Day one of the trial begins with the judge explaining his proposed broadcasting of the trial and the U.S. Supreme Court’s order temporarily blocking it, followed by administrative matters.
The trial then gets underway with opening statements by attorneys for the plaintiffs (Ted Olson & Therese Stewart) challenging Proposition 8 on federal constitutional grounds and by the attorney for the official proponents of Proposition 8 (Charles Cooper), who intervened to defend its contitutionality (as Defendant-Intervenors). They did not trust Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to do so adequately, and indeed, those governmental defendants have taken the position that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and they are not defending it.
Ted Olson, one of the lead attorneys for plaintiff couples Kristin Perry & Sandra Stier and Paul Katami & Jeffrey Zarrillo, explains that the plaintiffs are arguing that:
- Proposition 8 violates federal constitutional rights to equal protection and to marry;
- Marriage is of great importance in U.S. society and lack of access to it stigmatizes and harms same-sex couples and their families;
- There is “no good reason” for the discrimination worked by Proposition 8 – not procreation or parenting;
- Proposition 8 was enacted out of prejudice based on stereotypes of gay and lesbian people; and
- It is the courts’ role to protect the constitutional rights of vulnerable minority groups.
Therese Stewart explains for San Francisco that the city will contend that Proposition 8:
- Contributes to anti-gay hate crimes; and causes significant economic losses to the city and state.
Charles Cooper then argues for the Defendant-Intervenors that:
- Proposition 8 restores a traditional definition of marriage;
- California generously protects gay and lesbian people as a consequence of great political power;
- Opposition to marriage for same-sex couples is not necessarily born of prejudice;
- Heterosexual procreation is a central purpose of marriage;
- Letting same-sex couples marry risks transforming marriage away from being a pro-child institution and leads to various social harms; and
- The effects of letting same-sex couples marry is uncertain and so courts chould defer to the people’s choice not to experiment.
David Boies then conducts the direct examination of plaintiff couples Jeffrey Zarrillo & Paul Katami and Kristin Perry & Sandra Stier about:
- their relationships;
- the harms they’ve faced through being denied the right to marry;
- the discrimination they’ve faced; and
- their reactions to the Yes on 8 campaign.
Brian Raum, another defense attorney, cross-examines Paul Katami about his views on parental rights and responsibilities for their children’s upbringing.
The day concludes with the initial questioning of plaintiffs’ witness Nancy Cott, a professor of history at Harvard who has extensively studied marriage and its significance to couples and to society. Cott discusses the non-religious character of marriage laws in the U.S. from the past to present; the social meaning of marriage today; interactions of marriage law and race in U.S. history; and relationships between choice and consent and marriage as a civil right.