Get Used to It: Ep. 157, "From Milk to Prop 8: Bruce Cohen"

(clicket-clack sound) (upbeat music) - Hi, welcome to Get Used To It. I'm Sheila Kuehl, and as I do on all these shows, I'm going to be your host or hostess or guide, or I don't know something, Dante esque taking you through all the circles of wherever we go. About our show, as you know, we like to look sometimes at a unique individual in our community. Who's made some amazing and significant contributions. We call it Voices Of Our Lives. And today we are very, very happy actually to welcome back Bruce Cohen, Academy Award winning producer of American Beauty. One of the producers of Milk, an extraordinary and important film from last year. And as you'll see, sticking with us, I hope deeply involved in the new federal constitutional case to overturn Prop 8 in California and establish the rights of gay and lesbian people in America in terms of equal protection in the federal constitution. And also got married in California, when there was this window of opportunity. So looks like a great hour of talk. Hope you'll stick with us. Welcome Bruce. - Thank you, very happy to be back. - I'm really glad you're here. Well, I think the last time we talked to you was very shortly after American Beauty had won its fabulous Oscars and saw you up on the stage, looking incredibly happy and black tie and everything. - Thank you. I think it was about eight years ago, but surprisingly, we both look a lot younger now, you and I. isn't that nice. - Well, we've put all these filters on the lens and everything, but of course, you know about that. - The magic of technology, yes. - So let's catch up since then, because of course, I think the next time people heard about you in the same context really was about Milk. So maybe you could let us know kind of from the beginning, the insider view, how did this movie even get started to be talked about? - Well, people had been trying to make a movie about Harvey Milk for a long time. There had been another project in development for almost 18 years that came very close to getting made with Oliver Stone, directing and Robin Williams starring literally 19, 20 years ago now. Then for whatever reason, it didn't happen then. And various people had tried various projects in the year since, but one had never gotten made. And the story of our project really starts with Dustin Lance Black. Who's an incredible screenwriter, a good friend. And now thrillingly the academy award winning screenwriter, Dustin Lance Black. It's always nice when you can say that. Before it's was only name. Harvey Milk had been one of his idols since he was a teenager struggling with coming out. He was from a Mormon background, where in his family and his community was not a welcome good thing. And he had a lot of struggles with it and he had come across some of Harvey Milk's speeches at the time, and they had meant a great deal to him. And he, at a certain point just on his own, got frustrated that no one had ever made the Harvey Milk movie and decided that he was gonna write the script. And he got in touch with Cleve Jones. I think they had met at an event for something else initially. And that's when they first started talking. That was one of the many incredible joys of getting to do Milk for me, was getting to know and a deep and from now on friendship with Cleve, who's just an amazing one of our heroes. But so Lance became friendly with Cleve, went up to San Francisco. Cleve started introducing him around to a lot of the people that knew Harvey and that were still alive. And that had reminisce of what those times had been like. And Lance just started interviewing folks. He was writing on Big Love, the wonderful HBO show at the time. And would fly up on the weekends on his own dime to San Francisco and talk to people. And when he finally finished the script, he handed it to Cleve, and Cleve who's likes to be in the know and in the loop on all things, one of the one his wonderful qualities. So he had pretty much tracked down almost every draft of Milk on any of the different projects through the years 'cause he always wanted to read them. - Well, and of course he was deeply involved from the very beginning as everybody saw in the movie. - Exactly. - He was kind of a young boy. - Yes, and so he was a character in most of those scripts. God forbid showing Cleve a script where he wasn't a character in Harvey Milk story. - He wouldn't want. - I don't think that happened. But he felt deeply upon reading Lances' that it was by far the best one that he had read and that it was the first one that really had captured who Harvey was as a person and what it was really like to go through those times. And so he said to Lance, you know, I love this. Can I show it to a friend of mine? I want him to direct it. And Lance rolled his eyes thinking, oh my God, now I have to have Cleve's friend direct this movie, what have I done? - Well, and you won too. I mean, even as a producer, you would say, well, I've got this friend, whether it's a writer or a director or whatever. - You never want to hear, I have this friend. - Especially someone who's deeply engaged in the work. - Exactly but all rules have an exception. And Lance said, who's your friend? And Cleve said, Gus Van Sant is my friend. - And Lance said, oh well, okay. - And Lance said, please. And actually Gus was going to direct one of the other versions shortly after Oliver, years and years and years ago, that's where he had met Cleve. And they had remained friends all of these years. - So is that how Gus himself had gotten interested in maybe doing a film about Harvey Milk? - Yes. Gus had been interested 18 years ago. And so Cleve said to Gus, I finally have read Harvey Milk script that I love, and I want you to read it. And Gus read it, loved it. And immediately said, I want this to be my next movie and met with Lance. And at that point Lance didn't have a producer. And fortunately and brilliantly Lance has been good friends with my partner, Dan Jinks and for years, and I'd known him. And so he called us up and said, you know, I've got this Harvey Milk story and Gus wants to direct it. Would you guys read the script? And we read the script and felt the same way. I mean, for me been having film producing an LGBT activism, being the two great passions of my life, if I hadn't believed in God and fate and truth and love and everything beforehand, I certainly would've when I realized that there was actually gonna be a chance that I would be one of the people that would get to bring... - Well, but on the other hand, I think people would ask, why didn't you say this? You and Dan had already proven yourselves, essentially in doing such a good job. You don't win Best Picture, if you hadn't already shown that you could do this. Now speaking of could do this. I think there's probably a lot of people in my audience that don't actually know what producers do. I think they can imagine what directors do and writers do and actors do and that kind of stuff. But so they've come to you and say, will you produce this film? And you both agree, yes this is a good thing for us to do. What does that mean exactly? - Well, one good way. There's a lot of different ways to explain what a producer does, but a definition I heard long ago that I really like a lot is imagine that the producer is really this CEO of the company that is formed to make the film. And as the CEO of the company, you are in charge of every aspect of the production. Why that's also a good analogy is because often with the CEO of the company, it's actually not their money. They didn't put up the money to run the company. They're in fact, getting paid to manage the money that's in the company and with a studio film, it's the same way. You're not spending your own money, but in the case of Milk, which was independently financed, we did put the money together. That was our actually our first job, we sat down with Gus and Lance, the day we read the script and said, get in here right away. And we all agreed that this, the only reason to make this movie, the only way the movie would work, the only reason why anyone would wanna see this movie is the central performance of Harvey Milk. And that you would need an actor who was a big movie star that would get people in the theater to wanna see the story. But then you would need someone who was such a brilliant actor that they could become Harvey. And that's how the movie was gonna work. So we started talking right in that first meeting as to who that might be. And there were a bunch of interesting possibilities. There were a lot of names bandied about, but when we got to Sean Penn, we all sort of stopped and paused and we just kind of knew and felt that that was the right idea. And so, Gus had actually known Sean. Gus had even mentioned the idea of playing Harvey Milk to Sean many years before, not the first time, but years later, he still wanted to do a Harvey Milk project and said to Sean, let's do a Harvey Milk movie. So, Gus said, I finally have the script and Sean read it and said, yes, I'm on board. And we felt at that point with Dan and I producing this brilliant script from Lance and Gus fans, aren't directing and Sean Penn starring his Harvey Milk. Our focus was we are making this movie. We weren't taking the attitude of, let's see if we can get the money together or let's see if a studio will do it. We are like the time is now, this story must be told, and this is how we're gonna tell it. - Now, was there a reason why it wasn't a studio movie, but independently finance, we're studios not wanting it, or did you make that decision? - Well, Focus ended up co-financing and distributing the film and their division of universal. So in a way, it was kind of the best of both worlds, but we felt right, we knew that this type of movie, the subject matter and not just gay theme, but just a political movie in general, a political movie where the hero gets assassinated, a political movie where a gay hero gets assassinated is gonna be a certain lower budget. And those budgets are not really the types of movies the big studios are making. And also with a big studio film, the emphasis is the marketing and the merchandising, and you're getting notes from 500 people. And it turns into what they needed to be. And this wasn't one of those films. So we sort of always knew that it would either be a specialty division at a studio, such as a Fox, Search Light or a Focus or one of those, or an independent financeer. But in the case of Milk, which is happening a lot these days, even the specialty divisions weren't interested initially until we had some money. So we knew that we first had to find some independent financing, a company called Groundswell Pictures, Michael London's company, who had done Sideways among other great movies. He ended up coming on board for half of the money, and then with half the money, we were able to get Focus to give the other half and to distribute picture. - So was there excitement among people that you went to for financing and other kinds of things that were needed about the subject matter? - No, there there was, but I mean, it was a funny dichotomy, which continues with all things Milk is the world sort of divided into two categories. And, there were the people who, for whatever reason knew the importance and the significance of Harvey and of this movie and what it would mean to the LGBT movement and what it would mean to the world and would burst into tears. The minute you even mentioned, the mere notion of it. And then there was everyone else, which was most people. And so your financeers tended to fall into everyone else category, but people were intrigued. I mean, just, you hope on a movie that you're trying to get financed, that you have sort of that soundbite where you say five words to people and you have their attention. And Sean Penn is Harvey Milk, was five of those words. I mean, in this day and age, that had people's attention. - And what was it like for you as you start production, you've got Sean Penn, you've got the writer and director, everything is starting, because you said at the beginning of the show that it really brought together your producing skills, but also the work that you've done, and frankly, the heart that you've put into gay and lesbian activism over the years, this must have been very special to you. - It was a thousand percent, a once in a lifetime opportunity and challenge. I mean, I took, I think very seriously, but in a joyous way, what does this mean that I'm actually one of the people involved and what's my sort of role and certainly making, doing the best we all could to make sure that this was a movie that the community would be very proud of. And that Harvey's friends and family would be very proud of. You know, we knew that was a tall order, but we knew it was something we had to hit. But even that was exciting because constantly coming from the two heads of having my producer hat and my LGBT activism hat, as much as you needed and wanted everyone's pride and approval and it to be something really that they could all be proud of. On the other hand, it has to be a good movie. And it has to work as a film and you can't ever, the minute someone's like you, it has to be this way, 'cause that's not what really happened. Then you get in that situation of, yeah. But if it's not a great film and if people don't come to see it, then we don't have anything. So it was exciting keeping both of those goals in mind the whole time. And in the end, they work very, very well together fortunately. - Well, it's interesting because I think a lot of what we know about the world and what we sort of feel even spiritually comes from stories. There are some stories that are very important. They get repeated. They're kind of generic in a way you have, the spaghetti Western that becomes Star Wars, that becomes Avatar and these sort of certain thematic stories. And I think even with the assassination aspect at the end, that the story of the hero who just goes all out for what he believes and even the hero that doesn't set out to be the hero, has greatness thrust upon him as it were. because not starting until he was 40, I guess, to even become an activist. It was a very sort of basic tale for us. And I think for the gay and lesbian community to feel that we had the story of the reluctant hero, who becomes a hero and unfortunately is sacrificed being a true story. You wouldn't necessarily have to choose to sacrifice him as a plot point, but I think it was very important for our community because we don't get a lot of that. And we certainly don't get a AAA fabulous film about the community. We're the sidekicks. - Well, I think that's a brilliant point because you're right, that it was almost shockingly wonderful how great Harvey Milk story was as an archetypal reluctant hero, film tale. I mean, it was perfectly made, and what was also shocking about it though, was that his story had been lost. People did not know the Harvey Milk story, a lot of LGBT people did not know the Milk story, the Harvey Milk story we would run into, which was exciting to us because we knew how important it was, what we were doing were scouting at Castro and market in Harvey Milk Plaza and 18 and 20 year old gay boys and girls are walking through Harvey Milk Plaza in the Castro. They don't know who Harvey Milk is. So, that was even more surprising was the chances that you'd have such a great story of a hero in our community and yet still it was a story that was almost lost and was risking being lost forever is what added to the beauty and poignancy of this film. - I think there's sort of an inadvertent but interesting outcome as well. And that is, you had the sort of juxtaposition of the young people who were working on Obama's campaign and getting organized and getting excited about that. And seeing Milk, so many of them said, you know what? We don't know anything about our history. And in virtually every city that this show is on and many beyond young gay and lesbian activists started saying, I think we're just gonna try to get people to tell us our own history, because look, that was a story we didn't know. And how much more don't we know in LA and Chicago and New York and everywhere. And I know in LA, young people organized their own historical exhibits to bring people together, to understand the history of game lesbians in deeply in the closet, and then not in LA, and the kind of the donut throwing riot that we had in LA that was before Stonewall against the cops and just a number of things. But it's funny what you trigger when people say, how much more don't we know? So the importance I think is even beyond what the story that the movie tells. - Well, I agree completely with that. And Obama actually was the first of three, really surprising and incredible sort of resonance, which we'll talk about between what happened 30 years ago and what was happening now, the Iowa New Hampshire primaries were right before we started shooting, and then we started shooting. And so the whole primary season was happening while we were shooting the film. And here was this unknown outsider talking about hope, taking the country by storm, and we were shooting the hope's speech, in the middle of that and just going, wow, Harvey Milk had this 30 years ago. This is what he was talking about. So, certainly, it really crept into kind of the zeitgeist of the filming of Obama and what was going on and where the country was heading. And that it was just a very sort of exciting moment of history repeating itself. - Well, another really basic element of the film had to do with Prop 6, about which a lot of people don't know. Can you say a little bit about what Prop 6 was just to remind people and kind of Harvey's involvement with it? - Well, Prop 6 was an anti-gay initiative that was put on the ballot by a group of right wing fanatics in California in 1978, that was going to fire all gay teachers from the public school system. And even went further that it was gonna fire teachers and administrators who were known associates and agreed to associate with the gay school teachers. So it was just a horrifying, it was hard to even comprehend that such a thing could happen, and yet it was happening. And obviously and clearly the LGBT community has not had a good record at the ballot box. I mean, we're so keen and aware of it now, how we almost always lose those initiatives, over the hundreds of initiatives in different states, you can count on your hands, the ones that we've actually won and Harvey won. And he was very much at the center, of the committee that was formed to fight Prop 6. And so the script was written, the movie was shot and Prop 8 didn't exist. And it was then while we were in editing that the California Supreme Court ruled that gays could get married, which my husband, Gabe, and I took advantage of that. And we're one of the 18,000 couples that are legally married. And then right after that rumors started surfacing that signatures were being gathered to get Prop 8 on the ballot. And so suddenly during the summer, we were flabbergasted to see that now an anti-gay initiative by a group of right wing fanatics on the ballot in California. And it's literally going 30 years later exactly. And it's was Prop 6 now it's Prop 8 and history is repeating itself. - Well, history did not repeat itself. And that was the interesting thing, too. I mean, here you are, you're in editing, and these rumors are going and then it becomes manifest that there will be an initiative on the ballot. What was the timing then in finishing? But the movie wasn't out yet when Prop 8 was on the ballot? - The Movie was scheduled to come out after election day. And we did have a meeting in the summer to discuss, should we, could we race the film to completion to get it out before election day? And would it make a difference? And we ended up deciding for a variety of reasons, which I do think were right to keep the movie where it was. I mean, Gus is cute because to him, his main issue was, in the summer, I didn't know if the movie was gonna be any good. And if the movie had been bad, it wouldn't have had any prayer making any difference at all. Which, and if you know, Gus, that's a very gen it's not disingenuous. I mean, I think he truly didn't know whether he had anything... - Well, I don't think people really understand you're shooting things in bits and chunks. - Absolutely. - You know, you're looking, you're not even looking at dailies all from the whole thing anymore. You're looking little pieces. It's so much in the editing though, you must have known, you had some incredible moments. - We did know, and we knew we had an incredible performance. With Sean, but one of the fundamental question, the real question though, of does the movie work as a whole? Is the actual physical experience of what is the actual physical experience of watching this particular movie? They're like snowflakes, there's never been a movie exactly like this one, there's never gonna be another one. And there's so many elements of style, of tone, of theme, of performance, of plot, of cinematography, production design, editing, music that all need to come together. That the actual texture of the experience of watching the film, you do not know on your movie until you show it to an audience for the first time. And, in the case of Milk, that was probably in August or September, at which point it was way too late to make the change. The other thing that we just from a political and activism standpoint, we really suspected and we were right about this. And I think sadly in a lot of cases, you'll always be right about this. This film was gonna preach to the choir for at least for its initial run. I mean, and it is fascinating. I mean, to see, you know, when a movie gets on DVD, it has a much wider reach. And when it's on television, when it's on HBO, then people really can see it for, they don't have to choose it. They're just sitting at home and it comes on their TV screen and it's not costing them anything. And maybe they'll watch a gay movie if they're someone who was gonna vote yes on eight. 'Cause that's that was the question we weren't worried about reaching the no on eight people, we were worried about reaching, we needed to reach the yes on eight people. And our feeling was, it's gonna take months from the time the movie comes out and it would take a academy award winning performance from Sean Penn and Lance winning and all this publicity. And then it comes out on DVD and people hear from their neighbors and friends and, oh, you really should check this out. Maybe then people who would be inclined to vote yes on eight might start to see the movie. And I think they have, but if we had opened in October, it wouldn't have... - I think you're right. I mean, I think that the initial, I think people were a little surprised at the numbers in the Midwest because I thought they were a little higher than people expected. And no one was quite sure why that was, although they weren't quite sure why Iowa said okay to gay marriage either. So we may just not understand the Midwest, but you must have been very disappointed in November of 2008 at what happened with Prop 8. And here you have a film that's coming out that in a way, looks like this is just me talking. You guys must have done something wrong. 'Cause look, we won Prop 6. And many, many, many years ago when we didn't even have all these people with us, although the film was already made, it was already cut. It was already written and acted. So it wasn't made to say, look, you made a mistake. But the timing was, it was an indictment. I think of the campaign. - And I do wish that I kicked myself because I have no regrets of that the movie came out after the election, but I do regret that it didn't occur to us to take the unfinished print of the film in August, which we had and sit everyone involved in the no on eight campaign across the state, down in a room and show them the movie. Because Harvey had some lessons for the campaign. You know, I mean, Harvey was saying, you've gotta show gay people. Harvey was saying, you've gotta get out one by one, you've gotta come out. You've gotta tell your stories. Harvey was saying, you can't preach to the choir. You've gotta build the bridges. He was saying that and he did that. And the playbook was in the movie to beat Prop 6 and to beat Prop 8. - Of course, hindsight is always 2020 as they say, but I don't know who would've shown up and who would've said, oh my God, we never would've thought of that. Let's change what we're doing in the campaign. It was so precious in so many ways. And so sort of fragile coalitions were forming, et cetera. So who knows. But I do understand we, you know, next time, if we have something that comments on something that's happening, maybe we'll just take the risk. And speaking of taking the risk, this transition is interesting to me and that is the transition from Prop 8 passes. The film comes out, very well reviewed, lots of good nominations, everything on the artistic side. And I think money side going very well, but something must have been nagging at you, Bruce, that led you to the next piece, which is this case to overturn Prop 8. - Well, when I first saw the film, Gus showed us his cut for the first time, because of my political background and that has been my passion and my love, I think the scene that really moved me the most in the movie and continued to move me every time I saw the movie was the victory night scene when they're waiting and they think they've lost. And Harvey gets the news that he's on the phone with LA and he's confused 'cause they're telling him that they've won Los Angeles. And then they realize that they've won. And I burst into tears when I saw that the first time in the summer because it was so powerful and beautiful. And that's my idea of a good time is winning an important political election. That means something, you know, to me, that's like a Super Bowl or an Oscars or whatever. And so we did decide in specifically because of the election, as we were talking about all this Gus and Dan and I and Lance and Cleve and Focus, we said, the movie's not opening after the election, but let's do the world premier in San Francisco the week before the election, it was a month before the movie was gonna come out, which is very unusual to do the premiere so far in advance. And let's get everyone who worked with Harvey, who knew who has fought for all these years. The people on the campaign and Gavin Newsome was the chair of the evening and at the very least, rallied the troops, get out the vote, get the excitement up. And so that evening, that was an extraordinary evening because it did turn out that we feel like pretty much everyone that Harvey touched who is still alive and that he worked with was in that room. And so, which is of course also our toughest audience. But, getting to that scene that night, where we were a week away from, I think literally, cause I think it was a Tuesday night, an election night was the following Tuesday, seven days away from our fate. And by that point I was very involved with the campaign. I was the LA finance chair and we had done this huge benefit at Ron Burgos house, which had raised like $5 million. And I was just filled with anxiety and sort of could, experiencing both ways, imagining what it would be like if I could have this scene for real on Prop 8 the following Tuesday versus the other way. And then I remember there was a, I forget what the screening was, but for some reason, the next time that I saw the film was the night after the election and the heartbreak of then getting to this scene, which had been so moving to me and so loved by me and realizing we lost, it was incredibly painful. And that coupled with, although I must say not much more painful than election night itself, which had been the night before. And Chad Griffin, who is a brilliant political consultant, we've become good friends. We have become political partners in crime. We actually both were supporting Hillary initially had done a lot of work for the Hillary campaign and then switched over immediately and did a lot of work for the Obama campaign. And Chad's partner in his political consulting company, Christina Shaki, we had done the buckle event together for Prop 8. And so we had said, let's go up to San Francisco and that's where Prop 8 headquarters is gonna be and spend election night there. And we had a room at the St Regis, which is where the no, not the St Regis, the west and St. Francis where the election night parties were going to be. And there was about six of us in the room and mayor Newsome actually came by to watch with us. So there was like eight of us in the room and which was incredibly historic. I mean, Gavin, you know, is really is the hero of the movement. He dared to go where no one had gone. He was the one who introduced marriage to the world and being there with him and at 11:00 PM, 8:00 PM, California time, Barack Obama is president and just weeping with joy, trying to comprehend the magnitude of what had happened and what we had all accomplished at eight and at 8:01 on the computer, the first returns came in on Prop 8 and we saw that it looked like we might lose. And it was just like the rug was just ripped out from under you and to be there with Gavin who had put his heart and soul into this issue and who had a lot of his political cred writing on Prop 8, made it even more painful. So between those two really visceral experiences of living through the defeat of Prop 8 and understanding what it felt like to have your rights taken away from you really encouraged me and Chad and a bunch of other people to do something about it. - So let's talk about that something. I think people are always saying to me, we've gotta do something about whatever the issue is. They're worried about whether it's, you know, healthcare or clean water or poverty or whatever. They're always saying, we've gotta do something about it. And generally doing something about it can involve organizing, protest, forming a new organization to provide services, going to the Congress, going to the legislature, trying to get a law made or going to the courts and going to the courts has been seen generally to be a little iffy since many of the last appointments to the Supreme Court, the California court was seen as such a wonderful place to go because they actually articulated a fairly airtight opinion that we were entitled to equal protection and equal rights in California. And this is how all the marriage ability sort of opened up. But then after Prop 8, the California Supreme Court, many people thought turned around, even though the question was really very different. And question was, can people vote to put this on the constitution? And the answer they gave was, yes. So people are very ambivalent about courts at the moment, but of course they're very ambivalent about Congress and state legislatures and not even sure about going to the streets because that didn't seem to work all that well. So talk a little bit about the process that you guys went through, thinking that what needed to happen was a pretty big leap. - Well, in a democracy, you have a number of, but they're very specific and prescribed and limited options when you believe that you are being denied your rights. And one of the ways to get your rights back is by popular ballot, state by state. But as we discussed earlier, that has been a very, has been a losing battle for the LGBT community time and time and again, in state, after state, after state, after state, after state, and almost never actually have we won. And unfortunately, first of all, initially the other side thrust those upon us. We would never have thought that that was a way to get our rights, but we had to keep defending ourselves in all these initiatives like Prop 6. But over the years, it had become that had been lost a little and people had thought, oh, well, that's one way of getting our rights. Well, the majority doesn't get to decide minority's rights. I mean, that's what you have a constitution for. That's why you have courts. So, I think a lot of us were feeling that that's a wrong message to be sending, to begin with. That we're depending on the voters to decide whether to give us our rights or not. If you were depending on the majority vote, African Americans still would not have their rights. We can only imagine when women would've gotten their rights because of course they couldn't vote. And so, duh, it was only the men voting surprise, surprise. The men voted to keep the women from voting. So, clearly the ballot box not only has it not been successful, but just the very theory of it, isn't good for our movement because we don't need to wait for a majority of Americans to like us. We need to wait only as long as we are actually guaranteed these equal rights in the constitution, which we believe that we are. And so there was a lot of discussion we were not the only people I'm sure a lot of people were having all sorts of discussions of what do we do? What do we do? And, you know, Prop 8, there will be an initiative back on the ballot. This time, our side will put an initiative back on trying to take away Prop 8. They decided wisely, I think not to try and put it on the ballot in 2010, because they just didn't feel like they would have the statewide organization and the money. So it'll probably be on the ballot in 2012, we spent $45 million losing Prop 8. And it'll probably have to raise $60 million to try and do it again. And to convince a majority again, to care about our rights. So Chad, one of the people that he works with in the political world is Rob Reiner. Who's just been another incredible hero to the liberal community and the LGBT community for years. And he actually Rob's wife, Michelle. They actually heard a rumor through a friend of theirs that Ted Olson might be on our side of the same sex marriage debate. And that was incredibly surprising to them because for those of you who don't know, Ted Olson is one of the most respected and best trial lawyers in the country, but he's a conservative, lifelong, he was solicitor general for the Bush administration. Part of why he got that appointment is because he argued Bush v. Gore on the Bush side and won. He's really the reason why we have had George Bush as our president for eight years. So it made no sense to Rob and to Michelle and to Chad. And then when they told me, to me that that could possibly be true, but we did understand right away that if it was true, it could really be a game changer that you would never, you could never imagine and by you, one could even say the Supreme Court could never imagine a less likely confluence of lawyer and cause and therefore a more exciting confluence of lawyer and cause. And then Chad actually reached out to Ted and it turned out that Ted through his conservative belief in marriage and as a tradition and the sanctity of marriage between two people, as a tradition, through a libertarian strain of the government having nothing to do with regulating what goes on in our bedrooms and in our private lives. It had always, I wouldn't even say he'd always believed because it's more that it had just always been obvious to him that if two people A and B can get married, two people C and D can get married. And he had always thought that it was clearly unconstitutional on a federal level to deny gays and lesbians the right to get married, that there was nothing in case law that guarantees that, that marriage, which the marriage right is guaranteed, that Supreme Court has found time and time and time and again, that marriage is a fundamental civil right. And there's just nothing in case law that ties the definition of marriage to man and a woman there's tradition and tradition... - But of course he Supreme Court also said tradition was not a reason to uphold anything. - Correct. - Just because you had always been prejudiced and discriminated. - Tradition does, I've learned all this now, I didn't know all this before, but tradition does have a legal definition and tradition does have some legal standing, but tradition cannot be based just in prejudice, just in discrimination or even just in, well, we do it this way, cause we've always done it. The legal version of tradition has to have some rooting in case law and in... - And also has to pass the rationality test too. - Correct. - I mean, just at the very lowest level of why you treat one group differently from another, the very lowest level is that it's just rational. - Correct. - And of course the more rights you take away and the more protected the group is the higher the standard for finding that it's okay for a state to take their rights away or to deny those rights, which is the question that's gonna get up to the Supreme Court. - Yes, I mean, that's part of what the other side has to prove. And we feel like they haven't even come close to doing that so far. They have to come up with some harm or damage to straight marriage and to the institution and to straight couples who are married if gay people are allowed to get married. - Well, before we talk about the case though, because now we haven't even got the lawyer yet. Very interesting to me that a group of sort of showbiz folks decided that they would probably raise or put in a bunch of money. I mean, I don't think the lawyers are doing this for nothing. - No, we raised the money because we wanted to, we wanted them paid, we wanted them working for us. - And what was the response when this started to be put together from the attorney groups, legal groups in the gay and lesbian community, who'd been working on this and who were somewhat stung by losing the Prop 8 case, criticized certainly by many people in the movement, they must not have been happy to have this taken away from them. - They were not happy at first. I wouldn't though use the words taken away from them because we approached them to at first to have them come on board with us. That was our initial idea. Although we were not naive about it. And we knew that they didn't feel that this was the right time necessarily, or the perfect strategy. And so, that might not happen, but that was sort of the initial... - Well, that's respectful though. I mean, to say, we really think this is the time we should do it and try it. And they essentially said, have you looked at the Supreme Court lately? I don't think it's going to go our way, perhaps we ought to wait, is that kind of what they? - Yes, there was a sort of series of reasons why they thought we should wait. But our account was Ted Olson, I mean, it's so simple but sometimes if you believe in something, you just need to do it. And you know, what Ted says is, you tell that to our plaintiffs to wait. We have two couples who want to get married in the state of California and are being denied that basic civil right which the constitution of the United States entitles them to. So no, where they are not to wait. And as a lawyer, I am not going to tell them to wait, I'm gonna take their case as far as I can. And try and get them.. - So Ted came on board? - That right. - Ted came on board, but he's not the only star attorney in this case. - No, one of the things that he felt strongly about was he understood that the shitstorm, can I say that on this TV? - I think so, yes. I mean, these are on city channels all around the country and I'm sure they've heard worse at city council meeting. - Yes. He knew that that a four should storm would be kicked up once news got out that he was taking a case in favor of gay marriage from both sides that his conservative allies on Star Wars would have a complete heart attack and would be very concerned and upset and confused. And that liberals would have every reaction ranging from suspecting that he actually was trying to lose the case on purpose and didn't really believe in the issue. So his suggestion was that we get a co-counsel for him, someone from who is as liberal as he was conservative. And so, what's has been brilliant about that idea and what has become our strategy is that, so that, the lawyers can truly say, this is not a liberal issue. This is not a conservative issue. This is not a democratic issue. This is not a Republican issue. This is a civil rights issue. About all Americans. So there was a six or seven of us on the call and we started brainstorming well, who could that lawyer be and someone suggested David Boyce. And David Boyce, for those of you who don't know, is one of the other top and most respected and feared because of how good he is lawyers in the country. I mean, many people might just on their own have said Ted Olson and David Boyce, if you were asking them, you know, who do you want taking your case to the Supreme Court? But David Boyce argued the Gore side in Bush v. Gore. So one of the landmark and probably the last most famous Supreme Court case, Bush v. Gore, Ted Olson, was proposing that we have the Bush lawyer and we have the Gore lawyer and we have them on the same side and we try and get LGBT people their constitutional right to marry. So being movie people who respond to a good.. - To this wonderful symbolic story. - To a trailer, to a teaser, to a poster to the sound bite. - Together again on a good cause. - Exactly. We knew right, the minute that name came up on the call, there was just silence because everyone was thinking, - What would he do it? - Oh my god. That would be magnificent. And Ted Olson actually knows David Boyce well, they actually are friendly, which was kind of a little dirty little secret and called him up. And David said, yes, right away on the phone, he said, I'm in. And so that's how we assembled our version of the LGBT dream team, Ted Olson and David Boyce to take the case. - Well, it's a little bit of a heart stopper. I think, even thinking about it, because people looking at even recent United States Supreme Court decisions on other issues sort of have to wonder, I guess the basic question that people say is, should you take a case to the Supreme Court if you're not sure of winning. It's a funny question. - Well, we reject that question. You're never sure of winning. I mean, even at the Supreme Court, if people didn't take cases to the Supreme Court or fighting for cures for diseases or trying to win sports games or elections, unless they were sure they were gonna succeed, nothing would ever get accomplished. - Well, I agree with you totally. And I think, however, there is a lot of speculation, I think, especially since it went all the way up to the United States Supreme Court about whether there would be cameras allowed to broadcast, even after the fact on YouTube or then it was diminished down to less and later. And finally, no. And Kennedy was, I think, as people saw it, the swing vote on saying, no broadcast. - He wrote the majority... - Of the procedures and then actually wrote it. - Yes. - As he did with the corporations can now give money to election's opinion. - Which Ted Olson was the winning lawyer on that side actually. Ted Olson's record of victory in the Supreme Court is absolutely astonishing. So yes, Kennedy wrote those two majority opinions, but Kennedy also wrote the majority opinion on Lawrence v. Texas and on Romer v. Colorado, which are two of the benchmarks of LGBT equal rights legislation. So, we feel like there are, though the indicators, what we're looking at is Brown v Board of education, Loving v. Virginia, Romer and Lawrence as four examples of cases that changed the world because people did not have their rights and took it to the Supreme Court. And thank God, none of those plaintiffs worried about whether they were gonna win or not, and realized that what was important was we don't have our rights and we need them and we need to be heard. - Well, it is the way history is made. And I think it was one of the aspects of Milk. I mean, you wouldn't say that Harvey always knew they were gonna be successful or maybe even ever knew they would be successful. That is knew it. And that I think is also what has resonated with so many young people, although with Obama winning, I think a lot of them got the sense that if you just put a lot of energy out, you're going to win. And it's interesting to see how the young LGBT community was affected by the loss of our side of Prop 8, because they were stunned that if you put enough energy in and you win Obama, how come putting enough energy in didn't mean you would win on Prop 8? And it's a little confusing and yet if you're not a young LGBT activist, but you're rather people who've been doing it for a while, you know, that losing is really part of it, or at least the suspense, the adventure of whether you will or not. I mean, I have run for office five times and twice of those five, I really didn't know whether I would win or not. And you just go and you have to be prepared to lose. - I mean, it's funny because this is a brand new analogy, but I would say, I have two really sad names to say to the people who say, well, you don't know if you're gonna win coakley and brown. The significance of that election is hard to over exaggerate overestimate. And it's because the Republicans and the tea partiers specifically, they saw a shot against all odds, and the fact that they weren't gonna win, the fact how that they didn't have a chance, the fact that they didn't know if they were gonna win, they didn't dissuade them. They came and they organized. And now sadly, we all know what happened. - And I think that's been the case with people who bring cases, with which were not as deeply involved in terms of discrimination, where you just think either this is really unfair, whether you're a corporation and you wanna spend money, or whether you're a group that's been discriminated against and you want to have your rights. I think I have agreed from the very beginning. This is worth the shot. And having these two attorneys, I think lends an interesting kind of dramatic flare, but also a lot of talent to it. I mean, it must have frozen the socks of the other side, who really doesn't exhibit that kind of legal talent. But it's still gonna be a heavy lift, I think all the way, but I was very pleased to see personally that it was being done. - Good, I'm glad. So, back to the Harvey Milk comparison, just for a second, the Harvey was assassinated two to three weeks after the Prop 6 victory. And so it was very, very soon after he won and Lance had uncovered in his research that Harvey, in those weeks was talking about federal rights. He was one of, if not, the first person who was realizing, I mean, and he had just won this. And he was like, forget statewide, state to state, yes, it's important, but we need full federal rights. We need to take this to Jimmy Carter who was president of the United States at the time. And he actually, we believe that he was actually talking. That was his last conversation, which you hear a snippet of in the movie is that he was talking about, we've gotta get to Carter. We've gotta get these federal rights. When Dan White poked into his office and said, can I borrow you for a minute and took him down to his office and assassinated him. So Lance, who was with us for the first day of the trial Lance is on the board as well as I am of the people that are the foundation that's running the case, he reminded all of us very movingly and beautifully that 30 years ago, Harvey Milk started the conversation of full federal rights. And that today, this case is sort of the latest hopeful manifestation of that fight continuing. - Bruce, we've only got three or four minutes. So I wanna ask you one last question. What has being engaged in LGBT rights kinda meant to you in terms of sort of the meaning of your life? It's a big question for three minutes, but there's something personal about it to you. - Well, I think, being gay is very personal. I mean, it's entwined with me, you know, I feel like I couldn't separate that for myself, even if I wanted to, which I don't want to. So the importance of our fight has always just been very integral to who I am. And I think, one of the most obvious but beautiful manifestations of that was my marriage to Gabe that, you know, we like any two people, any two lucky people, you know, found each other, fell in love, feel that we're soulmates wanted to get married, decided to get married. And that we had actually made the decision to get married before there was any legal standing. And the wedding was in preparation when the Supreme Court decision came down and we suddenly realized, oh my goodness, this is real. And, I've been friends with and a supporter of a man, I very much admire mayor Antonio Vigo of Los Angeles. And he asked Gabe and I to be the first LGBT couple that he married and to be in city hall in his chambers. And to hear the mayor of Los Angeles say by the power invested in me by the State of California, I now pronounce you legally married. That was a triumph of everything that I've believed in and worked for. And the fact that that right has now been temporarily taken away from us is something that I can't live with. - Well, the work that you've done, I mean, over the course of your life has been really sort of out of the limelight in a way, not of course the movie work, but I mean, activism work. And I think it's interesting how much people don't know about how much of a person's life is put into their rights and how we think of Harvey as a hero, but how many other heroes there are. So thank you so much for doing the show, Bruce. I really, really appreciate it. I know it was hard to work it into the schedule and I'm really glad you did it. I'm really glad that you were with us for the show, this theme who knows that being the hero of your own life, you never if you'll be the hero of somebody else's so Get Used To It. (upbeat music)