2 Couples Make Case for Gay Rights in Big Trial

SAN FRANCISCO (Jan. 12) -- The significance of the nation's first federal trial over same-sex marriage was obvious Monday when the attorneys representing the various parties introduced themselves to open the proceedings. There were 22 of them.

Two gay men and two lesbians are challenging California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages in 2008. The two couples, both in long-term relationships, charge that they are victims of unlawful discrimination because they are unable to marry.

Previously, the battle over gay marriage has largely been argued state by state. But both sides in this case expect the losing side to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could shape national policy on gay rights for years to come.

Supporters of the lawsuit liken it to Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark civil rights case that struck down the practice of "separate but equal" in 1954.

The non-jury trial resumes today in front of Chief District Judge Vaughn R. Walker and is likely to last two to three weeks.

All four plaintiffs took the witness stand Monday. Their testimony was very personal and sometimes emotional, as they talked about the discrimination they have faced throughout their lives, their love for their partner and their desire to get married.

"I think it would change my life dramatically," plaintiffs Sandra Stier testified. "I would feel more secure. I would feel more accepted. I would feel more pride."

The lead lawyers for the plaintiffs are the political odd couple of Ted Olson and David Boies, who are best known for representing presidential candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore, respectively, during the 2000 battle over the counting of ballots in Florida. Olson went on to become Bush's solicitor general and has argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court.

"This case is about marriage and equality," Olson told the court in his opening statement. "Plaintiffs are being denied both the right to marry and the right to equality under the law."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the named defendant in the case, has taken no position on the measure. Attorney General Jerry Brown, the former governor who is running for governor again, took the unusual position of refusing to defend the measure and issued an opinion that it is unconstitutional.

Protect Marriage, the Proposition 8 campaign committee, was allowed to intervene in the case and present a defense. Charles Cooper, attorney for the committee, argued that the purpose of marriage is procreation and the raising of children.

Allowing gays and lesbians to wed would weaken the institution and lead to declining marriage rates, higher divorce rates and more children being raised by a single parent, he told the judge.

"The limitation of marriage to a man and a woman is something that has been universal," Cooper said in his opening remarks. "It has been across history, across customs, across society."

Judge Walker frequently interrupted both attorneys during their statements, peppering them with such questions as whether there would be inequality if the state simply got out of the marriage business.

Walker was appointed by President George H.W. Bush and is known as an independent thinker on the bench. He broke new ground with a decision to allow the proceedings to be videotaped and shown later on YouTube.

Walker said he received 138,542 communications from people on the issue, all but 32 favoring the broadcast.

Proposition 8 supporters, however, argued that some of their witnesses could be intimidated by the prospect that their testimony would be disseminated worldwide, and they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to block the broadcast.

Just as the trial began, the high court issued a temporary order preventing release of the videos.

The most compelling part of the day's events was the testimony from the four plaintiffs, Jeffrey Zarrillo and his partner Paul Katami, and Kristin Perry and her partner, Stier.

The first witness to take the stand was Zarrillo, 36, a theater company manager. He told the court that Katami is the love of his life. Zarrillo said he has been gay "as long as I can remember." He and Katami have been together for nine years, he said, and getting married would be the "logical next step."

Zarrillo discussed the embarrassment of checking into a hotel together or opening a joint checking account without easily being able to characterize their relationship. The Proposition 8 campaign, he said, was "a daily reminder of what I can't have."

Katami, 37, a fitness consultant, took the stand next. He said that being able to get married would validate their relationship in the eyes of the community and be a step toward having children together.

"Husband is definitive," Katami said. "It's something everyone understands. It also comes with a modicum of respect, that it's not temporal."

Katami testified that he was disturbed by the Proposition 8 campaign's attempt to portray the measure as protecting children. The implication, he said, was that the measure was protecting children from people like him.

"It was so insulting," he said. "To think that you have to protect children from someone like me or Jeff. There's no recovering from that."

Perry, 45, the lead plaintiff in the case, testified that she recognized as an adolescent that she was a lesbian and has lived her entire life feeling the effects of discrimination.

She and Stier, her partner of a decade, got married in San Francisco in 2004 only to have their marriage invalidated by the courts. That ruling, she said, reaffirmed her sense that "I'm not good enough to be married."

The couple has four boys, two each from prior relationships. Perry, who has worked for 25 years in child protective series, said it was "humiliating" not being able to decide for herself whom she would marry.

"Sandy has been married before, so I really envy her having that experience," she said. "We both believe there would be a strengthening and a deepening of our commitment if we could get through this instead of feeling like it is everybody else's decision."

Stier, a county health care systems employee, testified that she was married to a man for 12 years and suffered through a difficult relationship before realizing that she was a lesbian.

Olson asked her how certain she is that she is gay.

"I'm convinced because at 47 I have fallen in love for the first time," she said. "It's a romantic attraction, a strong commitment, an emotional and intellectual bonding."

She told the court she had joined the lawsuit because she believed she is entitled to equal protection under the constitution. Being able to marry the person she chooses, she said, should be her right.

"It would provide me with a sense of inclusion in the social fabric of the society I live in," she told the judge. "I would feel more respected by other people. I could hold my head up high in my family. My children could feel proud. I don't want anyone to feel our family isn't good enough."