wonderful book and thank you very much for being on "after words." >> guest: thank you. that was "after words" booktv signature program in which others of the latest nonfiction books are interviewed by journalists public policymakers legislators and others familiar with their materials. "after words" airs every week and am booktv at 10:00 p.m. on saturday, 12 and 9:00 p.m. on sunday in 12:00 a.m. on monday. you can also watch "after words" on line on line. notable tv.org and click on "after words" in the booktv series of topics was on the upper right side of the page. ..

i want to thank red river theater for this terrific venue he, the want to thank gibson for turning out. you may have noticed when you walk in that he has books in the lobby. joe will stick around the sun some afterwards. i'll be will take advantage of that. also want to thank joe for coming a little bit off the main circuit but publishers but you want to come to concord. of course she also can this the

old friends. that is one of the things that happens when you work as a reporter. you need a lot of people, and this difference for a long time. so, of want to say just in the introduction of think probably in you read a little bit about this and the moderate, but by way of introduction talk a little bit about my experience with her. that bomb that at some point during that time to decide the issue wanted to leave them on. and nice up from the st. petersburg time. of thing anyway strobe light show did. she had a great loyalty. such a wonderful time as a reporter.

we were accused reporters coming here, staying a few years and moving on office. and then about two with three years later after she had won all kinds of awards for investigative reporting she'd call me again and said she had an offer from the "washington post" and what to that think. should she take it or should she stay at the st. petersburg times? she felt terribly loyal to the times. they had treated air right to my gun to do many great stories. should she take this job with the post? a couple of years after that she and an offer from the new york times. she did not call me. [laughter]

she just took the job. so she has done wonderful work there. along the way, of course, i think you know she won the pulitzer prize for a series on vice president cheney, investigative reporting, investigative profile of the vice-president of the united states. maybe later on we will your talk about another subject. maybe later on we can ask her about dick cheney says he is back in the news recently for evaluating president obama's iraqi policy. so will we are here to talk about as a book called worst in the spring which is about the incredible movement toward marriage equality in the interest rates. in the same credible because and all the time i have been in the

news i've never seen as a rights issue moves so fast, never seen happen in chains separately. it was just a remarkable thing. and i admire the questions to get the conversation going. and then we're going to turn the questioning overview. so why don't i just part by getting joke to explain why someone with a great job as senator steve reporter for the new york times takes a bunch of time off to write a book. >> so i actually was in between two big investigations, and picked up the paper one day. our san francisco bureau, new york times and francisco bureau had a story. of course some of the lawyers that fought each other over the presidency in bush the door in 2000. joining the of the file this case. it was the first federal

constitutional challenge to same-sex marriage ban. is this better? sorry about that. it was the first challenge to a federal challenge to same-sex marriage ban. that thought to myself, however ted olson, this conservative that liberals love to hate because see, of course, had one, how he can to take this cause has to be a good story. i went and said, look, i know this is not my normal fare, but i am interested, would like to do it, in between projects, and i'm the only person that he would probably talk to. i had done to know him. additional a background for the washington post. i got to know him more.

he figured in his interesting way. he was one of the few lawyers and was willing to stand up and tell the lawyers that you can go to the supreme court until the supreme court that they have no right to review your detainee policies and that these people can have lawyers. that was interesting to me because ted olson was the only person who actually lost someone. his wife was on board one of those flights. and so i called ted. want to do this story. i did the story. and i could not let it go. i -- it was this -- it was a really audacious thing that they were doing, controversial thing. there were a lot of people who believe that that time that the country was not ready and more importantly that the supreme court was not ready.

you know, i've described in the book this lunch scene where they plan this lawsuit in secret and finally kind of lead and some of the lawyers who have been working on this issue, for many, many years. they kind of let the men on the plan. it was like -- it was a of rob reiner's house, part of this group that fought the lawsuit. you as instrumental in getting the funding to bring a lawsuit. the lawyers were, you know, you don't know how to account to five. 1.1 of the lawyers through down the stuff on the dining room table and said, if you do this, if you go for with this we are going to five this dossier on ted olson and every conservative causes as ever championed is going to be made public. it will take it to the media. the guy who was the architect of all of this, a young political

consultant by the name of chad griffin now the head of the human rights campaign, the largest air rights group in the world but that time was the sort of cooperative out of hollywood, he and his business barbara rubin together were the ones that came up with this idea said to it. that's great. if someone like this is willing to take this cause on, you know, that has the potential to change the conversation. once i started following the someone to know. i got some of the four plaintiffs. no one to know how little turns out. >> one of the amazing things about the book is so close a how did you get that access? >> i went to them he and said he

writing a book is scary. you are sort of -- it is a big endeavor. i set the bar high thinking that they would probably say no. sorry about that. abcaeight. so anyhow he -- is this better? avenue. we can do that. so that is much better. yes. so so i forgot where we war. how did i get access? when to them and said that would really like to do this. i would like to follow the case all the way through. you know, you would have -- i will have to be in the room. i would have to be there when the lawyers are debating strategy, be the plan to -- be

with the plaintiff, be in the political war room because this case was litigation, but it was also this accompanying public education campaign in the political campaign. now want to be in the war room while my colleagues of being pitch of stories. i thought that they would say no . if any of your lawyers out there, you know the privilege can be waived. if someone knew that i was in the midst of all this. so we did not release announced the book. we did not to a big fanfare announcement. i agree, of course -- the only condition was that i was was going to publish the for the case is resolved itself. that was it. there was no preview or veto.

you start off with a wad of these people agree to that? the answer is actually, you know, if you think back now people say, though, there were there to have you give some critique of the book, the greater glory of the group's, but if you go back at the time, two states that all-out merger quality, the majority of the country was opposed. and so these guys could have been the people that invited me commander reporter, and iphone group because there is also an hbo documentary that came out today in to document how the future who do -- hubris and ignorance they set back the movement. no one at any at the end of this would turn out, but the lesson of harvey milk, and san francisco.

his lesson was come out and tell your story. mattered. it can change lives. and they believed, they agree to of this because they believe that if people could get to know the four plaintiffs, see what they went through over the course of five years that win or lose it would educate people the real winner loser would move people and make them see this issue and a different light. >> challenge the plaintiffs in the case. large normally you think there're a couple of people of want to get married. this idea was the opposite. eventually you had jazzed griffin watching election returns. park obama makes history. you know, the first african-american president elected. he's a democrat peer review was to celebrate, but he is watching

on his computer screen as the proper id numbers drolen. proposition eight was the voter initiative to essentially strip gay and lesbians of the right to marry in california. it briefly in toward the right after the california supreme court said it was a matter of state constitution to read a few days later than their friends are sitting at the lounge in hollywood : a very kind of ritzy place. there are talking about what we're going to do. we can't win in california. we can't win here. where can we possibly win? this stop by and heard what they're talking about to begin

a, you really ought to talk to a friend of mine to a constitutional lawyer, and i think you would be under suddenness. they're in the naval observatory , drill down to the supreme court and it was used this terrible night for them. but the immediate release of a percent came changing potential to have someone champion the cause of the potential to turn and from what had been at best the partisan study into a debate about civil rights. and so they then set out to find the practice a specific set of criteria.

and forget the other two. six altogether because they figured the opposition turned out something in someone's background. just wanted to have more. he did not when the children. eat up about wars are complicating kind of factor which is, of course car really ironic. if any of you have followed this, when justice kennedy in these cases finally got to support the was the kits that he was focused on. the 45 pros and children of gay couples. aren't a part of the story? why shouldn't they have the scent and the families? it went on this casting call. a very allow bruised terry todd people there were doing a public its to for public education campaign.

and then found chris and sandy, chris perry and her now live : chris worked for a state agency that rob had helped to fund. and so they asked them to do it. four teenage boys. they said yes. and paul and jesse they found through their realtor. of what the people he could not talk to, how did you represent them fairly? >> yes. my biggest challenge was, i went to the lawyer on the other side, chuck cooper, and as some right at the beginning, as to if i

could coming out. he said never. but he did promise me that he would sit down with me after the case had resolved itself in the will explain everything that he was doing. he never did in the press. and so i did. a spend hours and hours interviewing him about what he was thinking in doing and it's very gratifying to me because, look, these are tough issues. i did not want to write a book that barely represented the arguments of the of aside, and i did not want to do that because of a journalist also because people are changing their minds on this issue says. the clear majority of the country is in favor.

so one of the lessons about this and it comes up again and again, he demonize your desired. that is defective. what he was thinking and reasoning. particularly grateful any of the coverage no question of the book is told from the point of view. the entry dimeters pact. >> such an up and down kind of

thing. no one thought it would take that long. one of the tough moments was milers there with them when we drove to court to for stay everything that is sacred in america went on trial during these kind of horrible weeks, the history of marriage, this tree of discrimination in this country, the sons of sexual of the kamal the size of had been put to trial. it was a really very unusual thing. most of these cases are argued on their government basis. but on the first everybody was so nervous. that morning camino, chris was, you know, sort of whipping the kitchen counter furiously.

i looked at her and she said, the second control. everything else. and you know, they -- for ordinary people. one day you are just like to mom's raising four kids he manages a movie theater and paul is a fitness instructor. the next to you or plaintiffs in a major civil rights case stepping outside the van. as a crush of cameras and crowns in scary. and you wait through all of this units of the freight eddy to the elevator. if the commercial it comes in and says, you know, if you get any kind of credit does not have to be test but anything less now .

they were harassed. i can't remember whether spencer elliott was saying. they kept calling and calling in basically saying things like your moms are going to burn in hell. people would find them on facebook and say you don't have to be all right with this. did not have a loving and great family. both of those were star pupils, really will adjusted kids to be so that was tough. see whether the supreme court would grant the case and whether

that means they will agree to review the case. the one of the federal, district court level. the water the case to go to the supreme court even though that is sort of counter intuitive. that was the low point of this come into ticket to the highest court and the land. where's the polanco list and so we could describe many of these cases could be gathered and everyone was furiously refreshing. okay. it's not today. you know, not nice. and they kept having to get their -- it could be today. the supreme court denied an did not take the case that would be getting married right away they

would have to save up. and it was just a farm there were lot of ups and downs. hint to but there are feeling and thinking. i will tell you one reason why it's rational burton so they can adopt. i'm just saying the children, there were not adopted were in vitro. i tried very hard in the book. no one would people to come away

with this really understanding the legal argument for really kind of getting to five fewer end to legal thrillers, one each to come to the book and read it for that reason. you know, the best lawyers of a generation put together a major civil rights case. the want to try to find a way back to the personal. i talk, some of the lawyers in the case and the kind of special burden that they carried with them. and there is this wonderful moment where they had to have their lawyers have gone all day. the proper witness. their talk. and really what he was there is talk about was how discrimination affects people. the lawyers go up and ready. everybody kind of want to bore after court. i went with them.

they were sitting there. one of a dozen lawyers said it was like listening -- it was like being on the therapist's couch. and have my lawyers have gone. listening to him talk about how it feels to the diminished sense of possibility in no, i could not even called my wife. i could not call my wife wife. and then the expert says, because it fell like a were reserved for the people. she said to yakima it to it. in the judge talked about how we have to own that language. so the sort of get to hear all this evidence but also kind of

have this to my elbow, almost the cinematic way of telling a story. >> one of the things you do in the book size is given a lot of background of permission. could you talk a little bit about the contrast? >> so i discredit classical pianist. faced with some particularly difficult concerns over and over and over again. and david is like a jazz player, is in search of the unexpected riff. and so they approached getting ready very differently in rita think what makes david such an effective trial where is he does not have a script to be is my

goal in with the script. at one. is questioning a witness. the witness put on the other side. and the guy said something about the fun to this question in the export report, and the guy said something like, well, it's my report. it's my report. it was something about the way the guys said it. he threw away his script. well, how many of the experts that you list in your report, how many of them did you find an arab. and he said, well, dancing around a circle them. he has in this piece of paper and pencil. it was excruciating.

was the kind of lawyer he is. ted is -- i mean, he is an amazing advocate in the sense that the is always thinking. it is like three-dimensional chess. during the trial he was cost of the kind of looking at, well, do we have everything in the record that we need on appeal? for those of you that don't know, you don't get to put on new evidence or call and the new with misses once the case is decided that the trial level. then the judges above review the record. he was always thinking in terms of most how this will fall on the year of justice kennedy alaskans what -- considered this window. everyone was focused on kennedy.

in fact, and i describe this early on the lawyers came up with a list of terms that justice kennedy had offered to other major gay-rights decisions and he c'mon phrases of human dignity, not just for the legal argument, but they gave them to ted griffin political war room demand every press release a statement that they may contain that language as well. >> those lawyers know the supreme court justices, is canadian only when there were thinking about? >> well, look, at different times he was sure there were going to get all mine. no one thought that. that was just bravado. i think it everyone considered

kennedy this way. and this is yet to be decided because the way the court a ultimately decided this was to allow marriages to resume in california, a huge ridge rica will but not the kind of 50 state decision that they held for you read and at one. -- at any rate. >> okay. so at this point whether we turn it over to the audience.

>> can you tell us about the judge? >> judge walker. judge walker is remarkable. he talked to me for the bulk of which was very appreciative of. he had a very interesting story. he himself is day and was not cosseted but never had made any kind of public announcement about a. he talks about how he'd rule thinking what this diminished sense of the mind can never be a game and and reach the pinnacle of my career. that is what he thought. and so he tried to date women, was particularly moved by a young boy's testimony, the most touching of all of the trial testified about how his parents upon learning that he was gay

forced into it and what is called reparative therapy, which is where they -- widely condemned by every major sub product group. that was so hard for him. he ended up being suicidal. he fought to for a family ran away from home. he finally rebuilt his wife. as you starting judge walker is transported back in time. you tell me this story about how he so did not want to be gay that he underwent a former parish therapy himself. acted out and it never actually had sex with the man he was not

gay and pronounced him toward. judge walker really wanted to believe that was true. missa his parents, kind of a close family. anti some how had had a few drinks. the conversation got around to their sex life. they were remarkably candid than at their troubles judge walker said, that would of been the time for me this i felt much rules necessary to. what he said to me was, i did say that because i didn't want to be one of those people. those people were deviants. that is how homosexuality was characterized. it's hard to imagine today. he gets this case. he is literally in leaping through suing the governor of

california. not because my personal life is going to become an issue but it want to retire and is pretty sure that the war and all the trial. looking and all these case worked, the braves back and forth. on the one some people were saying the reason that the state can discriminate is that a proposed the offer will child-rearing in vernon is that the optima child rearing in vernon? and on the other side, barber for real impact on, the cost of real harm to gays and lesbians and civilians, second-class cars

second-best c'mon constitutional . what is the harm? and so he was not about it until after. this is more the he's a very private person. i was really grateful. it's really so unusual to have a judge the whole thing, not sure there's ever been reported but in the majors will rights case schists. the privilege of chief of privilege issues.

>> you present tittles in as the hero in a way. i am wondering as you reflect back. we know how we get involved. was he that much of a changemaker? he as a person or do you think there could have been other could lawyers and maybe warrant conservative that could a vote because will work? >> i would say a couple of things. there are many great lawyers who have worked, at that time there were not a lot of people, and was time to bring either, the cases that, of course, the law was struck down. permitting the federal government from recognizing marriages in states where it is already illegal. but so there were not a lot of lawyers to a work on these

issues wanted to take the case. in fact, he knew his involvement would be greeted with great efficiency and it was. he needed someone to be a partner. you and she approached again in paul's death. paul is an openly gay attorney the texas challenge to me are in the supreme court. so you went and said, would you co-counsel? and he said, thought about bringing his case. in dissent opening the door began marriage. file that case, but talked to

supreme court clutches and it's very different for justice kennedy to sell one and the state can't criminalize private sexual conduct. that is protected by the constitution. and an entirely different thing from the survey, that the state's best these people of. he thinks that the rents on to be protected. and so he said no, i wish a lot, but i think it's too risky. see your point about, with ted olsons involvement being gain changing, would argue that it is would argue that it was. here's why. dick cheney had come out in his

view. we will was game changing, once it was making a legal argument. a card carrying federalist society member. these are not the kind of arguments that most conservative lawyers make. and he was making his conservative legal case for some six marriage. that changed, i think, one of the conversation. one of lawyers said her mother had not totally except that our relationship with a wife and tell ted olson can want. it was almost like, if he's doing this it can be on a punt. so if turner's huge amounts of red wines. there have been to from there

was of the time and still is a lot of resentment about the amount of attention this case and the fact that a cut attention, during a parking the jury about it. and it probably is unfair. there are many, many of the people did it amazing were. the lady brought of massachusetts challenged in the first of its kind. and it did not get the kind of sustained run and was front-page attention. that's where we're not fair, but that attention was very helpful the conversation of a been taking place. but i also think that ted, but a

ravine and millions. the engineer of bush is reelected cannot and george collins and and up would all of the political skill he used getting george bush's second term this issue, an enormous amount of money for this cause. he did that because ted olson was a ball. nothing but this case had lot of sort of impact. i will get back to you. >> you received a lot of flak. the fact in your a straight woman writing about key issues.

how do you bridge that? of the approach being -- writing about a gay issue? >> i think a lot of the -- first of all, one of the really hurting things of this the book was incredibly well reviewed by the new york times, "washington post," entertainment weekly, but one of the satisfying things for me, it is true. i started to say, a lot of people were opposed to this case some of the criticism about the book reflects the criticism of the case one has been wobbly as having people like the head of the human rights campaign step in and write -- i did not know her. you must read this book tory osborn, the head of the national

gay and lesbian task force : never has a history of the movement been told in such compelling detail. there are some people would think it should be a history of the entire movement. what this is not that. i'm a journalist, not a story. what i try to do is sort of tell a story through a particular set of characters. it's really interesting. there should be many, many more books written about this no one movement can be captured and a single book. if you go back to the civil rights struggles of the previous century you have taylor branch, martin luther king, a simple justice very focused on brown. there's room for many more books

. i'd think to service some how this case was not deserving or others to much attention, it really detract from the enormous sacrifice but these four plaintiffs put their lives on hold. and of that they deserve the book. as the book are wrote. walker said, it's one chapter in a much larger narrative. i think that there have been very good books written and will be more. says. >> i was reading in the new york times the fact you focus so much on this issue. trying to figure out.

the civil rights movement. one story about the entire movement. >> thank you. >> i'm curious as to what your perspective is now. in this gated career. multiple articles. >> the book is very different.

5,000 words, the book is different. this is a character driven narrative you have to find ways for the readers to invest in these characters this is a point of view book, but i need fists -- i think you will find that chart cooper is every bit of compelling in character with an incredible story. chuck cooper, but as an amazing of pollution along the way. you know, the low point. >> so fearful of being cross-examined and turns out their testimony was intensely intensely and back on less

person honored that the audit would be. so you can read about that in the book. you were talking about this earlier. one of the things you do, you load up everything in no way up high. here is all the good stuff. in a new kind of slowly and pack . you want surprises. it's kind of neat. everyone knows the of come. so what has been great it's a page turner. and in the reason he wants is because you get to know these people in the way you did not throughout the five years of red lines. you really want people to invest you want to save some surprises for the end. you want time attention. you never think that data, a single strategic difference.

you would never know the chris and sandy and jeff and paul were and pick. you would not all of these things. they have tried to do that. it's like putting the average giant puzzle literally from a half years. trying to figure out when i sort of tell this one thing. there was a challenge, but fun. >> i know this is not what you're writing this book for, but busting the people asking questions about ted olson. you are very compelling testimony about the evolution to on this issue made me think about what you learned about characters. i know that you tell

journalistic stories in this book, narrative of facts and events that occur. of what about delving into the characters. seems someone like ted olson is a very interesting character. did you get a chance to talk with them and all about his role in bushes the door and is outrageous taking away of our democracy? >> no, i'm serious. >> he doesn't see it that way. >> would you know, the same person that was doing with the plaintiffs in your book with think of this horrendous things is doing saintly things in this case. it is interesting. it's like what you said about jeff cooper. i know shortly after a clerk for rehnquist i cannot imagine

having any kind of -- it sounds like he is capable of evolving as well. and some people and agree man or woman theory, but there are also the not necessarily presidential people and may involve an be good on some issues. everyone is complicated. he learned anything in that respect? >> in one of the themes that runs throughout the book is this idea of otherness. when you don't know someone who is gay. there's a scene in the book or want though want to five yen lawyers is very concerned.

he initially was skeptical. as he said, as he got immersed in the evidence he was convinced that this was unconstitutional. but he said it became personal because he got some of the clients. he gets in of these people. for whatever reason he did not quite understand how harmful was to say you can't have marriage. you can have this other thing. there was that same sort of breakdown of stereotypes between the democrats and republicans. early on one of the other young attorneys, a staunch republican will walks into the warm. the lawyers and the political does of plotting will what it will put up to the media that they. jack griffin says to the sky,

agee's, would you stop dressing like. republican? but over time they all came to see each other not as people on the other side of the aisle of people who were smart to, and another five years we could become friends. i think the is a real lesson in this to me. you know, the more the people can kind of see people for who they are and not stick a label on them, i think people end up realizing that people are more complicated than whatever stereotypical idea. >> would you consider writing your next book on a subject like that? >> that's a good idea.

>> the king about how one becomes one are does not. there is also another side. i am curious if it was ever considered. we read a lot about marriage. for one and one woman. the concept as far as i know and biologically of turkey do. did they ever consider using that? >> i think the evidence of the jar was very much centered on, you know, is this choice? because if it's not a choice and constitutionally it becomes much more problematic. the evidence, you know, pretty clear. judge walker said, the evidence is clear that this is not something that can be readily

changed. and so that was legally relevant to this particular issue. and you know, it's important. it's interesting. that to is a number that is flipped the majority of americans, pretty clear consensus that it is not a choice. >> you mentioned about the case going to trial. there was some of them on television. can you explain how that happened and butter and once to the advantage ultimately? >> actually, the argument in the ninth circuit, which is kind of a drier appellate arguments, the

trial itself was not. judge walker had a plan to broadcast. and chart could win all the way to the supreme court before the jury really even got under way on this issue of could the trial be televised. the supreme court altman decided that it could not be. it was interesting. the team bringing the case, this was a real blow. they had the idea that this would be like a skilled trial. but and how they're going to speak to the american public if the american public did not view the evidence. so that was tough. and ultimately there was this moment when it was going of.

ted olson kind of liked the idea of kennedy getting in her early preview of the case. they're talking about. one of the main characters of the books as, ps, huge gown with being one of the five? but it was a tough but for them. it was not televised. >> anyway, the last year or so since the decisions came down, you know, there has been a wave, somewhere around a dozen or more of state little challenges to marisol's. most of the state's the marriage

ban has been overturned. and most of the time when these bands are challenged an overturned the case that is actually being cited by the state level judges windsor. it is not the proper rate case. the windsor case which you talk about a little bit, overturning the federal law. so at a certain level if you compare both, in many ways windsor and a lot more index. did you feel in some way that may be covered -- for focused on the wrong case? >> no. i focused on the blow. the prop eight case is the tale of a group of people and decided to upset the status quo.

what they did was really an insurrection this was against the wisdom of the establishment. they have amazing chapters what that case clinton's wonderful scene where just before the obama administration had decided to flip. and he says the attorney general calls kaplan and says coming in no, any time. can we have an extension terms of foreigners wants she has heart problems. you know, she could die. and so she said no way. and not giving you any more time . please.

i'm begging you. the attorney general needs more time. we're trying to decide what to do. she could not believe that they were considering doing anything of the defendant. .. there is lots of i thank compelling and interesting detail about the case that you haven't read in the newspaper. that said, to your legal point yes, because was decided on a technicality essentially it doesn't have precedential value so you can't point to it and cited as