Defendant-intervenor’s attorney Cooper up now

Cooper: Fourteen million voters decided to uphold traditional definition of marriage. They corrected the SCOCA’s misunderstanding. While people have been steadfast in their defense of marriage, Californians have been very generous to L&Gs through the political process. L&Gs have many protections: anti-discrimination, domestic partnerships (1999!), all substantive legal benefits of marriage.

Cooper: Continues to quote EqualityCalifornia’s victory statement about \domestic partnership legislation. Lots of L&Gs everywhere: politics, labor unions, education, business. L&Gs have substantial political power!

Cooper: Against this backdrop, not just once but in the passage of Prop 8 and Prop ??? Calfironians have drawn the line at marriage. Among those who has drawn that line? President Obama. (quotes Obama, thanks, dude) "I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman."

Walker: If the Prez’s parents had been in Virginia when he was born, their marriage would have been unlawful. Doesn’t that show a TREMENDOUS change in the institution of marriage? doesn’t that show evolution? Isn’t that correct?

Cooper: Racial restrictions were never a feature of the institution of marriage. (laughter in our courtrtoomm)

Cooper: These restrictions were loathesome, and a detail. "Man and woman" has been universal, across time and all societies.

walker: Is the evidence going to show these racial restrictions are different than the restrictions imposed by Prop 8?

(like a bug pinned to a piece of wood)

Cooper: Naturally procreative instincts….

Walker: Only purpose?

Cooper: Basis of marriage is procreation. It is a pro-child societal institution.

Walker: Many things attend marriage, will your evidence show that those are all secondary to procreation?

Cooper: This is about deinstitutionalizing marriage…

Walker: Yes, you say that. But will yourevidence show that?

Cooper: Broad consensus of leading scholars will show that marriage is about socially approved sexual intercourse ansd the production adn protection of children.

!!!!

Cooper: Marriage is naturally designed to channel the procreative instincts into an enduring unions, an institution that is good for the child. Good for the mother, fixes the responsibilities of the father. Quotes president Obama about absent dads, kids five times more likely to live in poverty.

Walker: How is the procreative aspect of marriage inhibited by same-sex marriages?

Cooper: INevitably.

Walker: What will the evidence show?

Cooper: That marriage will remain pro-child, or will it gradually transform into a private relationship designed only for personal fulfillment and companionship and expression of love?

Cooper: Won’t that risk the pro-child aspects!!??

Walker: What are those risks?

Cooper: History shows that marriage was brought into being (doesn’t answer questions. much)

This will result in non-cohabiting parents, single parents, all of which our evidence will show are bad for kids.

Walker: Is there evidence from states and countries that HAVE legalized same-sex marriage that it has de-institutionalized marriage?

Cooper: Yes, we will.

Walker: What states, what countries?

Cooper: Cohabitation without marriage by opposite-sex couples has gone up in, say, Holland which started all this.

Walker: What witness will show this Netherlands experience?

Cooper: A plaintiffs witness willspeak to this. (!!!!)

Cooper: We don’t have enoughevidence about this experiment. Does it represent a threat? Californians are entitled to await the results in five state and seven (*eight*) countries.

Walker: Turning to your proposed findings: what is this sexual embodiment you speak of?

Cooper: Our witness Blankenthorne (mentioned twice before) will discuss the naturally procreative conduct that is the centrality of marriage. And that the child is favored in this.

Walker: You say that extending marriage would result in bisexuality which would lead to group marriage.

Cooper: That is a legal argument.

Walker: No it’s a finding of fact.

Cooper; If expression of love becomes the purpose of marriage, if personal fiulfullment is what it;’s about, can we really then say to a bisexual, a person who loves two people, one of each sex, that they don’t have the same right to express their love, in order that they may too express personal fulfilment.

Walker: simultaneously?

Cooper: Modern conceptions of family might permit that.

Walker: Not unheard of among heterosexuals, though? Now, what’s your evidence for this finding that heterosexual young people will be drawn into sexual cults?

Cooper: The de-instituionalization of marriage has caued a decline of marriage, the traditional definition and purposed (procreative again!!0 are diluted, and marriage as a pro-child social institution is weakened. We believe, evidence will show, and testimony will show that that finding of fact will folllow.

Cooper: You will hear nothing but predictions here in your courtroom in this trial about what samne-sex mnarriage will do. The people of California should have the right to await reliable understanding of what effect will occur.

Cooper: Traditional, secular, evidence of the ages.

(Sorry, this is very repetitive and dogmatic. It makes me ANGRY and my fingers are rebelling!)

Walker: What precludes this institution from evolving to include same-sex couples?

Cooper: Your honor, nothing precludes it. Two states’ people have done so, courts elsewhere. Olson spoke movingly about the change in attitude over time. Prop 22 passed overwhelmingly, Prop 8 passed only substantially. Political process, not YOU! Not the Ninth Circuit, not even the justices of SCOTUS. That’s what we have ballot booths for, your honor.

Cooper: When does the constitution take this issue out of the hands of the people? THIS is what the constitution demands, you have no say?

Walker: There are CERTAINLY many issues the courts handle, not the people. Why is this not one of them?

Cooper: Their legal arguments, your honor. The 14th amendment doesn’t take this issue out of the hands of the American people. Not like Loving v Virginia, which was about an extraneous issue to marriage.

Walker: Didn’t MR Olson mention other prohibitions that courts have found to be constitutionally infirm?

Cooper: Many marriage regimes have placed restrictions on the wife, but those have been eliminated mostly.

Cooper: racial restrictions in Loving were at war with the purpose of marriage. Those peoples sexual relations would naturally lead to procreation, yet the state forbade their marital union. They were unable to establish the enduring marital relationship that the state otherwise promited on behalf of children.

Cooper: Summing up. Plaintiffs say that only animosity motivated the proponents, the people of California were permitted to do this.

Mr Boies will take the first witness, break until ten minutes after the hour.

Resuming now: David Boies with his first witness, Jeffrey James Zerrillo.

B: Tell the court about yourself. How old are you?
Z: 34, raised in New Jersey, have one brother. He’s been married 14 years, my parents have been married for 41 years.
B: Employed?
Z: AMC entertainment, worked there forever, now general manager of operations from ticket taker.
B: Are you gay?
Z: Yes
B: How long?
Z: Forever
B: How long have you been openly gay?
Z: In stages, last stage when I was thirty.
B: What took you so long.
Z: COming out is a personal and internal process. You have to get comfortable with who you are (chokes up, takes a moment). The things you see, the things you hear about being gay, the process changes you. Ultimately youget to the point where you’re comfortable. Once you realize it/s not about what anyone else thinks, it’s about me — about the stereotypes and the hate.
B: tell about the stereotypes what you read and heard?
Z: Can’t we all remember the peer pressure in high school and college? MAny of my friends identified as straight and were dating women. That was tough for me, I wanted to go out for the football team, but I was afraid of being in the locker room with men.
B; What were some of the things you saw and read?
OBJECTION;overruled, goes to witness’s state of mind.
Z: After school special about a kid who came out to his parents, kicked out of his home, told by his parents not to come home. Remember Ryan Phillipe playiung a gay kid on One Life to Live, kicked out by his father.
B: Today, you are in a committed relationship, you love another gay man. tell me about that man.
Z: He is the love of my life, I love him more than myslef, in sickness in health, until death parts us. I would doanything for him.
B: How long?
Z: Nine years
B: Why do youwant tomarry him?
Z: Marriage has a special meaning, that’s why we’re here today, to share thejoy and happiness my parents felt, my brother felt, my friends andneighbors felt when they marreid.

B: Would being married chnge your relationship?
Z: Absolyutely, one’s capacity to grow continues through marriage.
B: Would marrying affect your relationships with family, community?
Z: Yes, at work and family functions, I would participate as a married person, together with other married family members, I would feel pride as they do.
B: Would it affect others who don’t know you?
Z: Sure! when someone is married, when meeting a stranger, when someone notices my ring, it says to them, these individuals are serious, they are committed to one another, they are in a relationship that one hopes lasts the rest of their lives.
B: Doyou have children/
Z; NO
B: dO YOU Want children.
Z: Yes
B: why don’t you have them/
Z: Paul and i believe we and our childdeserve the protection marriage provides. So that nothing could eradicate that nuclear family.

B: You are aware you can be a domestic partner in CA, right?
Z: Yes, but a domestic partnership would mean we are second- or third-class citizens. That is not enough, just part of the pie and not the whole thing.

Z: We would be saying we are satisfied with being second class. Only marriage can give us first class citizenship for our relationship.

B: Do you have friends who are domestic partnerships?
Z: Probabnly, not talked about.
B: Do those people celebrate anniversaries?
Z: No

B: How are you discriminated against by not being married?
Z: Discrimination is pervasive, other states have acted to restrict marriage. Discrimination is everywhere, daily reminders of what I can’t have.
B: Personally encountered embarassing or awkward sitruations because unmarried?
Z: When we travel, it’s always awkward at teh front desk. the desk clerk looks at us, perplexed, you ordered a king side bed, is that really what you want? It’s very awkward. I’ve opened a bank account, saying my partner and i want to bank together, they want to knowwhat kind of business partner you are. It woudl be crystal clear if i could say, My husband and I want a room, or my husband and I want a bank account.

B; Tell about how people react to you?
Z: I proudly wear my ring, people ask how long I’ve been married or what my wife does, then I have to say mypartner is a man. If I could just say My husband, wouldn’t that be clearer?

B: Might you marry someone of the opposite sex if California continues to prohibit same sex marriage?
Z: No
B: Wouldn’t you tend to have a stable loving relationship with someonne of the oppositie sex?
Z: Again, no.

NO CROSS EXAMINATION

witness dismissed

NEXT: Paul Katani

B: Tell us about yourself
K: 34 years old, grew up in Sf, older sister and older brother, my mom lives here and my dad livesin santa clara. Went to St Anns and St Ignatius prep, then Santa Clara College and UCLA for masters in fine arts. Work for Equinox Fitness, as a Group manager.

B: You heard Mr Zerrillo describe your relationship, right? Please tell us, would you like to marry him?
K: Yes
B: Did you try to marry?
K: Yes
B Did you apply
K: Yes, we were denied in May 2009.
B: Why did youwant to marry?
K: It’s thenatural next step when you love someone.
B: How would your relationship change if youmarried?
K: Being married gives us access to THE LANGUAGE: we don’t like calling each other lover,partner sounds like we’re in business together — everyone understand what HUSBAND means.
B: What are your views about children?
K: I would love to have a family/
B: Whynot then?
K: Marriage comes first for us, the protections, the language. Beyond the language, it represents us to our community and our society. Our kids would be protected.
B: Would your children be disadvantaged by your not being married?
K: Yes, a marriage creates a more stable home, when viewed by society.
B: Does not being married affect how people view you and Jeff?

OBJECTION, overruled, state of mind of the witness

K: (choking up) Unless you have to deal with the constant validation of self, explaining that we’re not a Subchapter S partnership. Why should I be excluded? Why shouldn’t we hav these same terms?

B: Aleways gay/openly gay question?

K: I struggled, surrounded by everything heterosexual, didn’t want to deal with situations that seemed outside the norm. I had a girlfriend in high school, because you needed one to attend theprom or the dance or the game. We confide in people, and then they say we’ve been waiting for you to tell us! I never wanted to have those conversations as if something was WRONG with being gay. I always told myslef I would be exemplary — I wanted to put a good face on it, LISTEN, this is my boyfriend and he’s coming home for Thanksgiving.

B: Have you experienced discrimination?
K: First time incollege with gay friends going out, sitting on a patio at a gay restaurant, suddenly rocks and eggs came over thewall with slurs. I just accepted that; that’s part of our struggle. I was finally feeling comfortablein my skin, but Irealized I would always face this. More recently, discussions and amicable arguments (if there is such an oxymoron) with people about my rights under Prop 8. Lots of people said, marriage is not for you people anyway. Others said, what’s thebig deal (chokes up) Regardless of how proud you are, it doesn’t change the shame.

K: I;m not less patriotic, I’m not a lesser American, I’m tired of these constant reminders being put in a corner and told I’m different.

B: What circumstances did people say marriage is not for you?

K: In traffic in Los Angeles, which is like having coffee with the same person in the car next to you. Their car had a YES ON 8 sticker, Ipulled up to see who this person is — and I got a look, WHAT? And I said, I disagree with your bumper sticker, and she said, MARRIAGE IS NOT FOR YOU PEOPLE. And I was completely speechless, I told Jeff later, why couldn’t I respond?

B: What was the image on the bumper sticker.

K: It had a parent and a child, it reminded me how the Prop 8 campaign used children in their campaign; Protect The Children. when I think of protecting children, I think of protecting them from harm, like drugs or a opedophile or a criminal — something that could harm your child. It’s soINSULTING even to insinuate that I am part of that category. To lump this issue together — to say that my marriage to Jeff means a child will beharmed. You put mynieces and nephews (chokes up) they will tell you they don’t need protection from me or Jeff. And to tell people that I’m in a criminal category.

B: Wants to present a campaign video, subject to previously stated objecetions from defendant-intervenor. Lawyers discussing the video, can’t quite hear.

Walker: ProtectMarriage.com video, called "It’s Already Happened"

Defendant’s counsel makes points that this exhibit is subject to their continuing objection.

(we can’t see this exhibit, but it sounds like the princess marrying princesses, and the lies about Massachusetts) Exhibit 99

B: How did that make you feel?
K: What are they protecting theirchildren from? Are you protecting them from people having rights that you have? There are ways to convey their message without demonizing people. It’s unfair and unjust.

B: Offers Exhibit 401, Stand Up For Prop 8

Defendant’s counsel continues their objection. There seems to be some question whether plaintiff disclosed this exhibit to counsel even though it is a Prop 8 ad.

Video was NOT disclosed to defendant, Boies says it was an error, but can we play it now. Defense says it’s a surprise, and Your Honor’s orders are very clear.

walker: My order did serve a useful purpose, but what prejudice is caused by showing this witness your client’s video and then holding the witness for 48 hours to respond to any questions.

Laughter in the courtroom about the defense attorney allowing the judge to rule on his objection.

walker: I know you’re working hard, but please be sure the exhibits are up to date. witness must remain available.

Playing exhibit 401 now.

Tony Perkins and another preacher (black) talking about the homosexual agenda going nationwide if Prop 8 fails. with a locomotive headed right for the viewer, quotes from the Bible, scary music, "stand up for jesus christ, don’t deny him." Go to the polls vote yes, stand up for righteousness Three minutes, four?

B: How did you feel?

OBJECTION: witness testifying how he feels about an ad my clients didn’t make.

Walker: Mr Boies?

B: Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, was featured prominently in the ad.

(Defense counsel will not come to his microphone, I wonder if that is intentional?)

Walker: Overruled, and don’t speak your objections in such great detail even though there’s no jury to be influenced.

K: I remember that ad. I would lie to say my heart isn’t racing watching it. We are not righteous? What’s the oncoming train about? Who is denying Christ like Peter did? Who is doing the devil’s work? We don’t want to do anything to anyone. I just want to get married, I’m not going to do anything to hurt children or my neighbors. Why would they categorize my friends who object to Prop 8, people of faith, as acting on the devil’s behalf? I am demeaned by this, people are putting active effort into discriminating against you. Their belief, when it infringes on my rights, is unacceptable.

B: Next exhibit, number 350, Gathering Storm.

(Watertiger’s favorite video!!)

Defense: This was in 2009, after the campaign.

Walker: Boies, relevance?

B: Continued campaign against gay people, portraying them as a threat, part of a pattern of discrimination. This may be even more relevant.

B: In a campaign, they might have an excuse, but the only purpose of this video is to demonize gay people as a threat or having an agenda.

Walker: Can you link to Prop 8?

Boies: Need a moment; video produced by National ORganization for Marriage, a big supporter of Prop 8. We must not distinguish between the Official Campaign and the ongoing discrimination against gay people.

Defense: Doesn’t refer to Prop 8 in the ad.

Walker: Sufficiently tenuous, other ways to establish homophobia without using a video produced by an organization not party to the suit.

SUSTAINED

Boies: Next exhibit, voter card distributed by Prop 8 campaign.

B: Do you see where this Voter Card says, VOTING YES PROTECTS OUR CHILDREN?

K: Yes, it’s so clear — this theme of protecting children. What is the harm we represent? What is it that people need protecting from? Do this people think we are people who would harm children? This makes me a threat, someone who would harm children, someone children need protecting from. It’s unfair, and it’s wrong.

B: Your reasoning not to register as domestic partners is?

K: We hear a lot: what’ sthe big deal? we get asked this all the time. Well, it’s a major deal — you’re being told you’re a second third or fourth class citizen. People say it’s a major stride, when it’s really putting a Twinkie at the end of a treadmill. Sure, you get a bite, but you want the whole Twinkie.

K: What do you do, have a D/P ceremony? Do you introduce him as your domestic partner? When your state sanctions something that discriminates against you, that allows people to say, See the state thinks you are lesser, so my prejudices are affirmed.

K: This only affects me, if it bolsters our profile, then good. Regardles of how proud we want to be, we can’t. This isn’t a country about US and THEM. We have these protections, my state is supposed to protect me, not discriminate against me.

B: No further.

Walker: Defense?

Defense: Can we have lunch now, your honor?

Walker: Lunch break until 1:30, resume with cross of this witness.

Breaking now! Not beerthirty but it sure feels like it, since my day started at 5:30.