Original subtitles

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!

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!

One man, one woman!

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.

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."

♪ ♪