Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Operator: Hello, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for waiting. Welcome to the American
Foundation for Equal Rights conference call. All lines have been placed on listen-only
mode, and the floor will be opened for your questions and comments following the presentation.
Without further ado, it is my pleasure to turn the floor over to your host, Board President
of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Mr. Chad Griffin. Mr. Griffin, the floor is
yours.
Chad Griffin: Thank you, Erin, and welcome, everyone, to this call. We're going to cover
three subjects and try to get through them quickly, and then move specifically to your
questions. I should also note, as we have in the past, this press conference call is
being recorded and will be posted on the AFER site at AFER.org as soon as we're able to
get the audio recording, for those of you who need a detailed transcript and for those
who cannot make the call. So this call will be recorded.
I just also want to note that since we were all on this call, as I see the RSVP list,
I know many of you have been on our calls and are with us through trials. Since our
last call, there's been yet another national poll, which takes us to six national polls
that show support over 50%, showing a majority of Americans supporting gay marriage, and
those are all six polls since the launch of this case. And in addition, we've also had,
obviously, the tremendous victory of gay marriage in New York since our last call, that I know
some on this call who are listening were instrumental in pulling off, and I want to sort of congratulate
all who made New York happen.
The three subjects that we are going to cover on this call is, number one, Monday's hearing
before Chief Judge Ware, which is hearing the motion to release the trial tapes to the
Secondly, we're going to discuss the California Supreme Court hearing with regards to the
certified question on standing. That will be a week from Tuesday. Ted Boutrous, who
is on this call from Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher, will be leading the arguments on behalf of
the plaintiff this Monday before Chief Judge Ware.
And then before the California Supreme Court, the plaintiff's entire argument will be led
by Ted Olson from Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher on behalf of the plaintiff. And I know you
all know and have followed these, too, and know them well.
So I just want to say a few brief words before turning it over to our brilliant legal team.
There's a difference between fact and fiction, and I think we all need to focus on that difference
as we enter into Monday's hearings. As we all know, throughout the trial and since,
the anti-marriage proponents of Proposition 8 have consistently argued that the two witnesses,
and those that did not come to trial, feared intimidation. And I think it's incredibly
important to note that we will be doing a release, subsequent to this call, that all
of you will receive via email and posted on our website, facts on each of those witnesses.
These are witnesses who are incredibly outspoken public figures. They teach college classes,
they get paid to speak, they have done debates around the world on these issues. They have
sought incredible publicity as they have published their books, their articles, their newsletters,
and have done a whole host of media appearances, both television, print, radio, including interviews
by many of those of you on this phone call.
So I think you could sum up, or perhaps change a bit, how they articulate intimidation. And
I think what's clear is these are individuals who have sought, their entire careers, of
publicity. The one difference in this trial was that the witnesses were going to be under
oath, under penalty of perjury, and they were to be cross-examined. And that was what was
unique in this trial.
And as many of you know, and as many of you heard, Dave Blankenhorn, who was the star
witness, admitted many things, including, "We would be more"--emphasize "more"--"American
on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were on the day before." Ken Miller
admitted a host of things. In fact, before Prop 8 passed, Miller specifically cited that
his language is an example of--the Prop 8 language--as an example of "bypassing checks
and balances at the expense of minorities." He added that such measures, "Might indeed
have been motivated by animus."
Those are just two highlights. So we will be releasing one-pagers on Mr. Blankenhorn
and Mr. Miller that shows all of their public appearances and interviews and books and debates,
as well as a host of things that are quite obvious when focused on, that what exactly
the anti-marriage proponents don't want you to hear. They don't want you to hear Mr. Blankenhorn
make that admission. They don't want you to hear Ken Miller make the admissions he made.
And then, just to touch very briefly on the witnesses that did not come to trial, as you
know, and as Ted will talk in more detail, they actually were brought into trial by our
side, and we brought their videotaped depositions into trial, where they made a whole host of
admissions, helping to make the case on behalf of the plaintiffs. And so it's very clear
why the anti-marriage, the proponents of Prop 8, don't want these tapes released.
And I will let Ted review the legal arguments on that front. And then we're going to jump
to the California Supreme Court and, as I said, Ted Olson will review that. And just
from my perspective as it relates to the hearing a week from Tuesday before the California
Supreme Court, once we've been heard in that court, the number of judges that have had
this case will total 34 judges.
Thirty-four judges have touched this case, ruled on this case, whether it procedural
or at the trial level or at Ninth Circuit of the Supreme Court or the California Supreme
Court, and over 1,000 legal filings. And with Judge Walker's ruling, Prop 8 was rendered
unconstitutional, and it's been hanging by a thread ever since. And the light is finally
at the end of the tunnel, where California gay and lesbian couples who seek the right
to marry will, we believe, very soon have that freedom to marry.
The last thing I'm going to mention before I turn it over to our brilliant legal team
is some of you have already reported on, but on September 19, in an effort to make certain
that the public knows what happened in this trial, a Broadway show will be premiered on
September 19 in New York--in fact, in the theater where The Book of Mormon is currently
playing. The play is entitled "8" and it was written by Academy Award winner Dustin Lance
Black, and it's based on the actual words in the trial transcripts from the trial.
The stars who will be playing, the cast include Anthony Edwards, Morgan Freeman, Cheyenne
Jackson, Christine Lahti, Rob Reiner, Marisa Tomei, and Yeardley Smith. We'll be making
a whole host of other announcements in the coming weeks, filling out the cast as well
as announcing who will be playing individuals such as Ted Olson. The play's also directed,
I should say, by the great director, Joe Montello.
So with that, I am going to turn it over to Ted Boutrous to discuss our upcoming hearing
on Monday. And then, Ted, we can just go straight from you to Ted Olson to discuss the California
Supreme Court hearing.
Ted Boutrous: Thanks, Chad, and hello, everyone. One of the great traditions we have in our
country is that we have open courts and that the public has a First Amendment right to
access to judicial records and to court proceedings. That's really what's at stake in the hearing
on Monday.
And the Supreme Court of the United States, the federal courts around the country, have
held that that right of access for the public to be able to go into courthouses to review
records of courts, for the press as a surrogate for the public to be able to do the same thing,
really is core to self-governance and our democracy, because it allows the people to
see and hear for themselves what's happening in the courtrooms where juries and judges
are deciding some of the most important issues of the day.
This case, we believe, is the quintessential example of the type of case where the public
should have maximum access. And we have the best possible judicial record of the trial,
the video and audio of exactly what happened in the courtroom. There's nothing secret about
the material. It all took place in open courtroom where anyone who could get to the courthouse
could get in if there was room. But that, of course, is a much smaller group than the
people around the country who are interested in the case.
In addition to exposing the weaknesses in the proponents of Proposition 8's case, or
lack of case, the public would be able to see the evidence that we, the plaintiffs,
put on during that case, the testimony of the individuals about the discriminatory effects
of laws like Proposition 8, the expert testimony from experts from some of the greatest universities
in the world testifying as to why Proposition 8 violates the Constitution and the consequences
of discriminating against gay men and lesbians.
And then the people can judge for themselves. Some of these issues, obviously, go beyond
the legal issues, because they inform what the public would want to consider in deciding
their views about whether gay men and lesbians should have the same rights as everyone else
when it comes to marriage. And so we are arguing, and we're going to be arguing on Monday, there's
absolutely no basis to keep this judicial record secret. It happened in a public courtroom.
As Chad pointed out, the arguments about key witnesses being afraid are completely baseless.
The proponents never brought any evidence forward and, of course, the testimony occurred,
some of it is posted on the court's website from experts from the proponents, and it is
a complete distraction, that it was the only argument the proponents could come up with
to try to explain why they wanted the trial proceedings to be kept secret once they were
videotaped. So we think we have extremely powerful arguments for release of the videotape
and are really looking forward to putting that on in our arguments on Monday.
Chad Griffin: Thank you, and with that, Ted, I think we'll go to you and then open it up
to questions. And then if we can limit questions just to reporters only, you can feel free
to ask questions about any of these topics. Sorry we're covering so much in one call.
There's just little time between the two hearings.
I should also note that Ted just won the American Bar Association's highest honor, along with
David Boies, for their work on this case and their lifetime of work. And it was obviously
something that we were very proud of.
So with that, Ted, if you would like to address the California Supreme Court and any of these
other subjects.
Ted Olson: Thank you. And thank you, everyone, for being on this call. I would just add a
word or two to what Ted Boutrous said. The hearing next Monday is whether or not the
American public will be able to see with their own eyes, and listen with their own ears,
to the testimony that happened in a trial that affects the constitutional rights of
hundreds of thousands of Californians and millions of Americans and people throughout
the world.
The proponents of Proposition 8 did not want the trial, they did not want testimony of
witnesses under oath, they did not want experts testifying about the damage that's done by
discrimination against gay and lesbian individuals, they did not want evidence about the value
of marriage and the importance of marriage as a fundamental right in this country, they
did not want the public to see the truth. They did not want, and they do not want, the
public to see a trial that took place a year and a half ago. They want to keep that in
the dark.
They want to influence public opinion about these issues through their advertising, the
type of ads that they broadcast during the campaign to pass Proposition 8. They don't
want those ads, and the statements that they publicized at that time, cross-examined. They
don't want those ads and the statements that they were making scrutinized.
And that is what the judge ordered. He ordered a trial to examine these issues. He ordered
evidence. He gave them, our opponents, plenty of opportunities--all the opportunity in the
world--to put on whatever evidence that they wanted. They did not put on much in the way
of evidence, and as Ted Boutrous pointed out, their witnesses actually supported the plaintiffs'
right to overturn Proposition 8. And the proponents' counsel said during the trial, "We don't need
any evidence. We don't need to show what Proposition 8 does or any good reason for Proposition
8. We don't need to show that gay marriage or marriage equality would hurt heterosexual
marriage. We don't need to show anything."
They do not want the American people to see the evidence that supported the overturning
of Proposition 8. They don't want the American public to see the absence of evidence to support
Proposition 8. And they don't want the public to see first-hand the arguments, the weakness
of the arguments--the nonexistence, really, of the arguments--to support Proposition 8.
So that's what Ted Boutrous is going to be fighting for on Monday--open access to public
trials on important constitutional questions.
The following Tuesday, in the California Supreme Court the day after Labor Day, the California
Supreme Court will hear the issue that the federal courts asked the California Supreme
Court to address. That is to say whether proponents of a ballot proposition have any right to
represent the State of California on an appeal when a court has determined that Proposition
8 was unconstitutional.
There is ample authority throughout the United States that individuals who do not have a
direct interest in the outcome of a case do not have a right to go into trial and go into
court and defend a constitutional issue and so forth. They have to be directly involved,
and they have to show that they suffered some direct and immediate harm to be present to
participate in the litigation.
In this case, our opponents could not demonstrate any harm that they suffered as a result of
the enactment of Proposition 8. All they can say is they wanted it enacted, just like various
other people in the state of California. And we believe they do not have the right to defend
Proposition 8 when the Attorney General and the Governor of California, after the trial
and after they heard all of the evidence, decided that the trial judge was right and
that the decision overturning Proposition 8 should not be appealed.
So this issue has to do with whether the proponents have the right to continue on this litigation
to attempt to continue to deny Californians marriage equality even though, under the law,
they don't have any standing to proceed with the litigation.
We are glad that we have come to this point. In September, immediately after Labor Day,
we expect a prompt decision from the California Supreme Court on this issue. And I will say
that whether or not standing is bound to exist for the proponents to continue with this litigation,
the plaintiffs in this case will win. Proposition 8 will be unconstitutional if there is no
standing to continue this appeal. And if there is standing to continue this appeal, we're
confident that the Ninth Circuit will decide that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, just
as the District Court did about a year ago.
Chad Griffin: So with that, Erin, if you want to open the floor to questions.
Operator: Of course. The floor is now open for questions. We ask that participants on
the call please reserve the question queue for members of the media only. If you do have
a question, please press the number 7 or the letter Q on your telephone keypad. Questions
will be taken in the order they are received. If at any point your question has been answered,
you may press 7 or Q again to disable your request. If you are using a speaker phone,
we ask that while posing your question, you pick up your handset to provide favorable
sound quality. Chris?
Chris Geidner: Hi. This is Chris Geidner from Metro Weekly. Thanks for holding this call.
I was just wondering, during the argument before the Ninth Circuit back in December,
Mr. Olson, you had talked about the fact--actually, I believe it was David Boies who was arguing
this part--about the fact that a decision by the California Supreme Court on whether
or not their standing would not necessarily answer the question for the Ninth Circuit
about Article 3 standing. I'm wondering if you could just talk about what you expect
to happen after the California Supreme Court rules, and what options the Ninth Circuit
could have in terms of what it would do with that decision as to the certified question.
Ted Olson: Yes, it is correct, as David Boies pointed out in the Ninth Circuit hearing,
that ultimately a decision as to whether there is proper standing under Article 3 of the
Constitution to bring or defend a case in a federal court, that is ultimately a federal
question that has to be decided on federal constitutional grounds.
Now, what the California Supreme Court can do is to illuminate the rights, the issue
of the rights of proponents under California law to represent the State of California under
these circumstances. We believe that the California Supreme Court will agree with previous decisions
of the court that proponents do not have the right, unless the State is present itself,
to participate in a legal proceeding such as this.
They can't represent the State of California. The State of California, in its Constitution,
vests all responsibility for litigating on behalf of the State of California in the Attorney
General. When the Attorney General has made a decision under the Constitution as to what
is in the best interest of the citizens of California, that is what the Attorney General
has responsibility to do. She has made that decision, and that is no citizens of California
can come in and substitute for her in doing that.
Now, we don't know, of course, what the California Supreme Court will decide, but in either event,
however it decides, this will go back to the Ninth Circuit, and then the Ninth Circuit
will examine whether or not--whatever the California Supreme Court decides--there is
a federal standing right under Article 3 that exists here. And then if they decide that
there is standing for any reason, then they will go on and decide whether or not, on its
merits, Proposition 8 is constitutional or unconstitutional, as the District Court decided.
Chris Geidner: And could they ask for any sort of follow-up briefing from the parties,
depending on what the California Supreme Court rules?
Ted Olson: It's conceivable that the Ninth Circuit could ask for additional briefing,
based upon a decision of the California Supreme Court. But I rather doubt it. This issue has
been briefed repeatedly in the District Court, again in the Ninth Circuit, again in the California
Supreme Court. And we will emphasize, in the strongest possible terms, that based upon
134 pages of facts and findings and conclusions, it is clear that individuals in California
are being denied fundamental equality under the Constitution and access to fundamental
rights that are shared by other citizens of the United States, and this unconstitutional
harm has gone on far too long. We don't really have time for more briefing while people are
suffering constitutional rights on an issue that has been overwhelmingly and thoroughly
briefed already.
Operator: The next question comes from Karen Klein of the LA Times. Karen?
Karen Klein: Thanks. I wanted to ask about Monday's hearing. Since the Supreme Court,
the US Supreme Court, already delivered a decision on whether those tapes could be public
or not, I wondered what the difference is in the arguments that will come forth on Monday.
And my other question is whether Judge Walker did have the right to show a clip from those
tapes at a lecture.
Ted Boutrous: Sure. This is Ted Boutrous. I can address both of those questions. As
to the first question, the Supreme Court's ruling on the stay related only to the narrow
question of whether it was okay to broadcast the trial as it was unfolding, pursuant to
a rule that had been pronounced by the District Court of the Ninth Circuit at the time. And
the Supreme Court found that the rulemaking procedure had not been completed, and therefore
it was not permissible at that point to broadcast the trial.
That's a much different question than we now have. Now we have the actual videotape of
the trial, which we used and the judge relied on in connection with the case and the decision.
And we played clips of the trial during our closing arguments without objection from the
proponents.
Now the videotapes of the trial are judicial records. It's like a transcript; it's better
than a transcript. That triggers the presumptive right to public access to judicial records,
which is, as I mentioned at the outset, grounded in the First Amendment, the common law, the
traditions of this country. The people have a right to scrutinize the records of the courts
that lead to decisions and rulings. That's a completely different issue than we confronted
way back at the beginning of the trial.
And I should add, too, that was at a time before the record had developed. The proponents
were making arguments about their experts and how the cameras would affect them and
the like. But they then never backed it up with evidence, and ultimately the evidence
showed the contrary and refuted the arguments they were making. And so we're in a much different
situation.
With respect to Judge Walker, Chief Judge Ware has already ruled that with respect to
Judge Walker's use of that one clip in a lecture, that that issue's over, and Judge Ware indicated
that he, Judge Walker was entitled to retain copies of the videotapes as part of his judicial
papers, and the proponents are still, I think, arguing about that. Our view of that point
is that's something for the Chief Judge, Chief Judge Ware, the Judicial Counsel of the Court,
and something for the judges to decide about what constitutes the judicial papers of the
court.
Operator: Again, if you do have a question, please press the number 7 or the letter Q
on your telephone keypad. We do have a question on the line from Julie Small of KPCC. Julie?
Julie Small: Good morning, gentlemen. I'm wondering if you can just talk about the current
restrictions on the use of the Prop 8 trial video for legal purposes. Can you use it--you're
using it, I think you mentioned in your earlier arguments, that you're actually using it as
part of your prep for the appeal. Can you just talk about what restrictions there are
for you on the use of that video?
Ted Boutrous: Sure. The only restrictions for us are public release. There's a protective
order that precludes us from using it in any other context--revealing it to you, for example.
We must keep it confidential.
We are permitted to use it in our preparation. I've been reviewing it as I've been preparing
for Monday's hearing. And again, I was there for the entire trial. I was putting on witnesses.
I was there for every minute of the trial. When I go back and then look at the videotape,
and we used it when we were preparing our proposed findings and when we were preparing
for closing, and we used it in the closing arguments with permission of the court, it's
remarkable how much more clarity to the issues and how much it allows you to understand and
get what was happening in the trial beyond what you get from just reading the transcript.
And so it's been very useful to us, and the court, Chief Judge Ware, rejected the proponents'
argument at the last hearing when they argued that we should have to turn it back in. We
said, "It's part of the judicial record. It's before the Ninth Circuit as part of the record
in the case."
And for all of you journalists, as you know, one of the best ways to report on judicial
proceedings is to look at the records, including the briefs, the exhibits, the transcripts,
and the video. And to say that that part--the most vivid depiction of what happened--has
to be sealed off from public view really runs counter to every principle of public access
that there is.
Julie Small: Just a quick follow-up question. So if the motion to release the Prop 8 trial
video were to succeed, would you be able to use it in any way in your arguments before
the Ninth Circuit?
Ted Boutrous: Yes, I think we could. And in fact, we could ask the Ninth Circuit to allow
us to use it if there are further arguments in the Ninth Circuit and in the Supreme Court.
And so it's part of the record.
We would also be able--you would have access to it, the American people would have access
to it. And I think it would serve a great purpose, both in terms of educating the public
about the legal issues, the social issues, the powerful evidence we put on, and also
in terms of just generally how the judicial system functions. The video is quite good,
and it's really, I think, a great body of evidence, both for this particular case or
the public to see how the judicial system functions.
One thing I forgot to mention, and you may have noticed that Judge Ware asked the parties
if there were any objections to videotaping Monday's hearing pursuant to this new pilot
program. We said we strongly supported that, and the proponents of Proposition 8 objected,
and Judge Ware has now put out a notice saying that it would not be videotaped because of
the other side's objections.
But the irony, to me, that they're objecting to videotaping and broadcasting a hearing
about whether the public should have a right of access to videotapes on the trial, is incredible.
I don't know what possible reason--and they really gave none--that they could have to
objecting to that, other than they want to hide the fact that they want to hide what
happened in the trial.
Julie Small: Thank you.
Operator: The next question comes from Karen Ocamb of Frontiers in LA. Again, if you do
have a question, please press the number 7. Karen, go ahead.
Karen Ocamb: Thank you. Hi, everybody, and thank you for holding the call. I actually
want to ask a political question of Chad. I'm sure you're well aware that there is currently
signature-gathering happening to overturn, to put a referendum on the ballot to overturn
the California Fair Education Act, which would talk about LGBT contributions and historical
contributions in the public--you know, have that be part of the public school system.
I'm wondering if you can speak to how the videotapes from the trial might impact any
possible referendum to repeal the California Fair Education Act.
Chad Griffin: Well, so on this call, I don't want to go into the details of that initiative
because the American Foundation for Equal Rights is specifically focused on Prop 8 and
full federal marriage equality. There are a host of organizations in the state of California
and nationally that are focused, obviously, on Fair, and this once again hateful initiative
that is being attempted to be put before the California voters. I think some could dismiss
that as full employment for a certain segment of political consultants in this state as
opposed to any sincere effort.
But I'd be happy to talk to you off of this call about that matter. But I will say generally,
as just to hit on last part of your question, just generally, I think the California voters
who--the anti-marriage, the proponents of Proposition 8--spent over $40 million to talk
to the California voters. Those exact same people, the exact same individuals, are the
defendant interveners in this case.
Why were they okay with a $40 million advertising campaign talking to the American public--or
to the California voters, I should say--about Proposition 8, and then they don't want their
defense of it known to the California voters and ultimately to the rest of the country
and the world? I think we all know, without having to spend any more time on why they
don't want that released, but I think you asked an important question on the impact
of that.
And at the end of the day, a debate on any issue pushing out the facts and letting both
sides have their arguments heard in an unfiltered way, I think, is what best serves the California
voters, the public, and ultimately the American public and the taxpayers who fund our court
system.
So I think that there is benefit, and if I was on the other side and I actually believed
in the case that I put on, and I believed that we were going to win this debate ultimately,
I can't imagine being able to articulate why I would not want the voters and the public
to hear the case that I put on in a court of law. So Karen, obviously, you know the
side I'm on, and I believe that our arguments are clearly the winning arguments--morally,
constitutionally, legally, and for a whole host of reasons.
Karen Ocamb: Well, the reason I bring it up, obviously, is because of the Princes ad that
was used in Prop 8 and the whole discussion about quote-unquote "what happened" to this
Massachusetts couple. I mean, a number of points that you explicitly, that your legal
team explicitly brought out during the Prop 8 trial, is being resurrected as if it was
truth in this opposition--you know, this effort to try to overturn the Fair Act. So that's
why I brought it up. It seems to me that in and of itself, it contradicts what they're
saying.
Chad Griffin: Yes. Well, clearly, you're right. Obviously, it wasn't brought about because
of Proposition 8 or gay marriage. It was brought about because of a state legislation. But
I think if you look at the history of the LGBT movement and particularly on the anti-gay
side, that it always pushed initiatives. There's a long history that was also brought on in
trial. You know, it started with keeping gay and lesbian individuals from being schoolteachers.
And then there were attempts across the country to keep gay and lesbian people from having
medical benefits. And then on and on and on and on.
Marriage was the last decade. They seem to now be losing most all of those cases legally
and a number of those cases politically, with marriage in a number of states and the District
of Columbia and, most recently, New York. And I think you now see some of those same
organizations that have to raise money and have to keep themselves in business and have
consultants that need reasons to go to work every day, turning their attention now to
this issue about accuracy in history and teaching history in an accurate way. And that's one
that they think perhaps in, I guess, their polling might show that it's something that
they can make a case to donors that they could win and organize around.
And somewhat of a sign, by the way, that they may have turned the corner a little bit on
marriage and acknowledging not only defeat in this case, but as you know, a host of other
defeat in a number of other cases, as well as political defeat. So I think you characterize
it right. It is a political question, and there's an interesting historical narrative
there.
Karen Ocamb: Thank you.
Chad Griffin: But feel free to call me offline, Karen, to talk more.
Karen Ocamb: Thank you.
Operator: The next question comes from Peter Schrag of California Progress Report. Once
again, if you do have a question, please press the number 7. Peter, go ahead.
Peter Schrag: Thanks. I'm going to ask one of those hateful hypothetical questions. If
either--if you were on the other side of this, if you were the anti-gay forces, wouldn't
you rather lose the standing issue and have this thing die with Judge Walker and not have
it go up, and so that they could say, "This is just one judge in California, and it doesn't
apply to anything else"?
Ted Olson: Who should answer this? This is Ted Olson. I'll take a crack at it, and Chad
and Ted Boutrous can add further.
If there isn't standing, I don't know what I would do if I was on this side, because
their arguments that they've made throughout this case that have not made any sense to
me. They haven't made any sense to any of the judges that have listened to them. And
so I don't know about this. But if the standing, if they do not have standing to conduct this
appeal, then the 134-page thoughtful opinion by Judge Walker striking down Proposition
8 in California will be the law. And that will change the life of tens of thousands
of Californians, and marriage equality will exist in California.
As Chad mentioned, and as everybody knows, the people of New York have changed the law
in New York so that there's marriage equality there. We're talking about the two most populous
states in the country and a big segment of the United States. And this, and Chad also
pointed out what the polls are showing. This is inexorable. It is moving in this direction.
This is a battle that they are going to lose. They may want to prolong the battle, but they're
going to lose these battles in court, and they're losing the battle of public opinion.
So I don't know which I'd prefer if I were on their side. I'm so much glad, though, I'm
not on their side.
Chad Griffin: And so are we, I might add. Just one addition to what Ted Olson just articulated
there. In addition to our case, and you mentioned Chief Judge Walker's federal decision, there
are also a number of other in the last year and a half, major federal decisions, whether
it's the Don't Ask, Don't Tell decision or more than one DOMA ruling. They've lost all
of these. And then state courts, like Iowa.
So I don't think we're looking at a single loss on their side. I think we see a pattern
of loss on their side. The tide has finally turned in these last two years, and they seem
to be increasingly on the defensive and losing their state legal battles and their federal
legal battles, as well as their political battles around marriage.
Operator: We do have a question on the line from Amanda Beck of Prop 8 on Trial. Amanda?
Amanda Beck: Hi, good afternoon. Thanks for having the call. My name is Amanda Beck. I'm
one of the UC Berkeley bloggers, and I have a basic question that I'm hoping one of you
can speak to for just a few seconds.
I write for a general audience, and I'm wondering if you can just explain to me, so that I can
explain to them, why the name of the case has been changed from Perry v. Schwarzenegger
to Perry v. Brown. Obviously, we know this has to do with the governors' change, but
I'm hoping you can describe it to me so that I can relay it to people who have been asking
me.
Ted Olson: I'll answer this. This is Ted Olson. This automatically occurs when a suit is brought
against the governor or another public official. It could be the Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
it could be against the President of the United States--in their official capacity. Then,
when there's a change in the individual who holds that capacity, the court records automatically
change to reflect the person then holding the office. So when Governor Brown took over
from Governor Schwarzenegger, the court files would all be changed so that the name of the
case is Perry versus Brown now, rather than Perry versus Schwarzenegger.
Amanda Beck: Great. Thanks.
Operator: Again, if you do have a question, please press the number 7 or the letter Q
on your telephone keypad. Please hold while we wait for the next question.
Chad Griffin: All right. Erin, if there are no more questions, thanks, everyone, for attending
this call, and you know how to reach the AFER team in the AFER offices. And, as I said,
the documents that sort of summarize a number of facts that were talked about by the three
of us on this call will be circulated to those of you who are RSVP'd for the call as well
as posted on the AFER website. And I know that we will be seeing most of you on Monday
and then again on Tuesday in San Francisco at federal and state court.
If no other questions, thanks, everyone, for your time and attention to these important
issues.
Operator: That concludes today's teleconference. You may now disconnect.