 Hello everyone. Thank you so much for joining us this afternoon. My name is Adam Umhafer. I'm the executive director of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. I'm grateful and excited to be here with you all and with this team this afternoon as we fight for equality and respect for gay and lesbian couples here in Virginia. I'm confident the arguments made by our legal team today led by Ted Olson and David Boyes along with Tom Shuddleworth and and of course the attorney general will succeed in ushering in marriage equality to the south. I applaud the Attorney General Mark Herring's decision not to defend Virginia's harmful same-sex marriage ban. He's shown great leadership on this issue and is signaled that the time has come for political leaders of all stripes to fight for full equality under the law. In the last couple years we've seen extraordinary nationwide momentum toward marriage equality but a majority of Virginians also support the freedom to marry for their gay and lesbian neighbors. Last year a poll showed that 56 percent of Virginians support gay and lesbian couples right to marry an increase of 10 percent in just two years. It is clear the time has come for loving committed couples like our plaintiffs Mary and Carol and Tim and Tony to be granted the dignity and respect that comes with marriage. I'd like to thank Judge Arenda Wright Allen for her judicious review of all parties concerned and for listening to the merits of our case today. We eagerly waited a decision and are hopeful that one will arrive soon because every day that these discriminatory laws remain in effect is another day that gay and lesbian Virginians and their families are harmed and treated as second-class citizens. I'd now like to introduce you to our lead co-counsel Theodore Olson. Thank you for being here. I'll keep this brief. What was in my mind and I know David's mind and the Solicitor General's mind and the Attorney General's mind while we were standing there is that our plaintiffs and their family are being discriminated against to put in a separate box by the Commonwealth of Virginia of all places the home of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. And James Madison so many other patriots that gave us the Constitution and gave us the Declaration of Independence that governs our country and provides the moral standards for equality decency due process non-discrimination and fairness to our citizens. And that we are withholding that from these individuals every day that they go through their lives and are treated as second-class or separate from the rest of our citizens. So the opportunity to bring this challenge and we're very grateful to our co-counsel for asking us to be a part of their team and we're very grateful to the plaintiffs for the opportunity and the confidence that they vested in us by allowing us to represent them at court today. The judge listened very carefully to two hours of argument from both sides in this case and at the end of the argument promised a decision in this case soon. It couldn't be too soon of course because every day that goes by our clients and others like them all over the state of Virginia are not being treated equally with other citizens. So we're looking very very much forward to the decision in this case. We're grateful for the opportunity that the federal courts have given us to bring this challenge under this Constitution and we're grateful for you to be here to report on this case and the arguments that we made today. Thank you. We'll now hear from David Boyce. I'll also be very brief. I want to begin by emphasizing what Adam said and that is to really thank the leadership that's been provided here by the Attorney General and the Solicitor General of Virginia. It is great to be on the same side in fighting for marriage equality since the Supreme Court decided the Perry and Windsor cases last June. Federal District Courts in Utah, Ohio, Oklahoma, Federal District Courts and the Federal Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit in California have all considered whether gay and lesbian citizens deserve equal rights with all other citizens and every one of those courts has held that they do. Every one of those courts have held what we're asking the court in Virginia now to hold which is that the Constitution does not permit second-class citizenship based on status. We have seen that in racial areas and gender areas and now we're going to see it in the area of sexual orientation. Thank you. Thank you David. We'll now hear from one of the plaintiffs, Mary. Good afternoon. My name is Mary Townley and this is my partner of almost 30 years, Carol and our daughter Emily. We were very grateful this morning for the opportunity to present our case before the court and to share why marriage is important to our family. Carol, Emily, Emily and I are just like every other family. We own a home in the suburbs, we participate in basketball games, PTA meetings, we go to work every day and we have a circle of supportive friends. The one thing that's different is because of Virginia's current marriage laws. Carol is not recognized as my wife even though we were married in California in 2008. Virginia does not acknowledge our marriage nor can we get married in our home state. As parents, we want the best for our daughter and we know that it would mean a lot to her if our family was treated just like every other family. We want that for all Virginians no matter who they are and who they love. Thank you. Mary will now hear from Tony London. I would just like to say to everybody here that Tim Bostic and myself are truly in love. We have been together for a very long time and this means a lot to our family. We are no different than anybody else out here. We just want the opportunity to be recognized the same way everyone else is and to have the same benefits that married couples have now. We don't have those benefits. We don't have the rights. So we are looking very much forward to a positive answer from the judge. I hope. But thank you all. Thank you Tony. We also have here with us Tom Shuttleworth and Robert Ruloff. Attorneys for the case. Tom if you'd go ahead like to make a few remarks. Thank you. I've been coming to that court that we were in today for 40 years and like many of you who reported that court you see people coming into court asking for money, asking to be kept out of jail, asking but always asking and it struck me that today these people just want to get married with dignity and they're not really asking for anything that everybody else doesn't already have and they ought to be granted that. Thank you. Thanks Tom. We also have with us here Attorney General Mark Herring. Good afternoon and thank you all for coming. Today was a significant day in the journey toward full equality under the law for all Virginians. I'm proud to say today that the Commonwealth of Virginia stood on the right side of the law and the right side of history in opposing this discriminatory ban. This was also a good day for the rule of law in Virginia. Despite claims to the contrary my action in this case has not ended the marriage ban nor has it ended the court case nor does it mean the marriage ban is not being defended in court. This case is fundamentally about whether Virginia can legally treat same-sex couples as second-class citizens or whether the United States Constitution truly guarantees equality under the law. This case is also more than an abstract legal debate. This debate affects the lives of thousands of Virginians who are our friends, our neighbors, co-workers, parishioners at church, our brothers and sisters and they deserve to be treated exactly the same way all other Virginians are. Today Judge Wright Allen heard Virginia's Solicitor General Stuart Raphael make a compelling case on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia that the state's marriage ban violates the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. She also heard Mr. Olson and Mr. Boyce speak eloquently for their clients in arguing that Virginia's ban should be struck down and counsel for their defendants in this case did their best to defend the constitutionality of the ban. None of those arguments were new and I had considered all of them, many of which were advanced in the brief filed by my predecessor Mr. Cuccinelli and I still find that their arguments failed to meet even the most deferential legal standard let alone the heightened scrutiny that is required when fundamental rights such as marriage are at issue. In recent weeks my decision to change the state's position in this case has drawn some criticism from predictable corners. Though none of that criticism has focused on my legal conclusion regarding the constitutionality of the ban and I think that's because as you saw today the legal arguments in support of the ban are weak at best and in many cases have previously been rejected by the courts. One cannot help but notice that the loudest critics have been those who are most vehemently opposed to treating gays and lesbians as equal Virginians. Although we have much to be proud of there have been times when brave Virginians have led the fight for civil rights while their state leaders have stood against them whether it was the right to public education regardless of race in Brown versus Board of Education or the right to marry the person you love regardless of skin color in the loving case or the right to attend state colleges and universities regardless of gender in the VMI case. Virginia has too often found itself on the wrong side of landmark civil rights cases. The injustice of Virginia's position in those cases will not be repeated this time and today the Commonwealth of Virginia got it right. I will also have brief comments from Robert Ruloff council for plaintiffs. Thank you. Immediately when Ted Olson finished speaking I jumped up and said I've been a lawyer for 40 years and this is probably the greatest moment in my life as attorney because the importance with which this case was handled and the passion that he and Mr. Boyes and also the American Federation for Equal Rights. We have people here from California. We have a lawyer who helped write the brief in Dartmouth. I'm a coal miner son. We have people all over the country here for this case today. So how did this begin? Why are we here? How did we get here? Tony London and I were talking one day when the Prop 8 case was just held as the constitutional law in California as unconstitutional. In the Prop 8 case these lawyers did a good job in maintaining California's right to equality. But in talking to me Tony said I'm going to go to Maryland and get married. I said Tony you don't need to go to Maryland to get married. We get married here. He said not in Virginia, not in Virginia. That'll never happen. I said let's just try and see what we can do. He said if you're up for it I'm up for it. I go to Tom Shutterworth and Tom says let's try. He goes to Tim Bossick let's try. We found for our marriage license in Norfolk we're denied. But we found our case because these guys had the courage to take this case and fight this fight for other freedom. Our phone rings Matt McGill's on the phone talking to Eric Baccaro about our case. He says we will join you. Now I'm a transactional lawyer not a litigator. So Tom Shutterworth explained the importance to me and Charles Lustig of having Olson's firm in our lawsuit. I said wow. Then David Bowie's wants to join our lawsuit. I go Tom tells and explains to me why that's better. Then I said wow what a team. Then Adam Oophoffer is that pronounced right? Where is Adam? Is that correct? Adam Oophoffer calls from California and say they wanted to join our case. So what does that mean? That means our case is not a Virginia case. Our case affects all gay and lesbian people in this country. It's not Virginia east coast. It's not west coast. Our case is where the east meets the west. That's what our case is about. Well if a Republican attorney up here, a prominent Republican attorney, a Democrat is here. So this is not a political case. This case is about a basic human right, the freedom of choice. A philosopher once said, a Roman philosopher, that many of our loves and passions are a geographical accident of birth. For example, you love your daughter. You love your child. But those are geographical accidents. But when you choose to love someone, that choice is far more significant. It's not cashed upon you. It's something that develops when you see a person in affinity. So to deprive that person of that choice is to deprive them of a very fundamental human instinct to love another person. Who are we to dictate, I'm straight, but who are we to dictate to the lesbian community, the gay community what they should do and who should they like or who they should marry? That's not a right we have. We're not meant to do that. So this case is very important because it involves different issues. Tony and Tim want to be married in Virginia. Kill and marry want their marriage to be recognized in Virginia. Their daughter doesn't want to be less than equal. And with regard to children, it's a shame to know I will share with you. Tony and Tim wanted to have a child. But Tim said, we can't do that in Virginia because we won't be able to adopt. Tony's very, Tim has words to me last Sunday. I wanted to have a part of Tim with me. They would have a surrogate mother care of the child. They decided that door was shut. So when Tim found the doors open to marriage, he got excited and he now feels he might be recognized as a complete equal human being, not a second class citizen in this country. With regard to religion and the equation, the representative from Hawaii made a very important observation and comment when Hawaii passed this law. He said, how many gay people does God have to create before everyone accepts he wants them here? How many gay children must be created? These are my words, not his, before we all accept the fact we're all children of God. So who has a hotline to God to say what's right or wrong? We're all children of God. In conclusion, one philosopher associated the basic needs of human beings as follows, the bird, the nest, the spider, the web, the human, the human relationship. We now have time for a few questions. Yes. My question regards the one difference I noticed between what Mr. Olson and Mr. Boyce argued versus the Solicitor General's argument, and that's for the injunction, how soon it would be applied. Could you explain the difference in your thinking and would it matter to you, Mr. Bostick? I think the difference between us is in terms of whether you think a pulmonary injunction or the type that we asked for, which we think is very narrow to injunction, is something that could be effectuated without additional consequences. I think probably the Solicitor General would agree that if we could have a pulmonary injunction that gave equal rights to these four plaintiffs immediately without further implications, that that would be a desirable thing. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I suspect that that would be that would be the case. The question is whether, by granting pulmonary relief here, would that sort of open the door to a lot of additional litigation? We think that that would not be necessary. The Solicitor General is concerned about it, and I think that's really the difference. Yes, my question is for the Attorney General. My question is for the Attorney General. Mr. Attorney General, although your most outspoken critics in this matter are those who are opposed to the same sex marriage, there are those who feel like you have betrayed a public trust that your oath of office was to defend the laws of Virginia and the Constitution, and in that definition of your job description, nowhere in there does it say if you agree with them. How do you reconcile that, that in fact you are upholding your oath? Well, the oath of office that I took was to support the Constitution of the United States and of Virginia, and as we're taught at a very young age, when the two conflict, it is the U.S. Constitution which must prevail and is the law of the land. The Attorney General has a duty to defend those laws that are valid past and that are constitutional, but the Attorney General has an equal duty to not defend those laws which, after a thorough and careful and rigorous analysis, he concludes that it violates that Constitution. So I am fulfilling my duty and it is the U.S. Constitution which prevails where there is a conflict with the state Constitution. Just a quick follow-up. Did that many are wondering why that wasn't a part of your campaign, why this belief of yours wasn't heard during the campaign? The process that I followed was as soon as I appointed Solicitor General during the transition, knowing the scheduling of this case was proceeding, I tasked him with heading up a legal team to review the analysis, to review the case precedent, to see whether, to review with me all of those cases and laws to determine whether the law was constitutional or not. That is exactly the process I said I would follow during the campaign. During the campaign I'd said, particularly following the Windsor case and the Proposition 8 case, that in light of the Supreme Court precedent, I was very skeptical the law would pass constitutional muster, that it called into question other states, gay marriage bands including Virginia's and that if elected I would review carefully the legal precedent with the experts in the Attorney General's office to determine whether I thought the law was constitutional and I said that I did not believe that an Attorney General should be defending laws that are unconstitutional. Thank you sir. We'll follow up for you Mr. Attorney General on that point. I noticed this morning in court that one of the defendants in the case, Ms. Rainey, did not have an attorney speaking on her behalf and I wonder, you know, does that bolster the argument of your critics that you're leaving the citizens of Virginia with, you know, defenseless in this case? I'm committed to the rule of law and it is my responsibility as Attorney General to present the state's legal position, which the solicitor did on my behalf. So I am still representing the state, still representing the name defended in her official capacity and we presented the state's legal position, which is that the law violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If y'all were trying to explain to a non-lawyer what you're asking that judge to do, what would you say? What we said today is that consider carefully the arguments, consider carefully the status of individuals who are gay and lesbian in Virginia, consider what the Supreme Court has said about discrimination against them, consider carefully the provisions of the Virginia Constitution and the state laws that deny to them the equality that the rest of us enjoy and hold those provisions on Constitution. That's what we're asking the judge today and that's what we're asking her to do and she promised a decision soon. I might say one more word in with respect to the Attorney General's position. What he did is courageous because he looked at the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Virginia and found that they were inconsistent in terms of recognizing the equality of citizens of Virginia. So he's defending not only the Constitution of the United States but the citizens of Virginia that are victims of discrimination. The same decision was made in California by the California Attorney General with respect to Proposition 8. The same decision was made by the President of the United States and Attorney General Holder with respect to the Defense of Marriage Act. It's a courageous act but it's an act of public citizen coming forth examining carefully what their responsibilities are. If Virginia put back in its Constitution a discrimination against persons of different races who wanted to get married, I'm sure take the same position and he'd be equally right. This is the right decision. He made it. He's been taking some flag from some quarters but he took a conscientious decision and we applaud him for doing that. Sir I think specifically you requested an injunction from the judge but I think the Solicitor General said something different. He said it's not quite an injunction what we're soliciting. Can you make that? Well I'll say something and let the Solicitor General speak for himself. I think all of that will be not necessary if the judge before the judge is cross motions on either side for summary judgment. Summary judgment would mean that the judge would decide the case on the merits and would decide we hope that the Virginia provisions of constitutional law and statutory law that we're talking about are unconstitutional. Then the discussion about a preliminary injunction is so to speak. The judge will then decide whether to stay the effect of that decision if she finds these provisions unconstitutional until they can be heard by an appellate court but we weren't arguing about that today so I hope that the judge will decide on the merits that these provisions are unconstitutional and then we'll worry about all that. On the issue of the injunction there are really two models. There's the model from Utah where the judge issued the injunction immediately and didn't stay it and that went all the way up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said no no don't move so fast we're going to stay the injunction until the case is fully heard by the Court of Appeals. There was the Oklahoma model which came afterwards where the Oklahoma judge seeing what the Supreme Court did in the Utah case stayed the injunction right away. What we said today was that we think that the Oklahoma approach makes more sense this is not a case where the Attorney General can simply decided for Virginia this is a case that will have to be decided by the judicial branch it needs to be decided by the Supreme Court and it's got to go through the Fourth Circuit until we get there and I think the Supreme Court has made pretty clear how the procedure will play out and that's simply what we were pointing out to the judge today. May I ask Mr. Appiel if the judge decides makes that summary judgment and then stays it says the Virginia ban is undistitutional and then stays the effect of that will y'all press immediately will y'all try to get a rocket docket through the Fourth Circuit or what will y'all do? I think everyone agrees that this is a case that has to be resolved as rapidly as a fair fair-minded consideration will permit so I don't think there'll be any problem getting it up to the Court of Appeals very quickly. You guys have a timeline on that I mean if everyone on the stage seems to think it'll go to the Supreme Court are we talking months years before this matters? I think with respect to the Fourth Circuit and that part of it I think we're talking we'll be in the Fourth Circuit soon to use the words of the district judge today but I think the Fourth Circuit recognizes the importance of this either way it matters to Virginia citizens so I think we'll be in the Fourth Circuit a very short period of time we will ask if the other side appeals to the Fourth Circuit for an abbreviated schedule prompt briefings we've all briefed the matter thoroughly in front of the district court we're not going to change the arguments that we make and I think that can happen soon as far as the Supreme Court is concerned as you know there's cases going to be argued in April in the 10th Circuit from Utah and Oklahoma those cases might get to the Supreme Court no one can predict that sort of thing but for us we are going to continue to press in every venue that we have an opportunity to speak that the constitutional rights of citizens are being denied that causes irreparable injury to them and their families every single moment of their lives so that what the courts owe all of these citizens is to deal with these issues promptly and expeditiously thank you again everyone for attending today on various parties will be around following the press avail if there are additional follow-up questions but again an exciting day for this team in court and thank you for joining us good afternoon