The defendant-intervenor (ProtectMarriage.com) attorney, Mr Raum, is cross-examining the second plaintiff’s witness.

They are playing the ProtectMarriage.com ad for Mr Katani, with the couple from Massachusetts who sued their school district when their son came home from school with a story about being taught about men marrying other men.

The couple is sitting on their lovely plaid couch speaking forthrightly about the changes to public school education based on now having legal marriage equality in Massachusetts. "Parents will have no right to hold their children out. The hate, the disparaging remarks we face, when we simply want to protect our children. We just wanted them to have a carefree and protected childhood."

R: Would you agree that parents have a primary responsibility for raising their children and developing their moral character.

K: Yes

R: Wouldn’t part of that responsibility to pass on their own moral values?

K: I’m not a parent but if I were I would do that.

R: Isn’t it up to parents to teach their kids about sex.

K: Not a parent, but I think so.

R: Do you think it’s okay for kids to be taught about sex in first and second grade, all the particulars of sex?

K: Depends on the curriculum, not a parent.

R: Do kids have the capability to understand sex at that age?

K: Not an expert in childhood developmenet, but kids do grow up fast nowadays.

R: Would you have a problem with kids being taught about same-sex marriage in those grades?

K: It would be my responsibility to be sure my kids understand my views.

R: Didn’t you have a particular objection to the Yes on 8 campaign’s mention of children>

K: It was the way, themanner they brought children into the equation.

R: PLaintiffs exhibit 1 (voter card): You said you had a problem with the voter card where it said "protect our children"

K: I had an issue with the verbiage "protect your children," yes.

R: Did you think it was misleading to say kids would be taught about same-sex marriage?

K: Yes I did.

R: Draw your attention to plaintiffs exhibit 1. Read the top four lines.

K: (Reads top four lines, about protecting children from being forced against their parents will to learn about same sex marriage)

R: Isn’t that the argument, about schools?

K: It is a tactic, a diversionary tactic. This has nothing to do with children. It is a diversion away from actual issue.

R: Didn’t you think that children wouldn’t be taught in schools about same-sex marriage?

K: At one time, I believed that.

R: DOes this ad literally state that there is a harm to be protected from?

K: Not literally but it was implied.

R: Did the ad we just showed you say anything abvout gay people being bad?

K: Anytime you see the phrase "protect your children" it sounds like harm to me. That’s not legitimate, they are taking an action that legally sanctions my rights.

R: SO you believe parents can disagree with same sex marriage but cannot do anything about it?

K: That’s not what I said.

R: Do you have any evidence that what those parents said happened did not happen?

K: I don’t have any information about what they said, whether it was true or not. they say they tried to rectify it in court, but it didn’t go their way. when it comes to talk ing to their children, maybe they could have talked to their kids, explained that what they learned in school.

R: don’t you agree with the first four lines of the voter card, then?

K: there’s lots of other influences, though. does that prohibit children from seeing or learning other sources? what if they see a movie with a gay character? what if they see some other influence? parents.

R: (badgering)

Walker makes him re-phrase, ask one question at a time.

R: you testified that you believe children don’t need protecting from same-sex relationships. weren’t they referring …

(SOrry, that went fast, Katani was good, the lawyer sort of folded….)

Now they are looking for a deposition transcript, trying to find out what Katani said on December 10th.

they found it — it is about textbooks being rewritten, and the lesbian wedding outing in late summer that the young kids had a field trip to City Hall.

R: Did you give those answers?
K: I did.
R: I want to refer to plaintiffs exhibit 15. Please play it.

PLaying ad about kids being taught about gay marriage ending with Gavin’s "whether you like it or not."

Then sits down.

Boies, re-direct: Was there anything in your recollection in Prop 8 about children being taught in public schools?

K: No

Boeies: No other questions.

Walker: Be available as we discussed in the morning to answer cross exam about exhibits.

Plaintiff calls Kristin Perry.

Olson: Are you a plaintiff in this case? PLease tell us about yourself.

P: Born in Illinois, raised in Bakersfield, went to UC Santa Cruz, got my masters in social work and now work in SF.

O: Tell us about your work without iding your employer.

P: Always in at-risk children, services and support for children,now executive director of a state agency that serves children 0-5.

O: relationship with plaintiff Sandra Seer?

P: She is the woman I love, we live in Berkeley with our blended family, Sandy’s children at in college, mine are in high school.

O: When meet, how grow that relationship?

P: When I met her in 1996, when we worked together, we were friends for some time and then I felt I was falling in love with her. I did fall in love with her.

O: HOw did she feel about you?

P: She told me she loved me.

O:We will have her tesstify about that and verify that with her.

(Laughter)

O: What is your sexual orientation?

P: I am a lesbian.

O: What does that mean?

P: Talks about loving women, loving Sandy and their family, talks about growing up in the 70s and 80s as her friends became intersted in boys. I dated a few boys, I could go to the prom, or the dance. Then I knw something was differnt about me, I wasn’t like my friends.

O: Were you born that way?

P: Yes

O: Do you think that might change

P: No, I’m 45 years old.

O: Why are you a plaintiff in this case?

P: I want to marry Sandy, I want a better more joyful relationship with her.

O: What does marriage mean?

P" Growing up as a lesbian, you tell yourself you can’t have that. But I see other people who have that, whose workplace or children know what their relationship means. Everyone else can join in and support your relationship.

O: Does itmatter that the state officially recognizes it?

P:Yes
O: Is that part of it for you?

P: I do everything I can to be a contributing partner living in this state, but I can’t feel everything I think I could if I was married.

O: Did you attmept to marry?

P: Yes, in 2003 I proposed. I did it to express my personal interest in marrying her. In was around Christmas, near Indian Rock, where you can see the entire Bay Area. I took her on a walk, we sat down, and I said Will you marry me? She looked happy, then confused and said, Yes, how would we do that? And we agreed we would have to INVENT something.

O: How did you invent that

P: We thought about where and when, who would come — then, the next month SF started marrying people!

O: Yoiu learned that the Mayor had started to marry people?

P: Yes/

O: Did you act on this?

P: Yes, we made an appointment at City Hall, we brough all four boys and my mom, and we got married.

O: How did that feel?

P: As amazed and happy as I could ever imagine. These wer new feelings, confusing, they weren’t feelings i let myself have. It’s an otherwordly exeperience floating above the ceremony.

O: Did you also have this private planned ceremony too?

P: YEs we did.

O: Did you have this?

P: Yes, we had 100 guests on August 1, 2004.

O: After that was there a court decision about the SF marriages?

P: Yes the SCOCA rules the marriages in SF were invalid.

O: How did you feel?

P: Part of me was, well I’m gay, I didn’t really deserve tobe married. We got a letter from SF saying WE’re sorry to inform you that yourmarriage is not valid. Would youlike your marriage fees retirned or donated to charity?

O: How did you feel>

P: Like I was not good enough to be married.

O: IN May 2008, SCOCA ruled same-sex marriages would be legal. How did you feel then that you had a constitutional right to marry Sandy?

P: We were elated. Our friends started to talk about getting married, and we asked ourselves, Would we get married again? But we agreed we hadn’t recovered, really, from 2004, and that this wasn’t a permanent solution.

O: Were you aware people were organizing to overturn the SCOCA ruling?

P: Yes, I knew about the Prop 8 campaign. They said We disagree, we’ll have to take action, that was when they put the ballot initiative on the ballot.

O: What was that like for you?

P: AS a CA resident, I could see evidence of the campaign. I sw the TV ads,posters in peoples lawns.

O: What ad do you remember?

P: It was focused on education, the ad showed the Education Code, that got my interst, it talked about protecting your children from same-sex marriage. i remember feeling the ad was attempting to create a sense of fear and worry in me, and that the solution to that fear and worry was to vote yYES on 8. It seemed very simplified.

O: As a parent, what was your reaction?

P: It felt like I didn;t need these people to tell me to protect my children, but that voters were being warned that they needed to protect their children from me. Yes, I felt like i WAS being used.
I can’t change the way I am, that was being moked anbd disparaged.

O: You feel other effects of discrimination?

P{: Every day

O: Tell us about that.

P: AS an adolescent, becoming aware of my sexuality, I wanted to be like everybody else. I was well aware of the comments and jokes throughout my school all the time, some of them about me. Later, when I said I was a lesbian, people woiuld ciriticize or doubt. I like to be liked, so I put a lot of energy into being likable, so that when discriminatory things happen. People in stores ask if we’re sisters, or cousins, or friends — so I havae to decide every day if I need to come out to this person I just want to sell me a microwave, or coach my kids’ soccer, or bag my groceries.

O: Did coming out take a long time?

P: Gradual, by the time I was 18 I knew, then I could say to others that I had been gay since the beginning.

O: How have you explained this to your childdren? Was that difficylt?

P: Well they don’t know me any other way — I’ve always been their mom, and I’ve alwaysbeen out.

O: Are you and Sandy domestic partners? What does that mean?

P: Yes we are, we got legal advice to create an estate plan , durable power of attorney, last will and testament, lots of those documents.

O: Was it estate planning, a property transaction>

P: Yes, it was part of all that. Our health benefits.

O: Was it as good as marriage?

P: No, it’s an agreement, it memorializes our responsibilities, it’s not a celebration, we don’t remember the day it happened or invite people over that day. It was at the lawyers office.

P: The word I would like to use is MARRIAGE. It’s the most important decision youmake as an adult. It seems to be REALLY important to p[eople, and I would like to habve it too, to describe our relationshjp.

O: Would it matter in your community, your neighborhood, your friends?

P: I think our straight married friends feel sorry for us. They have a word for it — we don’t. At a high school football game, we were greeted at the game in the bleachers by all our friends, all these couples — and I thought They are all married, but we are not.

O: Would these friends be threatened by your marriage?

P: No, they could be supportive of our relationship if we weren’t outside of the traditions everyone understands.

O: YUou’ve heard the arguments that yourmarriage might destroy other marriaghes?

OBHJECTION, SUSTAINED

O: Have you talked to Sandy about getting married and what it would mean?

P: Sandy WAS married once, I envy her that — buty we would like to be settled in our relationship.

O: Did you seek a marriage license?

P: went to Alameda Courthouse in May, to seek a solution to this problem. WE pulled a number, waited our turn, we went to the Clerk, I she said, I don’t think I can do this, but I’m not comfortable saying no to you, so I’ll get my boss. After a long time, she and her boss returned and he read the Prop 8 statute. Then he said, I’m sorry I can’t do this for you, but I think I will be able to in the future,and I hope tyou’ll come back when I can.

O: Why this case?

P: We just want ourl ives to feel better, we want to do this for other people, but mainly we are doing this for ourselves.

O: If courts said yes, would that stop other discrimination?

OBJECTION (speculation) OVERRULED

P: Personally, as a lesbian, if I had grown up knowing the most important decision I had to make as an adult was one I could make llike everyone else, that would make a big difference. It’s hard to face the people at work, even everyone here. I try not totake every bit of discrimination personally, but it’s hard not to. If kids like me growing up in Bakersfield coudl grow up where Priop 8 is not law, that would be wonderful.

O: Nothing further.

No questions from defendant-intervenor’s counsel.

Walker: Step down, next witness.

O: Plaintiff calls Sandra Stier. (sworn, spells her name)

O: Are you a plaintiff? Describe your background.

S: Yes, I grew up on a farm in Iowa going to public schools, and college. Now I work for a country government here in California.

O: Do you live with…

(sorry lost thread)

O: Were you previously married to a man?

S: Yes, I did. I had a difficult relationship, but it started with the best of intentions.

O: Did you encounter gay people in Iowa? How did come to learn about being gay?

S: (describes sheltered rural farm upbringing) I did not know any gay people or know of gay people or know about the gay lifestyle or sexual orientation.

WAlker: Married in Iowa? OR here in California>

S: Moved here in 1985, married in 1987, met my californian husband here. Marriage came to an end in 1999.

O: When did you meet Ms Perry?

S: 1996.

O: How come to know?

S: She was a student in my class, then we worked together, then we became friends, then I realized my feelings for her were different and unique than with other friends. I knew I had fallen in love with her.

O: DId your falling in love with Chris have anything to do with the dissolution of your marriage?

S: It was falling apart, my husband had severe alcohol problems, it did not have anuything to do with my feelings for Kris. My ex-husband is no lnoger alive.

O: Are you saying you were not in love with your husband?

S: I did love him, but when people said they were IN LOVE I thought people were being dramatic and overstating their feelings. Pragmatism was part of the fabric of my upbringing, talking to my mom about love and marriage, she would say it’s an enduring commitment and it is very hard work. And in my family, that seemed VERY TRUE. And so when my marriage was hard work,I was not surprised because I sort of expected that. Although I should say that my parents have a wonderful marriage.

O; How did your relationship with Ms Perry develop?

S: I was 36, Kris was a couple years younger, Iknew I lvoed her, we wanted to be together and blend our families.

O: How do youknow you are gay? since you were married to a man?

P: WEll, I know. It’s emotional and physical bonding, it’s a very strong feeling I have.

O: Why are you a plaintiff in this case?

P: I want to marry Kris! I love her and we want to get married!

O: (RELATEs SF experiecne of gettingletter marriage was invalid)

P: We were reall y excitedto get married in SF

O: Then SCOCA said you could get married, how was that/

S: It was exciting, but the dissension felt very familiar. The political brewing problem, those people trying to put something together to invalidate our marriage.

O: Did you think about getting married.
S: I didn’t want to be humiliated and have it taken away again. We’d been married twice, and I didn’t ewant the possibility of having it taken away again. That seemed cruel. We were proud and happy for our friends who got married then, but we feared for them.

O: Wht about domestic partnership?

S: That’s a legal duties/responsibilities document. It was really part of estateplanning, part of getting our affairs in order, that our kids were protected and that we were both protect4ed. BUt it wasn’t an institution representing the love and commitment we feel.

O: Did the lawyer tell you you’d get the same R/R as marriage?

S: I don’t recall her saying that

O: If it did, why wouldn’t it be good enough?

S: It has nothing to do with marriage

O: tell us what is so special about marriage

S: MArriage is about making a public commitment to the world, to my — I hope to call her my wife — it’s the way we tell them and each other we’re not partners, we’re not girlfriends, we’re MARRIED. Having been married for 12 years, I can tell you it’s different. If I have to explain –

Walker: 12 years?

S: Yes

Walker: 1999 is dissolvbed? And when did it startt?

S: 1987

W: Oh, I misheard you.

Walker: Lety me ask you this: if the state got completely out of the marriage business, and the state didn’t use the term marriage anymore, would that be okay then to be domestic partners if that’ sall anyone could get?

S: If nobody else had access like that, i guess it would be okay.

O: Tell us about the awkwardness and embarassment of having to explain yourself.

S: At school, I have to explain who I am to people: I’m picking up my domestic partner’s son, I’m his stepmother. She’s my wife, but I can’t really say that. Even for those who know whast it means, it’s still not what we are. We aren’t BUSINESS partners, we aren’t girlfriends, we aren’t glorified roommates. The relationship is that we are SPOUSES — except we can’t marry.

O; Forms to fill out?

O: Would marriage provide a sense of stability?

S: It would afford me inclusion in the social fabric of the society we live in. OUr family could feel pride, our chiuldren could be proud.

O: When the campaign occurred, when SCOCA said you had the right to marry, and then voters took that away, were you exposed to the election campiagn in your daily life?

S: Yes, I saw bumper stickers, posters, yard signs, people talking about it, I went to a rally for NO on 8.

O: Was it disturbing to you? HOw?

S> Yes, the campaign focused on children needing protection from our marriage. That felt manipulative and harmful to our family and our children and our community. it was as if there was great evil that needed to be stopped — and that evil was, I guess, US? As a mom with four children, there is no higher calling thanb my need toprotect my children

O: Would your boys be better off with a man in the house/

S: The best thing for children is to have loving parents, who love each other and them. Kris and I love each other, we love our children — there’s nothing more that I can say about that.

O: HOw about being a plaintiff in this case?

S: I simply want the rights I’ve already been told I have in California.

O: How would this case change your life?

Walker crosstalk

S: I would feel more secure, I would feel I didn;’t have to worry about my kids feeling shame or not belonging, that I had protected them from harm. The first time I could say to someone thsat I’m married — WOW. I want to build a better world for our kids, and I want their kids’ lives to be better. I think about their children, that I would have grandchildren — that there lives would be better because they can grow up in a better world. I want those kids to have an option to grow up who they are and honor it. Kris and I are big strong women, we’ll be fine. But this case canmake a better world.

Nothing further, no cross. Next witness?

UPDATE: Correcting this post with attorney’s name: Brian Raum.