LIANE HANSEN, host:
This is WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News. I'm Liane Hansen.
History unfolded in a San Francisco courtroom this past week - the first federal trial to challenge whether state laws banning same-sex marriage violate the U.S. Constitution. Scott Shafer of member station KQED is covering the trial and he has this report.
SCOTT SHAFER: Music from civil rights struggles gone by echoed off a federal court building in San Francisco this week, marking the start of a landmark trial challenging California's Proposition 8. Voters approved that measure in 2008, slamming the door on gay and lesbian weddings.
Paul Katami and his partner are one of two couples suing to have Prop 8 struck down.
Mr. PAUL KATAMI: People desire to fall in love and find a best friend and someone who supports you and is your biggest fan. And when you find that person, the natural next step is to want to marry that person.
SHAFER: The legal team representing Katami and the other three plaintiffs has infused this trial with star power and political buzz. David Boies and Theodore Olson were on opposite sides of the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court case, with Olson winning the presidency for George W. Bush. Now the pair is teaming up against Prop 8, hoping to strike a huge victory for gay and lesbian rights. Olson says same-sex marriage is a cause conservatives like him should champion, not fight.
Mr. THEODORE OLSON (Attorney): Being denied the right to marry the person of one's choice is being relegated to a second-class citizenship in America.
SHAFER: In court this week, Olson and Boies called expert witnesses, including one from Harvard who recounted the history of marriage - how slaves were once prohibited from marrying and how interracial weddings were illegal in many states 40 years ago. Her point: that the definition of marriage is elastic and changing, that same-sex unions are a logical next step.
Attorneys defending Prop 8 put these witnesses under withering cross-examinations, hoping to discredit their expertise and testimony. On behalf of the defendants, Andy Pugno said the main issue is not historical discrimination.
Mr. ANDY PUGNO (Attorney): The court issue really is going to be who gets to decide ultimately what marriage will mean in the United States. Will it be the courts or will it be the people directly and through their elected representatives?
SHAFER: All week long, attorneys supporting gay marriage have worked to paint their clients as the latest victims of anti-gay bias, connecting the measure in history to Moral Majority Leader Jerry Falwell and Anita Bryant, who led the fight against gay rights in Florida 30 years ago. Point being that gay men and lesbians deserve the same kind of heightened legal protection under the law that racial minorities have.
But lawyers backing the measure claim gays and lesbians are not powerless victims, but rather, power brokers with allies like labor unions, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, even many religious leaders. But the week's biggest controversy occurred outside the courtroom.
Opponents of gay marriage asked the Supreme Court to step in and block a plan to upload video of the trial to the Internet, arguing the publicity could expose their witnesses to harassment and have a chilling effect on their testimony. On Wednesday, the high court agreed to the delight of defense attorney Andy Pugno.
Mr. PUGNO: People are better able to testify and the lawyers behave themselves a little bit better when the cameras are not running.
SHAFER: The high court's five-to-four decision had nothing to do with the merits of this case, but the conservative majority agreed with the arguments made by gay marriage opponents that broadcasting the trial could harm witnesses.
Since this case is likely to end up before the Supreme Court sooner or later, this ruling could be indicative of how they might ultimately rule on the issue of gay marriage, says David Levine of UC Hastings's College of the Law in San Francisco.
Professor DAVID LEVINE (Law, UC Hastings): If you wanted to read the tealeaves a little bit in terms of what that five justice majority might do on the merits in this case, one might think they're not that happy with what's going on here.
SHAFER: The trial continues next week with testimony from Yes on 8 campaign insiders, questioning that's sure to have sparks flying.
For NPR News, I'm Scott Shafer in San Francisco.