Woman plaintiff in gay marriage case testifies about emotional ordeal of ban in California

more images

more images

more images

more images

more images

Woman recalls emotional ordeal of gay marriage ban

SAN FRANCISCO — One of two lesbians suing California to overturn its ban on gay marriage testified Monday that she and her partner have experienced an emotional roller coaster during the past six years involving their desire to wed.

“I want it to happen to me,” plaintiff Kristen Perry said. “The state isn’t letting me feel happy.”

Perry, 45, took the witness stand during the first day of the civil trial targeting Proposition 8, the voter-approved measure banning same-sex marriage in California.

During questioning by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, who is representing the two same-sex couples who filed the suit, Perry recalled how she and her partner rushed to San Francisco in early 2004 to marry when that city opened City Hall to same-sex weddings.

They were crestfallen when the city — under court order — later told them their marriage was invalid, and that the ceremony had been improperly conducted before the courts considered the issue.

Since then, the couple has endured a state Supreme Court ruling authorizing gay marriage and a 2008 election banning it.

The lawsuit is the first federal trial on the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage. Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo, two other gay plaintiffs in the case, also testified Monday about their desire to marry.

Earlier in the day, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who is presiding over the highly anticipated case, peppered lawyers with questions during their opening statements.

The judge asked if they had evidence the Constitution grants gays the right to marry and if states have a reasonable right to deny those marriages.

Among other things, Walker asked how Proposition 8 could be discriminatory since California already allows domestic partnerships that carry the same rights and benefits of marriage.

“If California would simply get out of the marriage business and classify everyone as a domestic partnership, would that solve the problem?” the judge asked.

Olson answered that he did not think such a move would be politically feasible.

“I suspect the people of California would not want to abandon the relationship that the proponents of Proposition 8 spent a tremendous amount of resources describing as important to people, and so important it must be reserved for opposite-sex couples,” he said.

Olson quoted the U.S. Supreme Court’s own description of matrimony to demonstrate what his clients were being denied.

“In the words of the highest court in the land, marriage is the most important relationship in life and of fundamental importance to all individuals,” Olson told a courtroom packed with witnesses, reporters and members of the public.

Attorney Charles Cooper, who is representing Proposition 8 sponsors, said it’s too difficult to know the impact of gay marriage on traditional marriage because the practice is still so new.

Only five states have opened the institution to same-sex couples, and three of them had them imposed on them by judges, he said.

“While the people of California have been steadfast in their defense of marriage, they have also been generous in their extending of the rights and benefits and protections of marriage to the gay and lesbian population,” Cooper said.

He also noted that President Barack Obama doesn’t support legalizing gay marriage, a remark that prompted Judge Walker to note that Obama’s own parents would not have been allowed to get married in some states before the Supreme Court overturned state bans on interracial marriage in 1967.

“That indicates there is quite a change in individuals’ entitlement to enter the institution” of marriage, Walker said.

Regardless of the outcome of the case, it’s 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.

Two hours before the trial was scheduled to start, the Supreme 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 after Walker approved the plan last week, saying the case was appropriate for wide dissemination because it dealt with an issue of wide interest and importance.

Rick Jacobs, chairman of the Courage Campaign, a Los Angeles-based gay rights organization, said his group was disappointed with the decision to bar cameras and called on the high court to lift its ban.

“It’s time that the debate about marriage equality is seen for what it is — a debate over the rights of our friends and families to live their lives freely,” he said.

At trial, Walker also intends to quiz lawyers on whether sexual orientation can be changed and about the effect on children of being raised by two mothers or two fathers.

Witnesses for Proposition 8 backers 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.

Katami testified Monday that children don’t need to be shielded from discussions of same-sex marriages.

Associated Press Writers Paul Elias in San Francisco and Mark Sherman in Washington contributed to this report.