Glamwire

Here is the decision from the California Court….leaked as “Good as You” By Scibd…Difficult to find as of right now on Scribd BUT right here and made a little bit easier to read by The Glamwire News Team

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RISTIN 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. No C 09-2292 VRW PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND TRIAL EVIDENCE, CREDIBILITY DETERMINATION, FINDINGS OF FACT,  CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND TO PROPOSITION 8 ……………. 1
PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THIS ACTION …………. 3
PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8……….. 5
PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8………… 6
TRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY…….. 10
CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ……………… 25
PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESSES ……………… 25
PROPONENTS’ WITNESSES ……………… 35
FINDINGS OF FACT ………………….. 54
THE PARTIES ………………….. 54
WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO
RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX 60
WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST
IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS 71
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED
A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE
GOVERNMENT INTEREST ………………. 85
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW …………………. 109
DUE PROCESS ………………….. 109
EQUAL PROTECTION………………… 117
CONCLUSION .. .. …………………. 135
REMEDIES .. . …………………… 136

1

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.
BACKGROUND TO PROPOSITION 8
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

2
between a man and a woman.”  In re Marriage Cases, 183 P3d 384, 407
(Cal 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, 95 P3d 459 (Cal 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, 189 P3d 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.

3)
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, 207 P3d 48 (Cal 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.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THIS ACTION
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).

Continue reading here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• “BREAKING: Federal Judge Overturns California’s Proposition 8 Ban on Gay Marriage” and related posts (librarygrape.com)
• California judge will likely legalize gay marriage all over again in Prop 8 trial (dailycaller.com)
• UNCONSTITUTIONAL: Federal Judge Walker Overturns Proposition 8 In California (pinkisthenewblog.com)