Frigid temperatures this weekend prompt cold weather advisories

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

The first federal trial to determine if the
U.S. Constitution prohibits states from outlawing same-sex marriage
got under way Monday, and the two gay couples on whose behalf the
case was brought will be among the first witnesses.

      The proceedings, which are expected to last two to three weeks,
involve a challenge to Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban approved
by California voters in November 2008.

      Regardless of the outcome, the case is likely to be appealed to
the U.S. Supreme Court, where it ultimately could become a landmark
that determines if gay Americans have the right to marry.

      About 100 people demonstrated outside the federal courthouse.
Most were gay marriage supporters who took turns addressing the
crowd with a microphone. About a dozen gay marriage foes stood in the back of the
gathering and quietly held signs demanding the ban remain in place.

      Two hours before trial was scheduled to start, the high court
blocked video of the proceedings from being posted on YouTube.com.
It said justices need more time to review that issue and put the
order in place at least until Wednesday.

      Over the weekend, Proposition 8's sponsors sought to block YouTube broadcasts. Chief U.S.
District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who is overseeing the trial,
had approved the plan last week, saying the case was appropriate
for wide dissemination because it dealt with an issue of wide
interest and importance.

 At trial, Walker intends to ask lawyers on both sides to present
the facts underlying much of the political rhetoric surrounding
same-sex marriage. 

Among his questions are whether sexual
orientation can be changed, how legalizing gay marriage affects
traditional marriages and the effect on children of being raised by
two mothers or two fathers.

      "The case is intriguing, exciting and potentially very
significant because it addresses multiple important questions that,
surprisingly to many, remain open in federal law," said Jennifer
Pizer, marriage director for the gay law advocacy group Lambda
Legal. 

"Can the state reserve the esteemed language and status of
marriage just for heterosexual couples, and relegate same-sex
couples to a lesser status? Are there any adequate public interests
to justify reimposing such a caste system for gay people,
especially by a majority vote to take a cherished right from a
historically mistreated minority?"

      The sponsors of Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of
the vote, won permission to defend the law in court after Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to.
The attorney general and the governor are defendants in the case
because of their positions in state government.

      Lawyers for the measure's backers plan to argue that because
same-sex marriage still is a social experiment, it is wise for
states like California to take a wait-and-see approach. Their
witnesses will testify that governments historically have
sanctioned traditional marriage as a way to promote responsible
child-rearing and that this remains a valid justification for
limiting marriage to a man and a woman.


      While other courts have wrestled with the constitutional issues
raised by prohibiting same-sex marriages - the Supreme Court last
took a look at the issue 38 years ago - Walker's court is the first
to employ live witnesses in the task. 

Among those set to testify
are the leaders of the Proposition 8 campaign, academic experts
from the fields of political science, history, psychology and
economics, and the two plaintiff couples - Kristin Perry and Sandra
Stier, who live in Berkeley, and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo,
who live in Los Angeles.

      Chad Griffin, a political consultant who helped spearhead the
lawsuit, said the four were recruited to represent California
couples who say they would get married were it not for Proposition
8 because they lead lives indistinguishable from those of other
couples, gay or straight, who have jobs, children and a desire for
the social stamp of approval that matrimony affords, Griffin said.

      "Our story, I think, is pretty ordinary," said Perry, 45, the
title plaintiff in the case registered on legal dockets as Perry v.
Schwarzenegger. "We fell in love, we want to get married and we
can't. It's pretty simple." 

The women have been together for
almost 10 years and since 2004 have been registered domestic
partners, a legal relationship that in California carries most of
the benefits and obligations of a full-fledged marriage.

      Stier, 47, was married to a man for 12 years. She said the
differences between marriage and domestic partnerships, part of
what will be debated during the trial, are profound. She and Perry
have to take extra legal precautions when they travel to states
that do not recognize gay relationships and continually explain to
friends and family what a domestic partnership is, Stier said.

      "I had that feeling of security that comes with marriage and
the assumption of many of the comforts and protections society
affords. I can feel the difference in a very personal way," she
said. "The word 'partnership' is used for business deals, tennis
matches and golf games. It doesn't feel like the appropriate kind
of word to describe my relationship with the person I love."

Gallery

Quaker group stops certifying marriages until gay marriage legal

Some Minn. clergy to endorse gay marriage rights

St. Paul domestic partner ordinance to be adopted today

Gays and lesbians worry about discrimination in retirement

Crime, Law and Justice

Courts

Social Issues

The first federal trial to determine if the
U.S. Constitution prohibits states from outlawing same-sex marriage
gtt underway Monday, and the two gay couples on whose behalf the
case was brought will be among the first witnesses.

Groundbreaking federal gay marriage trial begins

Go Deeper.

Like this?