To all this because they believed if people could get to know the four plaintiffs, if they could see what they went through over the course of these five years, that win or lose it would educate people. Win or lose it would move people and make them see this issue in a different light. How hard was it to choose the plaintiffs indicates . Normally you think, theres a couple of people who want to get married and hire a firm. This idea was the opposite. You had essentially chad griffin who is gay sitting watching the elections returns come in on election night. And barack obama makes history. You know, hes the first africanamerican president elected. Chat as a democrat. He wants to celebrate, but hes watching on his computer screen as the numbers roll in. Proposition eight was at the ballot, Vote Initiative essentially strip gay and lesbians of the right to marry in california. They briefly enjoy that right after the California Supreme Court said it was a matter of state constitution. The voters within asked to change the constitution, and they did. And so they were, a few days later, chad and christian and the friends who happen to be rob and Michele Reiner a sitting at a polo match in hollywood which is a very kind of tricky place, a meet and greet place. They are talking about what are we going to do . We cant win in california. We cant win here. Where can we possibly win . And by circumstance, a friend of the reiners stopped by, heard what theyre talking about, fast forward and said, you really out to talk to a friend of mine, my exbrotherinlaw actually, hes a constitutional lawyer and i think ted olson. Rob reiner, his jaw dropped and he and chad with Vice President gore on the night that bush v. Gore were decided. They were in the naval observatory they broke they both go down and it was a terrible night for them. But they immediately saw this ad Game Changing kind of potential to have someone like ted championing this cause. In the potential to turn from what had been, you, at best a partisan fight into a debate about civil rights. And so they then set out to find the plaintiffs. Ted had actually wanted a different he had a specific set of criteria. He wanted a bookstore owner. He wanted a cop, and i forget what the other to they wanted six altogether because they figured what if, the opposition it turned up something in somebodys background. They just wanted to have more. And he didnt want any children. He thought that was a complicating kind of factor which is, of course, really ironic because if any of you have followed this, when Justice Kennedy, when these cases i got to the Supreme Court it was the kids that Justice Kennedy was very focused on. Like, what about the 40,000 children of gay couples in california. Out they have come are they part of the story . Are the part of this argument . Why shouldnt they have the same kind of families . But ted didnt want the beginning of, they went on this casting call. They had a very elaborate, i described in the book, an elaborate ruse where they were telling people theyre doing a Public Education campaign and they did kind of a casting call. They were running out of time. When they found chris and sandy, chris perry and are now wife, sandy, chris worked for a state agency that rob reiner had helped to fund through a Ballot Initiative yet done with chad. So that asked them to do. They have for teenage boys. They suggest. And paul and jesse day found through the realtor actually. Chatty realtor suggested them. Chads realtor suggested and. How about the people you couldnt talk to . How did you represent him in the book . Of the people you couldnt talk to but people you didnt get to spend as much time with as you did with the plaintiff and the lawyers . Yeah, so my biggest challenge was, i went to the one on the other side, chuck cooper, and asked him, told him of doing a book, told them right at the beginning. Asked them to come hang out . Que . Que x never, thats not going to happen. But he did promise me that he would sit down with me after, after the case had resolved itself into its been everything that he was doing. He never did any prep in all for a nephews. So i did. I spent hours and hours interviewing him about what he was thinking, what he was doing. Its very gratifying to me because these are tough issues. I didnt want to write a book that just barely represented the arguments on the other side. And i didnt want to do that because i am a journalist and i want to be there. But also because people are changing their minds on this issue. You used to have them as i said when we started come when i started doing this but the majority of the culture was opposed. Today, the clear majority of the country is in favor of. And so one of the lessons about this, and it kind of comes up again and again in the book is he has demonized the other side. It is an effective, doesnt change peoples minds. Im grateful to chuck for blaming what he was thinking and his reasonings. And i was take the grateful that he thinks that the other day he got a fair shake from in any of the coverage of this case over five years. Yet its still very much clarity about two couples who are in love and want to get married, and theres a question about is from their point of view, but i felt i had done my job. What was the lowest point for the plaintiffs . There were a lot of. This is such an up and down, up and down kind of thing over five years. No one thought it would take that long either. They didnt even know they would be a trial. One of the really tough moments was, i was there with them when we drove to court the first day of the trial, and everything about, everything that is sacred in america went on trial during these kind of remarkable weeks. The history of marriage, the history of discrimination in this country, the signs of sexuality, i mean, all these issues that are never been really put to trial essentially. Let alone federal court. This was a really very unusual thing. Most of these does the constitution say this or doesnt excite . But on the first day everybody was so nervous. That morning chris was, you know, sort of wiping the kitchen counter fiercely. And a kind of looked at her and she said, this i can control, and Everything Else is nebulous. They are for ordinary people. One day youre just like to moms raising four kids, he manages a Movie Theater and paul as a fitness instructor. And the next day you are plaintiffs in a major civil rights case, stepping outside the van and theres a crush of cameras and crowds and the signs and protesters, and its scary. You wade through all of this and you get to a freight elevator and go up to kind of a holding area, and a marshall, u. S. Marshall comes in and says, you know, if you get any kind of threat, it doesnt have to be deaf, but just anything, let us know because thats our job. They all just looked stricken. Sandy and chris looked at each other, all they could think about was therefore boys. They were their four boys. Their children were targeted by a caller who called them up spencer, i can member when it was spencer or elliott told his doing his homework one and a caller kept calling and calling and basically saying things like your mom, your moms are going to burn in hell. Terrible things. People would find them on facebook and say, you dont have to be all right with it. What they were all right with was the assumption that some of the didnt have a loving and great family. Both of those boys were like star pupils or really welladjusted kids. But that was really tough. I think the other thing that was really tough was waiting for, see whether the Supreme Court would grant the case, agreed to review the case. They want at the Federal District court level. They won an appeal. At the wanted, even though that is sort of counterintuitive, why would you want the Supreme Court to review something that you want, but that was whole point of this, take it to the highest court in the land. We would gather at, the court has basically something they call conferences and it is quite put out a list and they said he could decide any of these cases today. So we would gather and everybody was seriously doing scotusblogs, refreshing and he liked okay, its not today. My hair looks like, you know, not nice, use of that word. And they kept coming to get it could be today because if the Supreme Court denied, to be getting married right away. They want to be the first to get married in the state. That was part of a Public Education campaign component. And so you have to send out a save the date and then say dear family, we are not getting married. There was a lot of ups and downs over the course of the. And also like even the arguments, listening, i described about what they are thinking and feeling as the justices are debating. Talking about Justice Scalia docs about, well, you know, ill tell you he says to cooper, ill tell you one reason why its rational for state to discriminate, and so gays can adopt. Its like spencer and elliott, the children of a gay couple. They were adopted. In vitro. I tried very hard in the book, i wanted people to come away from this to really understand the legal argument, really kind of getting, if youre into legal thrillers, like i want you to come to the book and read it for that reason and watch the best lawyers of a generation put together a major civil rights case. But i also wanted elliott to try to find a way back to the personal. I talk a lot about, for instance, some of the gay lawyers in the case, and the kind of special burden that they carried with them. And there is this wonderful moment where they had their lawyer has on all day and they put the witness and the witnesses there to talk about the stigmacome and what is there to talk about was how discrimination affects people and plays out in their everyday life. The lawyers patty murray and everybody kind of testified and they went to a bar after court and i went with them. They were sitting there and one of the Young Lawyers said it was like listening, to the others there, she said it was like being on a therapist couch. I had have my lawyers have i been listening to them talk about how stigma makes people feel, the kind of diminished sense of possibility that people live with when theyre part of this, discriminate against. I couldnt even call my wife, this young lawyer who married her wife during this brief window in california when this was possible, she said i couldnt call my wife wife, because and an expert who was also gay said because it felt like a word reserved for other people. And she said yeah, itd. I talk about how we have to own that language. And so you sort of get to hear all of this evidence, but also kind of almost, i dont know, almost cinematic way of telling a story. One of the things you do in the book is you really give a lot of Background Information about david boies and ted olson. Could you talk a little bit about the contrast between them as lawyers and their approach to lawyering . Yeah. So i described it in the book this way. That ted is like a classical pianist who, faced with some particularly difficult concert, just practices over and over and over again until he has the metronomic kind of precision. And david is like a jazz player, like always sort of in search of the unexpected riff. So they approach a kind of getting ready very, very jiggly. I think like what makes david such an effective trial lawyer is he doesnt have a script. He doesnt go in and have a script. At one point he is questioning a witness, and just something come it was her weight is put on by the other side, and he is cross examining them. And the guy said something about you is questioning the expert report here prepared and the guy said Something Like, well, its my report. Its in my report. And david gunn is just something about the way the guy said it. And he said, he just threw away his script, well, how many of the experts that you list in your report, how many of them actually did you find on your own . And he said, well, yeah, kind of dancing around. He circles and. He hands him a piece of paper and pencil. You can hear the ones the lawyers versus the ones he had done on his own. Thats the kind of lawyer he is. Ted is, i mean, he is an amazing advocate in the sense that he is always thinking. Its like threedimensional chess. During the trial he was causally kind of looking at, well, do we have everything in the record that we will need on appeal . Because for those of you who dont know, you dont get to put on new evidence or call any more witnesses once the case is decided at the trial level. The judges above review the record. So he was always thinking kind of in terms of how will this sort of are mostly how will this fall on the ear of Justice Kennedy, who was considered the Supreme Court and both sides were doing the exact same thing. They were both, everybody was focused on Justice Kennedy in the future they were making arguments that would ultimate appeal to you. And, in fact, and i described this early on, the lawyers came up with a list of terms from justice duty had offered two other major gayrights decisions, lawrence v. Texas and case called rohmer versus colorado. They pulled phrases about Human Dignity and all the phrases that he used, not just for the legal argument to me. The use of of course there but they gave them to chad griffins political war room and every press release and every statement that they may be contained that language as well. Is kennedy the only one there thinking about . Well, i think, yeah, look, david a dividend said he was sure theyre going to get all nine to nobody thought that. That was simply bravado and for the headlines, but i think that everybody considered Justice Kennedy the swing. If you look at the yet to be decided because the way for those of you who dont know, the way the court ultimately decide this was essentially it allowed marriages to resume in california and one for the country which is a huge victory but not the kind of 50 state decision that they had hoped f for. And at one point, but at any rate, that answer your question . Sorry. So at this point why dont we turn it over to the audience and see what questions they have about this issue . Sorry. Thats okay. Can you tell us about the judge . Yes. Judge walker. So judge walker is a remarkable. He talked to me for the book which was very appreciative of. And he had a very interesting story. He himself is gay, and was not closeted but never have made any kind of public announcement about it. He talks about it, about how he grew up thinking that we talked a little earlier about the diminished source of possibility he said i could never be a gay man and reach the pinnacle of my career. That is what he thought. And so he tried to date women. He was tickling moved by a young boys testimony, the most touching of all at the trial, who testified about how his parents, when upon learning that he was gay, forced them to attend whats called reparative therapy, which is widely now condemned by every major psychological group. But forced him to attend this. It was so hard for him, but he ended up being suicidal. He thought of killing himself and he finally ran away from home. He testified about how he had struggled, he was alone, and he finally rebuild his life and found a good job. He is with the Denver Police department, and as hes talking, judge walker is sort of transported back in time and he told me this story about how he so didnt want to be gay, that he underwent a form of reparative therapy himself. And that the doctor that he saw told him that because he had never acted out and had never actually had sex with a man, he was not gay, and he pronounced him cured. You know, judge walker really wanted to believe that was true, and he told me that at about the same time he saw his parents. They were kind of a close family. And somehow they had a few drinks and this conversation got around to their sex life, and they were remarkably candid that they have had their troubles come and judge walker said, you know, that would have been the time for me to say, ive had my troubles in this area, too, because im gay. But what he said to me was, but i didnt say that because i didnt want to be one of those people. Because those people were deviants. And that is how homosexuality was characterized. It was a mental disorder. Its hard to imagine today, but he gets this case. Is literally leaking through the new cases are dropped off by the court and hes leafing through it all and he says, who is suing the governor of california . And he goes, oh, no. And not because i felt when he told me this story the it was because he was going to say well, my personal life is not going to become an issue. But no, he actually wanted to retire and he was pretty sure that this was not going to be that he wanted to hold the trial. He was looking at all this caseworker, the briefs back and forth. On the one side people were saying, you know, well, the reason that the state can discriminate this way is promote the optimal childrearing environment. Is like a welcome is that the optimal childrearing environment . And on the other side, they were saying this would harm, this has real impact and harm, causes real harm to gays and lesbians, and the children they are raising and civil union is second class, second best an unconstitutional. Well, prove that. What is the harm . But he was an interesting character. He was not counted until after the trial, a columnist in the San Francisco chronicle wrote a column outing him. Its not that he did. Its just more that he is a very private person. I was really grateful to judge walker because its so unusual to have a judge tell you what hes thinking and feeling at every moment of this trial. And the whole thing is, im not sure theres ever been a reporter embedded in a major civil rights case like in the same way because of the kind of privilege issues i was raising before. You present ted olson a sort of a year and a way. Im wondering as you reflect back on it because we know how he got involved in the process from the front end. Was see that much of a change make her . He as a person, or do you think there couldve been other good lawyers who maybe werent as conservative that couldve helped the cause forward . Yeah, so i would say a couple of things to that. There are many great lawyers who have worked, you know, dedicated their lives to these issues. At that time there werent a lot of people, the Movement Lawyers did not believe as a said before that he was trying to it was time to bring adele case, dome of scores is the law that was struck down in edie windsors case which also went about his book upriver to the federal government from recognizing marriage and states are already legal. So theres a lot of hours at work on these issues ever wanted to take this case. In fact, ted, when he was looking, he knew that his involvement would be greeted with great people thought he took it to take it. He really needed someone from the other side of the aisle to be his partner. And david boies was not the first person he approach. He actually approached a guy named paul smith, and paul was an openly gay attorney, constitutional attorney, very wellrespected who have brought the lawrence v. Texas challenge. He argued in the Supreme Court that that struck down sodomy laws. And so he went to paul and said would you cocounsel with me on this . And paul said, i of course thought about bringing this case, in lawrence v. Texas, justices couldnt scalia said in dissent your open door to gay marriage. Polpaul said that i should filee case but he said he talked to Supreme Court clerks who said its very different for Justice Kennedy to say on the one hand the state cant criminalize private Sexual Conduct that is protected by the constitution. And its entirely different thing for him to say, in their view anywhere, that he said that state is not. Because hes a fabulous which means he thinks the states ought to be protected. So he said no, i wish you luck but i think this is too risky. To your point about, with ted olsons involvement serve Game Changing, i would argue that it is. I would argue that it was. And heres why. Its not that the our and republicans after ever whoever came out in support of marriage equality. I mean, dick cheney has, not a constitutional right but in his view the states ought to legalize samesex marriages. But once again changing about olson is, one, he was making a legal argument and he came from, he was a cardcarrying are less Society Member these are not the kind of arguments that most conservative lawyers make. And so he was making his conservative legal case for samesex marriage. And that changed i think lot of the conversation. One of the lawyers said come what of the lawyers on the team said her own mother hadnt totally accepted her relationship with her wife, until Ted Olson Tim wuliger she said is almost like, if hes doing this it cant be all that bad. Not only did it get, it garnered huge amounts of headlines, and there have been i think, you know, there was at the time and are still is a lot of resentment about the amount of attention this case got, and the fact that like it got attention like i want to do a book about it and hbo is doing a documentary about it. And it probably isnt fair because there are many, many other people who did amazing work, down just south of there, mary but not about the massachusetts challenge, the first of its kind. It didnt get the kind of sustained relentless kind of front page attention and thats totally not fair. But that attention i think was very helpful and sort of catalyzing a conversation that isnt taking place in the country but i also think that ted ken mehlman, i bet a lot of you know who he is a was the engineer of bushs reelect. He came out and joined this cause and then applied all of the political skill that is used to giving george bush a second term so this issue opened up an enormous new money. Wall street republican money for this cause. Ken did that because ted olson was involved. So i think that this case had a lot of impact. A lot of first holiday to say one of the really heartening to is the book was incredibly well reviewed by the New York Times, Washington Post and internet weekly. One of the gratifying things for me was a lot of people were opposed to this case. I think some of the criticism reflects the criticism that the case. But what has been really lovely of having people like elizabeth birch, head of the Human Rights Campaign step in. I did not know her. She said you must read this book. Tori osborne, head of international passwords for a never has the history of our move have been recalled in such compelling detail. It should be a history of the entire movement. What this says is not that yet im a journalist. Im not a history im not an historian. I try to tell a story for particular set of characters. A set of really interesting tears. I think there should be many, many more books written about the movement. No one movement can be captured in a single book. If you go back to the civil rights struggles of the previous century, you had Taylor Branch read about Martin Luther king and you had a simple justice, which has really focused on brown. Theres room for many, many more books. I look forward to reading those. I think to say that somehow this case wasnt deserving what theres too much attention to it really detracts from the enormous sacrifice that these four plaintiffs. They put their lives on hold for four and a half years. They would to these incredible ups and downs. I thought they deserved a button that is the book i wrote. Like i said, one chapter in a much larger narrative. There have been very few were books written. I know theres more coming. Something of an industry of publishing these days. I was reading the New York Times the fact you focus so much on this issue and it came here trying to figure out why you call this the watershed moment of the Civil Rights Movement. It is one story about an entire movement. Thank you are writing the book. Thank you. So im curious as to what your perspective is now relative to your investigated journalism, career and papers and multipart articles relative to the enterprise of coming up with a book. Investment in time, resources and what did she discover along the way that you beat there may anticipated or didnt and how is that different from your journalistic career . About this very different. A newspaper story, the ones that i write, which are always very fond might be 5000 words that youve got to keep people interested along the way. A book is different. This is a character driven narrative, so you have to find ways for their readers to invest in these characters, to be carried along with their story to be rooting for them. I am a journalist and this is the point of view both. I think you will find that chuck cooper is every bit as compelling of a kerry tear the lawyer who fought this case all the way to the Supreme Court has an amazing evolution along the way. Somebody asked earlier, what were they worried about . What was the low point . One of them once they were so fearful of chuck cooper tracks examining them, but it turns out their testimony was intent to impactful on the last person on earth they thought it would. So you can read about that in the book. We were talking a little bit earlier one of the things you do in a newspaper is you load up everything you know way up high. Researchers say heres all that good stuff in events slowly on pack the good stuff. In a book you want surprises. Its kind of unique because Everybody Knows the outcome. So whats been relegated as reading reviews that even though you know, its a page turner. Want to find out. The reason is you want to get to know these people in a way you did didnt throughout the five years he sought the headline. You want people to invest the people youre writing about. You want to save some for the yen and you want to highlight tension. If you read the stories, you would never think they had a strategic difference. Youd never know how chris didnt see any and and paul were handpicked. You wouldnt know a lot of these things. The idea is to carry people along throughout. I try to do that, but its like putting together a giant puzzle. I have boxes and boxes and boxes of notes. So trying to figure out, when do i start a calvinist versus another was a challenge. I really treated. I know youre writing this book, but listening to people ask you questions about ted olson in your very compelling testimony about his evolution at least this issue made me think about what you learned about the characters. I know you tell journalistic stories in this book is a narrative of facts and event that occurred three time period. But what about delving into the characters because it seems like someone like ted olson is a very interesting year. Did you get a chance to talk at all about his role in push before in the outreach taking away democracies . Im serious. Wow, it will probably not surprise you to see ted doesnt see it that way, that david does. The same person that was doing with the plaintiffs in your book with a progress from randomness thing is doing saintly things in this case and its interesting. Its like what you said about chuck cooper. I knew him before he ripped the Civil Rights Division was trying to subvert everything from ronald reagan. I cant imagine him having any epiphany like you were talking about. It sounds like hes evolving as well. You know, some people have a great manner great women theory of history, but theyre also not necessarily president ial people, but people like ted olson and chuck cooper who may evolve and be good on some issues. Have you learned anything in that respect talking to these folks . One of the things that run throughout the book is this idea of otherness. When you dont know someone, it is easy to say they dont need it for the same reasons we do. Theres a scene in the book were one of the one lawyers for judge scanlan, the ninth circuit conservative judges on the ninth. He initially was pretty skeptical of teds argument. This is kind of his younger we can. I think that the argument fennessy got immersed into the evidence, he was convinced this was in fact unconstitutional. But he said it became personal as well because he got to know the clients. He got to know these four people and he thought they are in love. For whatever and he didnt quite and how hurtful it was to say you cant have marriage. You cannot this other thing. There was that same sort of writedown of stereotypes between the democrats and republicans on the team. Early on, one of the other young attorneys on ted team, staunch republican walks into the war room and the lawyers and political guys are plotting about what theyre going to put out to the media that day and chad griffin says to the sky, which you stop dressing like a young republican . But over time, they all came to see each other not as people on the other side of the aisle, but people who are smart people who over five years, my gosh, theyve got friends and so i think that is a real lesson in this to me that the more people can kind of see people for who they are in nicer to stick a label on them is when people end up realizing people are allowed or complicated than whatever the stereotypical idea that you might have about them is. The mac would you consider writing your next book on a subject like that . Thats what i was getting at. Thats a good idea. I will take that under consideration. And assume that you really think about how one becomes gay or death. But theres also another thing. About. No state has ever defined the concept as far as i know them biologically its pretty tricky to do. Did they ever consider using not . I think the evidence that the trial was very much centered on is this a choice . The court above him that essentially the evidence is clear that this is not something that can be readily changed. And so that was what was legally relevant to this particular issue. Its hugely important. Its interesting that she was a member in the majority of american now have a pretty clear consensus that its not a choice. You mentioned about the case going to trial. I followed it a bit and there is some of that on television when it was actually taking place there soon after. Can you explain how that happened and what i found was to the vintage ultimately put the trial took place . Actually, the argument to the ninth circuit, which is kind of a drier appellate argument was televised. But the trial itself was not. Judge walker had a plan to broadcast it to youtube and chuck cooper when all the way to the Supreme Court. Before the trial got underway, it was that the Supreme Court on this issue after the trial be televised and the Supreme Court ultimately decided in coopers favorite that it could not be. It is interesting, it was really for the team bringing the case, this is a real blow because they really had this idea this could be like if goat trial in evolution. And how are they going to speak to the American Public of the American Public couldnt hear the evidence . So that was tough and ultimately there is a moment when it was going not an ted olson kind of liked the idea of kennedy getting an early preview of this case and so they are sort of talking about that and chad griffin, one of the main characters of the book says kind of like ps, are you done with being one of the five . So its a tough load that it wasnt televised. So anyways, in the last year or so since the decisions came down both in the case and thomas are the wins their case you know, theres been somewhere around a dozen or more of statelevel challenges to marriage untreated manage laws in most of these dates they have been overturned. Most of the time when these bands are challenged and overturned, the case but is actually being cited by this statelevel judges is windsor. Its not the Property Case, the windsor case you talk a little bit, which is overturning the federal toma law. So at a certain level, if you can. Property case in which they are in many ways, windsor has had enough or in packs. Did you feel someway that maybe you have heard or were focused on the wrong case . Now, because they focused on them both. The Property Case was built with a kind of tale of a group of kind of people who decided to kind of upset the status quo. And what they did was an insurrection. This was against the wisdom of the entire gpt establishment. I love td windsor and her lawyer and theres some amazing chap or is about that as well, in putting this wonderful scene where this is before thee upon administration had decided to switch up defending. They had initially been defending it. A guy named tony west calls Robbie Kaplan and says, you know, i need time. Can we have an extension in terms of filing a response to your belief . Ed was frail and she has heart problems. Brought the words she could die. And so, she said no way. Not giving you any more time. Tony west says to her, please, i am begging you. The attorney general needs more time. She couldnt believe they were considering doing anything other than defending it. So she told tony west, if that is really true, tell the attorney general that i will be praying for them. And so when the industry should it decide not to defend toma, the way he told her was he said you know what, sometimes pairs work. So theres lot of really compelling and interesting detail about the case you havent read in the newspaper. That said, to your legal point because prop it was decided on a tech ecology, a dozen of president ial value, so you cant point to it and cite it as this is the end. The windsor case and toma was decided on the merit. Kennedy wrote that decision. It took all of the arguments made and also talked about the importance of marriage and why marriage is important, which is very much an argument of the Property Case. And i think it is every day on now is under challenge either the state or federal level. So of course they set to one thermals whoever federal case judges deciding who also cited that. Property compassion pretty sure every case decided to make judgments, for instance, about whether sexuality is a choice or not the is done by telling people you cant get married. So i think both of those cases have been hugely beneficial and we have to see what the Supreme Court says to do in the end. I will stop heckling you and effective. Sorry. You touched briefly on the fact the entire al gpt movement was behind the fact they were bringing it to the Supreme Court. What are your thoughts on not . For instance, the former bishop, jim robinson was against the fact is going to the Supreme Court and he thought it was too early because even before the Civil Rights Movement they didnt pursue it at a Supreme Court level until the majority of the country was for it. Did she think he was too early in what were your thoughts with the people think it was too early . I did think anything. I thought it was a great story and i want to follow it and write a book about it. You know, what if ted olson had gotten his way . Ted olson didnt want to trial. The trust things down. He also did want a bunch of things to happen to slow the pace down when it was in its middle phase, the appellate phase. So what if it had gotten up as fast as he wanted it to get . With the outcome of been the same . The concern here is not that everybody didnt share the goal. The concern was that five justices of the United States Supreme Court would vote and save these bands are in fact constitutional and ensuring that into legal precedent. The worry most people remember what had happened. Ours was the case that preceded lawrence v. Texas in the bowers case was essentially the consensus was a challenge to the statute and the consensus was weird to the Supreme Court does not like to reverse itself. And so, how much longer could this way . And the other hand, lets talk about the what if from the other side. With the people bringing this thought was that this wasnt just a marriage. It was about when a state says that certain kinds of relationships are worthy, but others are not, that that has consequences that go far beyond the ability to not work to not wipe down the aisle and call yourself married. It is in chad griffins view, thatcherite sings like bullying and goals, things like the fact that gay teenagers have a fire higher suicide rate. The higher rate of homeless. Their point of view is what its another, you know, generation were five grade grow up and are still being taught as . You know, chris perry testified at the trial and said if proposition he did not exist when she was growing up in bakersfield, california, that her entire life would have been lives on a higher art. And so, from their point of view, there is no more time. And what if mitt romney had been a light given senator barack obama . Thats a distinct possibility and somewhat close to happening. You know, one of the older liberal justices were to die and be replaced by mitt romney. Would there be even a possibility of five votes at that point and how much longer which you have to wait and . That is the kind of neat thing about history. You can predict going into it and its hard to know how things wouldve turned out if they didnt plan the way to . I have a broader question than which case was the watershed. But what really would legalize gay marriage around the country and was it a case . Its kind of the question like a fifthround or was that the Civil Rights Movement to change things in this country . So im asking you. I know you focus on that because one thing, you know, you have to write three books at least to write about the gay rights movement. But i am almost to variant there. Both are important. But i want to put you on the spot a little bit and really want you to choose. You know, was it just, you know, some people deciding in a room deciding a case there was any movement . Book, it is a movement and it is so many important events. It is what happened at stonewall when for those of you who dont know what stonewall is, police used to go into buyers in raid gay fires. It was the stonewall riots when the police raided a bar in new york city. It was the eighth at this who mobilized in a Health Crisis in people at lee jones who was one of the main areas of my book and the creator. It was all of the work that people like evan wilson did on the ground, on the political ground. And i know you dont like that in there, but i was also litigation. I think at a certain point and this is what was in dispute. At a certain point you basically say look, if this is a filler right, you cant put up a rates to it so. You dont get to put these peoples asics of orissa to a vote. Hold a referendum on in New Hampshire and say i dont want black people to attend the same schools. Not possible. The debate over it was when was at the time to go federal and take it to the court . It wasnt that those that are not part of the movements plan. It is just a question no one. The terrible crimes that have been to gay just because they are gay. Yeah, over the course of this reporting. In the last five years, theres a moment where one of the lawyers, one of the young gay attorneys said they had witnessed rash of terrible teen suicides. I dont know if you remember all of these, but a boy had hung himself after being taunted at school. A College Student at rutgers whose roommate taped to having an intimate act threw himself off the tin bridge. You know, it was sort of this moment where this lawyer said i think we are making so much progress. I think we are doing so much good and then Something Like this happens. That kind of faith shocks the conscience. One more . Hi. I have a comment and a question. The comment is they wanted to add to what you just said because they think in terms of this movement that its also been brave lgbt coming out. I think when i was younger no one wouldve watched alan and now everybody watches alan. I think as more people have been out all over the spectrum, whether its a sports person and it just becomes part of our life and i think that is a huge issue that is shifted just in my lifetime. The question then ihop is reducing this movement is going . Would you think the bugs will be because i see having been in california and being out here, it bewilders me that so much move so fast in the northeast and not as much of no one. I wonder raciest going in the next few years. I want to go back to your point. That is the number one and we talk about a movement we talk about different historic moment in that movement in different people. The bottom line is the reason that we are where we are today is because people have come out and told their stories. Nine out of 10 people now know someone who is gay and that is the numberone predict her of whether you think that people should be that they should be allowed to marry. There is no question people have come out, who have been brave enough to face the discrimination that comes with that until theres tories ghosted man. We are going back to the Supreme Court pretty quickly. The Supreme Court can document once, but the two cases theres three cases on the fast track that the United States Supreme Court has backed so that they dont do this on a tech county. One is in utah and is in utah and one is in oklahoma. Those are the fastest moving. If at the Appeals Court judge upholds the lower courts ruling in the utahs and is unconstitutional, one of the most conservative areas of the country come i can imagine that the Supreme Court would deny that decision. I think theres a huge challenge ahead here for those of you who dont know, in more than half the states you can legally discriminate because theres no federal law. Theres no civil rights act. And so you can say i want to fire you because you are gay. Or i dont want you to stay in my hotel because you are gay and you can get away with that in the state they dont have specific protections, which are more than half. That is a bill in congress right now. There is a big fight over it. There is a fight over the opponents of the thing you have to have all these religious liberties, exception then you have bakers who wont bake cakes if it is for a gay wedding. He think about that and substitute the word i dont want to bake a cake because youre africanamerican, you couldnt do that. So i think that is going to be a big fight. As ive talked people, too, part of his is a challenges right now theres been so much move to so quickly that its easy to forget that theres 40 of the country that give or take remains to be convinced. If you like the book, please post a review on amazon. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] is there a Nonfiction Author or book you like to see featured on booktv . Send us an email at the booktv cspan. Org. Or tweet us at twitter. Com booktv. Welcome to des moines on booktv. Named after the de des moines river, its ottawas most populated city in a state known for being home to the first caucuses during the president ial primary cycle. With help of our media, Cable Partners we bring you to this capital city to speak with local authors about its history, politics and literary life. We have the great iowa writers section. A lot of the authors, i remember the first day we opened the store we assuming Office Government asking us if we would carry their book. The section started with about a couple of bookshelves filled with the books that takes up the entire wall, one wall of the store. We represent about 400 authors, and i think it all goes back to just the great literary tradition that item has. Karl weeks collected books he collected not only because they are important historical works but also because he believed that books themselves were works of art. And had a worth beyond the words on the page. We begin our special look at des moines with dave price, author of caucus chaos. The caucus cycle as we meet because of the circumstance, wasnt happening in the country, in the entire world. And, of course, the field of president ial candidates. We have unique aspect. The 2012 cycle was even more unique because almost every Single Person who ran was a front runner at some point. There were some people who didnt run who are still front runners. So it really was chaos. Thats what we called the book caucus chaos, because i felt chaos really summed up that feeling of the whole experience. Do you know what the tax rate would have to be to build on of the promises of social sturdy, medicare and medicaid if we just raise taxes to lead the programs as they are . Right now those proguns combined take a payroll tax out of your earnings of 15 points or . That would have to rise to 44 . We are not going to do that. Im on social security. Im glad. Hold on a moment. Hold on a moment. You know what . I get a chance to speak speak you came here to listen to the people. Know. I came here to speak. Hold on a second. Hold on a second and ill let you speak. Hold o on a second. Let me you [shouting] my social security. I will has never seen a caucus cycle like we saw in 2012, but this isnt meant to be a history book. This went to the rise and fall of every candidate so we understand what happened, but more importantly why it happened. Pick somebody like michele bachmann. Michele bachmann, to her credit, was a credible, serious contender for the presidency, lease for the republican nomination for a while which in this state is no little thing. Iowa is one of two states in the country can never send a woman to the Governors Mansion or to congress. Mississippi is the other one. Its top turf here for a moment to try to accomplish something our debt. And for a while she looked like she could be the first one to do it. With 16,892 iowans voting, the winner of the 2011 iowa straw poll is congresswoman michele bachmann. [cheers and applause] in the in what it probably did was kill that straw poll forever because should such an incredible collapse afterwards as people start to focus more on what she said and the way she ran a campaign. She really just imploded. Its one of the biggest collapses in history of the caucuses. And so last night the people of iowa spoke with a very clear voice, and so i decided to stand aside. And i believe that if were going to repeal obamacare, turn our country around and take back our country, we must do so united. And i believe that we must rally around the person that our country and our party and our people select to be that standard bearer. Had a lesson in his own way, got in the race late and a set of working it like Rick Santorum did all over the state. Rick perry decided to spent a lot of his time outside of the state of iowa doesnt have a lot of super rich billionaires who can form their own super pac and help you to an election. So rick perry, and we talked about this in the book, he chose to spent a lot of his time outside iowa and fundraise pics we treated this like a general election or even a primary campaign. That doesnt work just we didnt get in all the coffee shops and the Church Basements and would work over people one on one. He seemed very sees about 2016 but i dont think he will make this a mistake. I think youll see them, and youve overseeing him, he has come to i will already and hes getting more involved in the local dinners where you can get out and meet people. Sys Lasting Impact and has lasting lesson for the widget to get out here and work it. You look at newt gingrich, he was also a fun read for a while. People already knew him. But he ran a different kind of campaign. People who did not like him said his campaign was more about promoting his last book, or his last movie or his wifes latest book. They just traveled the state a lot differently. A didnt raise much money which people didnt like. He didnt spend a lot of time in which people didnt like. The whole premarriage thing didnt go over well. He had his moment and he was gone, its like everybody else. Ron paul was when you could argue had a longer shelf life and legacy than anybody here because he ran in a way, again in 2012. He was the only guy who greatly raised his profile and raced his support from a weight to 12. He more than doubled his support. These people got organized and he found a way to get people engaged in a way that they have never in their lives. These were people who didnt normally vote in some cases. He had really been people show up at his events. [cheers and applause] thank you very much. Thank you. And i think you might recognize my wife. Her picture is on that put book. Anybody see that cook book . [applause] well, thank you very much. What a delightful crowd. You know, sometimes i say, that was a good speech. No, that was a good crowd. That makes all the difference in the world. So he laid that groundwork for a while. Is libertarian followers took over the tea Party Infrastructure so they made their mark. And in people didnt like that. They kick those people but for at least a while to be. Rick santorum will be like the little engine that could. He came here. Nobody knew who the heck he was. He went to events were literally one or two people go to at the beginning. But the thing Rick Santorum accomplished in that amount of time was he got the screw ups out of the way. He got a script out of the way when all these cameras werent around them. So we got to sound bites, his answers ready and perfected on everything. Even when people didnt agree with him, he had good, philosophical debates back and forth. He knew what to say to people, and he now to get his point across. So as iowans gave up on all those othe of the candidates, santorum was the last man standing and had this unprecedented surge in the final week of the campaign. [applause] thank you. Thank you. Game on. [cheers and applause] his legacy is that he should if you work your butt off, iowans will give you the benefit of the doubt. If youre still in the game at the end and they kicked everybody out, they chose to you. They have met you numerous times and in the end they will support you. Almost everybody at some point have been built up to a point and then was it was the candidates fault or whether there was some choices may be that the campaign made, everybody always plummeted down. With the exception of mitt romney. He was sort of steady as you go the entire caucus cycle. He really had the same amount of support in 2012 as he did back in 2008, but that wasnt necessary a good thing. Im running for everybody in the nation. I care very deeply about all of our citizens. You take care. All right, thank you. The caucuses are a unique event, some would say almost a spectacle. You have about two and a quarter Million People registered voters in the state of iowa, but to put in perspective in 2012 whenever so much attention on this, only about 122000 people on the republican side actually took part in the caucus. So youre talking about a very narrow but super passionate group of people who show up on a caucus night. Its so different from your primary. Thats why its so unique. So youre talking about an event where everybody has to go somewhere, usually around 7 00 and had to give about an hour or two hours of your time. 1 30 a. M. Everybody is willing to see of this back and forth pakistan was going to go the if you remember there were three people involved at that night, ron paul, Rick Santorum and mitt romney. For a while it looked like anybody could win. As the night wore on we could tell ron paul wasnt so we had a twoman battle. 1 30 a. M. , the chairman of the i Republican Party at the time stood up and announced that mitt romney was the winner. He had been warned beforehand, it is to be really, really close, and what we see on caucus night may not be the way for those into because they have a certification process that in those years nobody cares about. We have chaos leading up to the whole cycle. We had super chaos on caucus night itself, but then you even more chaos in the weeks that followed when actually figured out who it was that one. So there are about 1700 precincts across the state about. Thats so its divided. So they had to go back to those folks, certify the results. This is where things got messy, because they never counted eight precincts, for whatever reason. Some out there was a huge break down. All of these volunteers, statewide the collected this information, they were supposed to turn over to the state. There is discrepancy about whether they did turn over our didnt. The party said they never got the results. Some people said i dont know why you didnt, i gave at the. So to this day, probably for ever will not be sold. So those eight precincts, those people who voted in the state precinct will never be counted. That twoweek process would want to certify things, in the end they show that Rick Santorum was up by 34. He didnt lose to mitt romney by eight votes. But matt strong for whatever reason was hesitant to call Rick Santorum the winter. So that just escalated all the attention. We get into this come in the book, finding he caucus chaosa shouting match about how this is all going down. We dont know what the final vote count is going to be but congratulations to rec center. Is a been a great victory. For him in the fourth effort. Is worked very hard to know. We also feel its been a great victory for us. Ro
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.