Prop 8 Trial Re-enactment, Day 1 Chapter 4

MR. OLSON: Have you discussed with Sandy the impact on the marriage relationship itself
if you were to prevail in this lawsuit? >> Yes, of course we have. We have talked
about it. And Sandy has been married before and so, you know, I really envy her having
had that experience. But we both believe that there would be a settling in and a deepening
of our commitment if we could get through this, instead of feeling instead like it's
everybody else's decision. >> Did you in -- prior to the filing of this
lawsuit, seek a marriage license? >> Yes.
>> What happened? Describe that? >> We went to the Alameda County Recorder's
Office in May, having reached the point where we wanted to see if there was a permanent
solution to this problem and wanted to know in a more concrete way whether -- how Prop
8 was being enacted. And we, indeed, pulled a number, filled out a form and waited for
our turn. And the clerk that day, we sat down in front of her and she opened up her computer
and looked at the form we were trying to get and she -- her eyes got really big and she
looked at us and she said, "I'm sorry, but there are reasons why I don't think I can
do what you are asking me to do, but I'm not comfortable not doing it. So I'm going to
go get my boss. He is going to have to do it." So she left the cubicle, and she went
upstairs, and there was a long delay, and she came downstairs with her supervisor. And
he had written down this Prop 8, the statute, I think, and he read from it. And he was very
nervous and very upset and very, I'm sure, worried that we would be upset as well, which
we were. And he said after reading the statute, "I'm very sorry that I cannot give you this
license. That I hope some day I can and I hope you will come back."
>> Have you thought about the impact upon you, of you and Sandy and your relationship
of bringing a lawsuit and being a plaintiff in a civil rights case and what's that like?
>> I have been thinking about it a lot lately. And to be -- well, Sandy and I really like
our life where -- we live in our house and we see our kids and we see our friends. We
don't want anything to change about our life. In fact, we would really like our life to
just get better and better. And when I think about whether or not what we want to have
happen would make it possible for other people to have that happen, that makes me really
happy, but it, most importantly, comes from a place of just wanting our lives to feel
better than they do right now. >> If the courts of the United States were
ultimately decided that you and other same -- persons seeking to marry someone of the
same sex could indeed, did indeed have the constitutional right to get married, do you
think that would have an effect on other acts of discrimination against you?
MR. RAUM: Objection, your Honor. Speculation. THE COURT: Close, but objection overruled.
State of mind. You may answer. >> I believe for me, personally as a lesbian,
that if I had grown up in a world where the most important decision I was going to make
as an adult was treated the same way as everybody else's decision, that I would not have been
treated the way I was growing up or as an adult. There's something so humiliating about
everybody knowing that you want to make that decision and you don't get to that, you know,
it's hard to face the people at work and the people even here right now. And many of you
have this, but I don't. So I have to still find a way to feel okay and not take every
bit of discriminatory behavior toward me too personally because in the end that will only
hurt me and my family. So if Prop 8 were undone and kids like me growing up in Bakersfield
right now could never know what this felt like, then I assume that their entire lives
would be on a higher arch. They would live with a higher sense of themselves that would
improve the quality of their entire life. MR. OLSON: Thank you, your Honor. I have no
further questions. THE COURT: Very well. You may cross examine,
Mr. Raum, is it? MR. RAUM: Yes, your Honor. No questions.
THE COURT: Very well. Ms. Perry, you may step down.
(Witness excused.)
THE COURT: Mr. Olson, your next witness. MR. OLSON: Thank you. The plaintiffs would
like to call plaintiff Sandra Stier. SANDRA STIER, called as a witness for the
Plaintiffs herein, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
THE WITNESS: Yes. THE CLERK: Thank you. State your name, please?
THE WITNESS: Sandra Belzer Stier. THE CLERK: Spell your last name?
THE WITNESS: S-t-i-e-r. THE CLERK: And your first name?
THE WITNESS: S-a-n-d-r-a. THE CLERK: Thank you.
MR. OLSON: Ms. Stier, are you one of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit?
>> Yes, I am. >> Would you describe for us and for the Court
your background; where you are from, your age, what you do professionally and your family?
>> Well, I -- I grew up in the midwest. I grew up on a farm in southern Iowa. I'm 47
years old. My background is, really, I lived in Iowa for my youth. I grew up going to public
schools, attended college in Iowa, moved to California right after college, and I now
work for Alameda County -- or for a county government as an information system director
in healthcare systems. >> And do you -- you live with Ms. Perry?
>> I do. >> And tell us about your family?
>> Well, our family is a blended family with our four boys. We each bring two biological
children to our family and each other. >> And just their general ages?
>> Well, our two younger sons are in high school. They are teen-agers. And our two older
sons are out of high school, young adults. >> How would you describe your sexual orientation?
>> I'm gay. >> When did you learn that about yourself?
>> I really learned it about myself fairly late in life, in my mid-thirties.
>> Had you been married before at that time? >> Yes, I was married before.
>> You were married to a man? >> Yes, I was.
>> When did you get married and where did you live?
>> I got married in 1987, and we lived most of the -- most of that marriage in Alameda,
California. >> And you had no feeling at that point in
time married to a man that you were a lesbian? >> At that time I did not.
>> And did you have a warm, loving relationship with that individual?
>> Umm, I had, unfortunately, a difficult relationship for most of our marriage, but
it did start out with the best intentions. >> Well, did you encounter gay people growing
up in Iowa? I'm wondering how this evolved, this -- your realization of how you characterize
yourself these days. Tell us how that evolved from your youth in Iowa?
>> Growing up in Iowa on a farm in the country where the -- you know, the small town that
I went to high school in had 1500 people and the towns around us were fairly similar. I
really had a fairly sheltered upbringing; a good upbringing, but sheltered. We spent
most of our time in our home, you know, working with my parents. We didn't really travel and
go to any place that was very different from where I grew up. And I did not know of any
gay people. I didn't even know of gay people or, really, even the concept of a gay lifestyle
or sexuality until I was like a teenager. >> Tell us when you moved to California?
>> I moved to California in 1985 when I graduated. THE COURT: Were you married in Iowa before
you came to California or were you married after you came to California?
THE WITNESS: I moved here in 1985 and got married in 1987. So that was in California.
THE COURT: And did you meet your husband in California?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. MR. OLSON: Tell us about that. Did you have
a relationship with him for a certain period of time before you got married?
>> Yes, I did. We dated for about a year before we got married.
>> And give us the date, again, of the marriage? >> November 14th, 1987.
>> '87. And when did the marriage come to an end?
>> The marriage came to an end in 1999. >> When did you meet Ms. Perry?
>> I met Kris around 1996. >> And how did your relationship with her
develop? And -- go ahead. >> Well, when I first met Kris, of course,
I hadn't known her previously. I was teaching a computer class and she was a student in
my class. So I just sort of knew of her, but then we started working together on projects
at work and ended up being coworkers and became fast friends quite quickly. And we were friends
for quite some time and I began to realize that the feelings I had for her were really
unique and different from friends, feelings I normally
had towards friends. And they were absolutely taking over my thoughts and my -- sort of
my entire self. And I grew to realize I had a very strong attraction to her and, indeed,
I was falling in love with her. >> And tell us when you realized finally that
you had fallen in love with her? >> I really -- I realized that in 1999, early
in the year. >> Did your falling in love with Kris have
anything to do with the dissolution of your marriage?
>> My marriage was troubled on many fronts and had been in a very, very difficult state.
And the end of my marriage was precipitated by my own extreme unhappiness, my ex-husband's
severe problems with alcohol and his inability to provide the type of support as a husband
and a family person that I had to have. >> Did your sexual orientation or your discovery
of your sexual orientation have anything to do with the dissolution of that marriage?
>> No, it did not. >> Your husband is no longer living, is that
correct? >> That's true.
>> Then tell us about how your relationship with Ms. Perry developed?
>> Well, my relationship with Kris, the romantic part of the relationship certainly started
for me in a -- just a very exciting place. I had never experienced falling in love before,
and I think -- >> Are you saying that you weren't in love
with your husband? >> I was not in love with my husband, no.
>> Did you think that you were at some point? >> I had a hard time relating to the concept
of being in love when I was married to my husband. And while I did love him when I married
him, I honestly just couldn't relate when people said they were in love. I thought they
were overstating their feelings and maybe making a really big deal out of something.
It didn't really make sense to me. It seemed dramatic. You know, when you grow up in the
midwest and in a farming family -- which is a really unique way to grow up, if anybody
knows much about that -- but there is a pragmatism that is inherent and it's part of the fabric
of life and an understated way of being that is just pervasive in terms of your development.
And I remember as a young girl talking to my mom about love and marriage and she would
say, "You know, marriage is more than romantic love. It's more than excitement. It's an enduring
long-term commitment and it's hard work." And in my family that seemed very true.
(Laughter.) So I really thought that was what I was kind
of signing up for when I got married; not that it would be bad, but that it would be
hard work and I would grow into that love, and that I needed to marry a good, solid person
and I would grow into something like my parents had, which was really a lovely marriage and
still is. >> And then you were -- I interrupted you.
You were in the midst of describing what happened in terms of your own feelings as your relationship
with Ms. Perry developed? >> Well, with Kris my -- so we have this wonderfully
romantic relationship and -- that just really grew and blossomed very beautifully. And not
only were we in love, but we wanted -- we realized fairly soon that we wanted to build
a life together. We wanted to join our families and live as a family. That we didn't want
to date. I was 36 or 37 years old, and Kris is a tiny about it younger than me, but we
really wanted to build a family together and have that kind of life of commitment and stability
that we both really appreciated. >> How convinced are you that you are gay?
You've lived with a husband. You said you loved him. Some people might say, Well, it's
this and then it's that and it could be this again. Answer that.
>> Well, I'm convinced, because at 47 years old I have fallen in love one time and it's
with Kris. And our love is -- it's a blend of many things. It's physical attraction.
It's romantic attraction. It's a strong commitment. It's intellectual bonding and emotional bonding.
For me, it just isn't love. I really, quite frankly, don't know what that would be for
adults. I don't know what else to say about it.
>> Why are you a plaintiff in this case? >> Well, I'm a plaintiff in this case because
I would like to get married, and I would like to marry the person that I choose and that
is Kris Perry. She is a woman. And according to California law right now, we can't get
married, and I want to get married. >> You did hear the description before of
the experience you went through in that summer of 2004, the spring and summer of 2004 where
you came to San Francisco, thought you had gotten married, had a ceremony in Berkeley,
thought that that was a celebration of your marriage, and then found out you weren't married.
>> Correct. >> What feelings did you have during that
period of time? >> Well, I -- when we found out -- well, during
that period of time, you know, we were planning our wedding in 2004. And then when we had
the opportunity to get married in San Francisco, we were really excited because we didn't expect
that to even happen. So we did it. It was a great day. And it made planning our August
wedding all the more fun, because we were planning a celebration of something that had
been formalized and legalized in San Francisco. So it just added this amazingly wonderful
dimension to our wedding. So August 1st was a terrific day for us and we loved it, and
our family and friends were there. One of our kids gave this amazing toast. He said,
"Kris and Sandy, you are perfect for each other and this couldn't have turned out any
better." And I thought, you know, rock on. I couldn't believe -- I couldn't agree with
you more. Shortly thereafter, though, we did find out that our marriage was invalidated,
and we received a document from the city that Kris described earlier saying that it was
invalidated. And I felt so outraged and hurt by that and humiliated. And I felt like everybody
who had come to our wedding and gone out of their way and brought us lovely gifts and
celebrated with us must feel a level of humiliation themselves, too. And it made me feel like
there are people in the world that are dearest and nearest to me that probably felt a certain
level of pity for us, and the last thing I ever wanted to do is invoke those feelings
of pity on us for something especially as beautiful as our marriage.
>> The Supreme Court subsequently in May of 2008 said you had a constitutional right to
get married. How did you feel about that? >> I felt great, that the Court thought we
had -- felt we had a constitutional right to get married. That was exciting. It was
also cloaked, though, in this dissension that felt very familiar.
>> What do you mean "dissension"? >> Well, the dissension that was sort of the
political brewing of some activist groups that disagreed with gay marriage, wanting
to put something together to invalidate that court decision.
>> You mean, you were aware of that at the time?
>> I was aware reading in the paper about -- about that.
>> Well, did you consider, well, the California Supreme Court has said that we can get married.
We want to get married. We tried it once before. Now we are told we have a constitutional right
to do it. Let's do it? >> We thought about it and discussed it. And
I really felt very strongly that at my age I don't want to be humiliated any more. It's
not okay. We did get married. In fact, we got married twice and we could get married
a third time and it could get taken away, and then we get married a fourth time. And,
for me, it felt like it made a circus out of our lives and I don't want to be party
to that. I told Kris I want to marry you in the worst way, but I want it to be permanent
and I don't want any possibility of it being taken away from us. So let's wait until we
know for sure that we can be permanently married. We didn't want to do it for any -- for any
other reason. And we did have friends that had gotten married and we were proud for them
and thrilled for them and, also, worried for them, that they would have the same experience
that we had had. >> Tell me all the ways that -- let me withdraw
that for a moment and ask you about domestic partnership. You and Kris entered into a domestic
partnership. Explain to the Court in your words why you did that and what that relationship
means to you compared to what you are seeking here today?
>> Okay. First of all, for me, there is -- domestic partnership doesn't indicate anything
about a relationship. So it's hard for me to put it in those terms. It feels like it's
a legal agreement between two parties that spell out responsibilities and duties, like
fidicuary duties that you have towards each other, and those duties are -- mirrored some
of those similar types of duties that are, of course, found in marriage. A domestic partnership,
to me -- and certainly the way that we entered it -- was really very much a part of estate
planning, and it was based upon legal advice that we had gotten; just to make sure that
our affairs were tightly in order, that our children had the maximum protection, and that
Kris and I for each other had the maximum legal protection that we could under State
of California law. But there is certainly nothing about domestic partnership as an institution
-- not even an institution, but as a legal agreement that indicates the love and commitment
that are inherent in marriage, and it doesn't have anything to do for us with the nature
of our relationship and the type of enduring relationship we want it to be. It's just a
legal document. >> Well, did the lawyer tell you that domestic
partnership would give you virtually all the same legal rights, vis-a-vis your partner,
as marriage? >> I actually don't recall our lawyer saying
that specifically, but she did say it's important that you file the domestic partnership agreement
for your maximum protection. >> If it did give you virtually all of the
legal rights and so forth with respect to Ms. Perry, why wouldn't it be good enough?
>> Because it has nothing to do with marriage. Nothing.
>> Tell us what marriage, then, means to you. That's the second part of the question. What
is it that is so special about that word and that relationship, that institution of marriage,
that means so much to you that you want it so badly that you will bring this lawsuit?
>> Well, marriage is about making a public commitment to the world, to your partner and
to -- what I hope is someday my wife, to our friends, our family, our society, our community,
our parents. It's just -- to me, it's -- it's the way we tell them and each other that
this is a lifetime commitment or it's not -- we are not girlfriends. We are not partners.
We are married. We are -- we want -- I want to have a spouse. It just is -- it's so different
from domestic partnership, and -- and I simply want that. And I have to say, having been
married for 12 years and been in a domestic partnership for 10 years, it's different.
It's not the same. I want -- I don't want to have to explain myself and have -- in a
way that would indicate there must be something wrong with me or I wouldn't have to explain
myself to anybody who has some reason they may need to know.
THE COURT: Did you misspeak? You said you had been married for 12 years?
THE WITNESS: I was married for 12 years, yes. THE COURT: The marriage was dissolved in '99?
THE WITNESS: Correct. And it began in 1987. THE COURT: I see. All right. I misunderstood.
Let me ask you this: If the state were essentially to get out of using the term "marriage" and
admitting persons of the same sex or opposite sex into what it called a "domestic union,"
"spousal relationship," whatever name you want to use, but not "marriage," wouldn't
that put you on the same plane as others who have the same relationship even though they
are of opposite sex? THE WITNESS: I believe it would. Because there
wouldn't be anything different. Right now we are being treated differently and if the
state stopped, I guess, issuing marriage licenses and nobody else picked up the task that could
exclude us, then we would have the same access. And if we had the same access, I would feel
like we are being treated equally. THE COURT: Even though the term "marriage"
was not used? THE WITNESS: Right. Because then marriage
wouldn't be something that anybody got to claim as a legal status. I guess you would
have to also look at the people who were already married and would they still have marriages.
But if marriage were not a legal status sanctioned by the state or any type of government in
our society, then, I guess, I wouldn't have to worry about not having access to it because
nobody else would either. MR. OLSON: You said that you have to explain
yourself. Give the Court some examples of things in everyday life, where you go, things
that you do, where this relationship you have you have to explain or that it's awkward or
humiliating or whatever? Just give the Court some examples?
>> Well, there are a number of examples. It could be anything from going to our younger
son's school and having -- to pick them up for something and telling -- you know, I consider
myself to be their stepmother. And I do get Mother's Day cards, so I think that -- they
think the same thing of me. But if I pick them up, I have to explain who I am. I'm their
stepmother. I am the domestic partnership of their mother. That's -- you know, this
is who I am, this is why I'm picking them up. Or other familial terms such as aunt to
a niece or a nephew. But in other ways just explaining who we are. The term "domestic
partner" or "partner" isn't really that commonly known or understood by everybody. It's certainly
probably understood by everybody in this courtroom and maybe people that -- of a certain part
of society or a generation. But it's not common in the world. And it -- even for those who
know what the term means, it doesn't reflect our relationship in a way that feels authentic,
appropriately descriptive in any way. We have a loving, committed relationship. We are not
business partners. We are not social partners. We are not glorified roommates. We are --
we are married. We want to be married. It's a different relationship.
>> Are there occasions where you have to fill out forms that ask whether you are married
or name of spouse or things like that? >> Frequently. I have encountered forms at
school where you have to say who -- you know, mother -- who is the mother? Who is the father?
There is never a place there for -- you know, instead of Parent 1, Parent 2, even there
something different. Doctor's offices. Are you single or are you married or are, you
know, divorced even? But, you know, so I have to find myself, you know, scratching something
out, putting a line through it and saying "domestic partner" and making sure I explain
to folks what that is to make sure that our transaction can go smoothly.
>> Would being married have anything -- would it provide you with any sense of security
or stability that domestic partnership does not?
>> It would. It really would. It would provide me with a sense of inclusion in the social
fabric. The society I live in that I want to have, and it would make -- I think I would
feel more respected by other people and I feel like our relationship is more respected
and that I could hold my head up high as -- in our family and just -- our family could
feel proud. And I want our children to feel proud of us. I don't want them to feel worried about us or in any way, like, our
family isn't good enough. >> When the campaign occurred between the
time in May of 2008, when the California Supreme Court gave you a constitutional right or announced
that you had a constitutional right, and November, when the voters took that away, were you exposed
to the election campaign in ways in your everyday life?
>> I was. I was -- I certainly saw ads on television. I saw bumper stickers on cars,
signs in yards, you know on front lawns. I went to a rally. I was quite exposed to it
at the rally. I went to -- you know, just support the No On 8, but both sides were represented
at the rally. So, yes, I was quite exposed. >> Did you hear things during that campaign
in favor of Proposition 8 that were disturbing or upsetting to you?
>> Many things. Really, everything for the Yes On 8 campaign was disturbing on some level,
and some more than others. >> Describe those emotions then? What bothered
you on what level and what bothered you on the other level? We need to inform the Court
what it was like? >> Well, as I think folks probably remember
the campaign was very focused on protection; protect marriage and protect children, and
with the subtle implication always that you need to be protected from gay marriage because
it must be, apparently, bad or you wouldn't have to protect anybody from it. I felt like
the constant reference to children -- it felt manipulative and it felt very harmful to me,
as an individual, to us, as a couple, and our children, our family, our community. I
felt like there was great harm being done and I felt like it was used to sort of try
to educate people or convince people that there was a great evil to be feared and that
evil must be stopped and that evil is us, I guess. And as a mom of, you know, four kids,
I -- I don't know if there is anything more inherent in parenting and stronger than the
desire to protect your children. That's first and foremost, you protect your children. And
the very notion that I be part of what others need to protect their children from was just
-- it was more than upsetting. It was sickening, truly. I felt sickened by that campaign.
>> As a parent of four children, you must have a strong sense of what a good parent
ought to be. You must have feelings about that. Would your boys be better off with a
man in the house? >> I think all children are -- the best thing
children can have is parents who love them. That's the most important thing. And I know
I love my children with all my heart. Kris loves our children with all her heart. And
that's what I believe to be the best thing for them, to be loved.
>> How do you feel about being a plaintiff in a case trying to change the Constitution?
Is it a burden or is it something that that is easy for you because of what it means?
Tell us about that? >> Well, it's -- it doesn't feel like a burden.
I feel like a little, tiny person in this huge, gigantic -- this huge country that just
-- I just want my rights. And I guess I keep focusing on the Federal Constitution more
than the California Constitution. So I think, I'm not trying to change anything. I'm just
trying to get the rights that the Constitution already says I have. So I just want the same
thing that I think I'm due and that I think everybody else is due as well.
>> Well, let's -- tell us now if you are successful, how will it change your life, if given the
right to marry and to be a part of lots and lots and lots of same sex couples that will
also be given that right? THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase that and
stop about midway? How would your life be different? Isn't that what you are asking?
MR. OLSON: I couldn't phrase it better than you just did, your Honor.
(Laughter.)
THE COURT: Right answer. MR. OLSON: Tell us what it means to you, as
a plaintiff in this case, if you were to be successful? How it would change your life?
>> Well, I think it would change my life dramatically. The first time somebody said to me, "Are you
married," and I said "Yes," I would think, "Ah, that feels good. It feels good and honest
and true." I would feel more secure. I would feel more accepted. I would feel more pride.
I would feel less protective of my kids. I would feel less like I had to protect my kids
or worry about them or worry that they feel any shame or sense of not belonging. So I
think there are immediate, very real and very desirable personal gains that I would experience.
And, of course, close family. But on a different level, you know, as a parent you are always
thinking about that other generation, that next generation, because you are -- they are
in your house. So you are constantly thinking about the world that you're -- the society
you are in, what are you doing for them? And are we building a good world for them? And
I really want that. I want our kids to have a better life than we have right now. When
they grow up, I want it to be better for them. And their kids, I want their lives to be better,
too. So I really do think about that generation and the possibility of having grandchildren
some day and having them live in a world where they grow up and whoever they fall in love
with, it's okay, because they can be honored and they can be true to themselves and they
can be accepted by society and protected by their government. And that's what I hope can
be the outcome of this case in the long run. And as somebody who is from one of those conservative
little pockets of the country where there isn't necessarily a lot of difference in the
types of people that are there, having those legal protections is everything. It's important
for these kids that don't have ready access to all types of people to at least feel like
the option to be true to yourself is an option that they can have, too. And that's what I
hope for. I hope for something for Kris and I, but we are big, strong women. You know,
we are in a good place in our lives right now. So we would benefit from it greatly,
but other people over time, I think, would benefit in such a more profound life-changing
way. MR. OLSON: Thank you, Ms. Stier. Thank you,
your Honor. THE COURT: Very well. You may cross examine
Mr. Raum. MR. RAUM: We have no questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well then. Ms. Stier, thank you for your testimony. You may step down.
(Witness excused.)
THE COURT: Very well. Your next witness. MR. DUSSEAULT: Your Honor, the plaintiff will
be calling Professor Nancy Cott. Professor Cott and Mr. Boutrous are right outside the
door. THE COURT: Very well.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mr. Boutrous, are you going to be taking this witness?
MR. BOUTROUS: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Very well.
MR. BOUTROUS: Plaintiffs call Professor Nancy Cott.
THE COURT: Very well, Ms. Cott. NANCY COTT, called as a witness for the Plaintiffs
herein, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
THE WITNESS: I do. THE COURT: Very well. Please be seated. State
your name and spell your last name for the record.
THE WITNESS: Nancy F. Cott, C-O-T-T. THE COURT: And be sure that you keep your
voice up. So maybe you can move that microphone a little closer.
THE WITNESS: Fine. How is this? THE COURT: Well, we'll see.
DIRECT EXAMINATION MR. BOUTROUS: Good afternoon, Professor Cott.
>> Good afternoon. >> I would like you have to give us a brief
description of your academic and professional background. Before I do, we have handed you
a binder of the exhibits and if we could turn to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2323, which is the
last document in the binder? (Witness complied.)
>> Could you tell me if you recognize that document?
>> Yes, it's my CV. MR. BOUTROUS: Your Honor, I would move Exhibit
2323 into evidence. MR. THOMPSON: No objection, your Honor.
THE CLERK: Do you have a binder for the Court? MR. BOUTROUS: Yes, if I may approach.
THE COURT: You may. Of course. MR. BOUTROUS: This is a binder of all the
exhibits I may refer to. (Whereupon, document was tendered to the Court.)
THE COURT: There is no objection to 2023, I believe.
MR. BOUTROUS: 2323, your Honor. THE COURT: I beg your pardon, 2323.
THE CLERK: Are you offering it? MR. BOUTROUS: Yes. Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: 2323? THE WITNESS: It's at the end.
THE COURT: All right. Perhaps you can furnish the Court an updated exhibit list? We stopped
at 2320. You thought 2320 exhibits was enough. (Laughter.)
MR. BOUTROUS: We kept going. This was actually part of Exhibit 1306, which we're not going
to use and we broke it out, and I consulted with counsel on the other side. I should have
explained that, your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: All right. 2323 is admitted.
(Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2323 received in evidence.)
MR. BOUTROUS: Thank you. MR. BOUTROUS: Professor Cott, could you give
us a brief description of your academic background? >> Yes. I gained my PhD in the History of
American Civilization in 1974. And shortly after that, I began teaching in the Departments
of History and American Studies at Yale University, and I remained there moving up through the
ranks. I remained there for 26 years teaching in those fields, specializing in the history
of women, gender, the family, marriage and related social and cultural and political
topics. And in 2002, at which point I was a Sterling Professor of History in American
Studies at Yale, which is the highest faculty honor the university gives, I moved to Harvard
University, where I remain. I'm the Jonathan Trumble Professor of American History, and
I am also the faculty director of the Schlesinger Library and the History of Women in America
as part of my responsibilities there. I continue teaching in the same fields.
>> Are you a historian? >> Yes.
(Laughter.)
>> And have you published any books, Professor Cott?
>> Yes. I have published eight books. >> And has the history of marriage in the
United States a research area of yours during your career as a historian?
>> It has. Some of my earlier books in the 1970's and 80's dealt with questions about
marriage, but my main period of research on the history of marriage was during the decade
of the 1990's and, as a result of which, I wrote and published the book Public Vows,
A History of Marriage in the Nation. And I also published an article which dealt with
materials that I decided not to include in the book, in the American Historical Review,
which is the leading journal in the historical field. This article dealt with marriage and
women's citizenship. >> What is your current position at Harvard?
>> I'm the Jonathan Trumbull Professor of American History.
>> And when did you first start investigating the history of marriage in the United States?
>> It was around 1990. I -- I decided I wanted to look at the history of marriage from an
angle which I thought other American historians had neglected, and that was the history of
marriage as a public institution, a structure created by governments for individuals and
for social benefit. And insofar as historians had dealt with the history of marriage, typically
they had tried to examine and look at change over time and the way married individuals
experienced the institution, and I thought that the -- this other angle was neglected,
and that's what I began to research. >> While you were at Yale, did you teach any
classes on the history of marriage? >> Well, many of my courses that dealt with
the history of women and the family touched upon marriage, but in the -- while I was in
the process of researching this book, I received a special honor from the president of Yale
University, which was to be appointed as the DeVane Professor. This is a temporary appointment
that one faculty member per year is given to teach a course of his or her own choosing
that's outside the regular structure of the departments. It can be interdisciplinary or
unusual. And because I was coming to some conclusions and I had a great deal of evidence
and research about the history of marriage at that time -- it was 1997 when I got this
request or honor -- I said I would teach a course on the history of marriage in the United
States over two centuries and I did teach that course in 1998.
>> And were you able to devote all your teaching that year to --
>> That entire semester; not the entire year, but the entire semester.
>> Thank you. Professor Cott, I would like you to turn to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1746 in
the exhibit booklet. >> Are these in numerical order? Yes. I think
so. I see 1750 -- oh, here we are. I recognize this.
>> You recognize the cover of your book? >> It is the cover of my book, Public Vows,
yes. MR. BOUTROUS: And if we could put that up
on the screen? (Document displayed)
MR. BOUTROUS: You call your book Public Vows, A History of Marriage and the Nation. Why
did you title your book Public Vows? >> Well, I have made somewhat of a specialty
of having my book titles have a kind of double meaning, and I did so this time in that I
meant by "public vows" to express two aspects of marriage as a public institution, two related
aspects. One is simply that the couple in taking their marriage vows makes them publicly
before a witness. And that is part of the formalization of a valid marriage. But in
addition to that, I was struck through my research at the extent to which marriage was
an institution -- was the institution that we know it as because the public, in the form
of the state, is making certain vows to the couple about the protection and support of
their relationship in granting them a valid marriage. And what I was examining far more
in the book than a couple's intent, any individual private couple's intent, was what the public
intentions in the institution of marriage had been over time.
>> In what year was your book published? >> It was published in the year 2000.
>> How long did you spend researching and conducting your work in --
>> A decade. About a decade. THE COURT: Wait for counsel to finish his
question. THE WITNESS: Thank you.
MR. BOUTROUS: Professor Cott, could you give -- provide us with an overview of the subject
of your book Public Vows? >> Well, as I said, I wanted to emphasize
the public side of marriage. And one of the themes that became apparent to me and that
goes throughout the book and now characterizes my views on marriage is what a captious institution
it is. It is a unique institution, of course, but one of the things that particularly characterizes
it is the way it encompasses aspects that in other settings we think of as opposites,
and the public nature of marriage is very much one of those; that is, marriage is both
a public and a private institution. Most people who consider marrying think principally about
the private matter. Have they found a partner they love? Do they want to join in this intimate
relationship which is ideally last for life? It is also the foundation of the private realm
of family creation, property transmission, and what we think of as the private, when
we contrast it with the public. On the other hand, it is by its very definition a public
institution that the state has authorized and uses to regulate the population and that
the public -- in the state, through the state and the law dispenses certain benefits through.
This public/private hybrid that marriage is, is unique and there are other seemingly contradictory
or paradoxical characteristics to the institution that I stressed as the theme of my book. One
quite related to its public aspects is the way that marriage has through our history
had a very strong governance function at the same time that it is characterized by liberty.
Marriage is only possible for individuals who can exercise the liberty, value of our
citizens, and it has also been -- particularly in the 20th century -- the realm created by
marriage, that private realm has been repeatedly reiterated as a -- as a realm of liberty for
intimacy and free decision making by the parties in that private realm.
>> In forming your opinions in this case, the Perry case, did you rely on the work that
you did for a decade in preparing and writing your book?
>> Yes. That is the principal body of research and thinking that I have relied on in my thinking
about marriage for this case. >> And since your book was published in 2000,
have there been other materials that you are relying on in the opinions that you have developed
in this case that have emerged since you published your book in 2000?
>> Yes. I think that this area has produced other scholarships since then, mostly developing
areas that I did not touch on in great detail. And I continue to update my -- my own knowledge
in that area. And so in writing my report for this case, I did rely on other books and
articles as well. MR. BOUTROUS: Your Honor, we tender Professor
Cott as an expert on the subject of the history of marriage in the United States.
THE COURT: Very well. Voir dire? MR. THOMPSON: We have no objection, your Honor,
to her being qualified as an expert on that subject.
THE COURT: Very well. And thank you, sir. You may proceed, Mr. Boutrous.
MR. BOUTROUS: Thank you, your Honor. MR. BOUTROUS: First, Professor Cott, I would
like to ask you: Has over the history of our nation marriage played a central vital role
in American society? >> Yes. I think there is no doubt about that.
>> As a historian, perhaps you could help us understand a little bit better what you,
as a historian, are talking about when you talk about the concept of marriage?
>> Yes. Well, marriage in our setting is a very particular form of the institution. Human
cultures in different places and over time have formulated many different forms of what
-- of the marriage institution. Ours is relatively recent in human culture and it is -- it has
its own distinctive antecedents in the Anglo American common law. To think of marriage
as a universal institution, the same around the globe, it seems to me inaccurate --
MR. THOMPSON: Objection, your Honor. I move to strike this is answer because she has been
qualified as an expert in marriage in the United States and now she is opining on marriage
around the globe. I specifically asked her in her deposition whether she was an expert
in history outside the United States and she said no.
MR. BOUTROUS: Professor Cott, in conducting your work and research, and evaluating the
institution of marriage in the United States, did you evaluate and look at the history of
marriage that preceded the formation of the United States, around the world?
>> I did. And let me comment on that. From inside U.S. --
THE COURT: The answer is, "Yes." What's your next question?
THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. BOUTROUS: And was your evaluation of the
systems of marriage throughout civilized history, did that play an important part in your work,
in writing the book Public Vows and in forming your opinions about the history of marriage
in the United States? >> Well, I'd like to answer that from inside
American history, and some of the awarenesses and sensitivities of the founders of the United
States at the time of the American Revolution. THE COURT: Why don't you just answer "yes"
or "no." THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes or no. And, believe me, he will go on to the next question.
(Laughter)
THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor, for prompting me.
MR. BOUTROUS: I'm ready. THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. BOUTROUS: Yes. MR. BOUTROUS: Your Honor, I would ask that
the objection be overruled. MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, if the Court would
like, I can pull up on the screen the portion of the deposition testimony where I said:
"You don't consider yourself an expert in the history of marriage in countries outside
the United States; is that right? "That is right." And now she is being offered and asked
to speak about the history of marriage around the world, and whether it's a universal institution.
There is nothing of that in her report. So this would violate Rule 26. And she, herself,
has admitted she is not an expert in this subject.
THE COURT: As I understood the questions of the witness, it elicited that to inform her
view of the history of marriage in the United States, she did make some comparisons of the
institution of marriage in other societies and other countries and other civilizations.
And I think that's an appropriate subject for her testimony. But I would agree with
you that she is not qualified as an expert on marriage generally, marriage around the
world. So with that limitation, Mr. Boutrous, you may continue.
MR. BOUTROUS: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. BOUTROUS: And let me just go back and
clarify, in conducting your work and evaluating the history of marriage in the United States,
did you compare the institution of marriage in the United States with the institution
of marriage in other nations and other civilizations? And, as the Court suggested, if you could
-- >> Not literally. Not literally. I would like
to clarify what I did do, if I may. >> Please clarify what you did do.
(Laughter)
>> I began my book by focusing on the place of marriage in the views of the founders of
the American republic. And they were very much aware of what a minority, in among all
the peoples of the globe, their form of marriage constituted. They were very aware that most
of the peoples in the globe, at that time, practiced polygamy or group marriage, or as
they saw among Native Americans, other forms of marriage quite different from their own.
And, in fact, that was one of the great discoveries of colonization and exploration by Europeans
and British people in the rest of the globe, that forms of marriage were so various in
other cultures and among other peoples. So that, simply from my expertise in American
history, makes me very aware that there have been many forms of marriage that have been
qualified and sanctioned by the societies that have invented them.
>> Thank you. When you speak of marriage as a historian, do you speak of it as a civil
institution? >> Well, I am -- in talking about our --
yes. I should say yes. (Laughter)
THE COURT: And now you may clarify. (Laughter)
MR. BOUTROUS: Can you explain that further? (Laughter)
Let me rephrase that. In what manner has the institution of marriage in the United States
historically been deemed a civil matter as opposed to a religious matter or some other
type of entity? >> This has been characteristic in all the
states of our nation since their founding, that the civil law has been supreme in defining
and regulating marriage. Even while most of the people involved in writing these laws
were -- found no objection to religious ceremonies, they felt that marriage was a civil matter.
So much of it had to do with property and inheritance and the economy, things that civil
law was principally concerned with. And in all the American states, at the founding of
the nation and then continuingly, the civil law has controlled marriage.
>> In your evaluation from a historical perspective, what role has religion played in the institution
of marriage in the United States? >> Religion has been in the background of
many, perhaps most Americans' understanding of marriage, and has influenced their own
practices, whether sacramental or otherwise, and often their ceremonial practices. That's
been extremely common. But these are apart from and have no particular bearing on the
validity of marriages. Any clerics, ministers, rabbis, et cetera, that were accustomed to
seeing -- performing marriages, only do so because the state has given them the authority
to do that. And they do that as the delegate of the state.
>> When California entered the Union as a state, did its government address the issue
of ensuring separation between religion and religious marriage and civil marriage in this
state? >> Yes.
>> How did California address that issue? >> There was a clause in the first constitution
that specifically said that no religious forms could -- no religious disagreements with a
particular marriage could invalidate that marriage.
>> Did -- in your view, did the colonists, when this nation was first colonized, did
they view the institution of marriage as an important one?
>> Yes. >> Did they move to adopt marriage in their
colonies? >> Yes. Every single colony did.
>> Now, you were here this morning when several -- when two of the ads were played during
the testimony of the plaintiffs, correct? >> Yes.
>> And did you note that in one of the ads one of the people speaking mentioned that,
Biblical marriage should be the goal, as opposed to marriage between individuals of the same
gender? MR. THOMPSON: Objection, Your Honor. Under
Rule 26, there is no mention of this -- of the analysis of the ads. It's not a material
she considered in either her opening report or her rebuttal report. And I did not have
an opportunity to depose her about her views of the ads.
THE COURT: Well, I think the witness just said that she was here in the courtroom and
she heard those. I think -- she has been qualified to opine on the subject of the history of
marriage in the United States. Let's see where this goes. We'll see what the testimony is
and how much weight to give it, if any. MR. BOUTROUS: Were you here --
>> Yes. >> -- and saw that?
>> I was here and I saw that, yes. MR. BOUTROUS: Your Honor, I had a demonstrative
prepared based on Mr. Cooper's testimony, that simply tracks what he said.
THE COURT: Mr. Cooper's testimony? MR. BOUTROUS: Mr. Cooper's opening statement.
I'm sorry. And would like to display that on the screen, with the Court's permission.
THE COURT: Very well. MR. BOUTROUS: If we could have Proponents'
Position 1 displayed, please. (Document displayed)
MR. BOUTROUS: And while that's happening, Professor Cott, let me ask you this. When
you hear the term "Biblical marriage" as a historian, what does that mean to you?
>> Well, I -- to be honest, I had never seen this ad before this morning. And when I heard
it, I thought it was really quite amusing, because The Bible is a situation with characters
that are practicing polygamy, as was true in the ancient world among the Jews. So I
was very surprised to hear him endorsing this. >> And we have on the screen one of the things
that Mr. Cooper said during his opening statement. And that is, "The limitation of marriage to
a man and woman is something that has been universal. It has been across history, across
customs, across society." Do you agree with that statement?
MR. THOMPSON: Objection. Leading and beyond the scope of her expertise, which is limited
to the United States. THE COURT: Well, I think we've allowed the
witness to testify as to her understanding of other foreign institutions as they have
informed her evaluation of American marriage. And so I think that question is probably okay.
MR. BOUTROUS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE WITNESS: I think this is inaccurate.
MR. BOUTROUS: Why do you believe it's inaccurate? >> Because of my knowledge of the existence
of many forms that are not a man and a woman. >> Could you give the Court an example.
>> Certainly, the examples of polygamist marriage that have been sanctioned in, well, take ancient
Judaism, take Muslim cultures still today. It's fairly clear, I think, to anyone who
has looked at all at world history, that this is not an accurate statement.
>> In the United States we have a tradition of an -- and in the laws, which require monogamy.
Where did that tradition and that legal structure arise from, as a historical matter?
>> I believe that monogamy is attributable to Christianity. And that is probably why
the person in the ad said "Biblical," because he was thinking of the New Testament, not
the Old Testament. And it is a tribute to the success of Christian evangelism, particularly
after the 18th century, that there has been so much move around the globe toward monogamous
union as compared to polygamy. >> Professor Cott, let me ask you this: Historically,
in the United States, has there developed a social meaning of marriage?
>> Yes. >> And by the phrase "social meaning of marriage,"
what do you, as a historian, understand that to mean?
>> I would take that to be another way of saying that societal evaluation or understanding
of marriage, which is compounded of all the populations' individualized view of marriage,
so that it is an amorphous item to talk about the social meaning of marriage. But I think
we do make generalizations of this sort, common understandings. And that's how I would see
social meaning -- what the social meaning of marriage would express, the common understanding
of it. >> Can you tell me your view, your opinion
as a historian, what the social meaning of marriage in the United States is.
>> Do you mean today, or over time? >> As it has developed over time, and the
features that have developed over time through history, to form what we now think of as the
institution of marriage. >> Well, first, I would want to say that marriage
is unique in some of the ways I alluded to before, in its paradoxical aspects that it
combines successfully. It is a unique institution, as an evaluation of a couple's choice to live
with each other, to remain committed to one another, and to form a household based on
their own feelings about one another, and their agreement to join in an economic partnership
and support one another in terms of the material needs of life. So marriage places a unique
valuation on such couples' choices. And that is the core of its social meaning. And upon
that core very many cultural add-ons have been admitted, as well, which I want to mention.
But before talking about the cultural aspects of marriage and cultural advertisements for
marriage, one might say, I should mention first, really, certain features of it which
I emphasized in my book and which I think are far less obvious to people when they think
about marriage. Because most people think about marriage in terms of an intimate choice.
>> Can you tell me about -- give me a couple of examples of those features?
>> Yeah. Well, first of all, marriage, the ability to marry, to say, "I do," it is a
basic civil right. It expresses the right of a person to have the liberty to be able
to consent validly. And this can be seen very strikingly in American history through the
fact that slaves during the period, the long period that American states had slavery, slaves
could not marry legally. >> Why were slaves barred from marrying?
>> Because as unfree persons, they could not consent. They did -- they lacked that very
basic liberty of person, control over their own actions that enabled them to say, "I do,"
with the force that "I do" has to have. Which is to say, I am accepting the state's terms
for what a valid marriage is. A slave couldn't do that because the master had overall rights
over the slaves' ability to disport his person or to make any claim. The slave could not
obligate himself in the way that a marriage partner does obligate himself or herself.
>> What happened when slaves were emancipated? >> When slaves were emancipated, they flocked
to get married. And this was not trivial to them, by any means. They saw the ability to
marry legally, to replace the informal unions in which they had formed families and had
children, many of them, to replace those informal unions with legal, valid marriage in which
the states in which they lived would presumably protect their vows to each other. In fact,
one quote that historians have drawn out from the record, because many of these ex-slaves
were illiterate, of course, but one quotation that is the title of an article a historian
wrote, it was said by an ex-slave who had also been a Union soldier, and he declared,
"The marriage covenant is the foundation of all our rights." Meaning that it was the most
everyday exhibit of the fact that he was a free person. He could say, "I do" to his partner.
And then in corollary with that -- because, of course, the history of slavery is happily
behind us -- there are other ways in which this position of civil rights, of basic citizenship,
is a feature of the ability to marry and to choose the partner you want to choose.
>> What would be an example of another one of those features?
>> Well, I want to use an example of that, that again comes from the period while slavery
still existed. But it doesn't have to do with the slave. It has to do with a black man,
Dred Scott, who tried to say, when he was in a non-slave-holding state, that he was
a citizen. And in an infamous decision, the Supreme Court denied him that claim. And why
this is relevant here is that Justice Taney spent about three paragraphs of that opinion
remarking that the fact that Dred Scott as a black man could not marry a white woman
-- in other words, that there were marriage laws in the state where he was and many other
states, that prevented blacks from marrying whites -- was a stigma that marked him as
less than a full citizen. Because if he had had free choice, that would be -- Taney wouldn't
have mentioned it. But he remarked on it because of the extent to which this limitation on
Dred's ability to marry was a piece of evidence that Justice Taney was remarking upon in his
opinion to say this shows he could not be a full citizen.
>> Now, going back to the era of slavery, would slaves form something they would call
marriage, or that the slave owners would call marriage, at least informally?
>> Yes. >> And was that viewed by the state or by
society as an important relationship? >> Certainly, it was regarded as an important
relationship within slave communities. They were the only relationships they had, these
informal relationships. But they were totally treated with abandon by white society. Broken
up all the time. And no -- no state authorities gave any protection or credence to these relationships
whatsoever. >> And, as a historical matter, to what do
you attribute the desire to be formally married by the state upon emancipation?
>> Well, it was, as I suggested, because this was a common-sense indication of freedom,
of possessing basic civil rights, and because they assumed it would mean to them that white
employers -- because, of course, the ex-slaves were still quite poor and employed by white
-- whites who were -- well, at any rate, white employers would often try to demand
that families worked in certain ways, or that children worked, and so on. And so the emancipated
-- the freed men and women assumed that once they were legally married, that they could
make valid claims about their family rights. >> You mentioned a little earlier that some
of these values and the things that go into the social meaning of marriage are less visible
to some. What did you mean by that? >> Well, I think this was true of myself,
until I started to do this research. And I think it's true of the vast majority of people
who have no apparent limitations on their marriage rights, because the person they choose
is someone who is, you know, perfectly fine for them to marry. And I think people remain
unaware that, in marrying, one is exercising a right of freedom. As I said, most people
think of it as a private choice. Do I marry or don't I? They don't tend to articulate
this -- this -- the citizenship, the civil rights aspect of it. It's only those -- and
I have seen this in my book and in various instances with various ethnic groups, racial
groups, and so on. It is only those who cannot marry the partner of their choice, or who
cannot marry at all, who are aware of the extent to which this is -- that the ability
to marry is an expression of one's freedom, and being the barrier of basic civil rights.
>> In your view, as a historical matter, have efforts by individuals to acquire the right
to marry strengthened or weakened the institution of marriage and how it's viewed in society?
>> Uhm, do you mean individuals like emancipated slaves? I'm not sure what you mean.
>> Let me put it a different way. Do you believe that when -- as in this case, when individuals
are fighting for the right to marry, and there's a debate about that, how does that affect
the way society talks about and views the institution of marriage?
>> I see. I see. You were referring to those groups I mentioned who had been restricted?
>> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> I see. Well, yes, I think in every instance,
the most stunning of which, of course, is the elimination of racial bars on marriages
to whites, these racial bars were quite -- they proliferated. They were quite various
and as well as numerous. That the restrictions on marriage as they have been removed have
tended to make the institution more appealing, more -- more clearly an equal right that people
share. And so I would say that the removal of such restrictions has tended to strengthen
the institution. >> Now, you mentioned that -- a cultural value
that infuses the social meaning of marriage. Could you explain to us what you mean by that,
and what the -- how culture values marriage in the United States through its history.
>> Yes. Well, I'll just be brief because this is a huge subject. But, first of all, I would
say that the religious connotations that many different groups, different sects and different
religions have attached to marriage have been part of its high cultural valuation. More
than that, in our entertainment, in our folktales, in our songs, in our movies, at least since
the rise of the novel in the 18th century, marriage has been the happy ending to the
romance, to the conflict that may have transpired over the course of a story. It is the principal
happy ending in all of our romantic tales. And that kind of cultural polish on marriage
has, in the past century, been greatly forwarded by advertising and other forms of visual imagery
that surround us all the time and that present the rice, the white dress, the happy couple
parading down the aisle, as a destination to be gained by any couple who love one another.
So these cultural attributes are probably too various to mention, but I'm sure you get
my point. >> Let me ask you this. How does the cultural
value and the meaning, social meaning of marriage, in your view, compare with the social meaning
of domestic partnerships and civil unions? >> I appreciate the fact that several states
have extended -- maybe it's many states now, have extended most of the material rights
and benefits of marriage to people who have civil unions or domestic partnerships. But
there really is no comparison, in my historical view, because there is nothing that is like
marriage except marriage. And I would add that in that halo around marriage, the cultural
valuations have not been the only thing that has driven this. But, rather, the extent to
which states have in the past century gone beyond -- states and the federal government,
have gone beyond the basic freedom that marriage implies, to add many, many other benefits
that are channeled through marriage. And while these, at least at the state level, are the
material benefits that domestic partnership gives, the states choosing this institution
named marriage, through which to channel the benefits, has itself added greater cultural
valuation to the institution. >> At the founding of the country, and as
a historical matter, were there ever comparisons between marriage and democracy in the public
discourse at the time? >> This is really a very interesting story.
Yes, there have -- there were. >> And what were the comparisons that were
made at the time? >> Well, let me clarify, first of all, that
it wasn't precisely democracy but, rather, the form of republican government that the
Americans were founding. And their republican form -- small "r" -- was a government based
on consent and voluntary allegiance. This was distinct from being a subject of Great
Britain. Great Britain, at the time, did not call its people its citizens. They were its
subjects. And they were -- had to be allegiant to the King just because they were born there.
But in breaking away from Great Britain, the founders of the American republic were forming
a government based on voluntary allegiance and consent. And that was very, very present
in public discourse. And they found -- and one sees this in newspapers and journals at
the time. They found that the best analogy they could bring to this -- to convince people
that this was a good thing, to voluntarily consent to a stable relationship that may
govern you, but it's for your own good, that the best analogy they could find was marriage.
And so in the popular periodicals of the time and in newspapers, the -- that analogy was
very, very frequently made, to persuade former subjects of Great Britain that they should
consent to be governed, as people consented to be governed by marriage laws, consent to
be governed by this new institution to which they would give voluntary allegiance.
THE COURT: About how much longer do you have with this witness?
MR. BOUTROUS: Your Honor, I was about to move to another topic. I probably have another
hour or so. THE COURT: Well, then, this would probably
be a good time to take our adjournment for the day. We are off to a good start, Counsel.
I appreciate that very much. And we will begin tomorrow -- can we begin at 8:30, instead
of 9 o'clock? Is that agreeable to everybody? MR. BOUTROUS: Yes, Your Honor.
(Multiple counsel affirm.)
THE COURT: All right. We will see you tomorrow morning, at 8:30.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor, for reminding me. This is a hard lesson for me to learn.
When a student asks me a question, I can't just stop at "yes." Thank you, Judge.