Jump to content

Hollingsworth v. Perry: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 29: Line 29:
}}
}}


'''''Kristin M. Perry v. Arnold Schwarzenegger''''' was a federal lawsuit decided by the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California|U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California]], that challenged the federal [[United States constitution|constitutional]] validity of [[California Proposition 8 (2008)|California's Proposition 8]]. The court decided in favor of the plaintiffs on August 4, 2010.
'''''Kristin M. Perry v. Arnold Schwarzenegger''''' was a federal lawsuit decided by the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California|U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California]], that challenged the federal [[United States constitution|constitutional]] validity of [[California Proposition 8 (2008)|California's Proposition 8]]. The court decided in favor of the plaintiffs on August 4, 2010. The law has temporarily been suspended against the will of the voters of California, along with the fact that gay marriage is a sin and homosexuals cannot reproduce, all basic requirements of marriage.


Proposition 8 is an amendment to the [[California Constitution|California State Constitution]] that prohibits the state from recognizing [[same-sex marriages]] performed on or after November 5, 2008. It does not affect same-sex marriages entered into before that date. It was adopted as a [[Initiative|ballot initiative]] in 2008. The plaintiffs in ''Perry'' sought to have the federal courts strike down Proposition 8 as contrary to the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|14th Amendment]]'s guarantee to [[equal protection]]. The case is widely regarded as a [[landmark case]] that will most likely reach the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]].<ref name="nyt26Jun2010">{{cite news
Proposition 8 is an amendment to the [[California Constitution|California State Constitution]] that prohibits the state from recognizing [[same-sex marriages]] performed on or after November 5, 2008. It does not affect same-sex marriages entered into before that date. It was adopted as a [[Initiative|ballot initiative]] in 2008. The plaintiffs in ''Perry'' sought to have the federal courts strike down Proposition 8 as contrary to the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|14th Amendment]]'s guarantee to [[equal protection]]. The case is widely regarded as a [[landmark case]] that will most likely reach the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]].<ref name="nyt26Jun2010">{{cite news

Revision as of 02:15, 5 August 2010

Perry v. Schwarzenegger
CourtUnited States District Court for the Northern District of California
Full case name KRISTIN M. PERRY et al., Plaintiffs,

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
Intervenor-Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER et al., Governor of California, etc., Defendants;

DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH
et al., Intervenor-Defendants.
DecidedAugust 4, 2010
TranscriptTrial transcripts
Holding
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
Court membership
Judge sittingVaughn R. Walker
Keywords
Proposition 8, Marriage, Equal Protection, Same-sex marriage, Sexual Orientation

Kristin M. Perry v. Arnold Schwarzenegger was a federal lawsuit decided by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, that challenged the federal constitutional validity of California's Proposition 8. The court decided in favor of the plaintiffs on August 4, 2010. The law has temporarily been suspended against the will of the voters of California, along with the fact that gay marriage is a sin and homosexuals cannot reproduce, all basic requirements of marriage.

Proposition 8 is an amendment to the California State Constitution that prohibits the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed on or after November 5, 2008. It does not affect same-sex marriages entered into before that date. It was adopted as a ballot initiative in 2008. The plaintiffs in Perry sought to have the federal courts strike down Proposition 8 as contrary to the 14th Amendment's guarantee to equal protection. The case is widely regarded as a landmark case that will most likely reach the Supreme Court.[1][2][3]

In 2010, the head litigators for the plaintiffs, Theodore Olson and David Boies, were placed on the Time 100 among the greatest "thinkers" for their nonpartisan and strong legal approach to challenging Proposition 8.[4]

Background

In May 2008, the California Supreme Court held in the case In re Marriage Cases that state statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex applicants violated the California Constitution. The following month, same-sex couples were able to marry in California. In November 2008, California’s electorate adopted Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that restored the opposite-sex limitation on marriage.[5] Following the adoption of Proposition 8, several lawsuits were filed that challenged the validity of the amendment under various state constitutional provisions. On May 26, 2009, the California Supreme Court held, in Strauss v. Horton, that Proposition 8 was a lawful enactment, but that same-sex marriages contracted before its passage remained valid.[6]

Three days before the Strauss decision, the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to challenge the validity of Proposition 8 on behalf of two same-sex couples.[7][8][9] The couples' attorneys include former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, David Boies, and Theodore Boutrous, the former two having worked on opposite sides in the Bush v. Gore case. Olson said that he planned for this case to appear before the Supreme Court within the next two years.[10]

Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who originally won same-sex marriage in California in In re Marriage Cases and defended it in Strauss v. Horton, opposed the move because they felt that a federal challenge could potentially do more harm than good at the present time.[8] Olson and AFER rebuffed this claim, and defended the timing of the lawsuit.[11]

Following a pre-trial hearing on July 2, 2009, the three legal groups moved to intervene in the lawsuit, as did the City of San Francisco in a separate filing. The plaintiffs opposed allowing the groups or the City to intervene.[3] On August 19, Judge Walker denied the legal groups' motion to intervene but granted the City's, albeit in a limited capacity.[12] Following the failed attempt by the other groups to intervene in the lawsuit, those groups have offered support to the legal team litigating the case, with James Esseks of the ACLU saying: "[w]e are interested in doing whatever we can to make sure their case is as successful as possible."[7]

Parties

Plaintiffs

It was still emotional to be denied [a marriage license]. But in all fairness [to the clerk], she handled it really well. [Her words] reiterated that we were denied equal rights. It made us feel that we made the right decision to be a part of this case.[3]

Jeffrey Zarrillo, co-plaintiff

In May 2009, the Alameda County Clerk-Registrar, Patrick O'Connell, denied Kristin Perry and Sandra Steir a marriage license because they are a same-sex couple. For the same reason, Dean Logan, the Los Angeles County Clerk, denied Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo a marriage license.[9] The couples sued the two county clerks and several state officials: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Jerry Brown, and two officials in the Department of Public Health.[9][13]

Several groups sought to intervene as plaintiffs, including the groups who had prosecuted the In re Marriage Cases and Strauss v. Horton actions.[14] San Francisco also filed a motion to intervene in the case. The city cited its work in the earlier cases that had provided "extensive evidence and proposed findings on strict scrutiny factors and factual rebuttals to long claimed justifications for marriage discrimination." City Attorney Dennis Herrera said that his office is "singularly well-prepared" to help "put anti-gay discrimination on trial based on the facts."[15] Walker permitted only San Francisco to intervene, as it could speak to the impact of Proposition 8 on local governments.[16] He also ordered the attorney general to assist San Francisco in analyzing Proposition 8's impact. Judge Walker stated that necessary speed and swiftness "on an issue of this magnitude and importance" were required and that the intervention of additional groups would only complicate and stall the case.[17]

Defendants

What's at stake in the Perry case is not just the right of California voters to reaffirm the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman, but whether marriage will be redefined in every state in the nation.[18]

ProtectMarriage.com

Attorney General Brown chose not to defend the lawsuit, saying that Proposition 8 violates the 14th Amendment and should be struck down.[7][19] Governor Schwarzenegger took a more neutral path,[17] saying that he supported the lawsuit because the Proposition 8 conflict asks "important constitutional questions that require and warrant judicial determination." None of the state officials named in the suit sought to defend the law in court.

Two groups, the official proponents of Proposition 8 led by Dennis Hollingsworth, and a rival group, the Campaign for California Families, sought to intervene as defendants. The court allowed the official proponents to intervene, filling the void left by the state officials’ acquiescence. The judge denied the request from the Campaign for California Families.[13][16]

On December 15, Imperial County filed a motion to intervene as defendants despite the fact that the intervenor deadline had passed.[20] They argued that the civil agencies named in the suit, the counties of Alameda and Los Angeles and the state government, were not actively defending the Proposition. They continued to argue that the case needed a proper governmental defendant.[21] The plaintiffs replied by saying that Imperial County's motion was "pure speculation" and that it "itself lacks the standing to appeal."[22]

Pretrial motions

The AFER filed a preliminary injunction that would have immediately restored same-sex marriage in California until the federal suit is decided.[23] Judge Vaughn R. Walker tentatively denied the injunction, and said he would instead proceed with a speedy trial.[24]

Plaintiffs requested that the campaign produce internal documents that relate to the purpose and intent of the amendment and the development of political messages during the campaign. The Proposition 8 proponents objected to the request because of the potential chilling effect on political speech, among other grounds.[25] On October 1, Judge Walker rejected the contention that the First Amendment shielded all of those communications.[26] The proponents appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and separately moved to stay the proceedings in the district court. Noting that the proponents were unlikely to succeed in this appeal, Judge Walker rejected the stay request on October 23.[27] Regardless, the proponents continued to assert a First Amendment privilege over these documents, a sampling of which Judge Walker reviewed privately.[28] On December 11, 2009, the Ninth Circuit overturned Walker's ruling, saying that the release of the documents "would likely have a chilling effect on political association and the formulation of political expression."[29]

In September, Proposition 8 proponents filed a motion for summary judgment. Running more than 100 pages, the motion asked the court to rule that Proposition 8 did not offend the U.S. Constitution without the need to find facts at a trial. The motion asserted that Baker v. Nelson forecloses any further review by the court. Failing that, the motion argued that all of the couples' claims failed as a matter of law.[30] After a two-hour hearing on October 13, Judge Walker denied the motion. He noted that the Supreme Court doctrine on sexual-orientation and gender discrimination had changed since 1972. Resolving the amendment's validity, Walker noted, required hearing testimony at trial.[31]

Broadcast and online coverage

Perry would have been the first federal trial to be filmed and be shown live at public courthouses in San Francisco, Pasadena, Seattle, Portland, and Brooklyn, through an experimental new system developed by the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court.[32][33] The trial would have also been shown on the video-sharing website YouTube.[32] Judge Walker noted that he had received 138,574 comments on the plans to broadcast the trial, and all but 32 were in favor.[34]

Two days before the trial, the defendant-intervenors filed emergency papers with the Supreme Court to attempt to bar telecasting the trial, with the court ruling 8-1 to temporarily stay live streaming until Wednesday.[35] Although a coalition of media organizations ranging from CNN and Fox News to prominent online sources like the Associated Press and law-oriented Court TV filed an emergency amicus brief in support of live streaming and delayed broadcast,[36] the court ruled 5-4 in Hollingsworth v. Perry along ideological lines to indefinitely block live streams to various federal courthouses, although it refused to rule on plans to delay broadcasts on YouTube.[37][38]

Despite the ruling, the proceedings elicited unprecedented live coverage through social networking site Twitter from gay-interest magazine The Advocate,[39] the National Center for Lesbian Rights,[40] an official feed from the group representing the plaintiffs (AFER),[41] a California-based progressive organization Courage Campaign,[42] and several independent parties such as Chris Geidner, maintainer of the LGBT-oriented Law Dork blog,[43] San Francisco-based attorney Chris Stoll,[44] and others.

Filmmakers John Ireland and John Ainsworth have begun filming and distribution of a re-enactment of the trial.[45] Actors participating in the project include Adrienne Barbeau, Arye Gross and Tess Harper.[46]

Trial

In an unorthodox move that largely surprised both the plaintiffs and defendants,[47] Judge Walker ordered a trial to be set for January 11, 2010.[7][12] The trial was designed to address issues including "how having same-sex parents affects children and if gay unions undermine male-female marriages,"[2] the "history of discrimination against gay people," and the "effects on gay people of prejudice."[48] Notable trial witnesses include historian George Chauncey, psychologist Gregory M. Herek, and philosopher Daniel N. Robinson.[48]

The trial opened with opening statements being heard by Judge Walker, with Ted Olson and San Francisco Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart arguing for the plaintiffs,[49] who themselves subsequently took the stand and gave testimony about their personal experiences as gay Americans and explained the reasons why they wished to get married.[50][49] The plaintiffs sought to prove that marriage is a fundamental right; that depriving gays and lesbians the right to marry hurts them and hurts their children; and there was no reason, no societal benefit in not allowing them to get married.[51] Andrew Pugno opened for the defendants,[49] saying that the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs. He plans to argue only that the people have the "right to vote on what is best."[51]

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez on June 28, 2010, the plaintiffs in Perry cited the decision by Justice Ginsburg as Supreme Court precedent that sexual orientation is "an identifiable class" in opposition the defense's argument that sexual orientation is "behavioral".[52] Christian Legal Society had asserted that it did not restrict membership based on sexual orientation but based on "conduct and belief that the conduct is not wrong."[53] Ginsburg rejected that distinction, noting that with respect to sexual orientation the court has "declined to distinguish between status and conduct" and offering an analogy from an earlier opinion: "A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews."[54]

History of marriage

The plaintiffs called as the first expert witness Nancy Cott, an American history scholar who argued that "marriage has never been universally defined as a union of one man and one woman, and that religion has never had any bearing on the legality of a marriage."[49] The next day, she continued her testimony, which revolved around three key points: how marriage has historically been used "punitively" to demean disfavored groups, how the legally enshrined gender roles in marriage had been disestablished during the 20th century and how the changes in the institution of marriage had mainly involved "shedding inequalities," which she argued strengthens marriage.[55] She emphasized the importance of the institution of marriage by noting that "when slaves were emancipated, they flocked to get married. And this was not trivial to them, by any means".[56] Cott was then cross-examined by David Thompson for the defendants, who quoted books and articles she had written and "asked if she agreed with them."[55]

The defendants argued that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman because it provided a stable unit for procreation and child rearing.[57][58]

According to the American Association for Marriage & Family Therapy, California Division; the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (“CAMFT”); CAMFT-East Bay Chapter; CAMFT-Los Angeles Chapter; CAMFT-Marin County Chapter; CAMFT-San Francisco Chapter; Gaylesta, Inc.; the American Family Therapy Academy; the Lesbian and Gay Psychotherapy Association of Southern California, Inc.; the Women's Therapy Center; California Therapists for Marriage Equality; and The Gottman Institute "there is no evidence or logic that supports a conclusion that denying marriage to same-sex couples would encourage heterosexual couples to marry and procreate. To discourage same-sex couples from forming lasting relationships and procreating, in order to protect the privilege, benefits, and status of marriage reserved for the heterosexual majority is kind of naked discrimination through the political power and will of the majority is, of course, exactly what the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit."[59]

Discrimination

Professor George Chauncey of Yale University, a social historian who specializes in LGBT history,[55] described how previous government campaigns had attempted "to demonize gay people as dangerous sexual deviants and child molesters."[55] He then analyzed campaign material from the Yes on 8 campaign to show how they played upon the same message.[55] He analyzed the words of Dr. Hak-Shing William ("Bill") Tam,[60] which included assertions that, were California to fail to pass Proposition 8, other states would follow and "fall into Satan's hands," and that following legalization of same-sex marriage, the advocates of the "gay agenda" would attempt to "legalize having sex with children."[60] Chauncey connected these messages to the earlier history of government demonizing gays and lesbians which he had previously discussed.[60] Helen Zia, a scholar on Asian American social and political movements who was also asked to analyze those words, explained how her encounters with similar Asian community organizers encouraged her to “[step] into the closet and [slam] the door.”[61] David Thompson for the defense cross-examined Prof. Chauncey by focusing on the progress that had been made for mainstream acceptance of gays and lesbians in the last twenty years.[60] Thompson noted anti-discrimination laws, support for domestic partnerships, and the proliferation of media like the sitcom Will & Grace and 2005 film Brokeback Mountain.[60] Thompson's line of questioning was intended to establish "whether systemic bias against lesbians and gay men prevents them from being treated by others as equal citizens in the political process."[60]

Professor Gary Segura, a political scientist at Stanford University, said that no other minority groups in America — including undocumented aliens — have been the target of more restrictive ballot initiatives than gay men and lesbians.[62] He accused Proposition 8 of being the type of social stigma that makes "gay and lesbian social progress seem like it comes at expense of other people and organizations and it makes the hill steeper".[63] Under cross-examination, defendant witness David Blankenhorn revealed that he believed the principle of equal human dignity applied to gay and lesbian Americans, and that "we would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were on the day before."[50]

Gregory Herek, a professor from UC Davis contended that "structural stigma" in the form of laws like Proposition 8 directly encourages social stigma, harassment, and violence against LGBT people. He also testified that there is no evidence "conversion therapy" is effective in changing a person's sexuality, and that it "sends a harmful and false message to young people that homosexuality is a disorder," directly leading to more discrimination. During cross-examination, he asserted that "sexual orientation is a combination of attraction, identity, and behavior, and that the complexities researchers face in defining sexual orientation are no different than those they face in defining other characteristics such as race."[64]

San Diego Republican mayor Jerry Sanders testified how he transitioned from believing that domestic partnership was an ideal compromise to believing that same-sex marriage was fundamental. "What hit me was that I had been prejudiced," he explained.[65] During cross-examination, he agreed with the defendants that not all people who voted for Proposition 8 were "bigots", but that he believed their vote was "grounded in prejudice."[66]

Psychological effects

Relationship psychologist Anne Peplau took the stand and argued that individuals gain physical, psychological, and social benefits from being married.[60] Edmund A. Egan, the chief economist for San Francisco, agreed and said that the citizen's improved health would save city emergency health funds.[60] Anne Peplau also argued that the quality and stability of same-sex relationships are similar to those of heterosexual relationships and that permitting same-sex couples to marry will not harm the institution of marriage in any way.[60] Peplau was cross-examined by Nicole Moss, who asked Peplau about the differences between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, but Peplau reiterated there are no significant differences.[60] The plaintiffs also called forward Doctor Ilan H. Meyer to testify on the mental and psychological harms of being denied the right to marry. “Young children do not aspire to be domestic partners, marriage is a common, socially approved goal.” He continued to say that gays and lesbians suffered from "minority stress".[67]

Examining the impact of same-sex marriage on children, the plaintiffs introduced Michael Lamb, a developmental psychologist at the University of Cambridge. He contended that there is a fairly substantial body of literature since the late 1970s that focuses specifically on the adjustment of children parented by gay men and lesbians which provides very good understanding of the factors that affect the adjustment of children being raised by gay and lesbian parents. This substantial body of evidence documents that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. He noted that for significant number of these children, their adjustment would be promoted were their parents able to get married. He added that a field of developmental psychology came to the conclusion that what makes for an effective parent is the same both for a mother or a father, and that children do not need to have a masculine-behaving parent figure, a father, or feminine-behaving parent figure, a mother, in order to be well adjusted.[68] Defendant witness David Blankenhorn, under cross-examination, concurred that the well-being of children raised by same-sex couples would improve should they be allowed to marry.[50]

Economics

In an exploration on the economics of Proposition 8, the plaintiffs called forward Edmund A. Egan, the chief economist for San Francisco. He testified that same-sex marriage would aid the city because "married individuals tend to accumulate more wealth than single individuals" and that “married individuals are healthier on average and behave themselves in healthier ways than single individuals," saving the city from paying emergency room bills and insurance funds.[67] He also testified that San Francisco would make a large sum of instant revenue from same-sex marriage being legalized, citing Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to legalize same-sex marriage in 2004.[69] He estimated that the city of San Francisco was losing out on $37.2 million in retail and hotel spending and $2.5 million in sales and hotel tax revenue each year.[70]

San Francisco Attorney Therese Stewart noted in the closing arguments that the city itself was uniquely losing out on potential profits because Proposition 8 dissuaded gay tourists and their families from visiting the "cool, gray city of love" (as Walker referred to it) to get married.[57] She also argued, through testimony by Ryan Kendall and Meyer, that the city was burdened with higher incidents of mental health disorders and the subsequent costs to the public health system.[57]

Political strength

The defense called up Professor Kenneth Miller from Claremont McKenna College to testify that LGBT people had strong political and social support within California. He argued that all the major newspapers, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and a majority of state politicians all strongly opposed Proposition 8.[71]

During cross-examination of George Chauncey, the defense claimed that LGBT people have enjoyed increased political and social clout, with increased acceptance by society as exemplified by films such as Brokeback Mountain. Chauncey also admitted that employers in California are required to ban discrimination.[72]

Decision

"Today's decision is by no means California's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to equality and freedom for all people."[73]

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Defendant

Having heard all of the evidence, Chief Judge Walker heard closing arguments on June 16, 2010.[74][75]

On August 4, 2010, the Court announced its decision in favor of the plaintiffs, thus overturning Proposition 8 based on the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.[76] Judge Walker's decision concluded that California had no rational basis or vested interest in denying gays and lesbians marriage licenses. He further noted that Proposition 8 was based on tradition and moral disapproval of homosexuality, and that those two things are not legal grounds for discrimination. He also noted that gays and lesbians are exactly the type of minority that strict scrutiny was designed to protect.[77]

Notably, more than half of the opinion is devoted to laying out Judge Walker's 80 total findings of fact and the evidence in support. Some of those findings include:

  • Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.
  • Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.
  • Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage . . .
  • Proposition 8 has had a negative fiscal impact on California and local governments.
  • Gays and lesbians have been victims of a long history of discrimination.
  • Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.
Due Process

Judge Walker characterized the right at issue as simply "the right to marry," which he opined "has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household," citing to Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut. He goes on to say that "[r]ace and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage."

Before analyzing Proposition 8 under the applicable level of review (strict scrutiny for fundamental rights), Walker noted that California’s domestic partnership laws do not satisfy California’s obligation to provide gays and lesbians the right to marry, for two reasons: (1) domestic partnerships do not provide the same social meaning as marriage; and (2) domestic partnerships were created “specifically so that California could offer same-sex couples rights and benefits while explicitly withholding marriage from same-sex couples.”

Judge Walker then found Proposition 8 unconstitutional because it does not pass even a rational-basis review (as he explains in the EPC context), much less strict scrutiny.

Equal Protection

In a novel ruling, Judge Walker found that Proposition 8’s restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and sex, because sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination. And although Judge Walker declined to hold explicitly that sexual orientation discrimination triggers strict scrutiny, he did comment that “[t]he trial record shows that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review to apply to legislative classifications based on sexual orientation.”

Instead, Judge Walker held that Proposition 8 failed to pass even rational basis review. Each of the state interests put forth by proponents of Proposition 8, he held, were not legitimate: (1) reserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman and excluding any other relationship from marriage; (2) proceeding with caution when implementing social changes; (3) promoting opposite-sex parenting over same-sex parenting; (4) protecting the freedom of those who oppose marriage for same-sex couples; (5) treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples; and (6) any other conceivable interest.

Following Romer v. Evans, Judge Walker found that Proposition 8’s only justification is “a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples,” and that the proponent’s examples of state interests were “nothing more than post-hoc justifications.” In the opinion’s final pages, he observes: “The evidence at trial regarding the campaign to pass Proposition 8 uncloaks the most likely explanation for its passage: a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples.” Because moral disapproval alone cannot support rational basis review, he held Proposition 8 violates Equal Protection as well.

Evaluation of experts

The trial court found "Historian George Chauncey", who had testified as an "expert witness", to be "qualified to offer testimony on social history, especially as it relates to gays and lesbians."[78] The court recounted his academic qualfications, citing his CV, his authorship of books, and original research using primary sources.[78] The decision cited Chauncey's testimony on a dozen issues of fact or points of law that were relevant to the case.[78]

Reaction to the judgment

The Mormon church commented: "this decision represents only the opening of a vigorous debate over the rights of the people to define and protect this most fundamental institution- marriage..." The Catholic Bishops stated: "...the courts do not have the right to distort the meaning of marriage".[79]

See Also

References

  1. ^ Jesse McKinley (June 26, 2010). "Both Sides in California's Gay Marriage Fight See a Long Court Battle Ahead". {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |newspaper"= ignored (help)
  2. ^ a b Leff, Lisa (2010-01-07). "Gay marriage trial to begin in California, could set legal precedent for generations to come". Associated Press. Retrieved 2010-03-31. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ a b c Svetvilas, Chuleenan. "Challenging Prop 8: The Hidden Story". California Lawyer Magazine. Retrieved 2010-01-10. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  4. ^ Klein, Joe (2010-04-29). "David Boies and Theodore Olson — The 2010 TIME 100". TIME Magazine. Retrieved 2010-05-01. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  5. ^ Garrison, Jessica; DiMassa, Cara Mia; Paddock, Richard C. (2008-11-05). "Voters approve Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriages". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-11-11. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  6. ^ Egelko, Bob (2009-05-27). "Prop. 8 stands; more ballot battles ahead". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-11-11. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  7. ^ a b c d Svetvilas, Chuleenan (January 2010). "Anatomy of a Complaint: How Hollywood Activisits Seized Control of the Fight for Gay Marriage". California Lawyer. Retrieved 2010-01-05. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  8. ^ a b McKinley, Jesse (2009-05-27). "Bush v. Gore Foes Join to Fight Gay Marriage Ban". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-11-11. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  9. ^ a b c "Complaint, Perry v. Schwarzenegger" (PDF). American Foundation for Equal Rights. 2009-05-22. Retrieved 2009-11-11.
  10. ^ Brown, Willie (2009-05-31). "Bush-Gore legal pair push gay marriage suit". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-06-01. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  11. ^ Harmon, Andrew (2009-05-27). "Legal Experts Concerned by Fed Prop. 8 Case". The Advocate. Retrieved 2009-06-01. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  12. ^ a b Egelko, Bob (2009-08-19). "Judge sets January trial for Prop. 8 lawsuit". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-08-19. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  13. ^ a b Mintz, Howard (2009-08-17). "Gay marriage supporters tangle over legal strategy". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 2009-11-11. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  14. ^ "Gay Rights Groups Seek to Intervene in Federal Challenge to Calif. Same-Sex Marriage Ban". The Recorder. 2009-07-22. Retrieved 2009-08-29.
  15. ^ "San Francisco Moves to Intervene in Federal Challenge to Proposition 8". San Francisco City Attorney's Office. 2009-07-23. Retrieved 2009-07-23.
  16. ^ a b Mintz, Howard (2009-08-17). "January trial set for U.S. court challenge to California's gay-marriage ban". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 2009-11-11. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  17. ^ a b Leff, Lisa (2009-08-19). "Judge sets January trial date for Prop. 8 case". The Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-08-19.
  18. ^ "Perry v. Schwarzenegger". Retrieved 2010-04-26.
  19. ^ Dolan, Mora and Williams, Carol J. (2009-06-13). "Jerry Brown again says Prop. 8 should be struck down". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-06-18. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  20. ^ "Imperial Co. asks to help defend Proposition 8". San Francisco Chronicle. 2009-012-15. Retrieved 2009-12-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  21. ^ Moran, Greg (2009-12-15). "Imperial County wants in on Prop 8". San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved 2009-12-16. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  22. ^ "Perry Plaintiffs' Opposition to Imperial County's Intervention". 2009-12-30. Retrieved 2010-01-07.
  23. ^ Rauber, Chris (May 27, 2009). "Bush, Gore attorneys from 2000 team up to take on Prop. 8". Los Angeles Business. Retrieved May 31, 2009. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  24. ^ Leff, Lisa (2009-07-01). "Judge likely won't grant Prop. 8 injunction". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-06-30. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  25. ^ Levine, Dan (2009-09-28). "Discovery Fight in Suit Challenging Calif. Ban on Gay Marriages". The Recorder. Retrieved 2009-11-13. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  26. ^ Leff, Lisa (2009-10-01). "Judge: Prop 8 campaign must release campaign data". MercuryNews.com. Retrieved 2009-10-01. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  27. ^ Egelko, Bob (2009-10-26). "Judge denies Prop. 8 backers delay on memos". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-11-13. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  28. ^ "Discovery teleconference transcript" (PDF). Perry v. Schwarzenegger. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. 2009-11-01. pp. 42–43. Retrieved 2009-11-14.
  29. ^ "Court tosses Prop. 8 Ruling". San Francisco Chronicle. 2009-11-12. Retrieved 2009-12-30. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  30. ^ Mintz, Howard (2009-10-11). "Proposition 8 case headed back to court". San Jose Mercury News'. Retrieved 2009-11-13. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  31. ^ Egelko, Bob (2009-10-26). "Judge refuses to toss suit challenging Prop. 8". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-10-14. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  32. ^ a b Egelko, Bob (2010-01-06). "Prop. 8 trial will be shown on YouTube". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2010-01-06. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  33. ^ Schwartz, John (2009-12-18). "Rule Invites Cameras Into Federal Civil Cases". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-12-19. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  34. ^ "Judge Vaughn Walker: 138,542 in favor, 32 opposed- Courage launched Trial Tracker Blog". Courage Campaign. 2010-01-11.
  35. ^ "Hollingsworth et al., v. District Court et al.," (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. 2010-01-09. Retrieved 2010-01-10.
  36. ^ "Hollingsworth v. District Court — Amicus Opposition by non-party Media Coalition" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. 2010-01-10. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
  37. ^ Denniston, Lyle (2010-01-13). "Prop. 8 trial TV blocked". Supreme Court of the United States official blog. Retrieved 2010-01-13.
  38. ^ "High Court: No Cameras at Gay Marriage Trial". The Associated Press. January 13, 2010. Retrieved December 13, 2010.
  39. ^ The Advocate. "Advocate Live Feed". Twitter. Retrieved 2010-01-11.
  40. ^ National Center for Lesbian Rights. "NCLRights Feed". Retrieved 2010=01=11. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  41. ^ American Foundation for Equal Rights. "AmerEqualRights Live Feed". Twitter. Retrieved 2010-01-11.
  42. ^ "Prop8 Trial Tracker". Courage Campaign. Retrieved 2010-01-19.
  43. ^ Chris Geidner. "LawDork.net Blog". Retrieved 2010-01-14.
  44. ^ Chris Stoll. "Chris_Stoll Live Feed". Retrieved 2010-01-14.
  45. ^ Julie Bolcer (2010-01-19). "For the Record: The Prop. 8 Reenactment". The Advocate. Retrieved 2010-02-18.
  46. ^ "Prop 8 Trial, The Reenactment". Variety. 2010-02-02. Retrieved 2010-02-18.
  47. ^ Dolan, Maura (2010-06-21). "Distilling the same-sex marriage case". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2010-06-27.
  48. ^ a b Bazelon, Emily (2010-01-08). "For Better or for Worse: California's gay-marriage trial is an all-star, high-stakes affair". Slate. Retrieved 2010-01-09. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  49. ^ a b c d NCLR's Legal Director Shannon Minter. "Perry v. Schwarzenegger Proceedings, Day 1". Pam's House Blend. Retrieved 2010-01-14.
  50. ^ a b c "Closing Argument Video transcript" (PDF). American Foundation for Equal Rights. Retrieved 2010-07-08.
  51. ^ a b Leff, Lisa (2010-01-27). "Defense lawyers rest case at gay marriage trial". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved 2010-01-31. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  52. ^ First Amendment Center: Tony Mauro, "High court's Christian Legal Society ruling already making waves," July 1, 2010, accessed July 20, 2010; see also the extended discussion in New York Times: Adam Liptak, "Looking for Time Bombs and Tea Leaves on Gay Marriage," July 20, 2010, accessed July 20, 2010
  53. ^ Brief for the Petitioner in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez
  54. ^ Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, Supreme Court of the United States, June 28, 2010, 22–23, retrieved July 20, 2010
  55. ^ a b c d e NCLR's Legal Director Shannon Minter. "Perry v. Schwarzenegger Proceedings, Day 2". Pam's House Blend. Retrieved 2010-01-14.
  56. ^ "Day 2 Transcript" (PDF). American Foundation for Equal Rights. 2010-01-12. Retrieved 2010-01-30.
  57. ^ a b c "Perry v. Schwarzenegger Closing Arguments transcript" (PDF). American Foundation for Equal Rights. 2010-06-16. Retrieved 2010-06-20.
  58. ^ Egelko, Bob (June 17, 2010). "Prop. 8 backers: Marriage promotes procreation". San Francisco Chronicle.
  59. ^ [1]
  60. ^ a b c d e f g h i j NCLR's Legal Director Shannon Minter. "Perry v. Schwarzenegger Proceedings, Day 3". Pam's House Blend. Retrieved 2010-01-14.
  61. ^ Shih, Gerry (2010-01-15). "Same-Sex Marriage Case, Day 5: Children". New York Times. Retrieved 2010-01-25. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  62. ^ Quinn, Michelle (2010-01-20). "Same-Sex Marriage Case, Day 7: Choice". New York Times. Retrieved 2010-01-25. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  63. ^ Quinn, Michelle (2010-01-21). "Same-Sex Marriage Case, Day 8: Power and Prejudice". New York Times. Retrieved 2010-01-25. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  64. ^ Minter, Shannon (2010-01-25). "Perry v. Schwarzenegger Proceedings, Day 9". California Progress Report. Retrieved 2010-01-25.
  65. ^ Dolan, Maura (2010-01-20). "San Diego mayor testifies about his reversal on gay marriage". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2010-01-25. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  66. ^ Egelko, Bob (2010-01-20). "How San Diego mayor shifted on gay marriage". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2010-01-25. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  67. ^ a b Wollan, Malia (2010-01-14). "Same-Sex Marriage Case, Day 4: Economics". New York Times. Retrieved 2010-01-25. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  68. ^ [2]
  69. ^ Rosen, Julia (2010-01-14). "Liveblogging Day 4: Daily Summary". Courage Campaign. Retrieved 2010-01-25.
  70. ^ Tuna, Cari (2010-01-28). "Gay-Marriage Ban Comes at What Cost?". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2010-01-28. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  71. ^ Mintz, Howard (2010-01-25). "http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14265947?nclick_check=1". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 2010-01-25. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  72. ^ Dolan, Maura (2010-01-13). "'Brokeback Mountain' becomes issue in Prop. 8 hearing". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2010-01-25. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  73. ^ "Governor Schwarzenegger Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Ruling". Office of the Governor of California. 2010-08-04. Retrieved 2010-08-04.
  74. ^ Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al
  75. ^ McKinley, Jesse (2010-06-16) "Closing Arguments in Trial on California Gay Marriage" The New York Times Retrieved 2010-06-16.
  76. ^ "Judge strikes down Prop. 8, allows gay marriage in California". L.A. Times. Retrieved 4 August 2010.
  77. ^ "Decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger" (PDF). Equal Rights Foundation. Retrieved 4 August 2010.
  78. ^ a b c Perry v. Schwarzenegger, at 20-21, 29-30, 71, 85, 93, 96, 97, 99-110, 134. Found at on MSNBC media website, at pp. 22-23, 31-32, 73, 87, 95, 98, 99, 101-111, 136. Accessed August 4, 2010.
  79. ^ [3].

Files

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hollingsworth_v._Perry&oldid=377228312"