have them returned to you by check,"
or you can send it to charity or something along those lines.
Just a form letter in the mail saying,
"You thought you were married, but you're not."
What does that say to these people
that we invited to celebrate our love for each other?
And I felt badly for making them feel badly for us.
It's just this awkward circle of guilt and shame.
Can you imagine getting that in the mail? No.
As a straight married person, that is unimaginable.
Perry: Mm-hmm. And to the extent--
And we are trying to convince straight married people
of the wrong of this. Stier: Uh-huh.
That's a really powerful thing.
Enrique Monages: My husband and I, Jason,
got married before Proposition 8 in October--
actually, on our daughter's first birthday.
We are married,
but I knew that when Proposition 8 passed,
that my marriage would have an asterisk.
This is my fifth year as an attorney,
but I've actually never been in the courtroom.
So this is my first time in trial.
Uh... ( laughs )
Start big, you know?
Dettmer on computer: Did you, yourself,
write articles, newsletters, anything like that
that you sent out to people-- to potential voters--
in support of the Prop 8 campaign? Uh, yes.
Man in office: Okay, here's the beginning of the crazy stuff.
Dettmer: It says, "Dear friends",
this November, San Francisco voters
will vote on a ballot to 'legalize prostitution.'
This is put forth by the S.F. city government,
which is under the rule of homosexuals.
They lose no time..." Monages: Bill Tam was
one of the proponents of Proposition 8.
So Bill Tam was a defendant in the case.
We did discovery into Bill Tam.
We recognized that he had written some things
that really showed the animus behind the campaign.
And as we started developing that line of inquiry,
Bill Tam decided that he didn't want to be part of the case anymore.
So he's attempting to withdraw as a party to this case?
Ted Boutrous: Yeah, he just wants out now,
but we can still call him as a witness.
Schake: Ah, well, let's make sure we do that no matter what.
Yeah, yeah McGill: All right,
so Tam trying to get out of the case because--
explicitly-- so he can avoid producing documents.
He does not want to produce documents.
They know this is the radioactive stuff,
so they're trying to basically throw Tam overboard.
"Tam on the lam."
( chattering )
You know, the stories are there.
And David's gonna do most of the crosses, right?
He's gonna do the crosses, yeah.
All the crosses, it looks like. Yeah.
He's so good at that. He's great at that.
Yeah, it's really-- it's sort of a sight to behold.
Boies: The cross-examination is--
in some sense is no different
than the direct examination.
You're still having a conversation.
The difference is that instead of having
a lawyer who's on your side
who's trying to ask questions in a way that'll help you,
he's gonna be trying to ask questions
in a way that will hurt.
California does allow you to become domestic partners.
Correct? Yes.
And, um, you and Mr. Zarrillo have not done that.
Correct? We have not. Correct.
Um, don't you think that would be a step
towards validating your relationship?
I, in fact, think it's the opposite.
It is validating the fact
that we're separate and unequal.
And anytime you're dealing with people's civil rights--
and the right to get married, to me, is a civil right--
and you say, "But there's something that's lacking from there,"
you've created a second class of citizen.
And you feel that way.
So by accepting a domestic partnership,
we also accept being second-class citizens,
and that was unacceptable to us.
Um...
See, like that's a perfect answer.
That really is a really great answer.
I'd like to show you...
something that I pulled off of your Facebook page.
And on that page,
you list yourself as married to Kris Perry.
Right? Yes.
And you wear a wedding ring? I do.
So you've held yourself out in public,
at least in some instances,
as married? Yes.
And you're aware-- I believe you testified
that in California, registered domestic partners
have the vast majority of legal rights and benefits
that a married couple would have in California? Yes, I am.
So you've made the public demonstration of commitment,
You can hold yourself out as married in society
and you have the same legal rights and benefits as if you were married
in California. That's right? Yes.
And you testified on direct examination
that you view this lawsuit
as a civil rights issue? Yes, I do.
And I believe you analogized yourself
to the couples that fought interracial marriage
so nobly in the late '60s? Yes.
That fought for interracial-- Okay.
So you knew that this could be a high-profile trial?
Yes. There'd be media coverage.
I knew that it was possible.
Um, I'd like to turn back to your Facebook page.
And there's a little section right there that says
"About Me." Do you see that?
Yes. And that's something that you wrote?
Yes. And your description from yourself was,
"Middle-aged mom with delusions of grandeur"?
Yes. Okay.
I have no further questions.
( all laughing )
I am so sorry. Perry: That is so mean.
What the hell?
I-- I am so-- Perry: Oh my God!
Perry: That's so bad. I'm so sorry.
( laughs ) I'm so sorry.
( laughing ) I'm--
( laughing ) I'm so sorry.
It's just when you gave me the civil rights thing,
I just had to use it. ♪ ♪
These are our exhibits that have been printed out.
Carl: This is without the supplementals.
And this is one copy? Griffin: Wow, wow.
This is one side.
And this is all double-sided.
Oh, my God.
Team effort. You guys, monumental job.
So now we're onto the other side's evidence.
The other side's-- And they have more.
Monages: They said they had tens-of-thousands of documents.
We got 1400 today,
and we're expecting more throughout the week.
Rebecca Lazarus: Did you look at my article?
( muttering ) ♪ ♪
It's called-- ( chuckles )
It has this nice picture of a baby
and, "21 Reasons Why Gender Matters."
"Gender disorientation pathology"?
Oh, yes, that's what they call it.
"Gender disorientation pathology encourages
the sexual and psychological exploitation of children.
The sad truth is, homosexual abuse of children
is proportionally higher
"than heterosexual abuse of children."
Look, it's even better in full color.
Look at this pretty baby.
Oh, that is so cute.
It is tough to say it exists.
Lazarus: I know, I know. Oh my God.
He really said this stuff?
Yeah, and-- you know--
I mean, this is the-- you know-- all right.
"Does this society embrace..." So can we talk about--
"...gender disorientation pathology...
(homosexuality)..." I know, don't you love it?
"...at our peril?" This is the sort of document--
You may suffer from gender disorientation pathology.
Griffin: Now that the CATO Institute chairman--
Ted, you might want to hear this.
I was just saying that it was one thing
to have your surprise support for gay marriage,
and we all know that Cheney supports it.
But after the CATO chairman supporting it,
I think we're all rethinking our own support for gay marriage.
( laughs ) So we must be wrong.
We're thinking-- ( laughs )
we're thinking we may be on the wrong side.
You better make up your mind before Monday.
( all laughing )
( quiet chatter )
Olson: I want to make sure that we've covered
ways in which you think
you experience discrimination
because you are a lesbian.
I've experienced discrimination
in what I describe as really subtle
daily remi-- daily ways,
but it still causes a huge amount
of emotional strain
to know that you're a minority,
to know that people don't like your--
your-- who you are, and who you just are.
As hard as it is,
it's like probably the thing that makes me
a stronger person than a lot of other people.
Does it also weaken you in any way?
Or made your life less fulfilling
or happy?
Um, I-- I think so,
because I can't imagine
how you feel excluded
and feel happy about it.
The sad parts,
I feel like... ( sniffles )
I'm okay with them, because it's--
I'd rather be who I am today
than somebody who... ( sniffles )
never felt challenged
and never had to find out who they really were.
And I know-- I know who I am.
Olson: Has anybody ever given you an explanation
that makes sense to you
about why you can't get married?
Just-- um...
no, they haven't.
It's just that it's too dis--
it's too upsetting and disruptive to other people.
I don't think it's ever really been about me.
I have no further questions.
Amazing. You did a great job.
How you doing? ( scoffs )
Exhausted?
Intense. Man: You prepared for all these questions.
Really good. Well, that's why I didn't really follow the outline.
( all laughing )
That was intense.
Goodness. ( elevator dings )
Yeah.
( both sigh )
( laughs )
♪ ♪
Andy Pugno on computer: We really are relieved
to finally catch a break in this case.
In many ways, the defense of Prop 8
and the will of the voters has been put
at a disadvantage over and over again.
This intervention by the Supreme Court
to not have these proceedings televised
really improves our ability
to get a fair and impartial trial.
( sighs ) Okay.
♪ ♪
I'm gonna go make a PDF of this,
so that I can put it on top of that document.
There are lawyers everywhere
looking at every possible angle of how to do this.
Boies: I love cross-examination,
but every time you're cross-examining somebody,
you're cross-examining somebody who is up there
trying to give evidence against you.
Okay? And you may nick 'em a lot,
but they're still gonna get something in. Olson: Mm-hmm.
The more that's in the record,
benefits them.
My only disagreement with that
is that they will--
it's then not a contest of the evidence.
Here's the evidence, okay?
And then, here's the evidence.
And I-- okay?
This is us and this is them.
I don't want to make that bigger.
( chuckles ) So, um...
anything else?
Okay.
A lot of emotions.
Whoo-hoo! Whoo-hoo.
( no discernable dialog )
♪ ♪
Perry: The first day of trial,
we just laid there in the dark
holding hands,
thinking, "Oh no, oh no, oh no."
I think for Sandy and I, the fear around the kids--
you know, what could happen to us as women,
and mothers, and bosses--
I just remember just feeling stricken
and just very anxious.
Really, my stomach was in knots
the entire morning.
( people chattering )
Zarrillo: I remember going to bed that night,
and there really wasn't much sleep...
'cause they told me the night before
that they wanted to make a statement to the press,
and they wanted me to make the statement
because I was gonna be the first one to testify.
All right then.
Schake: Hey, you want to practice your--
your speech with us-- or with me? Oh, sure. Okay.
Let's go in the other room and... Okay.
We'll walk up to podium and Paul-- Good morning.
Thank you all for being here.
My name's Jeff Zarrillo. ♪ ♪
This is Paul, Kris and Sandy.
And we're all Americans
who simply want to get married
just like everyone else.
Your tone is right. The speed is right.
So just walk out, take a few breaths,
make sure you feel comfortable,
and then just walk out and say it. Okay.
It's just such an emotional thing.
I know, and you know what?
And that's okay. ( laughs )
And that's okay.
We're so glad we found you
and that it's your voice today.
( choked up ) Thank you.
And just think, tonight we're gonna drink heavily.
( both laughs )
( exhales )
I needed that. Ha ha.
Okay? Perfect.
Good to go? Yeah.
Smile, relax.
All right? ( sighs )
♪ ♪
( cameras shutters clicking )
Good morning and thank you all for being here.
My name's Jeff Zarrillo. This is Paul,
Kris and Sandy.
And we're all Americans who simply want to get married
just like everyone else.
We believe in our constitution
and that the courts will lead the way
to equality like they have so many times in the past.
Thank you.
Reporter: Is this an emotional day for you?
♪ ♪ Yusef: Sorry, no questions.
Katami: That moment broke the ice.
It was the first time we were in front of so much media.
It was the first time we had to kind of settle into what was going to happen.
You know, we have to take the stand today.
I've never been as nervous in my life
as the first day of trial.
Even though we're ready, there was this weight of,
"I can't mess this up."
I can't. I have to represent me.
( emotionally ) And I have to represent my relationship.
I have to represent so many people out there
that are fighting.
"And, Paul, just don't mess it up."
♪ ♪
Dustin Lance Black: Over the past months,
I've gotten to know these plaintiffs.
Their love is true and their families are strong.
And to hear their stories
is to know that they deserve full equality,
that their families deserve full recognition.
And now, thank God--
now is the time for the world to
get to know Kris, Sandra, Paul and Jeff.
And I cannot wait for America to meet these plaintiffs.
Wow, do they have the streets shut down?
Griffin: Wow, look at all those camera trucks.
Black: We can no longer wait
for one more young person to be born into this world,
to be born into this country being told that they are less than,
that their country considers them second-class citizens.
We cannot wait for one more of these young people
to hear those words and to take his or her own life
or have it tragically taken from them.
♪ ♪
Perry: We walked into the federal courthouse
and in the lobby near the elevator was a poster
that said, "Perry v. Schwarzenegger."
And I had never seen my name listed as the only name
on anything.
I felt more weight on my shoulders
of, "Okay, this is you.
This is you.
And now-- and now you have to really do this."
Katami: The court opened.
And we took our seats.
And I remember sitting on those hard benches
for the very first time.
I remember my leg shaking so much
that Jeff put his hand on my leg,
like, "You need to relax and calm down."
Zarrillo: So you just kind of sit there
and you're soaking everything in.
You're looking at the clock,
and I swear you can hear the second hand tick.
Griffin: As Chief Judge Walker entered that courtroom,
you could really hear a pin drop.
Zarrillo: Judge Walker sits down.
"Mr. Olson, call your first witness."
And David stood up and said,
"The plaintiffs call Jeffrey Zarrillo."
I said to him, after just a couple preliminary questions,
"Why do you want to get married?"
♪ ♪
Zarrillo: "The word 'marriage' has special meaning.
It's why we're here today.
I want to be able to share the joy
and the happiness that my parents felt,
that my brother felt,
my friends, my coworkers, my neighbors,
of having the opportunity to be married.
He's the love of my life.
I love him probably more than I love myself.
I would do anything for him.
"I would put his needs ahead of my own."
♪ ♪
Katami: I had a reaction that was audible,
and that's so unlike me.
But I like gasped because the emotion came up so strongly.
And I remember people around me kind of looking at me,
but it's when he said,
"I love him more than I love myself."
And I gasped because I thought...
( emotionally ) "God, I feel the same way about you."
Zarrillo: He helped me live my truth,
and I wanted to make sure that I was able to articulate that
to the people in that courtroom
and most importantly to the judge.
And when David said, "I have no further questions,"
I thought to myself, "Okay,
you've got cross-examination to get through,
so let's just see how that goes."
And then they didn't cross-examine Jeff.
Jeff was coming off the stand, I was being called
and we had to obviously cross paths.
And I kissed him...
because that's what I do.
I mean, that's what we do. We're a couple.
He just went through this experience,
and it wasn't brazen and it wasn't meant to mean anything
besides that we love each other, we support each other
and that was it.
I think some blogger after that said,
"It was the brazen kiss in a federal courtroom."
I'm like, "Not at all."
It really just boiled down
to would he get cross-examined?
And he did.
I'm so nervous now I can't feel my face,
because I thought I had gotten through
the don't-mess-it-up-Paul part.
But now it really mattered,
because I didn't know what they were gonna come after me with.
( television clicks ) Mom, guess what I learned in school today.
What, sweetie? I learned how a prince married a prince.
And I can marry a princess.
Think it can't happen?
It's already happened.
Katami: In my deposition,
I really talked about the Yes on 8 campaign
and how it affected me and people around me.
I was incredibly... kind.
I answered every question, was very respectful
to the situation.
And...
I think that the opposing counsel
thought that they could break me
because of that. I honestly do.
I think they thought, "This guy's a little softer than the others,
so we'll get him to say something really stupid."
♪ ♪ And I remember at one point, I just sat up and I said
something back like, "That's not what I said."
And I think from there on
I was actually kind of fighting back.
"Protect the children is a big part of the campaign."
And when I think of protecting your children,
you protect them from people
who will perpetrate crimes against them,
people who might get them hooked on a drug,
a pedophile, or some person that you need protecting from.
That my getting married to Jeff
is going to harm some child somewhere--
it's so damning
and it's so angering because I love kids.
If you put my nieces and nephews on the stand now,
I'd be the cool uncle.
My state is supposed to protect me.
"It's not supposed to discriminate against me."
And I remember both Ted and David looking at me
and shaking their heads. I remember
David had a pen in his hand.
And I remember his hand going up and down
like, "Yes, yes, yes."
I don't think there is somebody with feeling
that can help... but say,
"How in the world
could we deprive him of that?
What in the world are we doing as a society
when we say, 'No,
"you can't marry that person who you love'?"
Stier: Being on the witness stand
is a very vulnerable place to be.
You're the only voice in the room.
You're being asked questions
that you can't necessarily anticipate about--
for us, anyway-- about very, very personal
components of your life.
I felt extremely grateful that Ted was our lawyer
and that he was the person who was asking me questions.
♪ ♪ Olson: "How do you feel about being a plaintiff
in a case trying to change the Constitution?"
Stier: "I think there are immediate,
very real and very desirable personal gains
that I would experience. And, of course, close family.
But on a different level, you know, as a parent,
you're always thinking about the other generation--
the next generation because,
well, for us, they're in our house.
So I really do think about that generation
and the possibility of having grandchildren someday
and having them live in a world where they grow up,
and whoever they fall in love with, it's okay,
because they can be honored.
And they could be true to themselves.
And they can be accepted by society
and protected by their government.
And as somebody who is from
one of those conservative little pockets of the country
where there isn't necessarily a lot of difference
in the types of people that are there,
having legal protections is everything.
It's important for these kids
that don't have ready access to different types of people
to at least feel like the option
to be true to yourself is something
that they can have, too.
And that's what I hope for.
I hope for something for Kris and I,
but we-- we're big strong women.
You know, we're in a good place in our lives right now.
So we would benefit from it greatly,
but other people over time, I think, would benefit
"in such a profound life-changing way."
♪ ♪
Olson: "If the courts of the United States
ultimately decided that you
and other persons seeking to marry someone of the same sex
could indeed-- did indeed
have the constitutional right to get married,
do you think that would have an effect
"on other acts of discrimination against you?"
"I believe for me, personally as a lesbian,
that if I had grown up in a world
where the most important decision
I was going to make as an adult
was treated the same way as everybody else's decision,
that I would not have been treated the way I was
growing up or as an adult.
So if Prop 8 were undone
and kids like me growing up in Bakersfield right now
could never know what this felt like,
then I assume that their entire lives
would be on a higher arc.
They would live with a higher sense of themselves
"that would improve the quality of their entire life."
♪ ♪
It was powerful, I think, to connect the dots...
spontaneously on the stand
in a way that I hadn't really done,
and then realize that you've been living
under this blanket of...
hate.
Everywhere you turn, people tell you, "Tough shit.
I mean, you don't get to have that."
You don't get to feel protected at work.
You don't get to feel like your kids are like other people's kids.
You don't get to feel like your relationship's like other relationships.
You have to come out every single day everywhere you go,
and good luck with that because that's never fun.
And it was like, "Oh, so this--"
this isn't just about me not being a strong enough person.
This is what the whole lesbian-gay community's dealing with
and, frankly, probably any minority group member
"deals with too."
It was kind of like a major "aha" moment
for me to feel like--
It's not just that--
it isn't just me, but it is me.
It actually has been me.
And I had done a really, really good job
of just coping, coping, coping, coping,
like I'm the world's best coper.
You know, well, that's a really low bar, Kris.
Other people have a bar called happiness
or satisfaction
or, you know, pride.
Stier: It was very emotional.
It's very emotional going up there.
It's very emotional finishing
and coming and sitting down and seeing your family,
um, and everything.
For us, seeing that the kids there-- and they were in tears.
By the end of the day, we were all really wiped out
from our own testimony and listening to each other.
Whoo! ( laughter, cheering )
Oh my God. Just wait.
Whoa!
Boutrous: Back at the office,
we had experts being prepared
and working to figure out exactly what
we we're gonna present to the court the next day.
And we had the best experts on these issues in the world.
Lee Badgett: Allowing same-sex couples to marry
has had no effect on the institution of marriage.
And there is no evidence of any effect
on heterosexual couples and their children.
( chattering )
Marriage has lasted because it has changed.
Mm-hmm. I think it's been crucial
to the continuing existence and vitality
of the institution.
Boutrous: Can I ask you--
Is there any other identity group
required to fight for
fundamental civil rights
other than gay and lesbian individuals
in terms of the law?
Gary Segura: In the contemporary political environment,
I cannot think of any group who has faced
the level, the frequency, and the breadth
of the contests over basic rights.
We are nowhere close to having
an anti-discrimination regime for gays and lesbians
that would mimic that for women or for African Americans
or the protections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Michael Lamb: Children raised by gay and lesbian parents
are just as likely to be well-adjusted
as those raised by heterosexual parents.
McGill: No more questions.
( phone rings )
Hello. Dettmer on phone: Hey, it's Ethan.
Hey. Great news.
You mean Tam? Yeah.
Tam is no longer on the lam?
( chuckles )
We really were able to turn the tables
on our opponents in this litigation.
Dettmer: Okay, so what I'd asked you to do
is turn to the second page of the translation--
Boutrous: William Tam was the last person
that Chuck Cooper and the proponents
wanted to have testify.
We'd put him on as a witness to show
that at least part of the campaign
in support of Proposition 8
was motivated by ill-will and discriminatory animus.
Dettmer: It says, "Because the majority of male homosexuals
live an indulgent lifestyle,
they suffer from AIDS and other serious illnesses,
and many of them die.
Therefore, there is a need to attract new blood
into the ranks of the homosexuals.
Therefore, attracting young people to become homosexuals
has become an important method
of maintaining the population.
If same-sex marriage is legalized,
attracting children will be much easier
"than it is currently."
Do you believe what's stated there
to be accurate and true?
Yeah.
Olson: David asked Dr. Tam about
some of these more inflammatory materials
that were out there.
And David Boies said, "Do you believe those things?
Um, do you think that those things are true?"
Um, and he said yes.
And David said, "How do you know that they're true?"
And he said, "They're on the internet."
♪ ♪
( phone beeps )
Automated voice: 4:29 a.m.
Man on phone: You stinkin' dykes!
Marriage is between one man and one woman only!
God set it up that way
and that's the way it's gonna be.
Perry: We started getting calls at all hours,
just like this steady stream of hate
that came across the phone.
Man on phone: I think it's really disgusting
that you're raising kids.
And you can tell those other faggots
that's doing the case with you
that I hope they both die of AIDS.
( beeps )
♪ ♪ They became the target of a lot of hatred.
They were now the face
of what many people feared the most.
( people chatter ) Male Protester: ...on you!
Shame on you!
You are an abomination!
You may one day have a matrimony,
but God will never give you a holy matrimony.
Shame on you!
Schake: We took it incredibly seriously,
because we never underestimated
how hateful the reaction would be of certain people.
Boies: The defendants had identified six witnesses,
expert witnesses,
that they expected to call at trial.
Woman: Do you swear to tell the truth and just the truth?
I do. Could you give me your name?
Katherine K. Young.
Olson: David Boies took several of those depositions
and really devastated
those witnesses in video taped depositions,
so that they backed out of the trial.
Boies: Do you believe that
children are advantaged
by increasing the durability of the relationship
of the couple raising them?
Yes. Okay.
And can you believe that
allowing gay couples to marry
will increase the durability
of those gay couples' relationships?
Correct? Okay, I'd say yes.
Okay, and increasing the durability
of those relationships
is beneficial to the children that they're raising.
Correct? Okay. On that one factor, yes.
All of the witnesses in effect melted away
except for David Blankenhorn. ♪ ♪
Dusseault: Blankenhorn has no real expertise of his own,
but he's read things in all these fields,
so they're gonna try and dump in
100 pieces from fields where he's not an expert.
And that's how they're gonna prove it,
'cause he's really all they have left.
He's literally-- they hold up as the expert on all subjects.
Cooper has referenced him probably six or eight times.
Tim: Do you want me to go through it? Just tell me a few things.
I'd kind of like to know a few things.
Tim: Um, he's not a doctor. He has no PhD.
He does have a Masters.
His Masters' thesis was on
cabinet makers in Victorian Britain.
( laughs )
Griffin: Now we got a profile piece.
Who's not gonna have fun with that?
My name is David Blankenhorn.
I'm the President of the Institute for American Values
in New York City-- a think tank.
I'd written a book called "The Future of Marriage"
where I looked at the sort of history
and purpose of marriage as a social institution.
And I said in the testimony
that arguably the main purpose
of the institution
was to establish lines of parenthood.
If we were not a species that reproduced sexually--
I mean, if babies just arrived from the stork, you know,
in a bucket, we would not have this thing called marriage.
Olson: The experience of watching David Boies
cross-examine the other side's principal witness--
it is like magic.
Before you can get a witness to admit the truth...
sometimes you have to get the witness
to understand what the truth is.
It was like kind of watching a train wreck coming.
( laughs ) You know?
♪ ♪
Olson: People think that this happens all the time
because they see it happen on television--
what we used to call a "Perry Mason" moment
when the witness breaks down and confesses.
Well, that does not happen.
But it sort of does happen when David does it.
Blankenhorn: I'm fairly sure
that if I was asked
all those same questions again today,
I would answer them the same way.
David just sort of took him down this trail,
and pretty soon at the end of the thing,
Blankenhorn was saying
we would be, in this country, more American
the day that gays and lesbians
were allowed to get married.
And he said that
children in a gay family would be better off
if their parents were allowed to get married.
So Blankenhorn wound up giving testimony
that was better for us
than anything we could have possibly asked for.
( chattering )
( camera shutters clicking )
Boies: For his closing arguments,
Ted Olson gave a rebuttal.
That was the best 30 minutes of argument
I've ever heard.
It put the whole case together.
It was seamless.
It reads as if it were written out in advance,
but it wasn't and obviously couldn't have been,
because what he's doing is he's responding
to what the other side has just argued.
♪ ♪
Olson: "The argument that Mr. Cooper makes
is essentially the same argument
that was made to the Loving court.
And we stand here today thinking,
how could that have been?
In 1967, that's only 40 years ago,
we would have punished as a felony
in the state of Virginia
the President's mother and father
"if they had tried to travel there and be married."
"I believe, Your Honor,"
that there is a political tide running.
I think that people's eyes are being opened.
People are becoming more understanding and tolerant.
The polls tell us that.
But that does not justify a judge in a court
to say, 'I really need the polls
to be just a few points higher.
I need someone to go out
and take the temperature of the American public
before I can break this barrier
and break down this discrimination.'
Some judge is going to have to decide
what we've asked you to decide.
And there will never be a case
with a more thorough presentation of the evidence.
And I submit, at the end of the day,
'I don't know' and 'I don't have any evidence'--
with all due respect to Mr. Cooper--
does not cut it. It does not cut it
when you are taking away the constitutional rights,
basic human rights, and human decency
from a large group of individuals.
That is not acceptable.
It's not acceptable under our constitution.
And Mr. Blankenhorn is absolutely right.
"The day that we end that, we will be more American."
( chatter )
( cameras clicking )
Olson: Now we've had the closing arguments.
And the judge will then consider the evidence
and render a decision.
The losing party can appeal
to the United States court of appeals for the ninth circuit.
Depending upon what that court does,
then the next step-- if either party
chooses to take it-- is the United States Supreme Court.
There's too many variables in the potential schedule
to try to predict a timeline.
( chatter )
Griffin: So as I understand it,
they're going to announce today
that the decision's coming tomorrow afternoon.
All right, thanks. Bye-bye. ♪ ♪
We need to be ready for either outcome.
We could win. We could lose.
Katami: We were told to have a bag ready by the door.
It was a whirlwind and we just thought,
"We were hoping for a great ruling.
Here we go."
( bangs )
Hi. Hello.
How funny to look up and there you are.
And there I am. How you doing?
How are you, sir? Good.
Perry: There he is honey. Good to see you,
Oh, boy, I'll say.
Boy, it looks like old times.
All right, my friend.
I'm used to-- in the Supreme Court,
you know, you argue a case,
and then it's five months, six months, seven months
before there's a decision. So the wait is--
So I'm used to that, but this is different
because it involves you and you.
It's a little intense.
We're definitely pacing the floors for sure.
Olson: There he is.
( laughs )
Stier: So how long do you think the opinion will be?
How many pages?
My guess is it's gonna be more than 50 pages.
Wow. But there is a sense in which
what's most important to us
in the overall litigation are the findings of fact. Stier: Mm-hmm.
Olson: I thought this was pizza.
No. They said there was pizza.
If there's pizza, I haven't seen it.
Well, what is it?
Uh, tacos.
Hmph.
♪ ♪
( quiet chatter )
( chatter )
Katami: The lawyers were gathered in a room,
and we were in another conference room.
( breathes deeply )
I'm not used to this at all.
This is completely unlike
any other day of my entire life.
( laughs ) I got in the elevator with Chad last night
and he said good night. And he said,
"Tomorrow when we wake up,
our lives will forever be changed."
Mm-hmm. One way or the other.
♪ ♪ ( knocks )
Olson: We got this massive piece of paper,
which was 130-something pages long.
And we had to try to figure out immediately
what was decided.
We were given an hour or so
to read and evaluate the decision before
it was gonna be made available to the general public.
Oh my God. Oh my God. Oh my God.
Can I see the four of you?
Mm-hmm.
I remember my heart just... ( mimics explosion )
in my chest.
We walked into the room...
and the legal team was there.
And they shut the door.
( whispers ) Let's see if we hear anything.
( muffled dialog )
And Ted's there... eating a piece of pizza
with his tie-- I remember specifically,
he had his tie flipped over his shoulder.
( mouthing )
Griffin: Wow. Wow is good.
Yeah, that's good. I like wow.
( giggles )
Wow is good.
And then Ted looks up from his pizza
and says, "We won."
♪ ♪
Perry: Both Sandy and I were just very emotional.
It was like the kind of crying that you only feel
once in a great while,
because you have so much joy.
I remember just both Ted and David were crying.
♪ ♪
So if we can all go into one room, to this room...
Is it official?
I don't know.
Zarrillo: It was the broadest ruling we could have hoped for.
Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
It violates the Equal Protection Clause.
It violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Boies: This was the first decision by a federal court
that under the federal Constitution,
which obviously applies to all 50 states,
that marriage discrimination was unconstitutional.
Olson: "Euphoric" was an understatement
of how everybody felt.
We had worked so hard
and we put our hearts and souls into this case.
We were five feet off the ground.
Good evening, breaking news tonight
in America's national debate about what defines a family.
Reporter: By striking down Proposition 8,
Judge Walker-- a Republican appointee--
declared that...
Now, the judge stayed his ruling from going into effect,
so they'll be no gay marriages in California just yet.
This case is headed for an appeal, Diane, no question.
( camera shutters clicking )
Schake: And then our opponents
immediately did something desperate
and put forth the motion to vacate.
Judges must apply the law
in a way that avoids even the mere appearance
of partiality.
Thus, no reasonable person
would be in error to believe that Judge Walker,
in ruling that he and his long-time partner
may now receive a marriage license
anywhere in the state of California,
appears to have ruled in his own case.
At the time that the case was brought
the judge was known to be gay.
And the other side was asked,
"Are you gonna make an issue
of the fact that the judge is gay?"
And they said, "No, we're not gonna make an issue of that."
Persons of color
are entitled to rule on civil rights cases
involving race.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
was an advocate her entire career for the rights of women.
And she went on the Supreme Court
and has handled cases involving gender discrimination.
The only reasonable course of action
remains for the ninth circuit
to fully vacate Judge Walker's decision
and order the case be retried by a neutral judge.
♪ ♪ This-- what I found to be offensive--
motion to vacate the judgment
was ultimately rejected by the new Chief Judge,
rejected by the ninth circuit court of appeals.
And then we turned-- we were able to turn back to the merits of the case
and the merits of the appeal in the ninth circuit.
♪ ♪
Charles Cooper: The key reason
that marriage has existed at all
in any society and at any time
is that sexual relationships
between men and women
naturally produce children.
Olson: And basically they're now saying Proposition 8
needs to be enacted
because the existence of same-sex marriage
will somehow make children
prematurely occupied
with issues of sexuality.
That is nonsense.
If that was a justification,
it would equally warrant
banning comic books, television, video games,
and conversations with other children.
( laughter )
And this question of standing came up
and whether the proponents actually had the standing to be there.
Boies: In order to invoke
the jurisdiction of this court,
the appellants here must have
a personal, concrete,
particularized injury.
And they don't.
Stephen Reinhardt: Boies, if the California law
does not specifically authorize the proponents,
why shouldn't we ask the California Supreme Court
what the law is in California?
So off we went to the California Supreme Court.
( gavel bangs )
Courtroom Officer: The honorable Chief Justice
and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court
of California.
Hear ye, hear ye, Hear ye.
The right of initiative is precious to the people.
Olson: Briefs were filed and an argument was made.
The California Supreme Court
upheld the standing of the proponents,
and then it went back to the ninth circuit court of appeals.
Reinhardt: Thank you very much.
Thank all of you for a fascinating argument.
The court will stand adjourned.
♪ ♪
( gavel bangs )
Zarrillo: The whole process has been
a game of on and off.
So you're waiting and then you're not waiting.
And then you're waiting again,
and then you're not waiting.
♪ ♪
( distant chatter )
( lawyers chatter )
( chuckling )
Here we go. Got it, got it, got it.
You got it? We got it? We got it?
"...All parties agree that Prop 8 had one effect only."
It stripped same couples
of the ability to marry.
Nothing more, nothing less.
It could not have been an act
to advance a legitimate interest.
It serves no purpose,
"has no effect, other than to lessen the status..."
All right, guys, it's a win.
It's a win. Great job.
( applause )
( excited chatter )
Rob Reiner: Guys, congratulations.
I know. ( chuckles )
Wow. ( chattering )
Congratulations. ♪ ♪
Olson: The ninth circuit court of appeals
basically acknowledged that
once people had a right in California,
it could not have been taken away from them.
"Proposition 8 serves no purpose
and has no effect other than
to lessen the status of human dignity
of gays and lesbians in California
and to officially reclassify their
relationships and families
"as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples."
That's it. That's so great.
It is.
Before we filed this case,
it truly was seen as a lefty liberal--
not even democratic-- issue.
Most democrats-- most democratic leaders,
including our president,
were opposed to marriage equality.
I am absolutely comfortable
with the fact that men marrying men
and women marrying women
are entitled to the same exact rights.
I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.
Olson: I have never in my life
seen that dramatic a change in the polls
in such a short period of time on an important issue
on any subject, ever.
The stunning reversal by a leading conservative
on the issue of gay marriage. ♪ ♪
News Anchor: Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski,
now the third G.O.P. Senator
to come out in support of gay marriage
along with Senators Rob Portman of Ohio
and Mark Kirk of Illinois.
Well, since the Perry case,
we've won ballot initiatives in Maine, Minnesota,
Maryland, and Washington state.
The legislature has passed marriage equality bills
in Rhode Island, in Delaware.
Blankenhorn: One of the things
that caused me to come to a new belief
about the whole issue of gay marriage
was just like learning a little bit
and meeting people.
If you just have this tissue of belief
that separates you from other people,
that you don't really see them
and see their lives--
that you just have this kind of wall of doctrine
or belief-- which I had--
that keeps you from relationships with other people
and trying to see their lives from their point of view--
that stunts you.
That stunted me.
It's not often that one says something
and then it just kind of like a boom.
Like, you know, there was a big boom.
When I talk about anti-gay animus
being connected to opposition to gay marriage,
I'm talking about something that's infected all of us.
I've always loved the line by Solzhenitsyn.
And he said, "The line separating good and evil
does not run between you and me,
but down the middle of every human heart."
That's what I think.
♪ ♪
( camera shutter clicks )
Zarrillo: On March 26th of 2013,
our case will be heard
in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
And it's been four years--
four years since we filed this lawsuit.
And now we're in the-- on the last lap.
We can see the finish line.
Come a little... ( indiscernible dialog )
♪ ♪
( clicking )
It's very, very nice.
Perry: We're still on hold because
they can't stop appealing.
There are challenges and opportunities.
The challenges are you can lose
and everything stays the same
and those lower court rulings don't matter--
which would be devastating--
or you can win
in a very decisive and final way.
I'm cautiously optimistic.
I'm worried.
♪ ♪
( chatter )
Boutrous: The Supreme Court
granted cert in two cases:
Our case challenging Proposition 8
and another case
challenging the constitutionality of DOMA,
the "Defense of Marriage Act,"
which was a federal law that
confined federal benefits that would go to married persons
to marriages defined as being between a man and a woman.
So we had both cases coming up the Supreme Court
and also helped make this a major, major event,
focusing public global attention
on the issue of marriage equality.
♪ ♪ I was really planning to come Monday morning,
and then I read reports that said
there were already people out here,
so I came Saturday instead.
I think that these have the potential to be landmark cases.
This case is really important to me,
and I know it's gonna be historic,
so I wanted to be in the courtroom to hear it.
I would just say that from my scriptural understanding
that homosexuality would be sinful.
And so I don't think the state should recognize it.
Woman: I've been with my partner 27 years.
She's a school teacher,
so she doesn't get social security,
but if we were married and straight,
she would get my social security
if something happened to me.
I have military benefits.
I'm retired military.
She gets nothing.
I came from Mountain View, California.
I just drove in last night.
I feel really fortunate to be here.
♪ ♪ ( chatter )
Boies: We were originally planning to split the argument
between Ted and myself
the way we did in the court of appeals.
However, we also hoped to get the Solicitor General to come in.
Sure.
And so one of the things
that I said from the beginning
was that if we could get the Solicitor General to come in,
I would cede my time--
the time I would otherwise have argued--
to the Solicitor General...
'cause I thought it was really important
that the administration be here
with us on this issue.
( chattering )
Boies: It's always hard to sit there
and have somebody else to an argument.
On the other hand, this is Ted's real strength.
If there's ever anybody
who I'd be comfortable sitting and listening to,
it's gonna be Ted.
♪ ♪ Olson: They say
that all you have to be able to do
is count to five.
So we need five Justices, but David Boies and I
have committed ourselves
to try to win over every single Justice on that court.
Hi, how are you?
Hi. Hi.
How are you? Zarrillo: I'm good.
I'm okay. Kind of weepy. I know.
♪ ♪ ( distant chatter )
( all sigh )
There's no turning back. ( laughs )
( people shouting )
( cheering )
( chatter )
Griffin: All right, let's stay close
'cause we're now in the--
up to the front.
And we're not with friends.
Stay close. Follow--
( crowd chatters ) Man in crowd: Good luck, guys.
Thank you, guys.
( cheering, whistling )
( applause )
Protestors: One man, one woman!
One man, one woman!
( overlapping chanting )
( horn blows )
( clamoring ) ( horn blares )
( overlapping shouts )
( sirens wailing )
( chanting ) Gay, straight, black, white,
marriage is a civil right.
Gay, straight, black, white,
marriage is a civil right.
John Roberts: You'll hear argument this morning
in case 12144, Hollingsworth versus Perry.
Mr. Cooper? ♪ ♪
Cooper: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:
New York's highest court, in a case similar to this one,
remarked that until quite recently,
it was an accepted truth for almost everyone
who ever lived in any society
in which marriage existed--
Roberts: Uh, Mr. Cooper,
we have jurisdictional and merits issues here.
Maybe it'd be best if you could begin
with the standing issue.
Cooper: I'd be happy to, Mr. Chief Justice.
Boutrous: We knew all along
that a ticking time bomb
for the proponents of Proposition 8
was the standing issue.
They hadn't been injured.
They had-- none of the proponents
were affected by Proposition 8.
But as a legal matter,
we knew that there were Justices on the Supreme Court
who might not agree with us on the merits
who were highly likely
to go with us on the standing issue.
And we knew if we won on standing
in the Supreme Court,
that meant Proposition 8 was dead.
Elena Kagan: Mr. Cooper, could I just understand your argument?
Reading the briefs, it seems as though
your principal argument is that
same-sex and opposite-sex couples
are not similarly situated
because opposite-sex couples can procreate,
same-sex couples cannot,
and the State's principal interest in marriage
is in regulating procreation.
Is that basically correct?
Cooper: I-- Your-- Your Honor,
that's the essential thrust of our position, yes.
Stephen Breyer: What precisely is the way
in which allowing gay couples to marry would interfere
with the vision of marriage as procreation of children
that allowing sterile couples
of different sexes to marry would not?
I mean, there're lots of people who get married
who can't have children.
Cooper: The concern is that redefining marriage
as a genderless institution
will sever its abiding connection
to it's historic
traditional procreative purposes.
And it will refocus--
refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage
away from the raising of children
and to the emotional needs and desires of adults.
Anthony Kennedy: On the other hand,
there is an immediate
legal injury-- or what could be a legal injury--
and that's the voice of these children.
There's some 40,000 children in California
that live with same-sex parents.
The voice of those children
is important in this case, don't you think?
Cooper: Your Honor, I certainly would not dispute
the importance of that consideration.
♪ ♪
Sonia Sotomayor: Outside of the marriage context,
can you think of any other rational basis--
reason-- for a state using sexual orientation
as a factor
in denying homosexuals benefits?
Cooper: I cannot.
I do not have...
anything to offer you.
Roberts: Mr. Olson?
Olson: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court:
Proposition 8 is a measure
that walls off the institution of marriage,
which is not society's right--
it's an individual right
that this court again and again and again
has said that right to get married
is a personal right.
It's a part of the right of privacy,
association, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.
Antonin Scalia: I'm curious.
When did it become unconstitutional
to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?
1791? 1868?
When the 14th Amendment was adopted?
Olson: When did it become unconstitutional
to prohibit interracial marriages?
When did it become unconstitutional
to assign children--
Scalia: Easy question, I think, for that one.
At the time that
the Equal Protection Clause was adopted.
That's absolutely true.
But don't give me a question to my question.
Olson: The language that Justice Ginsberg used
at the closing of the VMI case is an important thing.
It resonates with me.
"A prime part of the history of our Constitution"
is the story of the extension of constitutional rights
"to people once ignored or excluded."
Roberts: Thank you, counsel, counsel. The case is submitted.
( gavel bangs )
( cheering, applause )
( applause continues )
Katami: Walking down the steps of the Supreme Court
took my breath away.
I'm not quite sure if you asked us four years ago
what today would feel like or if we'd be standing here,
but if you had to ask me to lay my life in the hands
of two people, it would be Ted and David.
( applause )
What has happened in this case,
what happens as a result of the people in this room,
it has changed the world already,
but we're not done.
It's not over by any stretch of the imagination.
We could lose this case, but-- but Martin Luther King--
and I kept quoting Martin Luther King
along the way.
Civil rights battles are won because you fight them,
not because you are afraid to lose.
The proponents of Proposition 8
could not think
of any merits justification.
It was a breath-taking admission.
So I think it was a great day.
Waiting from now until June
is gonna be hard for all of us.
What we're looking forward to
is going to your weddings.
Zarrillo: Aww. Stier: Aww, that's lovely.
( applause )
Do I look okay? It's a little long.
Looks a little long? Yeah.
( groans )
The case has played a major role in our lives
over the years.
I never thought it would, but it's been very--
a defining part of our high school career.
It's kind of interesting, graduating--
it's funny how close graduation is coming
with what will be the ruling of the case.
Uh...
Show time.
Spence, you ready?
Elliot: It's a lot to handle, but I'm also
very excited for both.
Hopefully, it'll be something good for my parents.
When I leave, I hope that they can
leave with some new beginnings, too.
( engine runs )
You know, teens get in the most car accidents
than any other...
( laughs )
Perry: It feels like all of this has happened so fast.
Not just their growing up,
but the case and how it's travelled through the courts.
And now their lives are moving on
and they're gonna start actually a whole new life
and we have to figure out how to keep going
with the life we have without them here all the time.
which is a big transition for us. Stier: Yeah.
( cheering, applause )
It's a big, beautiful, bittersweet moment. It's bittersweet.
Yeah, it is.
♪ ♪ ( crowd chattering )
Here they come.
Here he comes.
DOMA. DOMA?
That was the first case. We have the first case, guys.
( chatter )
Woman: They have jurisdiction to this site.
Huge.
All right, George, and I'm waiting
for the actual opinion itself,
but our excellent colleagues inside
have told us that the "Defense of Marriage Act,"
which, for federal law, defined marriage
as the union of one man, one woman,
only denied all federal benefits to gay couples--
that has been ruled unconstitutional.
( cheering )
( whistling )
♪ ♪
We've got the Prop 8 decision. Pete, tell us.
Okay, the Supreme Court has decided
that it cannot take up the challenge
to California's Proposition 8.
It's another five-four vote.
What this means is that same-sex marriage
is now once again legal in the state of California.
( applause, cheering )
( whistling )
Crowd: Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you.
( chatter )
Proposition 8...
I think I see Chad Griffin
from the HRC talking on the telephone,
which I believe is with President Obama.
Chad is right there. One moment.
The President's on the line
from Air Force One.
Go ahead. Hello, Mr. President.
This is Kris Perry
And Sandy Stier and we thank you so much
for your support.
( Obama speaking )
Thank you, Mr. President.
And thank you for your leadership.
You're invited to the wedding.
Lara Bergthold: So what we discovered
is that the ninth circuit is meeting today.
Right. We won't know until 3:00
what they decide. So we want to set it up
so in case it's immediate, you're there.
Enrique's gonna meet us there
just so we've got an attorney with us just in case.
And then we'll just move forward from there.
And should-- uh, should marriages become legal,
you'll have your license.
And then we'll go to City Hall
where the mayor will marry you.
( laughs )
Bergthold: With a lot of cameras.
Uh, yeah.
♪ ♪
Yeah, we're walking.
Elizabeth Riel: Yup.
( chattering )
They're issuing at 3:00, yeah, a statement, the ninth circuit.
Perry: Okay.
If it happens today, it's not right this second?
Bruce Cohen: No, it's gonna be right this second
because we want you to be first, so--
and potentially, anyone can get married
at any courthouse, but-- Yeah.
Like these people for example getting married
right now ( laughs ) Cohen: That's correct.
♪ ♪
This isn't weird at all.
The order has been issued,
but we don't know yet what it says.
We're trying to get ahold of it.
Okay, we can see City Hall in the distance, Bruce.
Woman on phone: We got it. They got it. They got it.
What are they saying?
Go, we're a go.
( excited chatter )
Cohen: Right now, oh wait--
Man on phone: It's a go immediately.
( gasps ) Oh my G-- Whoo!
All right, we're on our way.
Do Jeff and Paul know?
Yes, I just texted them.
They have to get in line.
Hi, how are you?
We're here to get a marriage license.
Clerk: Okay, hold on, please.
♪ ♪
So we haven't been notified yet, so--
Abby: I'll show you the order from the court.
So what I did is I informed my supervisor
and they're on their way over here. Thank you so much.
We're getting married in a few minutes, honey.
They just issued a court order
a few minutes ago that no one knew was gonna be issued,
so we came to City Hall as fast as we could.
Elliot's here in all of your place.
Right, Elliot? You're the boy.
Hey, Spence.
Here she is.
Congratulations.
Oh.
Wow.
Congratulations.
Oh my God.
Reporter: There is some word that there might be
some appeals to this. Any thoughts on that?
The wedding bells are about to ring.
( laughs )
Oh, it's Kris and Sandy in line.
Riel: Look at that. ( laughs )
Let me see it again.
We're getting a directive from our director
that we cannot do anything until we hear from the state,
and we haven't heard from the state.
Abby: Who do we need to call to make that happen?
Supervisor: You're gonna have to call the state
because they're gonna have to issue something from the court.
Can we have you guys step aside
and let us handle the customers--
City Hall Clerk: And then we will go ahead
and issue your marriage license, okay?
Okay. Would you like our identification?
Yes.
Do you hear that? Yes.
"We are issuing the marriage license," she said.
Man: Whoo-hoo! Yes, I'll give someone the okay.
Yeah, okay, do you want me to call them? Yeah.
Fantastic. Hi. I've got the--
Excuse me, I've got the Attorney General on the phone right here.
Is there someone who can speak with her?
Let me find out. Okay.
Are you the director? I am.
Hi, I'm Elizabeth Riel with the AFER.
These are our plaintiffs
Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo. Hi.
Nice to meet you. Thank you so much.
I have the Attorney General on the phone right here.
Okay. Will you take a call from her?
Sure. Okay, Felix, we're-- Here we go.
Hi, this is Dean.
Kamala Harris: You must start the marriages immediately.
All right, I will-- I will take that as our notice
and we will issue the license now.
Okay, that's wonderful, thank you.
Have a good day and enjoy it. It's gonna be fun.
Director: I'm looking forward to it.
Okay.
That was the clerk of Los Angeles and I just told him
that they have to start marriages right away.
( cheering )
Congratulations. Thank you very much.
And I apologize. No, that's okay.
We were just waiting for notice.
Thank you. Thank you so much.
You've been great. Thank you very much.
You have the date already?
The date? We're doing it in an hour.
In an hour.
( rhythmic clapping )
You guys go that way.,
( crowd cheering )
Supporter: Congratulations!
Today, we witness not only
the joining of Kris and Sandy,
but the realization of their dream--
marriage.
Antonio Villaraigosa: I've done a few of these
over the last couple years,
but... never have I been prouder,
never have I been
more joyful than I am today.
And so let us begin.
( inhales deeply )
( long exhale )
Take it in.
( both laughs ) Just take it in.
( organ music plays )
We are gathered here today
for the purpose of uniting in matrimony
Paul Katami
and Jeff Zarrillo.
Do you, Kris, take Sandy to be
your lawfully wedded wife,
to love and cherish
from this day forward?
I do.
And do you, Sandy,
take Kris to be your lawfully wedded wife,
to love and cherish
from this day forward?
I do.
So, Paul, do you take Jeff
to be your lawful wedded spouse?
I do.
Jeff, do you take Paul
to be your lawful wedded spouse?
I do.
♪ ♪
Villaraigosa: And so on behalf
of the state of California,
let me pronounce you married.
( cheering )
( sniffles )
( cheering continues )
Harris: By virtue of the power and authority vested in me
by the state of California,
I now declare you
spouses for life.
( cheering )
Whoo.
Feels great.
Zarrillo: Proposition 8 hurt.
It hurt really bad.
It hurts to this day,
but it emboldened...
a movement like I've never seen.
♪ ♪
I do! ( cheering )
♪ ♪
Perry: If in 2008 someone said, "In five years
your kids'll be leaving home,
you will be getting married,
and you will have a very full life..."
I'd have said, "Amen to that."
♪ ♪