 Good afternoon, my name is Chad Griffin and I'm the board president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. We also have our co-counsel here today, Theodore Olson, who you saw argue on our behalf, as well as David Boyce. We also have Theodore Butrus, who argued both of these matters in federal district court, as well as Terry Stewart, with the City and County of San Francisco, who you heard so eloquently today. Also, and I think perhaps more important than any of us, we have the four plaintiffs in this case that completely were referred to repeatedly as plaintiff, plaintiff, plaintiff, and occasionally mispronouncing their last name. So we have Paul and Jeff and Chris and Sandy who are here with us and are a reminder of exactly why we're here. And having not asked anyone else permission on our team of what I'm about to do, if Mr. Cooper is still here, I would like to cede my time to him and have him come explain a bit more of what to me was the headline today, where he expressly stated that allowing gay marriage would not in any way harm heterosexual marriages. At least not now. There was some discussion about that in the future. Any time we could figure that out. Again, as you know, those of you who follow this case, that was not what was stated repeatedly in trial. And that was, I think, a headline moment for many of you and for many of us. Assuming he's not going to come back and answer your questions, I'll speak very briefly. Today we take one more step in the march towards marriage equality and one step closer to the decision from this court and to the day when our plaintiffs Chris and Sandy and Paul and Jeff can celebrate a marriage with their families, their kids and their parents. Sadly, the issues before the court today were ones of desperation and bias by the anti-marriage proponents of Proposition 8. The proponents of Prop 8 attempted to undermine our country's judicial system by accusing the U.S. District Chief Judge of bias, simply because the fact that he is gay the way he was born. The time for their delays and distractions and baseless claims has come to an end. The American people are now saying with increasing force, in fact, a majority, that they support marriage equality. Our Constitution's promise, the promise of liberty, is one that every generation must realize. And the fight to secure marriage equality is the defining element of our generation's search for greater freedom. I just want to end on a note, once again putting the spotlight on the actual personal faces and couples I've already mentioned our plaintiffs, Chris and Sandy and Paul and Jeff, who have now been waiting since we filed this case almost three years ago to get married. They represent thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of Americans like them. And some of you may recall, in fact, some of you here wrote profiles of garrison ed, a couple who had been together for almost 40 years and were brought to the public attention by the Courage campaign, by the Los Angeles Times and by many of you who talked about them. About a year ago, they made their story public that they had been together for 40 years. They met at Polytechnic in San Luis Obispo and they were living their lives 40 years together in Palm Springs. And they wrote a very eloquent letter and a video saying that they could wait no longer, they wanted to get married because Ed had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's and they wanted to get married while Ed could still remember the occasion. And sadly, Ed passed away last night and they won't realize that dream. And I think today could be a moment where we remember Darenson Ed and that we don't allow any members of this generation and young people and couples like these plaintiffs who want to get married to deny them that right. It is time to stop treating them as second-class citizens and we are well on our way. And with that, I will turn the podium over to our brilliant co-counsel who have led this case and represented these plaintiffs for the last three years. Ted, David. Ted Terry. How about you want to do us an alphabetic order, David? I'm going to be very brief because I think Chad really said it. When we started out in this case, we said we were going to demonstrate that marriage was a fundamental right and that depriving gay and lesbian citizens of that right terribly harmed them and their children and that depriving gays and lesbians of marriage equality didn't help anybody. They conceded that marriage was a fundamental right. They just said gay shouldn't have it. Their experts conceded that not allowing gay couples to marry grievously harmed them and their children. And today, you heard them concede that allowing marriage equality isn't going to hurt anybody else's marriage. That's what we said from the beginning. And today, you heard Mr. Cooper say we disclaim that depriving gay and lesbian citizens of the right to marry has any benefit. It doesn't help anybody. I think that's the end of the story. And you saw today how hard the proponents behind Proposition 8 will fight to prevent and delay a resolution of this case. The first hour was about whether or not the American public could see what happened during that trial. And our opponents make the argument that somehow witnesses, in a case that might take place in the future, would be discouraged or harassed or intimidated. Yet all of their witnesses testified on video depositions that are available on websites anywhere. And there was not one single shred of evidence that any witness would be intimidated by the American public seeing what happened in this trial. We are anxious for the American people to see what some of you saw every single day in this trial. The truth. And to see what the judge had before him when he was making his decisions. And to listen and hear to see the witnesses actually testify under oath and some of them subject to David Boyce's cross-examination. They don't want you, the American public, to see the trial. They claim that they are somehow misled by the district judge. This is the first time a lawyer has ever said, gee, a judge ruled a certain way and therefore it can never be changed and I somehow relied on that and so forth. They're saying that they do not want the American public to see what happened in this trial. Now, is there any good answer to the argument that the American public should not see the trial of a constitutional right of hundreds of thousands of Americans that 13 million citizens of California cared enough about to vote on? And this involves the Constitution of the United States and they don't want you, the American people, to see it. What does that tell you? The other thing is that they're saying that inferentially because they do, after a year or so after the trial, when they knew darn well the judge's sexual orientation that the case should be thrown out and everybody should start all over again because he's gay. Which is, as David pointed out, I think extremely elegantly, as did Terry. That would mean a black judge would not be able to rule on the constitutional right of black children to go to school. Or women couldn't rule, women judges couldn't rule on cases involving pregnancy or abortion or planning for children's birth control and things of that nature. Or a person with diabetes or something like that, a hidden condition, couldn't rule on a disability case. Minority people can't rule on issues involving civil rights. That's what this is all about. And those things are completely peripheral and beside the point with respect to what the fundamental rights are in this case. But they're fighting so hard because they don't like the decision that this judge made and they don't want you to see how fair and impartial and level-headed he was throughout the whole case in rendering that decision. Because if you did see, if the American people did see the trial, the idea that the judge was biased would be out the window. So that's what we're fighting about today and we're going to keep fighting and we're getting very, very close now to a decision by this court and very, very close to an end to this case when we will vindicate the rights of the citizens of California to marry the person they love, irrespective of their gender. A week or two ago the California Supreme Court held that the proponents have a right to be in this case and had a right to be in this case to represent the interests of the people of the state of California in defending Proposition 8. And yet they come to court and argue that they can conduct the trial on behalf of the people without the people being able to see the video recording of that trial. We have a statute in California not to mention constitutional cases that says the people don't delegate to their public servants the right to decide what's good for them to know and what's good for them not to know. And so the proponents of Prop 8 here have no business as claiming the mantle of the state and representing the people of trying to hide the work that they did in the trial, not to mention the opposition in the trial and the witnesses and evidence presented on the other side from the people who they claim to represent. I want to also just add on the motion to disqualify. We in the gay community have heard for way too long, oh it's not because they're gay, it's because they have a relationship because they have an intimate relationship because their relationship is this or is that. That's what that motion was about today. It was saying, it was trying to say this isn't because he's gay, but I noticed they didn't say if he was a heterosexual getting married there would be a problem. It's because he's gay and he's in a relationship and it doesn't distinguish him. Every gay person has the right, like every heterosexual person, not only to marry tomorrow or next week, but even if they think they don't want to marry right now, they're convinced of it. They get to change their mind. They have the right, the freedom to change their mind and they have an equal interest in that. They also have an equal interest in it because as the testimony at trial of our experts showed, the stigma that Prop 8 imposes by treating gay people differently from heterosexuals falls on every gay person. Straight, I mean in a couple who are single or otherwise. It harms everybody, including young people. So I think this whole notion that it's because Judge Walker has some sort of special interest because he's in a gay relationship is a smoke screen. I don't think the court, I mean the court did push back to us on that, but I think in the end I'm optimistic that we will win that. But the double standard that the proponents advocate in every circumstance that different rules apply to gay people than other minorities or than anybody else is appalling and I'm tired of it. And I hope that the court will say something about that in its decision and emphasize that the same rules apply to us as everyone else. Thank you. We have time for a couple of questions. I don't know how much you see when you're out there waiting, but Mr. Cooper did not even approach the podium and I think that says a lot. And I want to thank you for coming down here and talking to us because it again just highlights a very great difference. It's a two-part question. First off, proponents of Proposition 8 are claiming that the reason why they're supporting this measure is because of religious liberty. Would you care to comment on that opinion? Proponents are also suggesting that they will be pushing for about 2012 regarding this same issue. And I was wondering is that something under consideration? Well, I'll say something about religious liberty. They didn't mention that during the trial. They had a 12-day trial. They could have put on any witnesses they wanted. This case is not about religious liberty. It is inhibit anybody's religious liberty. It is about the First Amendment and it's the right to association under the Bill of Rights. It's the right to marriage, which is a fundamental right. And if they're now saying it's about religious liberty, I guess they thought that up two years after the case was brought. And it's clearly an afterthought because it wasn't mentioned during the trial. I just don't know where that's coming from. And the other question, David gets... I'll say a word about that too. And that is that the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees everyone's religious liberty. It also guarantees that no one can impose their religious beliefs on anybody else. And what you have here is you have a group of people trying to impose their religious beliefs on somebody else. And that simply isn't consistent with the Constitution. They can exercise those religious beliefs. They can believe what they want to. They have the right to do that. And we respect that. But what they cannot do is impose those beliefs. And I've seen no ballot measure filed by them, so I don't think anybody else can comment on that. I don't know what kind of ballot measure they're going to file. Anyway, the whole thing about the Constitution is the voters of California, no matter how much we may hold them in high regard, cannot amend the United States Constitution. A lot of what's happened in court throughout this year on Prop 8 has been the side issue. Tell me about what happens once these two particular side issues are resolved. Where do we go? What's the next step in this case, if you would? The next step is that the court will address the merits of the case. As both Terry and Ted indicated, the California Supreme Court has now answered the question. And so I think once these last two motions are cleared away, that means that the court will turn to deciding the underlying merits of this case. So I think, as they said, we are stepping closer and closer to the day when people will get a decision on the merits of marriage equality. I know the court has no deadline, but do any of you have any estimate on when the court might rule and whether it might rule on all three issues at once, the third being the underlying substance of this case? I don't think any of us know. They don't tell us very much about that sort of thing. I do think that once the California Supreme Court rendered its decision on the standing issue, this court has been moving rapidly. It set a very short deadline for us to file briefs on the standing question. That deadline has passed. Those briefs have been filed. It set these two issues for argument quickly on the same day at our request. We asked that, and the court is moving forward on that. I think the underbrush is being cleared out of the way. We have filed all the briefs on the merits. We had the argument on the merits on the constitutional question on December 6, one year and two days ago right here. And I'm optimistic that we're going to get a decision on the merits soon from this court. And we're optimistic also about the outcome. Not only we're hopeful and optimistic that it's going to be soon, but that it's going to be a very favorable decision. One last quick question. I'm kind of curious. Today's proceedings, you guys were basically having to argue on behalf of Judge Walker. Tell me about that. Just odd to me, he's not even a plaintiff, but he became the focus of both hearings today. Well, I think, Terry, you might want to say something about that. But I think what we have said all along is what Terry said here at this podium, whether it was Judge Walker or any other judge, it was a particular bias against having a gay judge. And the irony of these two hearings, one, they're saying the judge was biased, therefore the trial was biased. The other, the actual tapes from trial, which would allow them, if they're right, to prove their case to the American people that the judge and that the trial was in fact biased. One would think it would be quite the opposite. If what they believe that they said in round two today is true, you would think they would be the ones arguing for the trial tapes to be made available for the world to see so that they could prove to the American people the very point that they have worked so hard to attempt to convent judges in the public hub. One other thing I will add to that is, as you know, once the trial court was not broadcast live, one of the things that the American Foundation for Equal Rights committed to was ensuring that we would do everything we could to let the American public in on and see exactly what happened in that courtroom. In fact, the desperate attempts by the opposition to hide those tapes has created tremendous demand from around the country for those wanting to see what actually happened in that courtroom. If it's so important to hide, it must be something we really should all see. And to that end, a lot of things have happened. One, we had the premiere of 8LA, a play that was written based on the exact trial transcripts from the Federal District Trial that premiered in New York with award-winning actors and cast playing the actual individuals on both sides from trial. On March 3rd, that same play will debut in Los Angeles, directed by Rob Reiner, as well as Michelle Reiner, a producer, and Adam Umhafer, as well as Lance, who brilliantly put together a fair portrayal of what happened in that courtroom. And at some point next week, we will be announcing the cast that will be playing those who are behind me and those who were previously at this podium. So be careful what you wish for. Alright, thanks everyone.