The trial to determine whether same-sex couples in California have the right to marry -- and whether it's constitutional for voters to have a say about it -- has wrapped up its second week. On Jan. 11, before U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, the case known as
began in a San Francisco federal courtroom that didn't have an inch of room to spare. Reporters, spectators and activists both for and against gay marriage filled the courtroom, anticipating a trial that is likely to trigger appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, regardless of the outcome.
is the formal challenge to the November 2008 ballot initiative in California known as Prop 8, which itself overturned the California Supreme Court decision of May 2008 to strike down the state's ban on gay marriage.
As if the historic nature of the trial were not riveting enough, the cast of characters -- from Judge Walker to the plaintiffs and the lawyers representing them -- makes for an undeniably attention-grabbing case.
The plaintiffs' attorneys, David Boies and Theodore Olson, are working together this time around, after representing opposite sides in the
Supreme Court case that decided the 2000 presidential election; Olson represented George W. Bush, Boies represented Al Gore. Olson, who became U.S. solicitor general under Bush from 2001 to 2004, is regarded as one of the most successful conservative lawyers in the country. Margaret Talbot recently wrote a
Boies, a well-known trial lawyer and active Democrat, is "the liberal yin to Olson's yang," says the San Jose Mercury News in a
brief bio. Among the high-profile cases he has been involved in is
United States v. Microsoft, an antitrust case in which Boies successfully represented the Justice Department.
Gay-marriage advocates were skeptical when it was announced that Olson would lead the charge with Boies. Not only is Olson a well-known conservative whose association with the 2000 Florida recount case still leaves a bad taste in many liberals' mouths, but many activists doubted that a federal challenge was the most effective venue. They are still skeptical about the strategy of trying for a federal solution, but are less dubious of Olson himself. As Talbot reports, when discussing Prop 8, Olson "sounded confident and impassioned; the case clearly fascinated him both as an intellectual challenge and as a way to make history."
Talbot continues:
He said, "Separate is not equal. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are not the same as marriage. We're not inventing any new right, or creating a new right, or asking the courts to recognize a new right. The Supreme Court has said over and over and over again that marriage is a fundamental right, and although our opponents say, 'Well, that's always been involving a man and a woman,' when the Supreme Court has talked about it they've said it's an associational right, it's a liberty right, it's a privacy right, and it's an expression of your identity, which is all wrapped up in the Constitution."
A 'Maverick' Judge
In a short bio of Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, the San Jose Mercury News
notes: "It is no small irony that the veteran San Francisco judge has inherited perhaps the most important gay rights case of this era."
Walker, a "staunch libertarian," was originally a political adversary of Bay Area civil rights groups. According to the Mercury News, President Reagan nominated Walker to the federal bench, but he was not confirmed after pressure from groups that took issue with "
his representation of the U.S. Olympic Committee in a lawsuit over the 'Gay Olympics.' " He was nominated again by President George H.W. Bush and was confirmed, though he "has since become anything but a predictable conservative in his 20-year career."
Walker "has made it clear that he has an eye toward both the high court and history," says Talbot. In addition to strongly advocating that the trial be videotaped and uploaded to YouTube (which the Supreme Court quickly
rejected), he decided to approach the trial in a more "expansive way."
Talbot reports: He "could have relied primarily on legal filings to make his decision, but instead has opted to admit oral testimony on everything from the history of marriage to the history of anti-gay discrimination, from the fitness of gays and lesbians as parents to the definition of homosexuality."
The Plaintiffs
Kristin Perry, the lead plaintiff, lives in Berkeley, Calif., with her partner, Sandy Stier, and their four children. The San Francisco Chronicle
reported that Perry and Stier have been registered as domestic partners since 2004, but have been together for 10 years. Olson and Boies were concerned that the "right" kind of plaintiffs had to be picked as the face of the trial. Perry and Stier were desirable candidates for this role because, as Perry told Talbot,
"We're in stable parts of our careers. . . . Our children aren't really young, we live in a really liberal place, and we weren't worried about a lot of rejection from neighbors and friends."
Another couple, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, of Burbank, Calif., are the other trial plaintiffs. Katami and Zarrillo "have been together eight years, and have been trying to marry the past two years,"
according to the Mercury News.
* * *
If you'd like to follow the trial more closely, here are some news sites that feature in-depth reporting and live-blogging of the proceedings:
Margaret Talbot's
blogging can be found at
The New Yorker's News Desk blog
Full coverage from the
San Francisco Chronicle
Full coverage from the
San Jose Mercury News