Here’s a round-up of reactions to and accounts of the first day of the historic federal trial against Proposition 8:

Karen Ocamb at LGBT POV wrote a great piece on the news that really didn’t get reported, including some of her own observations about the general mood of the proceedings. Her entire blog is actually a great resource.

Ted Olson’s fantastic opening comments are here.

Teddy Partridge and David Dayen are committing all kinds of journalism with their live-blogs and reporting at FireDogLake.

Choire Sicha at The Awl points us to a hilarious exchange between Judge Walker and Charles Cooper, the lead attorney for the opposition, from one of Teddy Partridge’s liveblogs, one that went like this:

“Judge Walker: If the President’ parents had been in Virginia when he was born, their marriage would have been unlawful. Doesn’t that show a tremendous change in the institution of marriage?”

“Cooper: Racial restrictions were never a feature of the institution of marriage. [Laughter in our courtroom.]

Wow. Choire goes so far as to say that, based on that exchange alone, Cooper “is going to get his ass handed to him.” We’re crossing our fingers! The actions of the opposition (going insane over the proceedings being recorded, witnesses dropping like flies, losing it over the discovery process, etc.) lead me to believe that we’re about to see just how unprepared our opponents really are, in attempting to defend their indefensible positions in grown-up court. It’s one thing to use lies and insinuations to scare people, but being under oath and being asked to prove your assertions, is a different animal.

Also, from what I can see, the testimonials from the plaintiffs, i.e. the actual couples involved, were quite powerful. It would be amazing to see them on, AHEM!, YouTube.

ACG at Submitted to a Candid World brings some interesting legal perspective to bear:

What makes the suit even more unique is that the state of California is a defendant in name only. California refused to defend Prop8′ validity, and the attorney general filed an amicus brief… for the plaintiffs. The suit’ only real defendants are intervenors, private citizens with a glancing bystander’ interest in the litigation, from an organization calling itself “Protect Marriage.” They’re fighting tooth and nail, to the point of tossing out television cameras forcefully(query why they think that little bit necessary), to preserve their right to be free, apparently, from squeamishness about other peoples’ relationships. The intervenors have no real stake in the outcome of the case. If they win, they get nothing but a sense of satisfaction. If they lose, they may, one day, shiver to see two men, hand-in-hand and wearing wedding bands.

Elsewhere in his piece, we find that he’s a bit queasy about the idea of taking this case all the way to the Supreme Court. I agree and, yet, I disagree. But that’s just me, being of two minds again.

If you’d like to read what the anti-gay “thinkers” have to say to this, Maggie Gallagher is holding court in the bathtub with K-Lo, occasionally spittling out a few words at The Corner at National Review Online.

And that’s all I’ve got for now. If you want to follow today’s proceedings in real time, here are the key people tweeting the trial:

Dan Levine, a reporter for legal news publication The Recorder can be followed @FedcourtJunkie. Also NCLR’ Ilona Turner @ilona, The Advocate @TheAdvocateMag, American Foundation for Equal Rights,@AmerEqualRights , and the ACLU of Northern California @ACLU_NorCal are all live tweeting. The Courage Campaign is also tweeting the trial at @CourageCampaign.

Seacrest out.

Today, the big federal marriage case in California, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, begins. In a San Francisco courtroom, ideological opposites David Boies (liberal) and Ted Olson (conservative) will team up to overturn the insidious Proposition 8. So far, they have made a persuasive case in the media, pointing out that:

a) Same-sex marriage does not harm heterosexual marriages.

b) The procreation argument does not hold up and allowing people to marry the same sex does not limit population. People marry for a variety of reasons, not necessarily to create an extended family. It is interesting that our opponents never bring into the procreation argument hetero older married couples or younger married couples who are unable to have or choose not to have children. Why do they not have the same problem with those marriages as they do with GLBT marriages.

c) The current prohibition is discriminatory, fueled by animus and exacts harm on LGBT individuals and their families.

d) The only argument that supporters of Proposition really have is that such discrimination is part of our tradition. Boies and Olson have articulated in eloquent fashion that just because a tradition has gone on for a long time does not make it right or just. They point to discrimination against Jews, interracial couples and women – all of which had gone on (and continues to) for centuries. As I have pointed out in the past, there is a difference between “traditional values” and “valueless traditions.”

To win Proposition 8, our opponents resorted to fear tactics and outright lies using despicable, negative attack ads. Without this fear-mongering tool to trick the masses, our foes are realizing they may not do well in court. They understand that they have no rational arguments and that they are intellectually bankrupt.

To make up for this coherency deficit, Proposition 8 supporters are claiming “bias” because the trial is opening in San Francisco. Interestingly, these whiners had no problem claiming home field advantage when the our marriages were put up for a vote in ultra-conservative states. One might call having places like Arkansas, Kentucky and Alabama changing their state constitutions to prohibit gay couples from marrying a gratuitous and cowardly act of bullying by a majority. So, I really don’t want to hear about the trial being held in San Francisco. Wing nuts must realize that they can’t always have all the advantages.

Social conservatives are also regurgitating the lie that because the trial will be filmed and made available on the Internet, it may cause potential harm to witnesses.

“To top it all off, Judge Walker has determined that this case will be the first in the Ninth Circuit to allow cameras in the courtroom, with the proceedings posted on YouTube” writes Edwin Meese III in today’s New York Times. “This will expose supporters of Proposition 8 who appear in the courtroom to the type of vandalism, harassment and bullying attacks already used by some of those who oppose the proposition.”

Of course, this is hogwash. Perhaps, Meese confused the “plight” of these witnesses with another Times story today discussing the opening of Scott Roeder’s trial – the religious zealot who murdered Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in his church. However, opponents of Proposition 8 have never displayed the violence committed by religious extremists, as much as the Prop 8 supporters try to make it appear to be true. (Even today there is a “debate” over whether killing Tiller was morally justified)

In reality, all that was ever hurt were the feelings of Prop 8 supporters who were rightfully confronted by their neighbors who asked: “Why did you vote to take away my rights? Why did you leave our children in limbo without married parents?”

The truth is, Proposition 8 supporters do not want this trial televised because deep down they are ashamed by their own bigotry. They are allergic to the TV lights, because it will expose their inner-darkness. I really don’t blame them for not wanting their views exposed to a national audience. Not only will it look like they formed their discriminatory ideas with their heads in their posterior, but they will look quite awful for posterity. They realize, on some level, that history will not judge them well. Their grandchildren will regard them with great embarrassment and shame.

I wish Boies and Olson much luck and Truth Wins Out thanks them for the strong case they have made so far. They have undeniably shown that LGBT equality is not a liberal or conservative issue – but an American one. This trial is about the values of our nation, who we are and will we live up to our creed of liberty and justice for all people.

I’m no conservative, but Ted Olson, one of the attorneys in the upcoming case against Proposition 8, makes that argument persuasively in a new piece in Newsweek:

Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one’s own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation’s commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.

This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Most of our foes who call themselves “conservatives” are anything but. Ever since the early 1970′s they’ve been trying to change the definition of “conservative” to include policies that cram their theocratic beliefs, by government force, into our relationships, into our children’s schools, and into women’s vaginas. They’ve sadly had some success with that,* but Ted Olson’s argument is sound. Unfortunately, we live in a time when the very concept of the intellectual conservative is for the most part dead,** and that’s not a good thing for our democracy.

Read it all, hehindeedy, and all of that.

(h/t New Hampshire Freedom to Marry)

*And now they want to change the definition of “teabagger.” Morons.

**cf.