 Hi, my name's Chad Ruffin, I'm the president of the Board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. You've heard arguments today from the city attorney of San Francisco, the media coalition, and attorneys on behalf of the plaintiffs, Ted Butrus, on behalf of the plaintiffs. I'm sorry, look down. That's the old plan. The link you're trying. There's got to be some way else then. Theodore Butrus on behalf of the plaintiffs, Christine Venek on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco, and also joining us today is city attorney Dennis Herrera. As you know, the city and county have been with us throughout this case, and we've worked side by side with Dennis and his team. And so I think on our press conference call last week, as we were going into today's hearing, there really is one question. And what do they have to hide? And I think you were able to hear both sides in court today. Our side articulate why that the public should have access to what happened in this trial. And I think you were able to hear the opposition, the anti-marriage proponents of property attempt to articulate why the public tapes, why the trial tapes should be hidden forever from the American public. And I think Mr. Butrus and the city and county of San Francisco did a very good job of showing you exactly what the opponents do not want the public to hear. And so with that, I will turn podium over to Ted Butrus on behalf of the plaintiffs, followed by the city and county of San Francisco. Thank you, Chad. Hello, everyone. We have a strong tradition in this country of open access to the courts, to trials, to judicial records. And that's what today was all about. We have the ultimate classic judicial record. We have a verbatim audio depiction of the trial that took place in this courthouse over 20 months ago, which led Chief Judge Walker striking down Proposition A as unconstitutional. There is no reason in the world why the American people shouldn't be able to see that trial and start to finish. We did not hear a reason today at all from the Proposition A proponents. I was waiting for something, something new, some concern. Mr. Thompson records their concerns. But he never said really what they are because they have no evidence. This is a refrain we use during the trial. They had no evidence, no indication of anything that would happen that wouldn't be positive if these tapes were released. And I think it's telling that the First Amendment, there needs to be compelling reasons to keep the judicial record secret. We didn't hear any reasons. We also heard from Tom Burke representing a coalition of media organizations talking about the public's rights of access and the public's benefit. One of the chief reasons the Supreme Court has said that there's a strong presumption of access to judicial records is so the public can see what happens in a trial. The proponents here, I think all of you know, have all along attacked the notion of a trial, attacked the judge, Judge Walker, without any basis, made false attacks. That's all the more reason for the public to be able to see for itself what happened in the trial which Judge Walker conducted in utmost fairness. Let the proponents put on any evidence they wanted. All they could muster were their two witnesses, Mr. Blankenhorn and Dr. Miller. And as you saw today, another reason why it makes no sense to keep the trial video secret is that there are all these reenactments. Everything is public. You can get everything out there except the real thing. And under those circumstances, there's no basis for keeping this secret. So for the American public to be able to see the testimony on both sides, whatever your view is about marriage equality, you can see the evidence to make your own determinations and also see what a fair proceeding led to the judge's ruling striking down this discriminatory law. Thank you. I'll turn it over to Dennis Herrera. Thank you, Ted. First, I want to compliment the job that Ted Butros, Christine Van Aiken and Tom Burke did about elucidating really what is at stake in this hearing today. And that is about public access and transparency. Ted summarized it absolutely wonderfully about the need for having the tape released in terms of the integrity of the judicial process. When you see the accusations that had been made with respect to Judge Walker, how he's conducted himself during the course of the trial, and without any evidence whatsoever, the allegations that had been made by the opponents of marriage equality to undermine the legitimacy of this decision, which was based on nothing but the facts and the law, despite what they say. I think that only highlights the importance that the transparency that would be furthered by the release of the tape goes to the heart of what is at stake in this case. And that is the integrity of a decision that has vast import for millions and millions of Americans. And I have to tell you, I think it's just like I think the fact that we had this trial here in San Francisco, I can't think of a better place to have a hearing on this matter than here in San Francisco. Because in an era when you see increasing cynicism in the public nationwide about the integrity of government, about what politicians do, about the structures of government, we have a tradition here in San Francisco of open government. We have been a leader in setting out sunshine laws, public records laws, and the like, which has inspired the confidence of San Franciscans as to the integrity of local government. And that is exactly what is at stake here in this case on a much broader scale. And I was very impressed with the deliberativeness and the thoughtfulness with which Judge Ware approached the hearing today, but quite frankly I was incredibly surprised as to the lack of preparation or argument that I saw out of Mr. Thompson. And quite frankly perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised because it replicates what we have seen throughout this case. And that is the failure to put forth a substantive case in any meaningful way. So I thought that the issues laid out there clearly. I think that we all understand what is at issue and the importance of transparency and integrity of the judicial process that would be served by lifting the state. So Jed, we're going to go to questions, but I know some of you have asked us prior to today and earlier this morning. On September 19th the American Foundation for Equal Rights will be premiering a Broadway reading and re-enactment, a trial, a play that was written by Academy Award winning writer Dustin Lance Black, where each of the members from Judge Walker to the attorneys on both sides, to the expert witnesses, and to our plaintiffs who will all be played by Academy Award winning and nominated actors from Morgan Freeman to Marissa Tomei. And that will be recorded and ultimately made available. But that premieres on September 19th and I know a number of you have covered that, but some of you hadn't and had asked questions, but that is September the 19th at the O'Neill Theater in Manhattan. Ted, can I ask you what about Thompson's argument that they had relied on what he called ironclad assurances that the video would just be used by Judge Walker in his chambers for his own review? That argument when we come to the question whether the judicial record should be released is wrong. There's a real difference. The judge said the purpose for reporting the trial was the judge was going to use it in chambers. At that point, Mr. Thompson and the proponents should have known that if we have a judicial record that's created, then these principles of access that allow the news organizations and the public to get access to documents comes into play. And the judge, they've turned it into this ironclad now. The judge did say that was why he was going to make the recording, but that doesn't mean that the traditional principles of access to judicial documents is applicable. It's applicable here and Mr. Thompson had no rational compelling or any kind of reason to keep the secret that I could hear today. So we think those basic principles, these aren't new rules. These are the rules that govern all the records in this courthouse. That's all we're asking to be applied for the proceedings that took place in a public courtroom to be released. As the judge pointed out that whatever he decides is not really going to affect the plaintiffs in this case. Would you agree that this is more in some ways about public opinion and image around both the proponents of Prop 8 and also the larger issue of Gamer? The release of the video will definitely have an effect on the public debate on same sex marriage. There's no question of that. It will increase public understanding and knowledge of what happened in the court. But it does affect the plaintiffs because our clients, two couples who want to get married came into court. They put themselves on the stand. They went, they came into court and stood up for something they believed in. These proponents, their only response is to attack the proceeding and to try to undermine confidence in that process. So I think for our clients it means a lot for the public to see this was a fair trial that both sides put their evidence on. The proponents didn't have any evidence. That's why they lost. So it means a lot to our clients as well as to the public. Have you at all concerned about what the judge had raised about the seal perhaps meaning that the videotape could not be viewed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? Is that something that occurred to you? Was that obvious to you? Like the judge, I was surprised that Mr. Thompson suggested that because of course the Ninth Circuit can review a piece of the record, play a piece of the record. The local rule that Mr. Thompson has converted into the rule that trumps all other rules in the Constitution does not control the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Thompson seemed to back off on that later in the case. But what I found interesting was the passion, the viens that Mr. Thompson was expressing about the need to keep this secret. This isn't state secrets. This isn't radioactive material. This is just what happened in Open Court in this courthouse that many or all of you saw happen in the notion that they're fighting so hard to keep it secret without any explanation. In the one point I just read, I mentioned this, right now posted on the court's website his videotape testimony from two of the plaintiff's experts who they withdrew before the trial because they knew their testimony was bad for them. But the proponents' witnesses are on videotape on the court's website. How can they complain about letting the rest of the record out? I don't think they can. Could you explain exactly what rule 77.3 is where it comes from and how it relates and why he was the vehement of it? Sure. Briefly, that is the rule that governs broadcasting proceedings from the courthouse, televising and broadcasting for public consumption. This is the rule that was at issue and has now been amended to a pilot project that does allow for some broadcasting. In fact, Chief Judge Ware asked the parties if they would agree to use that new rule to broadcast today's hearings, but the proponents objected. They wanted to hide the fact that they were trying to hide the trial. But the rule only talks about the rules for taking photographs, broadcasting, like it doesn't speak at all to what happens once there is a record of a proceeding. Once there's a record, that triggers the first amendment. You scared myself. Microphone. The first amendment in common law presumptions. That's where Mr. Thompson, I think, got off track. He's conflating the two and not recognizing the big difference between the issues relating to live broadcast or even delayed broadcast and the public's fundamental right of access to judicial records. The latter is what we were talking about today. Those principles strongly support releasing the videotape. Which court's been ultimately decided to question the videotape? Can we walk it over after the state's agreement? This issue about the release of the videotape, you've heard Mr. Thompson ask for a stay and therefore he's indicating they will appeal it. So if they appeal, the next stop would be the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit has very strong rules. The Supreme Court, on access to judicial records as opposed to televising proceedings, has very strong rules about openness and transparency. And it sounds like the proponents, like all the other issues in this case, plan to appeal if the videos are released. But we think that the law strongly supports our side on these issues. With the state Supreme Court, you think we'll... Could actually be the Ninth Circuit. It'll be the federal Supreme Court. I'll start off with the federal. Yes. So it'll stay there or anything? It depends what happens. And in terms of these issues, these are basic issues that the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court, can look at. If the Supreme Court is discretionary, if they determined it was an issue. And the circumstances are quite different now than what we were talking about in the live broadcast. As I laid out today, important as Mr. Burke talked about, here we have the record. And without any evidence of any problems related to the trials, a very cordial civil proceeding. And there's no evidence that anything except the most positive consequences would flow. The public would get to see what happened, hear what happened. Right from the mouths of the witnesses themselves, from the lawyers, from the judge. That would benefit everyone, including everyone on both sides of the debate about same-sex marriage. So you think that's what they are afraid of? Yes, in a word. We think. And I've had this experience personally when I talk to someone and lay out the issues and they hear the R side of the arguments. If they come into a neutral even, sometimes going against the notion that there should be marriage equality. Once they hear the arguments of R side, the plaintiff side, about how profate is discriminatory, how it serves no purpose, how it hurts children, how it hurts families. And they hear that, as we play today, the lead witness for the proponents, saying that we would be more American the day we recognize same-sex marriage. It can change people's minds. It changes their perspectives. And I think that's the bottom line. That's why the proponents don't want this up. They know that when the public sees the evidence on both sides, they're going to lose the public opinion battle just as they lost this case. I'd like to ask a question about the standing hearing next week. If that's okay. Or would you rather wait until afterwards? I know we talked about this in Tettles and I guess we'll be arguing on Tuesday and you spoke to it on the phone the other day, but since we've got here, could you just summarize why you think that they do not have legal standing to challenge this decision? Certainly. The fundamental rule of standing in federal court is that to have standing to proceed, to bring a case, to bring an appeal, you have to show that you are injured. And here, the proponents themselves are on record that they can't identify harm to themselves or to anybody else by the enactment of marriage equality and by allowing everybody to get married. They have no harm. They have no standing. And with respect to these ballot initiatives, because the Governor and Attorney General have determined that to respect the decision of Judge Walker and not enforce propositioning or defend it on appeal, that leaves the proponents as the last people willing to do that. But under standing rules, their injury is too speculative or not existent to give them standing. And if the state Supreme Court ultimately rules against them, do you see that as the end of the road basement? We make it almost impossible for them to show standing when they get back to the Ninth Circuit. On the other hand, if the California Supreme Court finds that they have standing under California law, that still doesn't answer the full question of Article 3 standing in federal court. So it would be then for the Ninth Circuit to factor that into its analysis as to the Article 3 standing. It's for us, I think I've said this before, we're not afraid of getting to the merits on appeal. So whatever the California Supreme Court decides in the Ninth Circuit, if they're standing for the proponents, we think we'll win on the merits. If they're not standing, then proposition 8 falls and marriage equality will reign in California. So those are two pretty good alternatives and we're looking forward to moving now forward quickly with that process to establish marriage equality in California and hopefully everywhere else. Thank you very much.