Perry v. Schwarzenegger
| Decision Date | 04 August 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. C 09-2292 VRW.,C 09-2292 VRW. |
| Citation | 704 F.Supp.2d 921 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | Kristin M. PERRY, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo, Plaintiffs,City and County of San Francisco, Plaintiff-Intervenor,v.Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of California; Edmund G. Brown Jr., in his official capacity as Attorney General of California; Mark B. Horton, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics; Linette Scott, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; Patrick O'Connell, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder of the County of Alameda; and Dean C. Logan, in his official capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants,Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, Mark A Jansson And Protectmarriage.Com-Yes On 8, A Project of California Renewal, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Defendant-Intervenors. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
David Boies, Rosanne C. Baxter, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Armonk, NY, Theodore B. Olson, Amir Cameron Tayrani, Christopher Dean Dusseault, Enrique Antonio Monagas, Matthew Dempsey McGill, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, Ethan D. Dettmer, Theane Evangelis Kapur, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Jennifer Carol Pizer, Jon Warren Davidson, Tara Lynn Borelli, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, Jeremy Michael Goldman, Theodore Hideyuki Uno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Oakland, CA, Sarah Elizabeth Piepmeier, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Alan Lawrence Schlosser, James Dixon Esseks, Matthew Albert Coles, ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Inc., Christopher Francis Stoll, Ilona Margaret Turner, Shannon Minter, National Ctr for Lesbian Rights, San Francisco, CA, Charles Salvatore Limandri, Law Offices Of Charles S. Limandri, Rancho Santa Fe, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Kenneth C. Mennemeier, Andrew Walter Stroud, Mennemeier Glassman & Stroud LLP, Gordon Bruce Burns, Attorney Generals Office, Dept. of Justice, Sacramento, CA, Daniel J. Powell, Department of Justice, Attorney General's Office, Tamar Pachter, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, Claude Franklin Kolm, Manuel Francisco Martinez, Office of the County Counsel, Oakland, CA, Judy Whitehurst, Office of County Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.
David E. Bunim, Haas & Najarian, San Francisco, CA, Charles J. Cooper, David H. Thompson, Howard C. Nielson, Jr., Jesse Michael Panuccio, Michael W. Kirk, Peter A. Patterson, Cooper & Kirk PLLC, Austin R. Nimocks, Jordan W. Lorence, Alliance Defense Fund, Washington, DC, Brian W. Raum, Alliance Defense Fund, James A. Campbell, Scottsdale, AZ, Jennifer Lynn Monk, Robert Henry Tyler, Advocates for Faith and Freedom, Murrieta, CA, for Defendant-Intervenors.
PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND TRIAL EVIDENCE
CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ORDER
Plaintiffs challenge a November 2008 voter-enacted amendment to the California Constitution (“Proposition 8” or “Prop 8”). Cal. Const. Art. I, § 7.5. In its entirety, Proposition 8 provides: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Plaintiffs allege that Proposition 8 deprives them of due process and of equal protection of the laws contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment and that its enforcement by state officials violates 42 USC § 1983.
Plaintiffs are two couples. Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier reside in Berkeley, California and raise four children together. Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami reside in Burbank, California. Plaintiffs seek to marry their partners and have been denied marriage licenses by their respective county authorities on the basis of Proposition 8. No party contended, and no evidence at trial suggested, that the county authorities had any ground to deny marriage licenses to plaintiffs other than Proposition 8.
Having considered the trial evidence and the arguments of counsel, the court pursuant to FRCP 52(a) finds that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and that its enforcement must be enjoined.
In November 2000, the voters of California adopted Proposition 22 through the state's initiative process. Entitled the California Defense of Marriage Act, Proposition 22 amended the state's Family Code by adding the following language: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Cal. Family Code § 308.5. This amendment further codified the existing definition of marriage as “a relationship between a man and a woman.” In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384, 407 (2008).
In February 2004, the mayor of San Francisco instructed county officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The following month, the California Supreme Court ordered San Francisco to stop issuing such licenses and later nullified the marriage licenses that same-sex couples had received. See Lockyer v. City & County of San Francisco, 33 Cal.4th 1055, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 225, 95 P.3d 459 (2004). The court expressly avoided addressing whether Proposition 22 violated the California Constitution.
Shortly thereafter, San Francisco and various other parties filed state court actions challenging or defending California's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage under the state constitution. These actions were consolidated in San Francisco superior court; the presiding judge determined that, as a matter of law, California's bar against marriage by same-sex couples violated the equal protection guarantee of Article I Section 7 of the California Constitution. In re Coordination Proceeding, Special Title [Rule 1550(c) ], 2005 WL 583129 (March 14, 2005). The court of appeal reversed, and the California Supreme Court granted review. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22 and held that all California counties were required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. See In re Marriage Cases, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384. From June 17, 2008 until the passage of Proposition 8 in November of that year, San Francisco and other California counties issued approximately 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
After the November 2008 election, opponents of Proposition 8 challenged the initiative through an original writ of mandate in the California Supreme Court as violating the rules for amending the California Constitution and on other grounds; the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 against those challenges. Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 591, 207 P.3d 48 (2009). Strauss leaves undisturbed the 18,000 marriages of same-sex couples performed in the four and a half months between the decision in In re Marriage Cases and the passage of Proposition 8. Since Proposition 8 passed, no same-sex couple has been permitted to marry in California.
Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Proposition 8 under the Fourteenth Amendment, an issue not raised during any prior state court proceeding. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on May 22, 2009, naming as defendants in their official capacities California's Governor, Attorney General and Director and Deputy Director of Public Health and the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder and the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk (collectively “the government defendants”). Doc. # 1. With the exception of the Attorney General, who concedes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, Doc. # 39, the government defendants refused to take a position on the merits of plaintiffs' claims and declined to defend Proposition 8. Doc. # 42 (Alameda County), Doc. # 41 (Los Angeles County), Doc. # 46 (Governor and Department of Public Health officials).
Defendant-intervenors, the official proponents of Proposition 8 under California election law (“proponents”), were granted leave in July 2009 to intervene to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Doc. # 76. On January 8, 2010, Hak-Shing William Tam, an official...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pedersen v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.
...is no dispute in the record that lesbians and gay men have experienced a long history of discrimination."); Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F.Supp.2d 921, 981-82 (N.D.Cal. 2010) (acknowledging evidence of public and private discrimination against gay men and lesbians). See also, e.g., Mad Rive......
-
Duncan v. Becerra
...all. These were, instead, the product of a complicated state referendum question known as Proposition 63. Cf. Perry v. Schwarzenegger , 704 F.Supp.2d 921, 994–95 (N.D. Cal. 2010), aff'd sub nom. Perry v. Brown , 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012), and aff'd sub nom. Perry v. Brown , 671 F.3d 105......
-
Bassett v. Snyder
...weight of medical and scientific authority demonstrates that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F.Supp.2d 921, 966 (N.D.Cal.2010) (“No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic interventi......
-
Kitchen v. Herbert
...Proposition 8 violated the guarantees of equal protection and due process under the United States Constitution. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F.Supp.2d 921, 1003 (N.D.Cal.2010). Applying different reasoning, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Walker's holding that Proposition ......
-
Equal Protection
...California Constitution”), superseded by constitutional amendment , CAL CONST. art. I, § 7.5, invalidated by Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010). 387. Bailey v. City of Austin, 972 S.W.2d 180, 190 (Tex. Ct. App. 1998). 388. Id. at 190. 389. See Baker v. Vermont, 74......
-
Disability Constitutional Law
...to these differences in ascertaining whether legislation violates the Equal Protection Clause"); see also Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 1002-03 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (holding proposition 8 unconstitutional and detailing the extent to which it was based on stereotypes about same-s......
-
"a Fresh Look": Title Vii's New Promise for Lgbt Discrimination Protection Post-hively
...(holding that state law prohibiting same-sex marriage is constitutionally impermissible sex discrimination); Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 996 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ("Sexual orientation discrimination can take the form of sex discrimination.").94. Cunningham-Parmeter, supra note ......
-
Beyond DOMA: choice of state law in federal statutes.
...1298, 1301, 1309 (M.D. Fla. 2005); In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123, 148 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2004). (52.) See, e.g., Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), aff'd on narrower grounds, Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1063 (9th Cir. (53.) Cf Akhil Reed Amar, Race, Religion, Gend......