United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 of Proposition8, RENEWAL, asofficialproponents YES ON8,APROJECTOFCALIFORNIA JANSSON andPROTECTMARRIAGE.COM– SHING WILLIAMTAM,MARKA KNIGHT, MARTINFGUTIERREZ,HAK- DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,GAILJ County ofLosAngeles, Recorder/County Clerkforthe official capacityasRegistrar- Alameda; andDEANCLOGAN,inhis Recorder oftheCounty official capacityasClerk- Health; PATRICKO’CONNELL,inhis California DepartmentofPublic Strategic Planningforthe Director ofHealthInformation& official capacityasDeputy Statistics; LINETTESCOTT,inher State RegistrarofVital Department ofPublicHealthand as DirectoroftheCalifornia HORTON, inhisofficialcapacity General ofCalifornia;MARKB his officialcapacityasAttorney California; EDMUNDGBROWNJR,in official capacityasGovernorof ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,inhis CITY ANDCOUNTYOFSANFRANCISCO, ZARRILLO, PAUL TKATAMIandJEFFREYJ KRISTIN MPERRY,SANDRABSTIER, Defendant-Intervenors. Defendants, v Plaintiff-Intervenor, Plaintiffs, FOR THENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT / CREDIBILITYDETERMINATIONS PRETRIALPROCEEDINGSAND CONCLUSIONSOFLAW FINDINGSOFFACT No C09-2292VRW TRIAL EVIDENCE ORDER g g g g United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 REMEDIES CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS OFLAW FINDINGS OFFACT CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS EQUAL PROTECTION DUE PROCESS GOVERNMENT INTEREST A PRIVATEMORALVIEWWITHOUTADVANCINGLEGITIMATE WHETHER THEEVIDENCESHOWSTHATPROPOSITION8ENACTED 71 IN DIFFERENTIATINGBETWEENSAME-SEXANDOPPOSITE-SEXUNIONS WHETHER ANYEVIDENCESHOWSCALIFORNIAHASANINTEREST 60 RECOGNIZE MARRIAGEBETWEENTWOPEOPLEBECAUSEOFTHEIRSEX WHETHER ANYEVIDENCESUPPORTSCALIFORNIA’SREFUSALTO THE PARTIES PROPONENTS’ WITNESSES PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESSES TRIAL PROCEEDINGSANDSUMMARYOFTESTIMONY PROPONENTS’ DEFENSEOFPROPOSITION8 PLAINTIFFS’ CASEAGAINSTPROPOSITION8 PROCEDURAL HISTORYOFTHISACTION BACKGROUND TOPROPOSITION8 ...... 136...... 135...... 109...... 54 ...... 54 ...... 109...... 117...... TABLE OFCONTENTS ...... 85 ...... 35 ...... 25 ...... 25 ...... 1 ...... 3 ...... 6 ...... 5 ...... 10 ...... United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 codified theexisting definitionofmarriageas“a relationship California.” Cal FamilyCode§308.5.Thisamendment further marriage between a manandwomanisvalidorrecognized in state’s FamilyCodebyaddingthe followinglanguage:“Only the CaliforniaDefenseofMarriage Act,Proposition22amendedthe Proposition 22throughthestate’s initiativeprocess.Entitled BACKGROUND TOPROPOSITION8 is unconstitutionalandthatitsenforcementmustbeenjoined. counsel, thecourtpursuanttoFRCP52(a)findsthatProposition 8 marriage licensestoplaintiffsotherthanProposition8. trial suggested,thatthecountyauthoritieshadanygroundtodeny the basisofProposition8.Nopartycontended,andnoevidence at denied marriagelicensesbytheirrespectivecountyauthoritieson California. Plaintiffsseektomarrytheirpartnersandhavebeen together. JeffreyZarrilloandPaulKatamiresideinBurbank, Stier resideinBerkeley,Californiaandraisefourchildren state officialsviolates42USC§1983. contrary totheFourteenthAmendmentandthatitsenforcementby deprives themofdueprocessandequalprotectionthelaws recognized inCalifornia.”PlaintiffsallegethatProposition8 provides: “Onlymarriagebetweenamanandwomanisvalidor 8”). CalConstArtI,§7.5.Initsentirety,Proposition8 amendment totheCaliforniaConstitution(“Proposition8”or“Prop Plaintiffs challengeaNovember2008voter-enacted In November2000,thevotersofCalifornia adopted Having consideredthetrialevidenceandargumentsof Plaintiffs aretwocouples.KristinPerryandSandra United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 \\ licenses tosame-sex couples. and otherCalifornia countiesissuedapproximately 18,000marriage passage ofProposition8inNovember ofthatyear,SanFrancisco In reMarriageCases were requiredtoissuemarriagelicenses tosame-sexcouples.See invalidated Proposition22andheld thatallCaliforniacounties Court grantedreview.InMay2008, theCaliforniaSupremeCourt 2005). Thecourtofappealreversed,andtheCaliforniaSupreme Proceeding, SpecialTitle[Rule1550(c)] Section 7oftheCaliforniaConstitution.InreCoordination couples violatedtheequalprotectionguaranteeofArticleI matter oflaw,California’sbaragainstmarriagebysame-sex Francisco superiorcourt;thepresidingjudgedeterminedthat,as a state constitution.TheseactionswereconsolidatedinSan California’s exclusionofsame-sexcouplesfrommarriageunderthe parties filedstatecourtactionschallengingordefending California Constitution. expressly avoidedaddressingwhetherProposition22violatedthe v City&CountyofSanFrancisco marriage licensesthatsame-sexcoupleshadreceived.SeeLockyer Francisco tostopissuingsuchlicensesandlaternullifiedthe The followingmonth,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtorderedSan county officialstoissuemarriagelicensessame-sexcouples. (Cal 2008). between amanandwoman.”InreMarriageCases Shortly thereafter,SanFranciscoandvariousother In February2004,themayorofSanFranciscoinstructed , 189P3d384.FromJune17,2008 untilthe , 95P3d459(Cal2004).Thecourt 2 , 2005WL583129(March14, , 183P3d384,407 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 \\ officials). Angeles County), Doc #46(GovernorandDepartment ofPublicHealth defend Proposition8.Doc#42(Alameda County),Doc#41(Los take apositiononthemeritsof plaintiffs’ claimsanddeclinedto is unconstitutional,Doc#39,the governmentdefendantsrefusedto exception oftheAttorneyGeneral, whoconcedesthatProposition8 (collectively “thegovernmentdefendants”). Doc#1.Withthe the LosAngelesCountyRegistrar-Recorder/CountyClerk Director ofPublicHealthandtheAlamedaCountyClerk-Recorder California’s Governor,AttorneyGeneralandDirectorDeputy May 22,2009,namingasdefendantsintheirofficialcapacities prior statecourtproceeding.Plaintiffsfiledtheircomplainton 8 undertheFourteenthAmendment,anissuenotraisedduringany PROCEDURAL HISTORYOFTHISACTION marry inCalifornia. Proposition 8passed,nosame-sexcouplehasbeenpermittedto re MarriageCases performed inthefourandahalfmonthsbetweendecisionIn leaves undisturbedthe18,000marriagesofsame-sexcouples challenges. StraussvHorton California SupremeCourtupheldProposition8againstthose amending theCaliforniaConstitutionandonothergrounds; mandate intheCaliforniaSupremeCourtasviolatingrulesfor Proposition 8challengedtheinitiativethroughanoriginalwritof After theNovember2008election,opponentsof Plaintiffs challengetheconstitutionalityofProposition andthepassageofProposition8.Since , 207P3d48(Cal2009).Strauss 3 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 \\ the termsof protective orderherein,seeDoc #672. parties mayretain theircopiesofthetrialrecording pursuantto to filethetrialrecordingunder sealaspartoftherecord.The findings offactandconclusions of law;theclerkisnowDIRECTED proceedings wererecordedandused bythecourtinpreparing action wastriedtothecourtJanuary 11-27,2010.Thetrial plaintiffs’ claimsandthecourt set thematterfortrial.The order filedherewith. #311; themotionisdeniedforreasonsaddressedinaseparate sought tointerveneasapartydefendantonDecember15,2009,Doc Doc #319.ImperialCounty,apoliticalsubdivisionofCalifornia, General asaplaintiff;themotionwasdeniedonDecember23,2009, #226 (minuteentry).ProponentsmovedtorealigntheAttorney proponents’ motionforsummaryjudgmentonOctober14,2009,Doc injunction onJuly2,2009,Doc#77(minuteentry),anddenied August 2009.Doc#160(minuteentry). (“CCSF” or“SanFrancisco”)wasgrantedleavetointervenein herewith. Plaintiff-intervenorCityandCountyofSanFrancisco motion isdeniedforthereasonsstatedinaseparateorderfiled intervenor, movedtowithdrawasadefendant,Doc#369;Tam’s Hak-Shing WilliamTam,anofficialproponentanddefendant- constitutionality ofProposition8.Doc#76.OnJanuary8,2010, granted leaveinJuly2009tointervenedefendthe Proposition 8underCaliforniaelectionlaw(“proponents”),were Defendant-intervenors, theofficialproponentsof The partiesdisputedthefactualpremisesunderlying The courtdeniedplaintiffs’motionforapreliminary 4 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 heightened scrutiny undertheEqualProtectionClause becausegays Plaintiffs argue that Proposition8shouldbesubjected to Proposition 8violatestheEqual Protection Clausebecauseit: the laws.”USConstAmendXIV,§ 1.Accordingtoplaintiffs, “deny toanypersonwithinitsjurisdictiontheequalprotection of violates thisfundamentalrightbecause: right protectedbytheDueProcessClauseandthatProposition8 the freedomtomarrypersonofone’schoiceisafundamental process oflaw.”USConstAmendXIV,§1.Plaintiffscontendthat deprive anypersonoflife,liberty,orproperty,withoutdue PLAINTIFFS’ CASEAGAINSTPROPOSITION8 accordingly DENIED. Proponents’ motiontoorderthecopies’return,Doc#698,is .Disadvantagesasuspectclassinpreventing onlygaymen 2. Discriminatesagainstgaymenandlesbians by denying 1. California’sprovision ofadomesticpartnership—— 3. Thechoiceofamarriage partnerisshelteredbythe 2. Itpreventseachplaintiff frommarryingthepersonof 1. and lesbians,notheterosexuals, from marrying. heterosexual menandwomenmaydo sofreely;and them arighttomarrytheperson of theirchoicewhereas The EqualProtectionClauseprovidesthatnostateshall seek tomarryapersonofthesamesex. without justification,againstplaintiffsandotherswho person oftheirchoice,invidiouslydiscriminates, marriage and,bydisablingplaintiffsfrommarryingthe —— doesnotaffordplaintiffsanadequatesubstitutefor responsibilities ofmarriagewithoutproviding status givingsame-sexcouplestherightsand usurpation ofthatchoice;and Fourteenth Amendmentfromthestate’sunwarranted his orherchoice; The DueProcessClauseprovidesthatno“State[shall] 5 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 campaign. Theargumentstates: proponents’ argumentsinfavorof Proposition8duringthe2008 vigorous defenseoftheconstitutionality ofProposition8. campaign, proponentsintervenedinthislawsuitandprovideda 13-17 below.AfterorchestratingthesuccessfulProposition8 pass Proposition8compliedwithCaliforniaelectionlaw.SeeFF managed theProtectMarriagecampaignandensureditseffortsto of CaliforniaRenewal(“ProtectMarriage”).Proponentsformedand Proposition 8,knownasProtectMarriage.com——YesonaProject PROPONENTS’ DEFENSEOFPROPOSITION8 Proposition 8isinvalidandaninjunctionagainstitsenforcement. actionable under42USC§1983.Plaintiffsseekadeclarationthat because ithastheeffectsplaintiffsassert,Proposition8is enforced bystateofficialsactingundercoloroflawand of bothsexualorientationandsex. Proposition 8discriminatesagainstgaysandlesbiansonthebasis not marrythepersonoftheirchoice.Plaintiffsarguethat gays andlesbiansforunequaltreatment,astheyalonemay contend thatProposition8isirrationalbecauseitsinglesout and lesbiansconstituteasuspectclass.Plaintiffsfurther for achildisto beraisedbyamarriedmotherand father. other circumstances maypreventtheideal,best situation same astraditional marriage.*Whiledeath, divorce, or being taughtinpublic schoolsthat“same-sexmarriage” isthe on thegaylifestyle Proposition 8isaboutpreserving marriage; The ballotargumentsubmittedto the voterssummarizes Proponents organizedtheofficialcampaigntopass Plaintiffs concludethatbecauseProposition8is Proposition 8issimpleandstraightforward. * . *Itprotects ourchildren 6

it’s notanattack from United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 following: Proposition 8waspresentedtothevotersthusappearbe children. SeeFF79-80below.Thekeypremisesonwhich are inferiortoopposite-sexrelationshipsanddangerous The advertisementsconveyedtovotersthatsame-sexrelationships television, radioandinternet-basedadvertisementsmessages. campaign presentedtothevotersofCaliforniaamultitude original). Election, Tuesday,November4,2008 PX0001 1 Allcitedevidence is availableathttp://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292 private lives,theydonothavetherighttoredefinemarriage marriage isok.*[W]hilegayshavetherighttotheir result inpublicschoolsteachingourownkidsthatgay traditional marriage. young childrenthereisnodifference Court] isnotoverturned,TEACHERSCOULDBEREQUIREDtoteach * Ifthegaymarriageruling[ofCaliforniaSupreme .Same-sexcouples’marriagesredefine opposite-sex 6. Marriageisdifferentinnaturedependingon thesexof 5. Theidealchild-rearingenvironmentrequires onemale 4. Denialofmarriagetosame-sexcouplesprotects children; 3. Denialofmarriage to same-sexcouplesallowsgaysand 2. Denialofmarriage to same-sexcouplespreserves 1. for everyoneelse. 1

California VoterInformationGuide,General couples’ marriages. superior toasame-sexcouple’smarriage; and the spouses,andanopposite-sex couple’s marriageis parent andonefemaleparent; acknowledge theexistenceofsame-sexcouples; including (perhapsespecially)children,torecognizeor lesbians toliveprivatelywithoutrequiringothers, marriage; In additiontotheballotarguments,Proposition8 We shouldnotacceptacourtdecisionthatmay 7 at PM003365(emphasisin betweengaymarriageand United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 571 (2003);seealsoEversonvBoardofEducationEwing channel theminto stable,enduringunionsforthe sakeofproducing * topromote naturally procreativesexualrelationships andto “central purpose of marriage,inCaliforniaandeverywhere else, solely byconsideringitslanguage anditsconsistencywiththe witnesses, eschewingallbutarather limitedfactualpresentation. conclusions andcross-examinations ofsomeplaintiffs’ constitutionality ofProposition 8, theydidsobasedonlegal Doc #8at17-18. asserted thatProposition8: of opposite-sexcouples.Instead,inthislitigation,proponents arguments fromthecampaignthathadassertedmoralsuperiority secular purposetobeconstitutional,proponentsabandonedprevious Township accompanying secularpurpose.SeeLawrencevTexas enforcing privatemoralorreligiousbeliefswithoutan secular innature.Thestatedoesnothaveaninterest .Promotes“statistically optimal”child-rearing 4. Promotesstability in relationshipsbetweenamanand 3. Affirmsthewillof Californiacitizenstoexcludesame- 2. MaintainsCalifornia’s definitionofmarriageas 1. , 330US1,15(1947). Perhaps recognizingthatProposition8mustadvancea A state’sinterestinanenactmentmustofcoursebe ProponentsarguedthatProposition 8shouldbeevaluated Whileproponentsvigorouslydefendedthe raised byamanandwomanmarriedtoeachother. households; thatis,householdsinwhichchildrenare unintentionally) producechildren;and woman becausetheynaturally(andattimes sex couplesfrommarriage; excluding same-sexcouples; 8 , 539US558, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 “responsible procreation isreallyattheheartof society’s arguments, proponents againfocusedonthecontention that adverse effectsproponents promisedtodemonstrate. Duringclosing he providednocredibleevidence to supportanyoftheclaimed testimony isaddressedatlength hereafter; sufficeittosaythat address thegovernmentinterestin marriage.Blankenhorn’s proponents presentedonlyonewitness, DavidBlankenhorn,to harmful consequences.Doc#295at 13-14.Attrial,however, same-sex relationships”wouldeffectsometwenty-threespecific promised to“demonstratethatredefiningmarriageencompass I don’tknow.”Idat23. answer, counselreplied:“Yourhonor,myansweris:Idon’tknow. “not thelegallyrelevantquestion,”id,butwhenpressedforan interest. Doc#228at21.Counselrepliedthattheinquirywas how permittingsame-sexmarriageimpairsoradverselyaffectsthat that “thestate’sinterestinmarriageisprocreative”andinquired judgment, thecourtposedtoproponents’counselassumption statutes. Doc#172-1at75etseq. separate parallelinstitutionunderitsdomesticpartnership because, amongotherreasons,Californiaaffordssuchcouplesa couples inCaliforniafrommarriagedenythemequalprotection #172-1. Nor,proponentscontinued,doestheexclusionofsame-sex persons seekingsuchunionsofdueprocess.SeegenerallyDoc concept oforderedlibertyandthusitsdenialdoesnotdeprive asserted thatmarriageforsame-sexcouplesisnotimplicitinthe and raisingthenextgeneration.”Doc#172-1at21.Proponents Despite thisresponse,proponentsintheirtrialbrief At oralargumentonproponents’motionforsummary 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 // for thereasons courtexplainedindenyingproponents’ motion Proposition 8raised significantdisputedfactual questions,and TRIAL PROCEEDINGSANDSUMMARYOF TESTIMONY sex sexualactivity. according toproponents,thestate’s onlyinterestisinopposite- their sexualactivitytooccurwithinastablemarriage.Thus, according toproponentsthestatehasnointerestinencouraging sex couples’sexualactivitydoesnotleadtoprocreation, that procreationwilloccurwithinamaritalunion.Becausesame- 3053:10-24. Entrenchmentofthisnormincreasestheprobability opposite-sex sexualactivityshouldoccurwithinmarriage.Tr marriage, asthisencouragesthedevelopmentofasocialnormthat irresponsible, procreativeorotherwise,tooccurwithinastable all opposite-sexsexualactivity,whetherresponsibleor state therefore,theargumentgoes,hasaninterestinencouraging to raisechildreninstablehouseholds.Tr3050:17-3051:10.The and children,thestatehasaninterestinencouragingparents stable marriagesbecausesuchsexualactivitymayleadtopregnancy sexual activitybetweenpeopleoftheoppositesextooccurin essence, isasfollows:thestatehasaninterestinencouraging this point.”Tr3037:25-3040:4. proponents’ counselreplied,“youdon’thavetoevidenceof identify theevidenceattrialthatsupportedthiscontention, interest inregulatingmarriage.”Tr3038:7-8.Whenaskedto The parties’positionsontheconstitutionality of Proponents’ procreationargument,distilledtoits 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 abridges thetestimony attrial: court’s credibility determinationsandfindingsof fact,thecourt questions: direct andcross-examinationsfocusedonthefollowingbroad that Proposition8servedalegitimategovernmentinterest. failed tobuildacrediblefactualrecordsupporttheirclaim thorough cross-examinationsofplaintiffs’expertwitnessesbut Proponents presentedtwoexpertwitnessesandconductedlengthy evidentiary presentationwasdwarfedbythatofplaintiffs. four plaintiffs,andnineexpertwitnesses.Proponents’ ##187, 214,237,259,372,513. challenging avoter-enactedinitiative.See,forexample,Doc disputed theappropriateboundariesofdiscoveryinanaction court andintheofappeals,partiesthird evidentiary record.Bothbeforeandaftertrial,bothinthis significant discovery,includingthird-partytobuildan evidence insupportoftheirpositions.Theyengaged for trial. for summaryjudgment,Doc#228at72-91,thecourtsetmatter MORAL VIEWWITHOUTADVANCINGALEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTINTEREST. WHETHER THEEVIDENCESHOWSPROPOSITION 8ENACTEDAPRIVATE DIFFERENTIATING BETWEENSAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEXUNIONS;and WHETHER ANYEVIDENCESHOWSCALIFORNIA HASANINTERESTIN RECOGNIZE MARRIAGEBETWEENTWOPEOPLE BECAUSEOFTHEIRSEX; WHETHER ANYEVIDENCESUPPORTSCALIFORNIA’S REFUSALTO Framed bythesethree questionsandbeforedetailing the Although theevidencecoveredarangeofissues, Plaintiffs presentedeightlaywitnesses,includingthe The partiesweregivenafullopportunitytopresent 11 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Perry wouldmake them feelincluded“inthesocial fabric.”Tr anybody aboutthat.” Tr154:20-23.Stierexplained thatmarrying love withawoman for10yearsandIdon’thavea wordtotell relationship withStier:“I’ma45-year-old woman.Ihavebeenin marriage wouldprovideaccessto the languagetodescribeher loves andwithwhomshehasbuilt alifeandfamily.ToPerry, wants mostinlife:astablerelationship withStier,thewomanshe first, beforefamily.”Tr89:17-18. explaining thatforthem,“thetimelinehasalwaysbeenmarriage provide themthefoundationtheyseektoraiseafamilytogether, Katami, marriagetoZarrillowouldsolidifytheirrelationshipand * ‘MyhusbandandIareheretoopenabankaccount.’”Id. To but itwouldmake——crystalizemorebybeingabletosay situation ——mightnotmakeitlessawkwardforthoseindividuals, partnership?’ Itwouldjustbealoteasiertodescribethe account,’ andhearing,youknow,‘Isitabusinessaccount?A to thebankandsaying,‘MypartnerIwantopenajoint joint account,and“itwascertainlyanawkwardsituationwalking described aninstancewhenheandKatamiwenttoabankopen Katami orrefertoashishusband.Tr84:1-17.Zarrillo described dailystrugglesthatarisebecauseheisunabletomarry alter theirrelationshipswithfamilyandothers.Zarrillo to marryKatamibecausemarriagehasa“specialmeaning”thatwould their partners,andallfourgavesimilarreasons.Zarrillowishes RECOGNIZE MARRIAGEBETWEENTWOPEOPLEBECAUSEOFTHEIRSEX WHETHER ANYEVIDENCESUPPORTSCALIFORNIA’SREFUSALTO Perry testifiedthatmarriagewould provideherwhatshe All fourplaintiffstestifiedthattheywishedtomarry 12 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 \\ between twoconsenting adults. biologically related tobothspousesoraprivate relationship woman forthepurposeofbearing and raisingchildrenwhoare either asociallyapprovedsexual relationshipbetweenamanand 2756:1; 2756:10-2757:17;2761:5-6. ToBlankenhorn,marriageis feelings thatthespouseshavefor oneanother.”Tr2755:25- marriage: “aprivateadultcommitment” thatfocuseson“thetender alternative and,toBlankenhorn,conflictingdefinitionof 2742:9-10, 18.Blankenhorntestifiedthatothersholdtoan and awoman”withprimarypurposeto“regulatefiliation.”Tr marriage is“asocially-approvedsexualrelationshipbetweenaman 17. in regulatingmarriageistocreatestablehouseholds.Tr222:13- material needsoflife.”Tr201:9-14.Thestate’sprimarypurpose in aneconomicpartnershipandsupportoneanothertermsofthe their ownfeelingsaboutoneanother,andagreementtojoin remain committedtooneanother,andformahouseholdbasedon that marriageis“acouple’schoicetolivewitheachother, recognizing andregulatingmarriages.Tr185:9-13.Sheexplained public institutionofmarriageandthestate’sinterestin the meaningofmarriage.HistorianNancyCotttestifiedabout not partners.Wearemarried.”Tr172:8-12. this isalifetimecommitment*wearenotgirlfriends.We our society,community,parents*andeachotherthat 175:22. Marriagewouldbeawaytotell“ourfriends,ourfamily, Think tankfounderDavidBlankenhorntestifiedthat Plaintiffs andproponentspresentedexperttestimonyon 13 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 multitude ofbenefits identifiedbyBlankenhornthat wouldflowto ideas oftolerance andinclusion.”Tr2850:12-13. Despitethe against gaysand lesbians andwouldbe“avictory fortheworthy same-sex couplesandtheirchildren, wouldreducediscrimination same-sex couples.Blankenhornnoted thatmarriagewouldbenefit stands tobenefitifitwereresume issuingmarriagelicensesto births outsideofmarriageandan increasingdivorcerate. the deinstitutionalizationofmarriage,includinganincreasein distinctions. Blankenhornidentifiedchangesthattohimsignify decisions andtheeliminationofcovertureothergender-based marriage, includingtheremovalofracerestrictionsthroughcourt (3) theruleofsex.Tr2879:17-25. rule ofopposites(the“man/woman”rule);(2)thetwo;and testified havebeenconsistentacrossculturesandtimes:(1)the in thecredibilitydeterminations,sectionIbelow),whichhe Blankenhorn identifiedthreerulesofmarriage(discussedfurther ability toconsentmarriageisabasiccivilright,Tr202:2-5. defining marriageintheUnitedStates,Tr195:9-15,andthatone’s religious custom,hasalwaysbeensupremeinregulatingand features ofmarriage,includingthatcivillaw,asopposedto historical institution.Cottpointedtoconsistent households andprivatesupportobligations. relationship and,forthestate,formsbasisofstable encompasses asociallyapprovedsexualunionandanaffective Cott explainedthatmarriageasasocialinstitution Both CottandBlankenhorntestified thatCalifornia Cott identifiedhistoricalchangesintheinstitutionof Both CottandBlankenhornaddressedmarriageasa 14 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 \\ \\ their sex. in refusingtorecognizemarriage betweentwopeoplebecauseof provides nobasisforestablishing thatCaliforniahasaninterest the testimonyofBlankenhornisunreliable. Thetrialevidence support findingsonthedefinition andpurposeofcivilmarriage; below, thecourtfindstestimony ofCott,PeplauandBadgettto institution ofmarriageoronopposite-sexcouples. that same-sexmarriagewouldhavenoadverseeffectonthe couples wouldbenefiteconomicallyiftheywereabletomarryand marriage. EconomistLeeBadgettprovidedevidencethatsame-sex of marriageandnot,asBlankenhorntestified,theweakening same-sex couplestomarryillustratesthehealthofinstitution well asopposite-sexmarriedcouples.ToPeplau,thedesireof Peplau testifiedthatthosebenefitswouldaccruetosame-sexas benefit bothphysicallyandeconomically 252:19-23. provide “anotherresourceforstabilityandsocialorder.”Tr from recognizingsame-sexmarriagebecausesuchmarriageswould as aninstitution.Cotttestifiedthatthestatewouldbenefit enough becausesame-sexmarriagecouldconceivablyweaken reasoned thatthebenefitsofsame-sexmarriagearenotvaluable that thestateshouldnotrecognizesame-sexmarriage.Blankenhorn California torecognizesame-sexmarriage,Blankenhorntestified the state,togaysandlesbiansAmericanidealswere As explainedinthecredibilitydeterminations,sectionI Psychologist LetitiaAnnePeplautestifiedthatcouples 15

when theyaremarried. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 opposite-sex couples intermsofrelationshipquality and relationships, same-sex couplesareinfactindistinguishable from stereotypes suggesting gaysandlesbiansareunable toformstable orientation. that thevastmajorityofpeople are consistentintheirsexual data proponentspresenteddoesnothing tocontradicthisconclusion fluidity intheirsexualorientation. Herekrespondedthatthe instead questionedhimondatashowingthatsomeindividualsreport Proponents didnotpresenttestimonytocontradictHerekbut effective andinsteadposeariskofharmtotheindividual. change anindividual’ssexualorientationhavenotbeenshownto be choice intheirsexualorientation;andtherapeuticeffortsto sexuality; thevastmajorityofgaysandlesbianshavelittleor no explained thathomosexualityisanormalexpressionofhuman describe anenduringpatternofbehavior.”Tr2025:5-11.Herek enduring patternsofattraction.Andit’salsosometimesusedto refer toanidentityorasenseofselfthatisbasedonone’s to men,women,orbothmenandwomen.It’salsoused “an enduringsexual,romantic,orintenselyaffectionalattraction spouses whilesame-sexcouplesarenot. couples arecapableofcreatingbiologicaloffspringboth couples. Blankenhornidentifiedonedifference:someopposite-sex differences existbetweensame-sexcouplesandopposite-sex DIFFERENTIATING BETWEENSAME-SEXANDOPPOSITE-SEXUNIONS WHETHER ANYEVIDENCESHOWSCALIFORNIAHASANINTERESTIN Peplau pointedtoresearchshowing that,despite Psychologist GregoryHerekdefinedsexualorientationas Plaintiffs’ expertstestifiedthatnomeaningful 16 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 different genders isirrelevanttochildoutcomes. these twofamily types showconclusivelythathaving parentsof families headedby opposite-sexcouplesandthat studies comparing comparison isbetweenfamiliesheaded bysame-sexcouplesand headed bysame-sexcouples.Lamb testifiedthattherelevant single parentsorstep-familiesand havenobearingonfamilies child-rearing typicallycomparemarried opposite-sexparentsto the idealchild-rearingenvironment, Lambcounteredthatstudieson Lamb withstudiespurportingtoshowthatmarriedparentsprovide to whetheranadultisagoodparent.Whenproponentschallenged heterosexual parentsandthatthegenderofaparentisimmaterial just aslikelytobewell-adjustedchildrenraisedby evidence showsthatchildrenraisedbygayorlesbianparentsare outcomes forgaysandlesbians. increases thelikelihoodofnegativementalandphysicalhealth private discrimination.AccordingtoMeyer,Proposition8 relationships. Proposition8alsoprovidesstateendorsementof their relationshipsaslessvaluablethanopposite-sex it informsgaysandlesbiansthattheStateofCaliforniarejects explained thatProposition8stigmatizesgaysandlesbiansbecause gays andlesbianshaveexperiencedbecauseofProposition8.Meyer divorce. have nobearingonwhetheropposite-sexcoupleschoosetomarryor Peplau testifiedthattheabilityofsame-sexcouplestomarrywill couples areverysimilarinmosteconomicanddemographicrespects. stability. Badgetttestifiedthatsame-sexandopposite-sex Psychologist MichaelLambtestifiedthatallavailable Social epidemiologistIlanMeyertestifiedabouttheharm 17 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 and SanFrancisco economistEdmundEgantestified thatstates the protectionof astate-recognizedrelationship. BothBadgett partnerships than tomarry,meaningfewergaysand lesbianshave that gaysandlesbiansarelesslikely toenterdomestic partnerships arenotequivalentto marriage.Badgettexplained and California’sgaylesbian population sufferbecausedomestic children.” Tr2795:3-5. biological parentsintermsofprovidingprotectivecarefortheir that adoptiveparents“actuallyonsomeoutcomesoutstrip biological parents.Tr1041:8-17.BlankenhornagreedwithLamb as likelytobewell-adjustedchildrenraisedbytheir children orconceivedusingspermeggdonorsarejust to betested.Lambtestifiedaboutstudiesshowingthatadopted the geneticrelationshipbetweenaparentandchildasvariable section Ibelow,noneofthestudiesBlankenhornreliedonisolates (Harvard 1994) Sandefur, GrowingUpwithaSingleParent:WhatHurts,Helps Tr 2771:1-13(referringtoDIX0124 Children, andWhatCanWeDoaboutIt from aChild’sPerspective:HowDoesFamilyStructureAffect Kristin AndersonMoore,SusanMJekielek,andCarolEmig,Marriage and cohabitingparents.Tr2769:14-24(referringtoDIX0026 children raisedbysingleparents,unmarriedmothers,stepfamilies comparing childrenraisedbymarried,biologicalparentswith emphasized theimportanceofbiologicalparents,relyingonstudies biological linkbetweenparentsandchildren.Blankenhorn Lamb andBlankenhorndisagreedontheimportanceofa Several expertstestifiedthatthe StateofCalifornia ). Asexplainedinthecredibilitydeterminations, 18 Sara McLanahanandGary , ChildTrends(June2002) ); United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 domestic partnership; indeed,proponentsstipulated that“[t]here experts onthepoint thatmarriageisasocially superior statusto marriage.” Tr171:8-11. Proponentsdidnotchallenge plaintiffs’ that indicatestheloveandcommitment thatareinherentin that “thereiscertainlynothing about domesticpartnership* who hasaregistereddomesticpartnership withPerry,explained domestic partnershipsdonotsatisfy theirdesiretomarry.Stier, consistent withthetestimonyof plaintiffs, whoexplainedthat married coupleswouldnothavesuggesteddivorce.Tr2048:6-13. Domestic Partners Kevin Shelley,CaliforniaSecretaryofState,toRegistered unwanted financialeffects.Tr2047:15-2048:5,PX2265( law andsuggestingdissolutionoftheirpartnershiptoavoidany domestic partnersin2004informingthemofupcomingchangestothe letter sentbytheCaliforniaSecretaryofStatetoregistered viewed bysocietyasdifferentfrommarriage,Herekpointedtoa partnerships. cultural esteemsurroundingmarriageadherestodomestic from itssocialmeaning.Peplautestifiedthatlittleofthe meaning asmarriageandthatmuchofthevaluecomes domestic partnershipsdonothavethesamesocialandhistorical that domesticpartnershipscannotsubstituteformarriagebecause providing rightsandbenefitstosame-sexcouples.Cottexplained stigmatize gaysandlesbiansevenwhenenactedforthepurposeof partnerships. Meyertestifiedthatdomesticpartnershipsactually receive greatereconomicbenefitsfrommarriagethandomestic The experts’testimonyondomesticpartnershipsis To illustratehisopinionthatdomesticpartnershipsare ). Herekconcludedthatasimilarletterto 19 Letter from United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 protecting children andreliedonstereotypicalimages ofgaysand campaigns, theProposition 8campaignemphasized the importanceof campaigns fromthe 1970stargetinggaysandlesbians; likeearlier relationship betweentheProposition 8campaignandinitiative should notbeencouragedinCalifornia. couples basedonabeliefthatsame-sex pairingsareimmoraland confer apolicypreferenceforopposite-sex couplesoversame-sex primary purposeofProposition8wastoensurethatCalifornia same-sex andopposite-sexunions. shows thatCaliforniahasnointerestindifferentiatingbetween below, andthefindingsoffact,sectionIItestimony not adifficultconceptforresearcherstoapply. depending onthepurposeofresearchandsexualorientationis researchers mayfocusononeelementofsexualorientation orientation withoutformaltraining.Accordingtotheexperts, most peopleareabletoanswerquestionsabouttheirsexual orientation encompassesbehavior,identityandattractionthat orientation. Herek,MeyerandBadgettrespondedthatsexual challenged whetherpeoplecanbecategorizedbasedontheirsexual and marriage.”Doc#159-2at6. is asignificantsymbolicdisparitybetweendomesticpartnership MORAL VIEWWITHOUTADVANCINGALEGITIMATEGOVERNMENTINTEREST WHETHER THEEVIDENCESHOWSPROPOSITION8ENACTEDAPRIVATE Historian GeorgeChaunceytestified aboutadirect The testimonyofseveralwitnessesdisclosedthata As explainedinthecredibilitydeterminations,sectionI Proponents’ cross-examinationsofseveralexperts 20 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 power, Tr2482:4-8, pointingtosomesuccesseson thestateand with Segura’sconclusion thatgaysandlesbianslack political political advances. PoliticalscientistKenneth Miller disagreed identified religionasthechief obstacle togayandlesbian negotiation inthepoliticalprocess.” Tr1561:6-9.Segura bad person.That’sjustnotthe basis forcompromiseand take ofthelegislativeprocesswhen Ithinkyouareaninherently with othergroups:“It’sverydifficult toengageinthegive-and- stereotypes aboutgaysandlesbiansinhibitpoliticalcompromise manifested inlawsandpolicies.Seguratestifiedthatnegative ways inwhichprivatediscriminationagainstgaysandlesbiansis children. lesbians arenomorelikelythanheterosexualstoposeathreat explained thatthisstereotypeisnotatallcredible,asgaysand century andremainpartofcurrentpublicdiscourse.Lamb predators orchildmolesterswerereinforcedinthemid-twentieth pervasive. Chaunceynotedthatstereotypesofgaysandlesbians as the stereotypeofgaypeopleascriminalsthereforebecame conduct wascriminalized,gaysandlesbianswereseenascriminals; the twentiethcentury.Chaunceytestifiedthatbecausehomosexual the discriminationgaysandlesbiansfacedinUnitedStates understanding thatgaysandlesbiansaredangeroustochildren. to beprotectedfrom;theadvertisementsreliedonacultural Proposition 8campaigndidnotneedtoexplainwhatchildrenwere lesbians poseadangertochildren.Chaunceyconcludedthatthe lesbians, despitethelackofanyevidenceshowingthatgaysand Political scientistGarySeguraprovidedmanyexamplesof This understanding,Chaunceyobserved,isanartifactof 21 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 \\ “independent strategies forpublicmessaging.”Tr 1966:16-1967:16. Protect Marriage, PX2633,inwhichheagreednot to putforward attaching Account Executive,SchubertFlint PublicAffairs(Aug22,2008) Islander outreach.Tr1976:10-15; PX2599( 1man1woman.net aspartoftheProtect MarriageAsian/Pacific Marriage reliedonTamand,through Tam,usedthewebsite same-sex marriagetopolygamyandincest.Tr1957:2-12.Protect identified “theinternet”asthesourceofinformationconnecting because he“believe[s]inwhattheysay.”Tr1939:1-9.Tam of Homosexuality)asthesourceinformationabouthomosexuality, identified NARTH(theNationalAssociationforResearchandTherapy states one-by-onetofallintoSatan’shands,Tr1928:6-13.Tam children, Tr1919:3-1922:21,andbecauseProposition8willcause grounds thathomosexualsaretwelvetimesmorelikelytomolest 1man1woman.net encouragedvoterstosupportProposition8on operates thewebsite“1man1woman.net.”Tr1916:3-24. secretary oftheAmericaReturntoGodPrayerMovement,which November 2008ballot.Tr1900:13-18.Tamtestifiedthatheisthe was workingwithProtectMarriagetoputProposition8onthe and resourcescampaigningforProposition8.AsofJuly2007,Tam in theProposition8campaign.Tamspentsubstantialtime,effort Proposition 8becauseofanti-gaysentiment. antiminority sentimentandthatatleastsomevoterssupported but agreedthatpopularinitiativescaneasilytapintoastrainof national levelandincreasedpublicsupportforgayslesbians, meetingminutes).Tamsigneda Statement ofUnitywith Proponent Hak-ShingWilliamTamtestifiedabouthisrole 22 Email fromSarahPollo, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Proposition 8also increasesthecostsassociated with resources andaccess stateandemployer-providedbenefits. people becauseof theirabilitytospecialize labor,pool couples inSanFrancisco,whotend tobewealthierthansingle explained thatProposition8decreases thenumberofmarried slashed thenumberofweddingsperformed inSanFrancisco.Egan Francisco lostandcontinuestolose moneybecauseProposition8 harms asaconsequenceofProposition 8.EganexplainedthatSan testified thatSanFranciscofacesdirectandindirecteconomic State ofCaliforniaanditslocalgovernmentseconomically.Egan campaign.” Tr177:9-18. than upsetting.Itwassickening,truly.Ifeltsickenedbythat others needtoprotecttheirchildrenfromwasjust——itmore guess. *AndtheverynotionthatIcouldbepartofwhat be fearedandthatevilmuststoppedisus,I to educatepeopleorconvincethattherewasagreatevil to children. Shefeltthecampaignmessageswere“usedtosortoftry the messagethatProposition8hadsomethingtodowithprotecting Stier, asthemotheroffourchildren,wasespeciallydisturbedat putting effortsintodiscriminatingagainstyou.”Tr108:14-16. “it justdemeansyou.Itmakesyoufeellikepeopleare Prentice AskingforSupportofProposition8) message, PX0401 protected fromhim.AfterwatchingaProposition8campaign that hewasangryandupsetattheideachildrenneededtobe campaign advertisementshadontheirwell-being.Katamiexplained Katami andStiertestifiedabouttheeffectProposition8 Egan andBadgetttestifiedthatProposition8harmsthe (Video, TonyPerkins,MilesMcPherson,andRon 23 , Katamistatedthat United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ representatives. beyond theconstitutionalreachofvotersortheir finds supportonlyinsuchdisapproval.Assuch,Proposition8is evidence demonstratedbeyondseriousreckoningthatProposition8 no matterhowlargethemajoritythatsharesview.The the moraldisapprobationofagrouporclasscitizenssuffice, Conjecture, speculationandfearsarenotenough.Stilllesswill those determinationsenactintolawclassificationsofpersons. find atleastsomesupportinevidence.Thisisespeciallysowhen voters. Whenchallenged,however,thevoters’determinationsmust scholars andexpertsseldomoutweighthedeterminationsof The consideredviewsandopinionsofeventhemosthighlyqualified initiative measureadoptedbythevotersdeservesgreatrespect. underlying proponents’profferedrationalesforProposition8.An evidence presentedattrialfatallyunderminesthepremises similar tothoseEganidentifiedforSanFrancisco. California andthestategovernmentfaceeconomicdisadvantages identified. Badgettexplainedthatmunicipalitiesthroughout only themagnitudeandnotexistenceofharmsEgan discrimination againstgaysandlesbians.Proponentschallenged For thereasonsstatedinsectionsthatfollow, 24 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .PaulKatami,aplaintiff,testifiedabouthis reasonsfor 2. JeffreyZarrillo,a plaintiff,testifiedaboutcomingoutasa 1. credible testimony: the courtconcludesthatplaintiffs’laywitnessesprovided testimony. or thequalificationsofexpertwitnessestoofferopinion Proponents didnotchallengethecredibilityoflaywitnesses plaintiffs, fourlaywitnessesandnineexpertwitnesses. PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESSES to tellothersabout hissexualorientationeven though hehas eradicated.”) Katami explainedwhyitwasdifficult forhim ourselves toother peoplewouldbediminishedand potentially Jeff, thatIknowthestruggle thatwehavevalidating Tr 90:24-91:2:“Icansafelysay that ifIweremarriedto him myhusbandissodefinitive, it changesourrelationship.” wanting tomarryZarrillo.(Tr89:1-3: “Beingabletocall him probablymorethanIlovemyself.”) with Katami.(Tr79:20-21:“He’stheloveofmylife.I who youare.”)Zarrillodescribedhisnine-yearrelationship you’re comfortablewithyourself,yourownidentityand internal process.*Youhavetogetthepointwhere gay man.(Tr77:12-15:“Comingoutisaverypersonaland Having observedandconsideredthetestimonypresented, Plaintiffs presentedthetestimonyoffour CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS 25 I United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 \\ KristinPerry,aplaintiff, testifiedaboutherrelationship 3. would bepartofthatcategory.”) emotionally. Andsoinsulting,eventheinsinuationthatI protect yourselffromthingsthatcanharmyouphysically, yourself fromanamicablepersonoragoodperson.You person thatyouneedprotectingfrom.Youdon’tprotect who mightgetthemhookedonadrug,pedophile,orsome from peoplewhowillperpetratecrimesagainstthem, when Ithinkofprotectingyourchildren,youprotectthem children isabigpartofthe[Proposition8]campaign.And campaign messagesaffectedhim.(Tr97:1-11:“[P]rotectthe to fitintothat.”)KatamidescribedhowtheProposition8 seemed everythingheterosexual*youtendtotryandwant “I struggledwithitquiteabit.Beingsurroundedbywhat been gayfor“aslongas[he]canremember.”(Tr91:17-92:2: advice thatwereceived forcreatinganestateplan.”) “[W]e areregistered domesticpartnersbasedonjust legal and Stierregisteredasdomestic partners. (Tr153:16-17: of ourlivesto*begin.”)Perry describedthereasonshe with Proposition8toendandfor amorepositive,joyfulpart children in.AndIwantthediscrimination wearefeeling and securerelationshipwithher that thenwecanincludeour wishes tomarry.(Tr141:22-142:1:“Iwanthaveastable in myrelationshipwith[Stier.]”)Perrydescribedwhyshe sparkliest personIevermet.*[T]hehappiestfeelis with Stier.(Tr139:16-17;140:13-14:Stieris“maybethe 26 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .RyanKendall,alaywitness,testified abouthisexperience as 7. JerrySanders,the mayor ofSanDiegoandalaywitness, 6. HelenZia,alaywitness, testifiedregardingherexperiences 5. SandraStier,aplaintiff,testifiedaboutherrelationship 4. a teenagerwhose parents placedhimintherapyto changehis same symbolismaboutmarriage.”) not deservethesamedignityand respect, didnotdeservethe same-sex marriage:“Iwassaying that onegroupofpeopledid minute decisionnottovetoaSan Diegoresolutionsupporting partnerships arediscriminatory. (Tr1273:10-17:Onalast- testified regardinghowhecametobelievethatdomestic two families.”) understand whatI’vealwaysread——marriageisthejoiningof married herwifein2008.(Tr1235:10-13:“I’mbeginningto with discriminationandabouthowherlifechangedwhenshe enduring relationshipwewantittobe.”) do foruswiththenatureofourrelationshipandtype marriage, and[domesticpartnership]doesn’thaveanythingto indicates theloveandcommitmentthatareinherentin —— notevenasaninstitution,butalegalagreementthat certainly nothingaboutdomesticpartnershipasaninstitution despite theirdomesticpartnership.(Tr171:8-13:“[T]hereis [Perry].”). StierexplainedwhyshewantstomarryPerry 167:3-5: “Ihavefalleninloveonetimeandit’swith with Perry,whomsheraisestheirfourchildren.(Tr 27 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .NancyCott,ahistorian,testified as anexpertinthehistory 1. identified. experts offeredcredibleopinion testimony onthesubjects those reasons,thecourtfindsthat eachofplaintiffs’proffered showed theircomfortwiththesubjects oftheirexpertise.For identified. Moreover,theexperts’ demeanorandresponsiveness were amplyqualifiedtoofferopiniontestimonyonthesubjects education andexperienceofeachexpertshow,plaintiffs’experts Hak-ShingWilliamTam, anofficialproponentofProposition8 8. she wishedhadanabortioninsteadofagayson.”) disgusting, orthatIwasrepulsive.Onceshetoldme mother wouldtellmethatshehatedme,orIwas and tellingmethatIwasgoingtoburninhell.*[M]y (Tr 1508:9-10,1511:2-16:“Iremembermymotherlookingatme because ofhisfamily’sdisapprovalsexualorientation. changed.”) Kendalldescribedthementalanguishheendured 1521:20: “IknewIwasgay.thatcouldnotbe sexual orientationfromhomosexualtoheterosexual.(Tr of marriageinthe UntiedStates.Cotttestified that campaigning forProposition8?A:Yes.”) substantial time,effort,andpersonalresourcesin Proposition 8campaign.(Tr1889:23-25:“Q:Didyouinvest and testifiedaboutmessageshedisseminatedduringthe and aninterveningdefendant,wascalledasadversewitness Plaintiffs callednineexpertwitnesses.Asthe 28 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .GeorgeChauncey, ahistorian,wasqualifiedtooffertestimony 2. .Tr185:9-13; 188:6-189:10:Cott’smarriagescholarship e. Tr186:5-14: Cottdevotedasemesterin1998to d. PX2323:Cotthaspublished eightbooks,includingPublic c. PX2323:In1974,CottreceivedaPhDfromBrandeis b. PX2323CottCV:isaprofessorofAmericanhistory a. the countrywasfounded. United Stateshasundergoneaseriesoftransformationssince to governanamorphouspopulaceandthatmarriageinthe States, thatregulationofmarriageeasedthestate’sburden marriage hasalwaysbeenasecularinstitutionintheUnited .Tr357:15-17:ChaunceyreceivedaPhD inhistoryfrom b. PX2322ChaunceyCV:isaprofessor ofhistory a. century. against gaysandlesbiansthathad developedinthetwentieth campaign echoedthatdiscrimination andreliedonstereotypes twentieth centuryandthewaysinwhichProposition8 public discriminationfacedbygaysandlesbiansinthe lesbians. Chaunceytestifiedaboutthewidespreadprivateand on socialhistory,especiallyasitrelatestogaysand structure regulatedbygovernmentforsocialbenefit. focuses onmarriageasapublicinstitutionand the historyofmarriageinUnitedStates; researching andteachingacourseatYaleUniversityin has publishednumerousarticlesandessays; University inthehistoryofAmericancivilization; Library ontheHistoryofWomeninAmerica; at HarvardUniversityandthedirectorofSchlesinger Yale Universityin 1989; Chicago; Chauncey wasaprofessorofhistory attheUniversityof and AmericanstudiesatYaleUniversity; from1991-2006, Vows: AHistoryofMarriageandtheNation 29 (2000),and United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .LeeBadgett,aneconomist, testifiedasanexperton 3. .Tr360:12-21:Chaunceyteachescoursesintwentieth e. Tr359:17-360:11:Chaunceyreliesongovernmentrecords, d. PX2322:Chaunceyhasauthoredoreditedbooksonthe c. .Tr1325:2-17;PX2321:Badgetthaswritten twobookson c. PX2321:BadgettreceivedherPhDin economicsfromUC b. PX2321BadgettCV:isaprofessorof economicsat a. municipalities. Tr1330:9-1331:5. the StateofCaliforniaandon countiesand respects; and(4)Proposition8has imposedeconomiclosseson opposite-sex couplesinmosteconomicanddemographic opposite-sex couples;(3)same-sexcouplesareverysimilarto have anyadverseeffectontheinstitutionofmarriageor children; (2)allowingsame-sexcouplestomarrywouldnot substantial economicharmonsame-sexcouplesandtheir Badgett offeredfouropinions:(1)Proposition8hasinflicted marry onheterosexualsocietyandtheinstitutionofmarriage. marriage andtheeffectofpermittingsame-sexcouplesto of theexclusionsame-sexcouplesfrominstitution couples andchildrenraisedbygayslesbians,theeffects demographic informationconcerninggaysandlesbians,same-sex lesbian andgayhistory. century UnitedStateshistory,includingcourseson his research; studies byotherhistoriansandscholarsinconducting interviews, diaries,filmsandadvertisementsalongwith subject ofgayandlesbianhistory,includingGayNew gay andlesbianrelationships andsame-sexmarriage: Berkeley in1990; at UCLASchoolofLaw; UMass Amherstandthedirectorof theWilliamsInstitute Reclaiming theGayandLesbianPast Male World,1890-1940 York: Gender,UrbanCulture,andtheMakingofGay (1994)andHiddenfromHistory: 30 (1989,ed); United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .EdmundAEgan,the chief economistintheSanFrancisco 4. .PX2324EganCV:receivedaPhD incityandregional c. Tr681:16-682:25:Inpreparingeconomicimpact reports, b. Tr678:1-7:AsthechiefeconomistforCCSF, Egandirects a. 683:19-684:19. negatively affectsSanFrancisco’seconomyinmanyways.Tr Francisco’s economyandconcludedthattheprohibition study oftheprohibitionsame-sexmarriageonSan and regionaleconomicpolicy.Eganconductedan Controller’s Office,testifiedforCCSFasanexpertinurban Tr1329:6-22:Badgett hastestifiedbeforefederaland f. Tr1326:18-1328:4: Badgett hasbeeninvitedtospeakat e. Tr1326:4-13:Badgettco-authoredtworeports(PX1268 d. planning fromUC Berkeley in1997; of thelegislationonprivatebehavior; legislation has“realregulatory power” andtheeffects reports andindependentresearch to determinewhether Egan reliesongovernmentdataand reports,private impact analysisreportsforpending legislation; the OfficeofEconomicAnalysisand prepareseconomic and antidiscriminationlaws. state governmentbodiesaboutdomesticpartnerbenefits relationships; Association conventionontheeconomicsofsame-sex many universitiesandattheAmericanPsychological California; impact ofallowingsame-sexcouplestomarryin 16 StanL&PolRev197(2005)) Brad SearsandMVLeeBadgett,TheImpactofExtending subjects; Badgett hasalsopublishedseveralarticlesonthesame Badgett andRBradleySears,PuttingaPriceonEquality? and GayMen Money, Myths,andChange:TheEconomicLivesofLesbians The ImpactofSame-SexMarriageonCalifornia’sBudget The WilliamsInstitute(June2008) Marriage toSame-SexCouplesontheCaliforniaBudget Happens WhenSocietiesLegalizeSame-SexMarriage (2001)andWhenGayPeopleGetMarried:What 31 analyzingthefiscal andPX1283 M VLee (2009); , , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .IlanMeyer,asocialepidemiologist,testified asanexpertin 6. LetitiaAnnePeplau,apsychologist,wasqualifiedasan 5. .Tr679:1-14:EganisanadjunctfacultymemberatUC d. mental healthof gays andlesbians.Tr817:10-19. lesbians; and(3) socialstressorsnegativelyaffect the example ofstigma; (2)socialstressorsaffectgays and gays andlesbiansexperiencestigma, andProposition8isan psychiatric epidemiology.Meyer offered threeopinions:(1) public healthwithafocusonsocial psychologyand Tr571:19-572:13;PX2329: Peplauhaspublishedoredited d. Tr571:13:Peplaubegan studyingsame-sexrelationships c. Tr569:10-12:Peplau’s researchfocusesonsocial b. PX2329PeplauCV: isaprofessorofpsychologyand a. opposite-sex marriage.Tr574:6-19. couples; and(4)permittingsame-sexmarriagewillnotharm experience thesamebenefitsfrommarriageasopposite-sex same-sex couplesarepermittedtomarry,theywilllikely similarities betweensame-sexandopposite-sexcouples;(3)if important benefits;(2)researchhasshownremarkable enter marriage,thatmarriageisoftenassociatedwithmany Peplau offeredfouropinions:(1)foradultswhochooseto expert oncouplerelationshipswithinthefieldofpsychology. urban economicsandregionalcityplanning. Berkeley andteachesgraduatestudentsonregional relationships andsexuality. articles andpublishedliteraturereviewsonpsychology, about tenbooks,authored120peer-reviewed in the1970s; relationships, sexualorientationandgender; specifically, Peplaustudiesclosepersonal on humanrelationshipsandsocialinfluence; psychology, whichisabranchofpsychologythatfocuses vice chairofgraduatestudiesinpsychologyatUCLA; 32 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .GregoryHerek,apsychologist, testifiedasanexpertin 7. .Tr812:9-814:22:Meyerhaspublishedaboutfortypeer- d. Tr810:19-811:16:Meyerstudiestherelationshipbetween c. PX2328;Tr807:20-808:7:MeyerreceivedaPhDin b. PX2328MeyerCV:isanassociateprofessorof a. .PX2326;Tr2021:12-25;2022:11-14: Herekserveson e. Tr2020:1-5:Herekregularlyteachesacourse onsexual d. Tr2018:5-13:Socialpsychologyistheintersection of c. PX2326:HerekreceivedaPhDinpersonality andsocial b. PX2326HerekCV: isaprofessorofpsychologyatUC a. orientation andProposition8.Tr2023:8-14. the natureofstigmaandprejudiceastheyrelatetosexual of sexualorientationtochangethroughintervention;and(3) the fieldsofpsychologyandpsychiatry;(2)amenability sexual orientationandhowisunderstoodin stigma. Herekofferedopinionsconcerning:(1)thenatureof social psychologywithafocusonsexualorientationand journals andbooks. his professionalworkandhaseditedreviewed issues inpublichealth,hasreceivednumerousawardsfor reviewed articles,teachesacourseongayandlesbian bisexual populations; health outcomeswithaspecificfocusonlesbian,gayand social issuesandstructurespatternsofmental sociomedical sciencesfromColumbiaUniversityin1993; School ofPublicHealth; sociomedical sciencesatColumbiaUniversity’sMailman orientation, stigma andprejudice. published over100 articlesandchaptersonsexual editorial boards of peer-reviewedjournalsandhas orientation andprejudice; gay men; focused onheterosexuals’attitudes towardslesbiansand behavior withinasocialcontext; Herek’sdissertation psychology andsociologyinthat it focusesonhuman psychology fromUCDavisin1983; Davis; 33 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .GarySegura,apolitical scientist,testifiedasanexperton 9. MichaelLamb,apsychologist,testifiedasanexpertonthe 8. .PX2330SeguraCV:isaprofessor ofpolitical a. troubling andunpersuasive.Tr1535:3-18. and (3)theconclusionsdrawnby proponents’ expertMillerare possess lesspowerthangroupsgranted judicialprotection; meaningful degreeofpoliticalpower; (2)gaysandlesbians offered threeopinions:(1)gays and lesbiansdonotpossessa United States,andofgayslesbiansinparticular.Segura the politicalpowerorpowerlessnessofminoritygroupsin PX2327:Lambreceived aPhDfromYaleUniversityin1976. d. Tr1007:2-1008:8;PX2327: Lambhaspublished c. Tr1003:24-1004:6; PX2327: Lambwastheheadof b. PX2327LambCV: isaprofessorandheadofthe a. able tomarry.Tr1009:23-1010:4. gay andlesbianparentswouldbenefitiftheirwere children raisedbyheterosexualparents;and(2)of gays andlesbiansarejustaslikelytobewell-adjusted parents. Lambofferedtwoopinions:(1)childrenraisedby developmental psychologyofchildrenraisedbygayandlesbian developmental psychologyofchildren,includingthe 1992; political science fromtheUniversityofIllinois in science atStanford UniversityandreceivedaPhD in on severalacademicjournals; about 100articlesayearandservesoneditorialboards has edited40booksindevelopmentalpsychology,reviews approximately 500articles,manyaboutchildadjustment, in WashingtonDCforseventeenyears; National InstituteofChildHealthandHumanDevelopment section onsocialandemotionaldevelopmentofthe University ofCambridgeinEngland; Department ofSocialandDevelopmentalPsychologyatthe 34 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 stated incourton Friday,January15,2010,that theirwitnesses Katherine Youngas witnesses.Doc#398at3.Proponents’ counsel withdrawing Loren Marks,PaulNathanson,DanielN Robinsonand court onthefirstdayoftrial, January 11,2010,thattheywere and theargumentspresentedincourt. Proponentsinformedthe between theargumentsinfavorof Proposition8presentedtovoters official proponentofProposition 8toexplainthediscrepancies designated witnessestotestifyat trialandcallednotasingle PROPONENTS’ WITNESSES .Tr1532:11-1533:17: Seguraidentifiedthemethodsheused g. PX2330;Tr1528:21-24: Segurahaspublishedthreepieces f. PX2330;Tr1527:25-1528:14:Segurahaspublishedabout e. Tr1525:22-1526:24:Segura’sworkfocusesonpolitical d. Tr1525:11-19:Seguraservesontheeditorialboardsof c. Tr1525:1-10:Seguraandacolleague,throughthe b. about gayandlesbianissues. in politicalofficeandconsideredballotinitiatives determined thepresenceorabsenceofgaysandlesbians lesbians andpublicattitudesaboutgayslesbians, politics, examinedthestatutorystatusofgaysand scientist, Segurareadliteratureongayandlesbian case. Relyingonhisbackgroundasapolitical and materialshereliedontoformhisopinionsinthis issues; specific togayandlesbianpoliticspolitical years; between twentyandfortyconferencesinthepastten fifteen chaptersineditedvolumesandhaspresentedat twenty-five peer-reviewedarticles,authoredabout representation, Segurafocusesonminorities; the votingpublic;withinfieldofpolitical representation andwhetherelectedofficialsrespondto major politicalsciencejournals; views aboutpolitics; scientists withdataabouttheAmericanelectorate’s National ElectionsStudies,whichprovidespolitical Stanford CenterforDemocracy,operatetheAmerican Proponents electednottocallthemajorityoftheir 35 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 normal variantof humansexualityandthatsame-sex couplespossess Id. Youngtestified atherdepositionthathomosexuality isa history ofreligions andcomparativereligionsfrom McGillin1978. University since1978.PX2335Young CV.ShereceivedherPhDin December 7witnesslist);Doc#280-4 at2(expertreport). attitudes towardsProposition8. Doc#292at4(proponents’ (expert report).PaulNathanson was totestifyonreligious #292 at4(proponents’December7witnesslist)Doc#286-42 comparative religionandtheuniversaldefinitionofmarriage.Doc supported plaintiffs’claims.KatherineYoungwastotestifyon of twoproponents’withdrawnwitnesses,astheirtestimony reason behindproponents’failuretocalltheirexpertwitnesses. witness untilJanuary25,2010.Therecorddoesnotrevealthe same day.Tr1094:21-23.Proponentsdidnotcalltheirfirst #463. Proponentsaffirmedthewithdrawaloftheirwitnessesthat Circuit’s pilotprogramonbroadcastingJanuary15,2010.Doc 705 (Jan13,2010).ThecourtwithdrewthecasefromNinth Perry and apermanentstayonJanuary13,2010.SeeHollingsworthv Court issuedatemporarystayoftransmissiononJanuary11,2010 public broadcastinthecasehadbeeneliminated.TheSupreme make anyefforttocalltheirwitnessesafterthepotentialfor 1094:21-23. want toappearwithanyrecordingofsort,whatsoever.”Tr “were extremelyconcernedabouttheirpersonalsafety,anddidnot , 130SCt1132(Jan11,2010);HollingsworthvPerry Young hasbeenaprofessorofreligious studiesatMcGill Plaintiffs enteredintoevidencethedepositiontestimony The timelineshows,however,thatproponentsfailedto 36 , 130SCt United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .DavidBlankenhorn,founderandpresidentof theInstitutefor 1. had beeneliminated.Proponentscalledtwowitnesses: potential forcontemporaneousbroadcastofthetrialproceedings the recordortocallanyofwithdrawnwitnessesafter explain thedepositiontestimonythatplaintiffshadenteredinto by opposite-sexcouples.PX2547(deptr);PX2546(videoofsame). children raisedbysame-sexcouplesfareworsethan directed atgaysandlesbiansthatthereisnoevidence that religionliesattheheartofhostilityandviolence gender andparenting.Id.Nathansontestifiedathisdeposition lecturer onconsequencesofmarriageforsame-sexcouplesand Studies. PX2334NathansonCV.isalsoafrequent University andisaresearcheratMcGill’sFacultyforReligious variations ofmaritalrelationshipsforsame-sexcouples.Id. several culturesaroundtheworldandacrosscenturieshavehad PX2545 (deptr);PX2544(videoofsame).Youngalsoexplainedthat the samedesireforloveandcommitmentasopposite-sexcouples. testimony insupport ofproponents’factualassertions. testimony and,inanyevent,failed toprovidecogent Blankenhorn lacksthequalifications toofferopinion as anexpert.Forthereasonsexplained hereafter, structure. Plaintiffsobjectedto Blankenhorn’squalification American Values,testifiedonmarriage, fatherhoodandfamily Proponents madenoefforttocallYoungorNathanson Nathanson hasaPhDinreligiousstudiesfromMcGill 37 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 marriage, fatherhood andfamilystructure: America.” Tr2720:24-25. also producesanannualreport“on thestateofmarriagein structure [and]childwell-being.” Tr2720:6-19.TheInstitute reports onissuesrelatingto“fatherhood, marriage,family Tr 2719:20-25.TheInstitutecommissions researchandreleases primarily on“issuesofmarriage, family,andchildwell-being.” which hedescribesas“anonpartisanthinktank”thatfocuses Blankenhorn in1987tofoundtheInstituteforAmericanValues, without theirfathers.”Tr2719:3-18.Thisexperienceled institutions firsthand,“especiallyhowchildrenwereliving family institutionsafter“seeingtheweakenedstate”ofthose income communities,wherehedevelopedaninterestincommunityand completed hiseducation,heservedasacommunityorganizerinlow- 2717:24-2718:3; DIX2693(BlankenhornCV).AfterBlankenhorn social historyfromtheUniversityofWarwickinEngland.Tr BA insocialstudiesfromHarvardCollegeandanMAcomparative marriage, fatherhoodandfamilystructure.Blankenhornreceived a David Blankenhorn KennethPMiller,aprofessorofgovernmentatClaremont 2. equal protectionclaimrelatingtopoliticalpower. testimony soughttorebutonlyalimitedaspectofplaintiffs’ sufficient expertisespecifictogaysandlesbians.Miller’s California politics.PlaintiffsobjectedthatMillerlacked McKenna College,testifiedasanexpertinAmericanand Blankenhorn haspublished twobooksonthesubjects of Proponents calledDavidBlankenhornasanexperton 38 Fatherless America: United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 DIX0108, andTheFutureofMarriage “is baseduponsufficient factsordata”and“is the productof training, oreducation.” Thetestimonymayonly be admittedifit be qualifiedasan expert“byknowledge,skill,experience, that shouldbegivenessentially no weight. Blankenhorn’s testimonyconstitutes inadmissibleopiniontestimony opinions. Tr2741:24-2742:3.The courtnowdeterminesthat the questionofappropriateweight togiveBlankenhorn’s quotations fromarticlesandreports,idat26. conclusions areinsteadbasedonhisinterpretationofselected discernible methodology,”Doc#285at25,andthatBlankenhorn’s Blankenhorn’s conclusionsarenotbasedon“objectivedataor (plaintiffs’ motioninlimine).Plaintiffsarguethat person aboutit,”Tr2736:13-2740:3.SeealsoDoc#285 ha[ving] conversationswithpeople,andtr[ying]tobeaninformed effects ofsame-sexmarriageinvolved“read[ing]articlesand and familystructure,Tr2735:15-2736:9,hisstudyofthe importance ofthosefieldstothesubjectsmarriage,fatherhood degree insociology,psychologyoranthropologydespitethe to atraditionalpeer-reviewprocess,Tr2733:2-2735:4,hehasno expert becausenoneofhisrelevantpublicationshasbeensubject co-authored severalpublicationsaboutmarriage.Doc#302at21. family structureandmarriage,Tr2728:13-22,hasco-editedor DIX0956. Tr2722:2-12.Blankenhornhaseditedfourbooksabout Confronting OurMostUrgentSocialProblem Federal RuleofEvidence702provides thatawitnessmay The courtpermittedBlankenhorntotestifybutreserved Plaintiffs challengeBlankenhorn’squalificationsasan 39 (EncounterBooks2006),

(HarperCollins 1995), United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 n11, but“nothingineitherDaubert are “notlimitedtowhatisgenerallyaccepted,”DaubertII faithfully.” Daubert II the experthasboth chosenareliable*method andfollowedit methodology anddemonstrate insomeobjectivelyverifiable waythat The partyprofferingtheevidence “mustexplaintheexpert’s expert.” GeneralElectricCovJoiner is connectedtoexistingdataonly bytheipsedixit Evidence requiresadistrictcourt toadmitopinionevidencethat Pharm intellectual rigorrequiredinthatfield.DaubertvMerrellDow of theproposedexpertdisplays“atleastminimalcriteria” publications demonstrateanacceptancebythefieldthatwork rigor thatcharacterizesthefield,whilepeer-reviewed training showsthataproposedexpertadherestotheintellectual expert intherelevantfield.”KumhoTire level ofintellectualrigorthatcharacterizesthepracticean studies orpersonalexperience,employsinthecourtroomsame ensure that“anexpert,whetherbasingtestimonyuponprofessional dispositive ofexpertise,educationisneverthelessimportantto the relevantdisciplinesandpeer-reviewedpublicationsarenot Dow Pharm Carmichael experience of[therelevant]discipline.”KumhoTireCov both relevantandreliable,witha“basisintheknowledge reliable principlesandmethods.”Id.Experttestimonymustbe , 43F3d1311,1318(9thCir1995)(onremand)(“DaubertII , 509US579,589,592(1993)). The methodologiesonwhichexperttestimonymaybebased While proponentscorrectlyassertthatformaltrainingin , 526US137,147,149(1999)(citingDaubertvMerrell , 43F3dat1319 n11. 40 ortheFederalRulesof , 522US136,146(1997). , 526USat152.Formal ofthe at1319 ”). United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 marriage isto“regulate filiation.”Tr2742:18. Blankenhorn Tr 2742:9-10.According toBlankenhorn,theprimary purposeof socially-approved sexualrelationshipbetweenaman andawoman.” Blankenhorn’s opinionsisreliable. state recognitionofmarriagefor same-sexcouples.Noneof marriage, theidealfamilystructure andpotentialconsequencesof give, seeidat151. reach reliableresultsforthetypeofopinionexpertwould whether thefieldofexpertiseclaimedbyexpertisknownto expert intherelevantfield,”KumhoTire level ofintellectualrigorthatcharacterizesthepracticean 1994); (9)whethertheexpert“employsincourtroomsame generally ClaarvBurlingtonNorthernRRCo has adequatelyaccountedforobviousalternativeexplanations,see conclusion, seeJoiner unjustifiably extrapolatedfromanacceptedpremisetounfounded litigation,” DaubertII directly outofresearchtheyhaveconductedindependentthe is “proposingtotestifyaboutmattersgrowingnaturallyand * community,”Daubert “a *degreeofacceptance”themethodwithinrelevant maintenance ofstandardscontrollingthe[method’s]operation”;(5) (3) “theknownorpotentialrateoferror”;(4)existenceand the [method]hasbeensubjectedtopeerreviewandpublication”; (1) “whether[amethod]canbe(andhasbeen)tested”;(2) Several factorsarerelevanttoanexpert’sreliability: Blankenhorn’s firstopinionisthat marriageis“a Blankenhorn offeredopinionsonthe definitionof , 522USat145-146;(8)whethertheexpert , 43F3dat1317;(7)whethertheexperthas , 509USat593-94;(6)whethertheexpert 41 , 526USat152;and(10) , 29F3d499(9thCir United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 he citedortheir sources.Tr2744:4-2755:16.Blankenhorn’s mere marriage andprovided noexplanationofthemeaning ofthepassages dependents tobothspouses. definition doesnotemphasizethe biologicalrelationshiplinking “affective dimension”asdefined by Blankenhorn,andyetCott’s There isnothinginCott’sdefinition thatlimitsmarriagetoits another intermsofthematerial needs oflife.”Tr201:9-14. their agreementtojoininaneconomicpartnershipandsupportone form ahouseholdbasedontheirownfeelingsaboutoneanother,and live witheachother,toremaincommittedoneanother,and dichotomy. Cotttestifiedthatmarriageis“acouple’schoiceto proposed byplaintiffs’expertCott,whichsubsumesBlankenhorn’s adults. Blankenhorndidnotaddressthedefinitionofmarriage or marriageisaprivaterelationshipbetweentwoconsenting bearing andraisingchildrenbiologicallyrelatedtobothspouses, sexual relationshipbetweenamanandwomanforthepurposeof of marriage:eithermarriageisdefinedasasociallyapproved marriage developedindependentlyofaffection.Tr2761:9-2762:3. this “affectivedimension”ofmarriageexistsbutassertsthat spouses haveforoneanother,”Tr2761:5-6.Blankenhornagrees described thisdefinitionasfocusedon“thetenderfeelingsthat Supporting ClosePersonalAdultRelationships Commission ofCanada,BeyondConjugality:Recognizingand commitment.” Tr2755:25-2756:1;2756:4-2757:17(DIX0093 marriage isthat“marriagefundamentallyaprivateadult testified thatthealternativeandcontradictorydefinitionof Blankenhorn relied onthequotationsofothersto define Blankenhorn thussetsupadichotomyforthedefinition 42 (2001) ). He Law United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 record, butnothing intherecordotherthan “bald assurance” marriage, fatherhood andfamilystructureareevident fromthe visitation isallowed.”Tr2907:13-19. he’s married,andheisnotina system inwhichanyconjugal sex wouldbeviolated,including where “[h]e’sinprisonforlife, Blankenhorn couldonlyhypothesize instancesinwhichtheruleof that isconsistentwiththetworule ofmarriage.”).Finally, A: IconcurwithBronislawMalinowski,andothers,whosaythat time, thatmarriageisconsistentwithyourruleoftwo?* * and nowhasfivewives,theyareallhiswivesatthesame then anotherwife,and that manwhohasmarriedonewife,andthenanother separate.” Tr2892:1-3;2899:16-2900:4(“Q:Isityourview because evenwithinapolygamousmarriage,“eachmarriageis polygamy acrossmanycultures,theruleoftwoisrarelyviolated, Blankenhorn explainedthatdespitethewidespreadpracticeof sex relationshipsinsomecultures,Tr2884:25-2888:16. opposites, Tr2882:14,despitesomeinstancesofritualizedsame- that thereare“nooralmostnoexceptions”totheruleof and (3)theruleofsex.Tr2879:17-25.Blankenhornexplained the ruleofopposites(the“man/woman”rule);(2)two; conclude therearethreeuniversalrulesthatgovernmarriage:(1) Aircraft CorpvUnitedStates within theabilityandexperienceoftrierfact.”Beech understanding theevidencebecausereading,asmuchhearing,“is recitation oftextinevidencedoesnotassistthecourt Blankenhorn testifiedthathisresearchhasledhimto Blankenhorn’s interest andstudyonthesubjects of , 51F3d834,842(9thCir1995). 43 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 non-biological parents. Blankenhorndidnotinhis testimony evidence doesnot, anddoesnotclaimto,compare biologicalto not supportedby the evidenceonwhichherelied because the provide abetterfamilyformthan marriednon-biologicalparentsis Hurts, WhatHelps McLanahan andGarySandefur,Growing UpwithaSingleParent:What Child Trends(June2002) Does FamilyStructureAffectChildren,andWhatCanWeDoaboutIt Jekielek, andCarolEmig,MarriagefromaChild’sPerspective:How 2769:14-24 (referringtoDIX0026 unmarried mothers,stepfamiliesandcohabitingparents.Tr married, biologicalparentswithchildrenraisedbysingleparents, relied ontosupporthisconclusioncompareschildrenraisedby other environments.Tr2767:11-2771:11.TheevidenceBlankenhorn biological parentsdobetteronaveragethanchildrenraisedin supports theconclusionthatchildrenraisedbytheirmarried, 522 USat146. ipse dixit definition ofmarriageis“connectedtoexistingdataonlybythe others’ work.ThecourtconcludesthatBlankenhorn’sproposed that ledhimtohisdefinitionofmarriageotherthanreview 526 USat152.Blankenhorngavenoexplanationofthemethodology anthropologists, sociologistsorpsychologists.SeeKumhoTire “same levelofintellectualrigor”characterizingthepractice Blankenhorn’s investigationintomarriagehasbeenconductedtothe of Blankenhorn,DaubertII Blankenhorn’s conclusionthatmarried biologicalparents Blankenhorn’s secondopinionisthatabodyofevidence ” ofBlankenhornandaccordinglyrejectsit.SeeJoiner (Harvard1994) ); Tr2771:1-11(referringtoDIX0124 , 43F3dat1316,suggeststhat ). 44 Kristin AndersonMoore,SusanM Sara , , , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 deinstitutionalization, hisopinionistautological. Moreover,no that same-sexmarriage isbothacauseandsymptom of couples. Tr2774:20-2775:23. TotheextentBlankenhorn believes assistive reproductivetechnologies andmarriageforsame-sex rates, theriseofnon-maritalcohabitation, increasinguseof deinstitutionalization: out-of-wedlock childbearing,risingdivorce 24. Blankenhornidentifiedseveral manifestationsof an institution(likemarriage)slowly erodeorchange.Tr2773:4- process throughwhichpreviouslystablepatternsandrulesforming 2772:21-2775:23. Blankenhorndescribeddeinstitutionalizationas a marriage willleadtothedeinstitutionalizationofmarriage.Tr link betweenparentsandchildreninfluenceschildren’soutcomes. and thecourtthereforerejectshisconclusionthatabiological 146. Blankenhorn’srelianceonbiologyisunsupportedbyevidence, between thedataandopinionproffered.”Joiner court concludesthat“thereissimplytoogreatananalyticalgap or herchildisasignificantvariableforoutcomes.The conclusion thatthebiologicalconnectionbetweenaparentandhis may affectchildoutcomes.Thestudiesdonot,however,supporta studies maywellsupportaconclusionthatparents’maritalstatus structures anddonotemphasizebiology.Tr2768:9-2772:6.The donor. ThestudiesBlankenhornreliedoncomparevariousfamily raised bytheirmarriedparentswhoconceivedusinganeggorsperm children raisedbytheirmarriedbiologicalparentsto parents. Blankenhorndidnottestifyaboutastudycomparing biological parentstochildrenraisedbytheirmarriedadoptive consider anystudycomparingchildrenraisedbytheirmarried Blankenhorn’s thirdopinionisthatrecognizingsame-sex 45 , 522USat United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 “all oftheconsequences[alreadydiscussed].”Tr2782:15-16. same-sex marriage,”Tr2782:3-5,wouldlikelymanifestitselfin deinstitutionalization ofmarriagecausedbythelegalization Nevertheless, Blankenhorntestifiedthat“thefurther sex marriageasacauseofdivorceorsingleparenthood. further deinstitutionalizemarriage,asneithersourceclaimssame- supports Blankenhorn’sconclusionthatsame-sexmarriagewill deinstitutionalization ofmarriage.Neitherthesesources support hisopinionthatsame-sexmarriagemayspeedthe minimal, ifany, social consequences. recognizing themarriage ofsame-sexcouplesmight leadonlyto consequences.” DIX0956 at202.Thegroupfailed toconsiderthat major socialchange,wouldbelikely togenerateadiverserangeof with theuntestedassumptionthat “gaymarriage,likealmostany 12; DIX0956at202.Blankenhorn’s groupthoughtexperimentbegan which anideawaswrittendownif someonesuggestedit.Tr2844:1- the listofconsequencesarosefrom agroupthoughtexperimentin deinstitutionalization listedabove.Blankenhornexplainedthat marry, someofwhicharethemanifestations lists numerousconsequencesofpermittingsame-sexcouplesto Struggle forSame-SexMarriage Family 848(Nov2004) The DeinstitutionalizationofAmericanMarriage deinstitutionalization. marriage couldleadtotheothermanifestationsof credible evidencesupportsBlankenhorn’sconclusionthatsame-sex Blankenhorn’s book,TheFutureofMarriage Blankenhorn reliedonsociologistAndrewCherlin(DIX0049 ) andsociologistNorvalGlen(DIX0060 , 41Society25(Sept/Oct2004) 46 , 66JMarriage& , DIX0956, The ) to United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 marriages wouldbe identicalacrossthesesixdimensions. Tr Blankenhorn agreed thatsame-sexmarriagesandopposite-sex Statement ofPrinciples Family andCouplesEducation,et al, TheMarriageMovement:A bond; and(6)family-makingbond. PX2879( partnership; (3)sacredpromise; (4) sexualunion;(5)personal dimensions ofmarriage:(1)legal contract;(2)financial shown areportproducedbyhisInstitute in2000explainingthesix almost identically.Duringcross-examination,Blankenhornwas testimony thatsame-sexmarriageandopposite-sexoperate threat totheinstitutionofmarriageisfurtherunderminedbyhis opposing pointofviewisnotarationalperson.”Tr2918:19-21. [the conclusionis]soself-evidentthatanybodywhohasan the studyanditsresults,reasoningthatauthors“think its methodsandconclusions.Nevertheless,Blankenhorndismissed had notseenthestudybeforetrialandwasthusunfamiliarwith Externalities Langbein &MarkAYost,Jr,Same-SexMarriageandNegative households withchildrenunder18headedbywomen.”PX2898(Laura the percentofchildrenbornoutwedlock,or have noadverseeffectonmarriage,divorce,andabortionrates, concludes that“lawspermittingsame-sexmarriageorcivilunions After reviewingandanalyzingavailableevidence,thestudy Blankenhorn describedasindicativeofdeinstitutionalization. unions forsame-sexcoupleswouldleadtothemanifestations posed anempiricalquestionwhetherpermittingmarriageorcivil During trial,Blankenhornwaspresentedwithastudythat Blankenhorn’s concernthatsame-sexmarriageposesa , 90SocSciQ2(June2009)at305-306).Blankenhorn (InstituteforAmerican Values2000) 47 Coalition forMarriage, ). United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 including: (1)by increasingthenumberofmarried coupleswho flow fromstaterecognition ofmarriageforsame-sex couples, his recognitionthat atleastthirteenpositiveconsequences would couples becauseitwillweakenthe institutionofmarriage,despite 2805:6-2806:1. sex marriagethanweweretheday before.”DIX0956at2;Tr principle, wewouldbemoreAmerican onthedaywepermittedsame- persons. Inthatsense,insofarasweareanationfoundedonthis principle ofequalhumandignitymustapplytogayandlesbian he wroteandagreeswiththestatement“Ibelievethattoday were permittedtomarry.Tr2803:6-15.Blankenhornalsotestified children raisedbysame-sexcoupleswouldbenefitiftheirparents biological parents.Tr2794:12-2795:5.Blankenhornagreedthat children ofadoptiveparentsdoaswellorbetterthan Blankenhorn testifiedoncross-examinationthatstudiesshow Moreover, muchofhistestimonycontradictedopinions. directly oncross-examinationandwasdefensiveinhisanswers. the opinionBlankenhornproffered.SeeJoiner there issimplytoogreatananalyticalgapbetweenthedataand marriage forsame-sexcouples.Hisopinionlacksreliability,as exacerbated (andnot,forexample,ameliorated)bythepresenceof manifestations ofthedeinstitutionalizationmarriagewouldbe children. Tr2916:17. making bond,Blankenhornagreedthatsame-sexcouplescould“raise” 2913:8-2916:18. Whenreferringtothesixthdimension,afamily- Blankenhorn statedheopposesmarriage forsame-sex Blankenhorn wasunwillingtoanswermanyquestions Blankenhorn gaveabsolutelynoexplanationwhy 48 , 522USat146. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (Miller CV).Plaintiffs contendthatMillerlacks sufficient government atClaremont McKennaCollege.Doc#280-6 at39-44 (Berkeley) in2002 inpoliticalscienceandisa professor of 2435:21-2436:4. object tohisqualificationasan expertoninitiatives.Tr gays andlesbiansgaylesbian politicalpowerbutdidnot qualification asanexpertinthe areasofdiscriminationagainst lesbians. Tr2428:3-10.PlaintiffsobjectedtoMiller’s authoritatively onthesubjectofpoliticalpowergaysand dire toexaminewhetherMillerhadsufficientexpertisetestify and Californiapolitics.Tr2427:10-12.Plaintiffsconductedvoir government atClaremontMcKennaCollege,asanexpertinAmerican Kenneth PMiller entitled toessentiallynoweight. therefore findstheopinionsofBlankenhorntobeunreliableand contrary tohisviewinpresentingtestimony.Thecourt evidence ormethodologyandBlankenhornfailedtoconsider DIX0956 at203-205. sex intimaterelationships.Tr2839:16-2842:25;2847:1-2848:3; acceptance ofhomosexualloveandtheworthvaliditysame- families; and(2)same-sexmarriagewouldsignifygreatersocial and morechildrengrowingupinlovingadoptivefoster might wellleadtofewerchildrengrowingupinstateinstitutions might beinterestedinadoptionandfostercare,same-sexmarriage Miller receivedaPhDfromtheUniversity ofCalifornia Proponents calledKennethPMiller,aprofessorof Blankenhorn’s opinionsarenotsupportedbyreliable 49 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 #280 at23-35(Appendix toplaintiffs’motionin limine listing158 PX0794A ( “materials considered” inhisexpertreport.Tr 2497:13-2498:22; admitted thatproponents’counsel providedhimwithmostofthe the relevantscholarshipanddata underlyinghisopinions.Miller political powerbothnationallyand inCalifornia.Tr2487:10-21. Using thattest,Millerconcluded thatgaysandlesbianshave the inabilitytoattractattentionoflawmakers.Tr2487:1-2. 2475:21-2477:16. Millertestifiedthatpoliticalpowerlessnessis as examplesofpoliticalsuccessesforgaysandlesbians.Tr whether HIV-positiveindividualsshouldbequarantinedorreported teachers shouldbefiredforpubliclysupportinghomosexualityand initiatives inCaliforniarelatingtowhetherpublicschool support forgayandlesbianrights.Millerpointedtofailed that gaysandlesbianshavepoliticalpower.Tr2442-2461. explained why,inhisopinion,thesefactorsfavoraconclusion coalitions andtheabilitytopersuade.Tr2437:7-14.Miller cohesion ofagroup,theabilitytoattractalliesandform political powerincludemoney,accesstolawmakers,thesizeand offer opinionsongayandlesbianpoliticalpower. sufficiently familiarwithgayandlesbianpoliticsspecificallyto has significantexperiencewithpoliticsgenerally,heisnot experience andtestimony,thecourtconcludesthat,whileMiller gay menandlesbians.HavingconsideredMiller’sbackground, expertise toofferanopinionontherelativepoliticalpowerof annotated indexof materialsconsidered) Plaintiffs cross-examinedMiller about hisknowledgeof Miller describedreligious,politicalandcorporate Miller testifiedthatfactorsdeterminingagroup’s 50 . SeealsoDoc United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 openness, accountability, competenceandfairness. Tr2544:10- and flexibilityof representativegovernmentand violate normsof eschew compromise andfosterpolarization,undermine theauthority criticizing theCaliforniainitiative processbecauseinitiatives because hehadnotresearchedthe question.Tr2535:9-2539:13. power thanAfricanAmericans,either inCaliforniaornationally, did notknowwhethergaysandlesbians havemoreorlesspolitical Director oftheWilliamsInstitute) Sess (Sept23,2009)(testimonyofRBradleySears,Executive before theHouseCommitteeonEducationandLabor,111Cong,1st ( no reasontodisputethedataondiscriminationpresentedinPX0604 private employmentdiscriminationagainstgaysandlesbianshad 2522:25. Urvashi Vaid,AndrewSullivanandJohnD’Emilio,Tr2518:15- Ellen Riggle,BarryTadlock,WilliamEskridge,MarkBlasius, books orarticlesbyGeorgeChauncey,MiriamSmith,ShanePhelan, and lesbians,Tr2524:4-2525:2,thathehasreadnoorfew of MarriageActasexamplesofficialdiscriminationagainstgays could onlyidentifyDon’tAsk,TellandthefederalDefense gays andlesbiansatthestatelocallevel,Tr2506:3-2507:1, deposition thestatusofantidiscriminationprovisionstoprotect date). Millerstatedthathedidnotknowatthetimeofhis including twenty-eightwebsiteslistingthesame“lastvisited” and thelistofproponents’withdrawnexpert,PaulNathanson, sources thatappearonbothMiller’slistofmaterialsconsidered The EmploymentNon-DiscriminationActof2009,HearingsonHR3017 Plaintiffs questionedMilleronhis earlierscholarship Miller admittedhehadnotinvestigatedthescopeof 51 ). Tr2529:15-2530:24.Miller United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 fear ofthemajority imposingitswillontheminority. Tr arise asacheck on thecourtsanddonottherefore implicatea believes initiatives relatingtomarriageforsame-sex couples review allofthem.”Tr2697:11-16. Millertestifiedthathe of thematerialslistedinhisexpert reportandthathe“triedto impose itsreligiousviewsonaminority. Tr2692:16-2693:7. science holdsthatitisundesirable forareligiousmajorityto 2608:19-2609:1. Milleragreedthataprincipleofpolitical anti-gay stereotypesmayhaveinfluencedProposition8voters.Tr 2603:9-24. Millerstatedhehadnotinvestigatedthewaysinwhich of anti-gayharassmentinworkplacesorschools.Tr2600:7-17, religious groupsandlaborunionsarealliesofgayslesbians. how thedatainPX2853areconsistentwithhisconclusionthatmany accuracy ofthepollingdata.Tr2592:7-8.Millerdidnotexplain 2592:6; PX2853at13.Millerstatedhehadnoreasontodoubtthe member inthehouseholdvotedyesonProposition8.Tr2591:25- asked aboutpollingdatashowing56percentofthosewithaunion Local ExitPolls-ElectionCenter2008 no onProposition8.Tr2590:10-2591:7;PX2853at9 Proposition 8and83percentofthosewhoneverattendchurchvoted percent ofthosewhoattendchurchoccasionallyvotednoon of thosewhoattendchurchweeklyvotedyesonProposition8,54 democracy. Tr2546:14-2548:15. initiative constitutionalamendmentsunderminerepresentative 2547:7. In2001Millerwrotethathewasespeciallyconcerned Miller explainedonredirectthat hehadreviewed“most” Miller testifiedthathedidnotinvestigatetheextent Plaintiffs questionedMillerondatashowing84percent 52 , CNN ). Plaintiffsalso Proposition 8 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 \\ based onanti-gay sentiment.Tr2606:11-2608:18. Miller admittedthat atleastsomevoterssupported Proposition8 politically vulnerablewithrespect totheinitiativeprocess. contradicting histrialtestimony thatgaysandlesbiansarenot Challenge ofInitiativeReform see PX1869( minorities, arevulnerableandpowerless intheinitiativeprocess, Miller previouslywrotethatgaysandlesbians,likeother expressed beforehewasretainedasanexpert.Specifically, opinions heofferedattrialwereinconsistentwiththe he discrimination isrelevanttoagroup’spoliticalpower. and lesbianscurrentlyfacediscriminationthatcurrent undermined thecredibilityofhisopinionsbyconcedingthatgays cited inhisexpertreport,seePX0794A.Furthermore,Miller personally identifiedthevastmajorityofsourcesthathe African-Americans andwomen;(4)couldnotconfirmthathe and lesbianstothepowerofothergroups,including lesbians; (3)hasnobasistocomparethepoliticalpowerofgays to forminganopinionregardingthepoliticalpowerofgaysand study; (2)hasnotreadmanyofthesourcesthatwouldberelevant (1) hasnotfocusedonlesbianandgayissuesinhisresearchor lesbian politicalpowerisunderminedbyhisadmissionsthathe: gays andlesbians.Tr2707:20-24. from marriage“wasn’tnecessarilyinvidiousdiscriminationagainst” 2706:17-2707:6. Millerexplainedthatprohibitingsame-sexcouples Miller’s credibilitywasfurtherunderminedbecausethe The credibilityofMiller’sopinionsrelatingtogayand Kenneth Miller,ConstrainingPopulism: TheReal , 41SantaClaraLRev1037(2001) 53 ), United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .OnMay21,2009,PerryandStierappliedfor amarriage 2. KristinPerry andSandraStierresidetogetherinAlameda 1. THE PARTIES supports thefindings. documentary evidenceintherecordandconsideredbycourtalso testimony andexhibitscitedherein,althoughuncitedcumulative pursuant toFRCP52(a).Thecourtreliesprimarilyonthe counsel, thecourtnowmakesfollowingfindingsoffact credibility ofthewitnessesandlegalargumentspresentedby evidence. weight andonlytotheextenttheyareamplysupportedbyreliable opinions ongayandlesbianpoliticalpowerareentitledtolittle conclusions oflaw, they shallbedeemedassuch. 2

To the extent anyof To theextent because theyareofthesamesex. Clerk-Recorder, whodeniedthema licenseduetoProposition8 license fromdefendantO’Connell, theAlamedaCounty lesbians inacommittedrelationshipwhoseektomarry. County, Californiaandareraisingfourchildren.They Plaintiffs For theforegoingreasons,courtfindsthatMiller’s Having consideredtheevidencepresentedattrial, the findings of fact offact thefindings FINDINGS OFFACT II 54 should more should 2 properly be considered United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 LinetteScottistheDeputy Director ofHealthInformation& 10. MarkBHortonistheDirectorofCalifornia Departmentof 9. EdmundGBrown, JristheAttorneyGeneralofCalifornia. 8. ArnoldSchwarzenegger istheGovernorofCalifornia. 7. SanFranciscoisresponsible forissuingmarriagelicenses, 6. SanFranciscoisa charter cityandcountyunderthe 5. OnMay20,2009,KatamiandZarrilloappliedforamarriage 4. PaulKatamiandJeffreyZarrilloresidetogetherinLos 3. Strategic Planning fortheCaliforniaDepartment of Public certificate. See Doc#46¶15(admitting#1 ¶ 15). marriage, includingthelicenseto marry,andthemarriage marriage licenseapplications,the certificateofregistry responsible forprescribingandfurnishing theformsfor the StateofCalifornia.Inhis official capacity,Hortonis Public HealthandtheStateRegistrar ofVitalStatistics Defendants records ofmarriages.CalFamCode§§350(a),401(a),400(b). performing civilmarriageceremoniesandmaintainingvital Cal ConstArtXI,§5(a);SFCharterPreamble. California ConstitutionandlawsoftheStateCalifornia. Plaintiff-Intervenor are ofthesamesex. who deniedthemalicenseduetoProposition8becausethey license fromdefendantLogan,theLosAngelesCountyClerk, relationship whoseektomarry. Angeles County,California.Theyaregaymeninacommitted 55 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3 DennisHollingsworth,GailJKnight,MartinFGutierrez, 13. DeanCLoganistheLosAngelesCounty 12. PatrickO’ConnellistheAlamedaCountyClerk-Registrarand 11. certificate. SeeDoc#46¶16(admitting#116). marriage, includingthelicensetomarry,andmarriage marriage licenseapplications,thecertificateofregistry responsible forprescribingandfurnishingtheforms Health. ScottreportstoHortonandistheofficial .Doc#8at14(Proponents’motiontointervene: b. Doc#8-6at¶19(DeclofDavidBauer); a. proponents” ofProposition8underCalifornialaw. Hak-Shing WilliamTamandMarkAJanssonarethe“official Defendant-Intevenors (Proponents) 13 (admittingDoc#1¶18). licenses andperformingcivilmarriageceremonies.Doc#41¶ maintaining vitalrecordsofmarriages,issuingmarriage Registrar-Recorder/County Clerkandisresponsiblefor ceremonies. SeeDoc#42¶17(admitting#117). issuing marriagelicensesandperformingcivil responsible formaintainingvitalrecordsofmarriages, from supervisingsignature-gatherers.”). state-law guidelines,and(6)obtaining certifications signatures, (5)instructingsignature-collectors on overseeing thecollectionofmore than1.2million (3) draftinglegallycompliantsignature petitions,(4) Title andSummary,(2)payingthe initiativefilingfee, forms promptingtheStatetoprepare Proposition8’s to procureProposition8’senactment, suchas(1)filing “Proponents compliedwithamyriad oflegalrequirements 56 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 TheProtectMarriageExecutiveCommitteeincludesRon 16. ProponentsestablishedProtectMarriage.com——Yeson8,a 15. Proponentsdedicatedsubstantialtime,effort,reputationand 14. .PX0209 b. Doc#372at4(identifyingtheaboveindividuals basedon a. Treasurer andofficerofrecordfor ProtectMarriage. Andrew PugnoactsasGeneralCounsel. DavidBaueristhe Prentice, EdwardDolejsi,MarkAJanssonandDougSwardstrom. Doc#8-5at¶13(Decl ofMarkAJansson). e. Doc#8-4at¶13(Decl ofHak-ShingWilliamTam); d. Doc#8-3at¶13(Decl ofMartinFGutierrez); c. Doc#8-2at¶13(Decl ofGailJKnight); b. Doc#8-1at¶13(Decl ofDennisHollingsworth); a. law. “primarily formedballotmeasurecommittee”underCalifornia Project ofCaliforniaRenewal(“ProtectMarriage”)asa Doc#8-5at¶27(DeclofMarkAJansson). f. Doc#8-4at¶27(DeclofHak-ShingWilliamTam); e. Doc#8-3(DeclofMartinFGutierrez:describing d. Doc#8-2at¶27(DeclofGailJKnight); c. Doc#8-1at¶27(DeclofDennisHollingsworth); b. Tr1889:23-1893:15:Tamspentthemajorityofhishours a. personal resourcesincampaigningforProposition8. Executive Director, CaliforniaCatholicConference; and Pugno, ProtectMarriage GeneralCounsel;EdwardDolejsi, by: RonPrentice, ProtectMarriageChairman;Andrew like amount”toProtect Marriage.Theletteris signed group opposingProposition 8demanding“adonation ofa 20, 2008) November 6,2009); the declarationofRonPrentice, submitted undersealon activities topassandenforceProposition8); in 2008workingtopassProposition8; Letter fromProtectMarriagetoJim Abbott(Oct : Lettertoabusinessthatdonated moneytoa 57 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 ProtectMarriagewasresponsibleforallaspectsofthe 17. .PX2640EmailfromPugno toTam c. PX2403 b. Doc#8-6at¶¶4,6,10,11(DeclofDavidBauer); a. into law. campaign toqualifyProposition8fortheballotandenactit .PX2640EmailfromPugno toTam d. .PX2476 i. Tr1965:15-1966:4(Tam:Tamsigneda“Statement ofUnity h. Tr1998:23-1999:11(Tam:ProtectMarriagereimbursed g. Tr1904:3-5(Tam:Tamparticipatedinadebate because f. Tr1892:9-12(Tam: In October2007,Tamwaswaitingfor e. Member. Mark Jansson,aProtectMarriageExecutiveCommittee and FRCis“makingthosechanges.”; issues) andjustputProtectMarriage.comoneverything” take FRClogosoffoftheCAversionvideos(legal Council (“FRC”)foundoutfromPugnothatFRC“need[s]to 8. CuretonexplainstoPrenticethatFamilyResearch voters throughchurchestohelpthempromoteProposition Cureton attachesakittobedistributedChristian Research Council,toPrenticeat1(Aug25,2008) specific.”; * Itiscrucialthatourpublicmessagebevery to pleasereferallcallsthecampaignphonenumber. Marriage Amendment[Proposition8],Iwouldencourageyou contacted bythemediaoranyoneelseregarding not thinkitislikely,butintheeventyouare 2007): Family Coalition.”); behalf of[him]selfandon oftheTraditional with respecttotheProposition8 campaign”both“[o]n of Proposition8.); individuals whoranprintandtelevision adsinsupport Protect Marriagetoldhimtodoso.); on theballot.); should startcollectingsignaturestoplaceProposition8 instructions fromProtectMarriageregardingwhenhe directly totheChinesepress.SeeTr1906:9-12; press strategyandshouldspeakonbehalfofthecampaign explains thatTamis“anexception”toProtectMarriage’s Email fromKenynCureton,Vice-President,Family “I’m stillwaiting forProtectMarriage.com Email fromTamto listofsupporters(Oct22, 58 (Feb 5,2008)at2 (Feb 5,2008)at2 : : “Ido : Pugno United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8 ProtectMarriageisa“broadcoalition”ofindividualsand 18. .PX0577 h. PX0390A g. PX2597 f. Tr1609:12-1610:6(Segura: Thecoalitionbetweenthe e. Tr1590:23-1591:12 (Segura: An“organizedeffort”and d. Tr1585:20-1590:2(Segura: Churches,becauseoftheir c. PX0577 b. PX2310 a. Conference andalargenumberofevangelicalchurches. Latter-Day Saints(the“LDSChurch”),theCaliforniaCatholic organizations, includingtheChurchofJesusChrist collection for[Proposition8].” instructions ofwhenwewouldstartthesignature Prop 8andjoined thecampaignexecutivecommittee. Even Church ofJesusChrist ofLatterDaySaintshadendorsed Politics at46(Feb 2009) campaign; and evangelicalministerstothe Protect Marriage of contributionsfromtheLDSChurch, Catholicbishops Proposition 8,Excerpt Proposition 8; Catholic andevangelicalleaders working topass evangelical, CatholicandMormon groups” andidentifies coalition ofmanyorganizationshas existed,including in 1998fortheeventualsuccess of Prop22in2000,a 2008) group was“unprecedented.”); Catholic ChurchandtheLDSagainstaminority “broad-based coalition”ofProtectMarriage.); “formal association”ofreligiousgroupsformedthe coordination withProtectMarriage.”); breadth ofthe[religious]organizationanditslevel of Proposition8isstrikingbecause“thesheer “1700 pastors”workingwithProtectMarriageinsupport communication network”withchurchgoers.Anetworkof congregations onceaweek,have“verystrong hierarchical structureandabilitytospeak virtually theentirefaithcommunityinCalifornia.”; Politics (Feb2009) “broad-based coalition”insupportofProposition8; (2008): : Prenticeexplainsthat“[f]romtheinitialefforts Frank Schubertand JeffFlint,PassingProp8 Email fromPrenticetoLynnVincent(June19, Frank SchubertandJeffFlint,PassingProp8 About ProtectMarriage.com,ProtectMarriage Video, RonPrenticeAddressingSupporters of Protect Marriage“about”pageidentifiesa at47:“Wehadthesupportof : Prenticeexplainstheimportance 59 : “Bythistime, leaders ofthe , , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 California, like everyotherstate,hasneverrequiredthat 21. Apersonmaynotmarryunlessheorshehasthelegalcapacity 20. MarriageintheUnitedStateshasalwaysbeenacivilmatter. 19. .InreMarriageCases b. CalFamCode§300etseq; a. procreate. individuals enteringamarriagebe willingorableto CalFamCode§§300,301. b. Tr202:2-15(Cott:Marriage“isabasiccivil right.It a. to consentmarriage. CalFamCode§§400, 420. b. Tr195:13-196:21(Cott: “[C]ivillawhasalwaysbeen a. under statelaw. recognition orlackthereofhasnoeffectontherelationship whether torecognizeacivilmarriageordivorcebutthat marriage. Religiousleadersmaydetermineindependently marriages butnottodeterminewhomayenterorleaveacivil Civil authoritiesmaypermitreligiousleaderstosolemnize RECOGNIZE MARRIAGEBETWEENTWOPEOPLEBECAUSEOFTHEIRSEX WHETHER ANYEVIDENCESUPPORTSCALIFORNIA’SREFUSALTO fundraising efforts.” while wewerebusyorganizingCatholicandEvangelical early fundraising,providingmuch-neededcontributions the campaign,theirmemberswereimmenselyhelpfulin though theLDSwerelastmajordenominationtojoin couples becauseonly amanandwomancanproduce contention [that marriage islimitedtoopposite-sex able toconsentvalidly.”); expresses therightofapersonto havethelibertytobe has giventhemauthoritytodothat.”); * performingmarriages,onlydosobecausethestate ministers, rabbis,etcetera,thatwereaccustomedto bearing onthevalidityofmarriages.Anyclerics, [Religious practicesandceremonies]havenoparticular supreme indefiningandregulatingmarriage.* , 183P3d384,431 (Cal2008)(“This 60 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 4 Manystates, includingCalifornia,hadlawsrestrictingthe 24. Thestateshavealwaysrequiredthepartiestogivetheirfree 23. WhenCaliforniabecameastatein1850,marriagewas 22. .Tr222:22-223:22(Cott:“Therehasneverbeena d. LawrencevTexas c. .Tr236:17-238:23(Cott:Raciallyrestrictive marriage b. Tr228:9-231:3(Cott:In“[a]smanyas41states and a. not marryeachother. race ofmaritalpartnerssothat whites andnon-whitescould important newrightstheyhadgained.Tr202:2-203:12(Cott). former slavesviewedtheirabilitytomarryasoneofthemost to consentandwerethusunablemarry.Afteremancipation, property ofothersatthetime,theylackedlegalcapacity consent toamarriage.Becauseslaveswereconsidered Art XI§14(1849);InreMarriageCases understood torequireahusbandandwife.SeeCalConst, marriage.”). [P]rocreative abilityhasneverbeenaqualificationfor procreative agehavealwaysbeenallowedtomarry.* have avalidmarriage.Ofcourse,peoplebeyond requirement thatacoupleproducechildreninorderto allowed tomarry.”); procreation, sincethesterileandelderlyare the Constitution’?Surelynotencouragementof homosexual couplesexercising‘thelibertyprotectedby there possiblybefordenyingthebenefitsofmarriageto proscribing thatconduct*whatjustificationcould conduct is‘nolegitimatestateinterest’forpurposesof dissenting) (“Ifmoraldisapprobationofhomosexual flawed[.]”); children biologicallyrelatedtoboth]isfundamentally efforts toundothem metextremealarmamongthose who and God’splanjust beingputintopositivelaw, the race restrictions arguedthelawswere“naturally-based groups aslessworthy thanothergroups[.]”Defenders of on whomtheymarried, inawaythatdesignatedsome laws “preventedindividualsfrom having completechoice between awhitepersonand ofcolor.”); territories,” lawsplacedrestrictions on“marriage , 539US558,604-05(2003)(Scalia,J, 61 , 183P3dat407. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 Undercoverture, awoman’slegalandeconomicidentitywas 26. Racialrestrictionsonanindividual’schoiceofmarriage 25. .PX0710atRFANo11: AttorneyGeneraladmitsthat f. PacevAlabama e. PX2547(NathansonNov12,2009DepTr108:12-23: d. Tr440:9-13(Chauncey:JerryFalwellcriticizedBrownv c. marital bargain. legal headofhousehold. Covertureisnolonger part ofthe subsumed byherhusband’suponmarriage. Thehusbandwasthe PerezvSharp b. LovingvVirginia a. his orherchosenpartner. marry nolongerdependsonhisorherracenortheof in 1967.Anindividual’sexerciseofhisorherrightto Constitution in1948andundertheUnitedStates partner weredeemedunconstitutionalundertheCalifornia PX0707atRFA No11:ProponentsadmitthatCalifornia g. Perez vSharp California SupremeCourtinvalidatedtheprohibitionin California bannedinterracialmarriageuntilthe same); because theytreatedAfrican-Americansandwhitesthe anti-miscegenation lawsdidnotviolatetheConstitution (video ofsame); such discriminationwasprotectiveofthefamily);PX2546 Defenders ofracerestrictionsinmarriagearguedthat ultimate signofblackandwhiteequality.”); “lead tointerracialmarriage,whichwasthensortofthe should marry,andwhocouldnotnot.”); as veryimportantdefinitionalfeaturesofwhocouldand supported [raciallyrestrictivemarriagelaws]sawthese thought theselawswerecorrect.*[P]eoplewho invalidated thoserestrictionsinPerez history asastateuntiltheCaliforniaSupremeCourt banned certaininterracialmarriagesfromearlyinits Board ofEducation , 198P2d17(Cal1948). , 198P2d17(Cal1948); , 106US583,585(1883)(holdingthat , 388US1(1967); , becauseschoolintegrationcould 62 , 198P2d17. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 Marriagebetween amanandwomanwastraditionallyorganized 27. .FollansbeevBenzenberg f. Tr243:5-244:10(Cott: Thesexualdivisionofroles e. Tr241:7-11(Cott: Coverture “wasahighly-asymmetrical d. Tr240:22-241:6(Cott:Coverture“wasthemaritalbargain c. Tr240:11-240:15(Cott:Undercoverture,“thewifewas b. PX0710atRFANo12:AttorneyGeneraladmitsthatthe a. and menwereseen assuitedtoprovideforthefamily. women forothers. Womenwereseenassuitedtoraise children lines. Menwereseenassuitedfor certaintypesofworkand based onpresumptionsofadivision oflaboralonggender and theotherbeingdependent.”); with aspecificemphasisononespousebeingtheprovider one another,buttheyarenotobligatedtoanother gender-neutral. “[B]othspousesareobligatedtosupport Currently, thestate’sassignmentofmaritalrolesis came fullytoanendunderthelawin1970s. spouses begantoshiftinthelatenineteenthcenturyand reciprocal bargainjoinedbyconsent.”); domination andsubmission.Itwasamutualbargain, * ButIdowanttostressitwasnotsimply bargain that,toustoday,appearsenforceinequality. economic transaction.”); represent herincourtoranysortoflegal also enablehimtotakeallofherearnings,and obey him,andtolendhimallofherproperty, dependents. Andherpartofthebargainwastoserveand basic materialgoodsoflife,andtodosofortheir obligation wastosupporthiswife,provideherwiththe * obligationsthatwereenforcedbythestate.His bargain inwhichthehusbandhadcertainveryimportant to whichbothspousesconsented.Anditwasareciprocal economic individuality.”); identity. Andshe——lostherindependentlegaland covered, ineffect,byherhusband’slegalandeconomic component ofthecivilinstitutionmarriage; property oftheirhusbands,wasonceviewedasacentral lost theirindependentlegalidentityandbecamethe doctrine ofcoverture,underwhichwomen,oncemarried, husband.”). legal personalityisnolongermerged inthatofher 1954) (“Thelegalstatusofawife haschanged.Her 63 , 122CalApp2d466,476(2dDist United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8 Thedevelopment ofno-faultdivorcelawsmadeitsimplerfor 28. .PX1319 e. PX2547(NathansonNov 12,2009DepTr108:24-109:9: d. PX1245 c. Tr241:19-23(Cott:“[A]ssumptionswere,atthetime, b. Tr239:25-245:8,307:14-308:9,340:14-342:12(Cott: a. .Tr339:10-14(Cott:Themovetono-fault divorce b. Tr338:5-14(Cott:No-faultdivorce“wasan indicationof a. own roleswithinamarriage. spouses toendmarriagesandallowed spousestodefinetheir PX1328 f. same, PX2544videoofsame); also PX2545(YoungNov13,2009DepTr214:19-215:13: protective ofthefamily.(PX2546videosame);see argued thatsuchdiscriminationwasmeanttobe Defenders ofprejudiceorstereotypesagainstwomen male poweranddecision-makingauthority.”; division oflaborbasedongenderandanormgreater marriage isorganizedaroundtwobasicprinciples:a Rev Pschol405,408(2007) women, theweakersex,weresuitedtobedependent.”); that menweresuitedtobeproviders*whereas, and women.); then consideredanaturaldivisionoflaborbetweenmen The coverturesystemwasbasedonassumptionsofwhat economic identitywasmergedintothatofherhusband’s. roles ofspouses.Undercoverture,awife’slegaland Marriage lawshistoricallyhavebeenusedtodictatethe underlines thefact thatmarriagenolongerrequires if theyareonespouse ortheother.”); themselves. There’snorequirement thattheydoXorY by thestate.Nowtheyaredictated bythecouple the shift*[that]spousalroles usedtobedictated legal capacityinmostmattersaffectingproperty.” 857, 858(1943) Support andWife’sDutytoRenderServices husbands andwomenactingaswives.”; of arelationshiprightsandduties,menactingas important featureofmarriagewasthepublicassumption could notusuallysueunderherownname.”And“themost L J95,101,128-129(1991) Expectations inNineteenthCenturyAmerica Close RelationshipsofLesbiansandGayMen Note, AReconsiderationofHusband’sDutyto Hendrik Hartog,Lecture,MaritalExitsand Letitia AnnePeplauandAdamWFingerhut,The : “Marriagedeprived[thewife]ofher 64 : “Traditionalheterosexual : “Eveninequity,awife , 29VaLRev , 80Georgetown , 58Annual United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 In1971,CaliforniaamendedCalCivCode§4101,whichhad 29. 0 Inthe1970s,severalsame-sexcouplessoughtmarriage 30. consummating marriage.”CalCivCode§4101(1971);Inre otherwise disqualified,iscapableofconsentingtoand unmarried personoftheage18yearsorupwards,andnot years formalesandeighteenfemales,toread“[a]ny previously settheageofconsenttomarriageattwenty-one .PX1308 d. PX1319 c. In reMarriageCases in marriagemotivated legislatorstoenacttheamendment. See supports aconclusionthatunique rolesofamanandwoman Code §300.Thelegislativehistory oftheenactment man andawoman**.”Id.That provisionbecameCalFam personal relationarisingoutof a civilcontractbetween statute, formerCalCivCode§4100, toread“[m]arriageisa response, thelegislaturein1977amendedmarriage Civ Code§4101.InreMarriageCases licenses inCalifornia,relyingontheamendedlanguageCal Marriage Cases before statesadoptedno-faultdivorce. divorce ratesareconsistentwithtrendsthatdeveloped the StudyofLaborat2-3,Fig1(Feb2007) public vowsofmarriage.”; who hadknowinglyandcriminallyviolatedhisorher and “providedaformofpublicpunishmentforspouse and divorce“punishedtheguiltyforcriminalconduct” marriage waspermanent,spousalroleswerenon-negotiable L J95,97,121(1991) on gender.); specific performanceofonemaritalroleoranotherbased Divorce: ChangesandtheirDrivingForces Expectations inNineteenthCenturyAmerica Betsey StevensonandJustinWolfers,Marriage Hendrik Hartog,Lecture,MaritalExitsand , 183P3dat408. , 183P3dat409. : InnineteenthcenturyAmerica, 65 , 183P3dat409.In , Institutefor , 80Georgetown : Current United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3 Eliminatinggenderandracerestrictionsinmarriagehasnot 33. Californiahaseliminatedmaritalobligationsbasedonthe 32. In2008,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthatcertain 31. (Proposition 22)wasstrickeninitsentirety.Idat453. and awoman”wasstrickenfromsection300,308.5 .Tr245:9-247:3(Cott:“[T]heprimacyofthe husbandas c. PX0710atRFANo13:AttorneyGeneraladmits that b. PX0707atRFANo13: Proponentsadmitthateliminating a. deprived theinstitutionofmarriageitsvitality. CalFamCode§720. b. CalConstArt,I§ 7.5 (Proposition8); a. one woman. nevertheless requiresthatamarriageconsistofonemanand to theirdependants.AsaresultofProposition8,California marital partnerssharethesameobligationstooneanotherand gender ofthespouse.Regardlesstheirsexorgender, Marriage Cases designation ofmarriagetoopposite-sexcouples.Inre Constitution totheextentstatutesreserve provisions oftheFamilyCodeviolatedCalifornia gender inequality inmarriageisnowcomplete“to no these rigidspousal roleswascomplete.”Theremoval of trajectory ofthe removalofthestatefromprescribing of marriage,ittook averylongtimebefore this what hadbeenseen asquiteanessentialcharacteristic alarms aboutitandsuchresistance tochangeinthis removed frommarriage,but“because thereweresuch nineteenth century.Genderrestrictions wereslowly absolutely essentialtowhatmarriage was”inthe the protectorandproviderforhis wife,wasseenas the legalandeconomicrepresentative ofthecouple,and social institution; deprived marriageofitsvitality andimportanceasa gender-based reformsincivilmarriage lawhavenot its vitalityandimportanceasasocialinstitution; the doctrineofcoverturehasnotdeprivedmarriage , 183P3dat452.Thelanguage“betweenaman 66 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 Thestatehasmanypurposesinlicensingandfostering 35. Marriageisthestaterecognitionandapprovalofacouple’s 34. .Tr237:9-239:24(Cott:Whenracialrestrictionson f. PX0710atRFANo13:AttorneyGeneraladmitsthat e. PX0707atRFANo13:Proponentsadmitthateliminating d. .Creatingstablehouseholds.Tr c. Developingarealmofliberty,intimacyand free b. Facilitatinggovernanceandpublicorderby organizing a. married whilesomebenefitthestate: marriage. Someofthestate’spurposesbenefitpersons 189:2; 201:9-14(Cott). support oneanotherandanydependents.Tr187:11-16;188:16- about oneanotherandtojoininaneconomicpartnership another andtoformahouseholdbasedontheirownfeelings choice tolivewitheachother,remaincommittedone whoever theywant.”). become lesspopularbecause*peoplecanmarry been noevidencethattheinstitutionofmarriagehas marriage wouldbedegradedanddevalued.But“therehas alarm andmanypeopleworriedthattheinstitutionof marriage acrosscolorlineswereabolished,therewas social institution; deprived marriageofitsvitalityandimportanceasa race-based reformsincivilmarriagelawhavenot of itsvitalityandimportanceasasocialinstitution; racial restrictionsonmarriagehasnotdeprived think tothebenefitofinstitution.”); apparent damagetotheinstitution.And,infact,I between couples.); government’s aim is “tocreatestableandenduring unions intimacy andfree decisionmakingbytheparties[.]”); repeatedly reiteratedasa—— a realmoflibertyfor realm createdbymarriage,thatprivate realmhasbeen decision-making byspouses,Tr189:7-15 (Cott:“[T]he another aswelltheirdependents.”); one anotherbytheirownconsents willsupportone which theadultswhoresidethere andarecommittedto incentivizing marriageistocreate stablehouseholdsin (Cott: “[T]hepurposeofthestate inlicensingand individuals intocohesivefamily units. Tr222:13-17 67 226:8-15 (Cott:The United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 Marriagecreates economicsupportobligationsbetween 37. Statesandthefederalgovernmentchannelbenefits,rights 36. .Legitimatingchildren.Tr d. .Tr222:13-17(Cott:“[T]hepurpose of thestatein a. consenting adults andfortheirdependents. PX1397USGeneralAccountingOfficeReport at 1,Jan23, c. Tr235:24-236:16(Cott: Thegovernmenthashistorically b. Tr1341:2-16(Badgett: Specifictangibleeconomicharms a. inheritance rulesandsocialbenefitprograms. affects immigrationandcitizenship,taxpolicy,property responsibilities throughmaritalstatus.Maritalstatus Facilitatingproperty ownership.Tr188:20-22(Marriage f. Assigningindividualstocareforoneanotherandthus e. households inwhich theadultswhoresidethereand are licensing andincentivizing marriageistocreate stable receiving benefits,rights,andprivileges.”. in whichmaritalstatusisafactor indeterminingor statutory provisionsclassifiedin theUnitedStatesCode 2004: Researchidentified“atotal of1138federal to eithersingleindividualsorunmarried couples.”); advantage forthosewhoweremarriedcouplesascompared the SocialSecurityActhad“averydistinctmarital channeled manybenefitsthroughmarriage;asanexample, income taxesandondomesticpartnerbenefits.); to healthinsuranceandotheremploymentbenefits,higher flow frombeingunabletomarry,includinglackofaccess transmission.”). is “thefoundationoftheprivaterealm*property supporting minors.”); much aboutsupportingadultsasithasbeen (“The institutionofmarriagehasalwaysbeenatleastas actors responsibilityoverdependents.);Tr222:18-20 vulnerable. limiting thepublic’sliabilitytocarefor benefits oftheirparents.”); “that theydeservetheseinheritancerightsandother although unmarriedcouples’childrenstillhavetoshow families. Today,legitimationislessimportant, function ofmarriage,especiallyamongpropertied Historically, legitimatingchildrenwasaveryimportant Tr 226:8-227:4(Cott:Marriagegivesprivate 68 225:16-227:4 (Cott: United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8 Marriagebenefitsbothspousesbypromotingphysicaland 38. .CalFamCode§720. b. .PX0803 f. PX1043 e. Tr688:10-12(Egan: “[M]arriedindividualsarehealthier, d. Tr578:2-10(Peplau: “[T]heveryconsistentfindingsfrom c. PX0708atRFANo84: Proponentsadmitthatopposite-sex b. Tr578:11-579:9(Peplau: Arecent,large-scalestudyby a. than unmarriedindividuals. drinking heavily.Marriedindividualslivelongeronaverage engage inbehaviorsdetrimentaltohealth,likesmokingor psychological health.Marriedindividualsarelesslikelyto support oneanotheraswelltheirdependents.”); committed tooneanotherbytheirownconsentswill their partner; married, divorced, separated,widowedorlivingwith distress thanindividuals whoaresingleandnever individuals areless likelytohavepsychological marital statuscategories.”; generally foundtobehealthierthan adultsinother leisure-time physicalinactivity), marriedadultswere headaches, seriouspsychological distress, smoking,or or poorhealth,limitationsinactivities, lowbackpain, education, income,ornativity) healthindicator(fair population subgroup(age,sex,race, Hispanicorigin, Human Servicesat1(Dec15,2004) United States,1999-2002 healthier waysthansingleindividuals.”); on average,and,inparticular,behavethemselves look betteronmeasuresofpsychologicalwell-being.”); live longer.Theyengageinfewerriskybehaviors. better. Theyarephysicallyhealthier.tendto on health]arethat,average,marriedindividualsfare [a verylargebodyofresearchontheimpactmarriage relationship; couples orpersonsnotinvolvedinanintimate satisfaction withlifethandonon-marriedopposite-sex anxiety anddepressiongreaterhappiness couples whoaremarriedexperience,onaverage,less measure” ofhealthcomparedtonon-marriedindividuals.); individuals, onaverage,farebetter“virtuallyevery the CentersforDiseaseControlfoundthatmarried California Health InterviewSurvey(2009): Charlotte ASchoenborn,MaritalStatus andHealth: 69 , USDepartmentofHealthand : “Regardlessof Married United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Thelong-termnatureofmarriageallowsspousestospecialize 40. 9 Materialbenefits,legalprotectionsandsocialsupport 39. .PX0708atRFANo88:Proponentsadmitthat marriage b. Tr1331:15-1332:9;1332:25-1334:17(Badgett); a. efficiency bydividinglabortoincrease productivity. their laborandencouragesspousestoincreasehousehold PX0708atRFANo87: Proponentsadmitthatmarriage d. PX0708atRFANo85: Proponentsadmitthatsocietal c. Tr1332:19-1337:2(Badgett: Marriageconfersnumerous b. .PX0807 g. .PX0809 a. psychological well-beingformarriedspouses. resulting frommarriagecanincreasewealthandimprove producing goodsandservicesfor family members. in waysthatincreasethefamily’s productivityin household efficiency,includingby dividingtheirlabor between amanandwomanencourages spousestoincrease and constraintsondissolvingtherelationship. stability andcommitment,includingbycreatingbarriers between amanandwomancanbesourceofrelationship religious authorities; presence offamilymembers,friendsandcivilor that maritalrelationshipsaretypicallyenteredinthe support iscentraltotheinstitutionofmarriageand substantial.); Some benefitsarenotquantifiablebutnevertheless the relationshipandmorepositiveworkplaceoutcomes. commitment, greatervalidationandsocialacceptanceof health andinsurancebenefits,strongerstatementof labor andeconomiesofscale,reducedtransactionscosts, economic benefits,includinggreaterspecializationof wealth accumulation; encourages healthybehaviorsamongtheelderly. and Savings Elderly, EspeciallyMen Quality, MarriageEncouragesHealthyBehaviorsamongthe Joseph LuptonandJamesPSmith,Marriage,Assets, Press Release,AgencyforHealthcareResearchand , RAND(Nov1999) 70 (Oct26,1998) : Marriageiscorrelatedwith : Marriage United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3 Sexualorientationrefersto anenduringpatternofsexual, 43. Same-sexloveandintimacyarewell-documentedinhuman 42. Thetangibleandintangiblebenefitsofmarriageflowtoa 41. women orbothsexes. Anindividual’ssexualorientation can affectional orromantic desiresforandattractions tomen, Tr2027:4-9(Herek:“[S]exualorientationis atitsheart d. Tr2064:22-23(Herek:Inpractice,wegenerally referto c. Tr2078:10-12(Herek: “[H]eterosexualandhomosexual b. Tr531:25-533:24(Chauncey: Thecategoriesof a. nineteenth century. (homosexual) oreithersex(bisexual),developedinthelate someone oftheoppositesex(heterosexual),same that is,whetheranindividualdesiresarelationshipwith history. Theconceptofanidentitybasedonobjectdesire; PX0886 b. Tr1042:20-1043:8(Lamb:explainingthatwhena a. married couple’schildren. DIFFERENTIATING BETWEENSAME-SEXANDOPPOSITE-SEXUNIONS WHETHER ANYEVIDENCESHOWSCALIFORNIAHASANINTERESTIN the twopersonsinvolved[.]”). another, andarelationshipthat is definedbythesexof relationship ofsomesortbetween oneindividualand a relationalconstruct,becauseit isallabouta three groups:homosexuals,heterosexuals andbisexuals.); history[.]”); behaviors alikehavebeencommonthroughouthuman emotional attractionsweretopeopleofthesamesex.); time periodsinAmericanhistorywhoseprimaryeroticand nineteenth century,althoughtherewerepeopleatall heterosexual andhomosexualemergedinthelate that couple. Civil Marriage Association, SupportofLegalRecognitionSame-Sex advantages thataccruetomarriage.”); adjustment outcomesofthecouple’schildbecause“the cohabiting couplemarries,thatmarriagecanimprovethe Position Statement,AmericanPsychiatric (July2005) 71 : Marriagebenefitschildrenof United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 4 Sexualorientation iscommonlydiscussedasacharacteristic 44. .Tr2086:13-21(Herek: TheLaumannstudy(PX0943 d. Tr2072:19-2073:4(Herek: “[T]hevastmajorityofpeople c. Tr2060:7-11(Herek: Mostsocialscienceandbehavioral b. Tr2025:3-12(Herek:“Sexualorientationisatermthat a. adult lives. self-identification, behaviorandattractionthroughouttheir attraction. Thevastmajorityofpeopleareconsistentin be expressedthroughself-identification,behavioror .Tr2026:7-24(Herek:Inhisownresearch, Herekhasasked a. contrary totheweight oftheevidence. assertion thatsexualorientation cannotbedefinedis defines gaysandlesbiansasadiscrete group.Proponents’ person’s identityandisadistinguishing characteristicthat of theindividual.Sexualorientation isfundamentaltoa Tr2211:8-10 (Herek:“[I]fIwereabettingperson, e. Laumann, etal,TheSocialOrganizationofSexuality: their attractions.”); are consistentintheirbehavior,identity,and thereof.); attraction, behaviororidentity,somecombination research hasassessedsexualorientationintermsof used todescribeanenduringpatternofbehavior.”); enduring patternsofattraction.Andit’salsosometimes identity orasenseofselfthatisbasedonone’s both menandwomen.It’salsousedtoreferan intensely affectionalattractiontomen,women,or we usetodescribeanenduringsexual,romantic,or ordinary peopleif theyareheterosexual,straight, gay, current identity.”). future sexualbehaviorwillcorrespondto[hisorher] would saythatyoudowelltobet[aperson’s] behavior, identityandattraction.); sample wasconsistentlylesbian,gayorbisexualintheir attraction, andacoregroupofonetotwopercentthe consistently heterosexualintheirbehavior,identityand shows that90percentofpeopleinLaumann’ssamplewere Sexual PracticesintheUnitedStates 72 (Chicago1994) Edward O ) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 Proponents’campaignforProposition 8assumedvoters 45. .Tr1372:10-1374:7(Badgett:DIX1108 g. Tr2176:23-2177:14 (Herek, respondingtocross- f. Tr2304:9-2309:1(Herek: Researchersmaydefinesexual e. Tr2324:8-13(Herek:Iftwowomenwishtomarryeach d. Tr2027:14-18(Herek:Thesesortsofrelationships,that c. Tr858:24-859:5(Meyer:Sexualorientationisperceived b. distinct fromheterosexuals. understood theexistence ofhomosexualsasindividuals Institute, BestPracticesforAsking Questionsabout minimize theimportanceofthatconstruction.); race orethnicitysexualorientationisto,Ithink, * Buttosaythatthere’snosuchthingasclassor constructions ofraceandethnicitysocialclass. level, inthesamewaythatwehavecultural construction of[sexualorientation]atthecultural “[Social constructionists]aretalkingaboutthe constructed classificationandnota“validconcept”: examination thatsexualorientationisasocially behavior, identityandattraction.); study. Mostpeopleareneverthelessconsistentintheir population tobestudiedbasedonthepurposeof ethnic minoritiessimilarlyfocustheirdefinitionofthe may focusonidentity.Researchersstudyingracialand behavior whilearesearcherstudyingchilddevelopment studying sexuallytransmittedinfectionsmayfocuson based onthepurposeofastudy,sothatanindividual orientation basedonbehavior,identityorattraction to assumethattheyaregay.); And iftwomenwanttomarryeachother,itisreasonable other, itisreasonabletoassumethattheyarelesbians. people have.); the humanexperienceandaveryfundamentalneedthat need forintimacyandattachmentisaverycorepartof important.”); is whoIam.*[I]tacentralidentitythat as “acorethingaboutwhoyouare.”Peoplesay:“This generally areabletoanswer.); lesbian orbisexual,andthatisaquestionpeople as adiscretegroup.). characteristic thatdefinesgayand lesbianindividuals that sexualorientationisadistinguishing not conflictwiththesubstantial evidencedemonstrating discussion aboutmethodsforconducting surveys;itdoes Sexual OrientationonSurveys 73 (Nov2009) The Williams , includesa United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 Individualsdonotgenerallychoosetheirsexualorientation. 46. .PX2153 b. .PX2156 c. PX0480A a. .Tr2054:12-2055:24(Herek:PX0928at 39containsatable b. Tr2032:15-22(Herek:Herekhasconductedresearch in a. any othermethod,changehisorher sexualorientation. may, throughconsciousdecision, therapeutic interventionor No credibleevidencesupportsafindingthatanindividual PX0001 f. PX0577 e. PX0021 d. for same-sexcouples; sympathetic totheirdemands”assupportersofmarriage Proposition 8identified“homosexualsandthose for the2%ofCalifornianswhoaregay.”; expression becompromisedtoaffordspeciallegalrights should nothavetheirreligiousfreedomsandfreedomof Marriage (2008) percent saidthat theyexperiencednoorlittlechoice about beinglesbian, gayorbisexual.Among men, 87 responded toquestions abouthowmuchchoicethey had that reportsdata onapproximately2,200peoplewho they have“nochoice”or“verylittle choice”aboutit.); choice theyhaveabouttheirsexual orientationsaythat gay men,andmostbisexualsaswell, whenaskedhowmuch which hehasfoundthatthevast majority oflesbiansand else” (emphasisinoriginal). do nothavetherighttoredefinemarriage “[W]hile gayshavetherighttotheirprivatelives,they General Election,Tuesday,November4,2008 “tolerant” ofgays; organized inlightofthefactthatmanyCaliforniansare Politics at45(Feb2009) community” istoannihilatemarriage; not wanttomarry;instead,thegoalof“homosexual Point’”) at2 Marriage ProtectionAct(“SanDiegoCounty’s‘Tipping right toredefinemarriagefortherestofsociety.”; gays canliveastheywant,shouldnothavethe gays livingthelifestyletheychoose.However,while Proposition 8 Californians AreAskingAboutProposition8 Advertisement, HonestAnswerstoQuestionsMany California VoterInformationGuide, Frank SchubertandJeffFlint,PassingProp8 Leaflet, CaliforniaFamilyCouncil,The Protect Marriage,MythsandFactsAbout Video supportingProposition8 : “Proposition8doesnotinterferewith : Theleafletassertsthat“homosexuals”do : “The98%ofCalifornianswhoarenotgay 74 : TheProposition8campaignwas : Supportersof foreveryone , Protect at PM3365: , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .Tr77:4-5(Zarrillo:Zarrillohasbeen gay“aslongas i. Tr166:24-167:9(Stier:Stieris47 yearsoldandhas h. Tr140:6,141:14-19(Perry:Perryisalesbian andfeels g. Tr2033:6-2034:20(Herek: Therapiesdesignedtochangean f. Tr2202:8-22(Herek: “[M]ostpeoplearebroughtupin e. Tr2314:3-17(Herek:HerekagreeswithPeplau’sstatement d. Tr2252:1-10(Herek:“Itiscertainlythecasethatthere c. [he] canremember.”); fallen inloveone timeinherlife——withPerry.); change.); years old,shedoesnotthinkthat itmightsomehow that shewasbornwithhersexual orientation.At45 therapies.); organizations thathaveendorsed the useofsuch Herek isnotawareofanymajormental health harm totheindividualsinvolved.); Tr2039:1-3(Herek: consistently producethedesired outcome withoutcausing effective inthattheyhavenotbeenshownto individual’s sexualorientationhavenotbeenfoundtobe and notindicativeoftheircurrentattractions.”); part oftheiridentity.It’snotwhotheyare, experience[d] heterosexualintercourse.*[I]tisnot reasons why*[gaymenandlesbianshave] sexual orientationis.AndIthinkthat’soneofthe developed theirrealsenseofwhotheyare,what someone oftheothersex,possiblybeforetheyhave uncommon forpeopletoengageinsexualbehaviorwith boy. Andgrowingupwiththoseexpectations,itisnot Little girlsaretaughttheywillgrowupandmarrya boys aretaughtthattheywillgrowupandmarryagirl. society assumingthattheywillbeheterosexual.Little attractions andrelationships.”); lifetime. Somewomenadoptenduringpatternsofsame-sex patterns ofheterosexualitythatarestableacrosstheir change overtime.Atayoungage,manywomenadopt women donotmeanthatmostwillactuallyexhibit that “[c]laimsaboutthepotentialeroticplasticityof orientation andwerenotabletodoso.”); societal stigma,wantedverymuchtochangetheirsexual have beenmanypeoplewho,mostlikelybecauseof amount ofchoice.); choice atall,”andanother15percentreportedasmall orientation, and68percentoflesbianssaidtheyhad“no they had“nochoiceatall”abouttheirsexual demonstrates that88percentofgaymenreported their sexualorientation.);Tr2056:4-25(Herek:PX0930 percent saidthattheyhadnoorverylittlechoiceabout about theirsexualorientation.Amonglesbians,70 75 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 Californiahasnointerestinaskinggaysandlesbiansto 47. .Tr1510:6-8(Kendall:“IknewIwasgayjustlike l. Tr1506:2-11(Kendall:“WhenIwasalittlekid,knew k. Tr91:15-17(Katami:Katamihasbeena“natural-borngay” j. .Tr2530:25-2532:25(Miller:Miller agrees that“[c]ourts f. Tr2027:19-2028:2(Herek:Homosexualityis not considered e. Tr1032:6-12(Lamb:Gayandlesbiansexual orientations d. PX0710atRFANo22: AttorneyGeneraladmitsthatthe c. PX0710atRFANo19: AttorneyGeneraladmitsthatsexual b. PX0707atRFANo21: Proponentsadmitthatsame-sex a. gays andlesbiansinCalifornia. change theirsexualorientationorinreducingthenumberof thought thatthosefactswouldchange.”). I’m shortandhalfHispanic.AndIjustnever was.”); * Anditslowlydawnedonmethatthat’swhatI dictionary. AndIrememberreadingthedefinition[.] ended uplookingtheword‘homosexual’in gay untilIwas,probably,11or12yearsold.* liked otherboys.ButIdidn’trealizethatmeantwas “as longashecanremember.”); to societyorperform intheworkplace.”). is notrelatedto anindividual’sabilitytocontribute and legalscholars haveconcludedthatsexualorientation form ofpathology.); expression ofsexualityandthat it isnotinanywaya record affirmingthathomosexuality isanormal professional mentalhealthassociations haveallgoneon the AmericanPsychologicalAssociation andothermajor a mentaldisorder.TheAmerican Psychiatric Association, of well-adjustedbehavior.”); are “normalvariation[s]and considered tobeaspects marriage; social institutions,withtheexceptionofcivil her abilitytoparticipatefullyinalleconomicand relationship thatisanalogoustomarriage;orhis raise children;tohisorhercapacityenterintoa person’s sexualorientationandhisorherabilityto laws ofCaliforniarecognizenorelationshipbetweena perform inorcontributetosociety; orientation bearsnorelationtoaperson’sability judgment orgeneralsocialandvocationalcapabilities; sexual orientationdoesnotresultinanyimpairment 76 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8 Same-sexcouplesareidenticaltoopposite-sexinthe 48. .PX2545(YoungNov132009DepTr122:17-123:1: Young g. Tr586:22-587:1(Peplau:Reliableresearch shows that“a f. Tr583:12-585:21(Peplau:Researchthathas comparedthe e. PX0710atRFANo58: AttorneyGeneraladmitsthat d. PX0710atRFANo65: AttorneyGeneraladmitsthatgaymen c. PX0707atRFANo58: Proponentsadmitthatmanygaymen b. PX0707atRFANo65: Proponentsadmitthatgayand a. sex oropposite-sex. and lovedonotdifferdependingonwhetheracoupleissame- measures ofrelationshipsatisfaction,adjustment bonds andstrongcommitmentstotheirpartners.Standardized have happy,satisfyingrelationshipsandformdeepemotional marital unions.Likeopposite-sexcouples,same-sexcouples characteristics relevanttotheabilityformsuccessful (video ofsame); relationships as heterosexuals.”); PX2544at12:40-14:15 potential anddesire forsustainedlovingandlasting statement that“gay menandlesbianspossessthe same agrees withtheAmerican PsychoanalyticAssociation’s long-term.”); relationships, thatmanyofthose relationshipsare substantial proportionoflesbians andgaymenarein same-sex andheterosexual.”); consistently shows“greatsimilarity acrosscouples,both the processesthataffectthoserelationships quality ofsame-sexandopposite-sex relationshipsand the individual’ssexualorientation; relationship withanotherpersonthatdoesnotdependon capacity toestablishalovingandlong-termcommitted California lawimplicitlyrecognizesanindividual’s together; their livesandparticipateincommunities same-sex relationshipsandthatcouplesshare and lesbianshaveformedlasting,committedcaring relationships; and lesbianshaveestablishedlovingcommitted and participateintheircommunitiestogether; of thesamesexandsame-sexcouplessharetheirlives lasting, committedandcaringrelationshipswithpersons lesbian individuals,includingplaintiffs,haveformed 77 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 Californialawpermitsandencouragesgayslesbiansto 49. .CalWelf&InstCode§16013(a):“It isthepolicyof e. PX0710atRFANo57:AttorneyGeneraladmits that d. PX0709atRFANo22:GovernoradmitsthatCalifornia law c. PX0710atRFANo22: AttorneyGeneraladmitsthatthe b. PX0707atRFANo66: Proponentsadmitthatgayand a. same-sex couplesinCaliforniaareraisingchildren. reproductive technology.Approximatelyeighteenpercentof become parentsthroughadoption,fosterparentingorassistive .PX2096 k. Tr1362:5-10(Badgett:Same-sexcoupleshavemore j. Tr1362:17-21(Badgett:Same-sexcoupleswishtomarry i. PX2545(YoungNov13,2009DepTr100:17-101:5:Young h. to discrimination orharassmentonthebasisoftheir services tofoster children*shallnotbesubjected this statethatall personsengagedinproviding care and of sexualorientation; adopt childrenbyforbiddingdiscrimination onthebasis in same-sexrelationshipstobefoster parentsandto California lawprotectstheright ofgaymenandlesbians the basisofsexualorientation; does notprohibitindividualsfrom raisingchildrenon raise children; person’s sexualorientationandhisorherabilityto laws ofCaliforniarecognizenorelationshipbetweena lesbian individualsraisechildrentogether; same-sex couplesinCaliforniaareraisingchildren.” California’s economy.Censusdataalsoshowthat18%of another financially,andactivelyparticipatein and ethnicallydiverse,havepartnerswhodependuponone Census 2000,theylivethroughoutthestate,areracially California aresimilartomarriedcouples.According the morethan107,000same-sexcoupleslivingin The WilliamsInstituteat1(Aug2008) and anydifferencesaremarginal.); similarities thandifferenceswithopposite-sexcouples, marry.); for manyofthesamereasonsthatopposite-sexcouples PX2544 at10:35-10:55(videoofsame); people andheterosexualshaveforwantingtomarry.); agrees thatloveandcommitmentarereasonsbothgay Adam Romero,etal,CensusSnapshot:California 78 : “Inmanyways, , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Same-sexcouplesreceivethesametangibleandintangible 50. 1 Marryingaperson oftheoppositesexisanunrealisticoption 51. .PX0787 c. Tr598:1-599:19(Peplau: Marriedsame-sexcouplesin b. Tr594:17-20(Peplau: “Myopinion,basedonthegreat a. benefits frommarriagethatopposite-sexcouplesreceive. Tr1348:23-1350:2(Badgett: Same-sexcouplesin i. .PX2096 h. ElisaBvSuperiorCourt g. CalFamCode§297.5(d):“Therightsandobligationsof f. .PX0707atRFANo9:Proponentsadmit thatformanygay a. for gayandlesbian individuals. Association, SupportofLegalRecognitionSame-Sex benefits andfortheirchildren.); worry overlegalproblems,greateraccesstohealth relationship, moreacceptancefromextendedfamily,less marriage includinggreatercommitmenttothe Massachusetts havereportedvariousbenefitsfrom enjoy thesamebenefits[frommarriage].”); couples werepermittedtomarry,thattheyalsowould couples andheterosexualcouples,isth[at]ifsame-sex similarities thathavebeendocumentedbetweensame-sex 18.). California areraising37,300childrenundertheageof of 18.”; couples inCaliforniaareraisingchildrenundertheage The WilliamsInstituteat2(Aug2008) may havetwoparentsofthesamesex); (holding thatundertheUniformParentageAct,aparent either ofthemshallbethesameasthosespouses.”; registered domesticpartnerswithrespecttoachildof orientation.”; clients’ ortheirownactualperceived*sexual opposite sexisnot ameaningfulalternative; and lesbianindividuals, marriagetoanindividual ofthe responsibilities.” restrictions tothosesamerights, benefits,and responsibilities conferredbycivil marriage,andopposes same-sex civilmarriagewithall rights, benefits,and Psychiatric Associationsupports the legalrecognitionof maintaining andpromotingmental health, theAmerican Civil Marriage Position Statement,AmericanPsychiatric Adam Romero,etal,CensusSnapshot:California at1(July2005) 79 , 117P3d660,670(Cal2005) : “Intheinterestof : “18%ofsame-sex , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 Domesticpartnershipslackthesocialmeaningassociatedwith 52. .Tr2043:1-2044:10(Herek: Somegaymenandlesbianshave e. Tr2042:14-25(Herek:Whilegaymenandlesbiansin d. Tr85:9-21(Zarrillo:“Ihavenoattraction,desire,to c. PX0710atRFANo9:AttorneyGeneraladmitsthatforgay b. .Tr208:9-17(Cott:“Q.Letmeaskyou this.Howdoesthe d. Tr207:9-208:6(Cott,describingthesocial meaningof c. PX0707atRFANo4:Proponentsadmitthatthe word b. PX0707atRFANo38: Proponentsadmitthatthereisa a. expression ofloveandcommitmentintheUnitedStates. marriage, andmarriageiswidelyregardedasthedefinitive deal ofconflictandtensionintherelationship.). person oftheoppositesexislikelytocreateagreat is gayorlesbian.Alesbianpersonmarryinga considerable problemssimplybecauseoneofthepartners marriages dissolve,andsomeofthemexperience married membersoftheoppositesex,butmanythose would bethebasisformarriage.); form thesortofintimate,committedrelationshipthat defines theuniverseofpeoplewithwhomoneisableto orientation isabouttherelationshipspeopleform——it realistic option.Thisistruebecausesexual vast majorityofgaymenandlesbians,thatisnota permitted tomarryamemberoftheoppositesex.For California arepermittedtomarry,theyonly be withamemberoftheoppositesex.”); orientation andidentity; that itwouldcompelthemtonegatetheirsexual meaningful alternativetosame-sexmarriagetheextent men andlesbians,opposite-sexmarriagemaynotbea material rightsand benefitsofmarriagetopeople who maybe it’smanystates now,haveextendedmostof the appreciate thefact thatseveralstateshaveextended —— of domesticpartnerships andcivilunions?A.I marriage, inyour view,comparewiththesocialmeaning cultural valueandthemeaning,social meaningof any couplewholoveoneanother.”); polish onmarriage”is“asadestination tobegainedby ending inallofourromantictales”; the“cultural ending totheromance.”Marriage “istheprincipalhappy marriage inourculture:Marriage hasbeenthe“happy “marriage” hasauniquemeaning; partnership andmarriage; significant symbolicdisparitybetweendomestic 80 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3 DomesticpartnersarenotmarriedunderCalifornialaw. 53. .Tr1963:3-8(Tam:“If ‘domesticpartner’isdefinedasit h. Tr1471:1-1472:8(Badgett: Same-sexcouplesvaluethe g. Tr1342:14-1343:12(Badgett:Somesame-sexcoupleswho f. Tr611:1-7(Peplau:“Ihavegreatconfidencethatsomeof e. .GillvOfficeofPersonnelManagement etal c. CompareDoc#686at39with#68747: Thecourt b. CalFamCode§§297-299.6 (establishingdomestic a. other statesandarenotrecognizedbythefederalgovernment. California domesticpartnershipsmaynotberecognizedin stated)). ‘domestic partner,’butitisnot‘marriage.’”(as together ascommittedpartners,andthatiscalled there aresomesame-sexpersonwantstohavealifetime is now,thenwecanexplaintoourchildrenthat,yeah, alternative statusconveysamessageofinferiority.); social recognitionofmarriageandbelievethatthe status.); because theyseedomesticpartnershipasasecondclass might marrywouldnotregisterasdomesticpartners of domesticpartnerships.”); appropriate, undoubtedlyhasbenefitsthatarenotpart esteems, considersthemostlegitimateand relationships thatthissocietymostvalues, country, thatyouare*inthestatusof are partofthefirstclasskindrelationshipinthis the thingsthatcomefrommarriage,believingyou marriage.”); there isnothingthatlikemarriageexcept really isnocomparison,inmyhistoricalview,because have civilunionsordomesticpartnerships.Butthere (Domestic partnerships arenotavailableinMassachusetts applied toplaintiffs whoaremarriedunderstate law. Defense ofMarriage Act(“DOMA”)unconstitutional as JLT atDoc#70(July 8,2010)(holdingthefederal Jersey recognizeCaliforniadomestic partnerships; Washington DC,Washington,Nevada, NewHampshireand Administrative Defendants’knowledge,” Connecticut, partnerships. Seealso#688at2: “Tothebestof New JerseyandWashingtonrecognize Californiadomestic Plaintiffs andproponentsagreeonly thatConnecticut, identify withcertaintythestates thatrecognizethem. California domesticpartnerships. Nopartycould asked thepartiestoidentifywhich statesrecognize partnership asseparatefrommarriage); 81 , No09-10309- United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 4 Theavailabilityofdomesticpartnershipdoesnotprovidegays 54. .Tr142:2-13(Perry:Whenyouaremarried, “youare f. PX0710atRFANo37:AttorneyGeneraladmits that e. Tr964:1-3(Meyer:Domesticpartnershipsreduce thevalue d. Tr2044:20-2045:22 (Herek: Thedifferencebetween c. Tr659:8-15(Peplau: Asaresultofthedifferentsocial b. Tr613:23-614:12(Peplau: Thereisasignificantsymbolic a. partnerships. intentionally withheldfromsame-sexcouplesindomestic cultural meaningofmarriageanditsassociatedbenefitsare and lesbianswithastatusequivalenttomarriagebecausethe domestic partner). result wouldbethesameforafederalemployee’s Benefits Actwithoutneedingtoconsiderwhetherthe coverage forherwifeundertheFederalEmployeesHealth (9th Cir2009)(findingthatGolinskicouldobtain DOMA.)); seealsoInreKarenGolinski domestic partnershipwouldhavestandingtochallenge and thusthecourtdidnotaddresswhetherapersonin know whatyourrelationship means.”); and yougotowork oryougooutintheworld,people what yourrelationship is.Andwhenyouleaveyour home honored andrespectedbyyourfamily. Yourchildrenknow families; if well-intentioned,marginalizes andstigmatizesgay recognition andsupportoflesbian andgayfamilies,even establishing aseparatelegalinstitution forstate of same-sexrelationships.); domestic partnerships.”); emotion aboutthedifferencebetweenmarriageand clearly, [thereis]agreatdealofstrongfeelingand suggests thatthisismorethanjustaword* simply aword.“[J]ustthefactthatwe’reheretoday domestic partnershipsandmarriageismuchmorethan than adomesticpartnership.); is agreaterdegreeofanenforceabletrustinmarriage meanings ofamarriageanddomesticpartnership,there your environment.”); necessarily understoodorrecognizedbyotherpeoplein domestic partnershipis“notsomethingthat disparity betweenmarriageanddomesticpartnerships;a 82 , 587F3d901,902 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 Permittingsame-sex couplestomarrywillnotaffectthe 55. .Tr115:3-116:1(Katami: Domesticpartnerships“make[]you k. Tr82:9-83:1(Zarrillo: “Domesticpartnershipwould j. Tr172:6-21(Stier: Marriageisaboutmakingapublic i. Tr170:12-171:14(Stier:ToStier,domesticpartnership h. Tr153:4-155:5(Perry:StierandPerrycompleted g. .Tr605:18-25(Peplau:Massachusetts dataare“very b. Tr596:13-597:3(Peplau:DatafromMassachusetts onthe a. stability ofopposite-sexmarriages. have childrenoutsideofmarriage orotherwiseaffectthe number ofopposite-sexcoupleswho marry,divorce,cohabit, my domesticpartner.’”). * Noneofourfriendshaveeversaid,‘Hey,thisis that weactuallyrecognizemarriagesfromotherstates. into asecond,third,and*fourthclasscitizennow that wehavehadforalmostnineyears.”); * [I]tdoesn’tgiveduerespecttotherelationship It’s givingmepartofthepie,butnotwholething relegate metoalevelofsecondclasscitizenship.* want tohaveexplainmyself.”); it’s different.It’snotthesame.Iwant——don’t 12 yearsandbeeninadomesticpartnershipfor10years, commitment. “AndIhavetosay,havingbeenmarriedfor tell themandeachotherthatthisisalifetime family, parents,societyandcommunity.Itisthewayto commitment totheworldandyourspouse, want ittobe.It’sjustalegaldocument.”); our relationshipandthetypeofenduringwe “it doesn’thaveanythingtodo*withthenatureof that areinherentinmarriage,andforStierPerry, domestic partnershipindicatestheloveandcommitment spells outresponsibilitiesandduties.Nothingabout feels likealegalagreementbetweentwopartiesthat an adult,whoyouchoose[asyourspouse].”); symbolizes “maybethemostimportantdecisionyoumakeas as anagreement;itisnotthesamemarriage,which them intothestate.Perryviewsdomesticpartnership documents toregisterasdomesticpartnersandmailed consistent” with the argumentthatpermittingsame-sex than theywerebefore.”); are nodifferentafter[same-sex] marriagewaspermitted years after”show“thattherates ofmarriageanddivorce years priortosame-sexmarriage being legalandthefour “annual ratesformarriageand divorce”for“thefour 83 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 Thechildrenofsame-sexcouplesbenefitwhentheirparents 56. .PX1195 e. PX1145 d. Tr600:12-602:15(Peplau:Allowingsame-sexcouplesto c. .Tr599:12-19(Peplau:Asurveyofsame-sex couples who d. Tr1964:17-1965:2(Tam:Itisimportantto children of c. PX0787 b. Tr1332:19-1337:25 (Badgett:Same-sexcouplesandtheir a. can marry. PX0754 f. marriage anddivorce; at marriageandothersimilarfactorsaffectratesof (May 31,2001) marriage.); marry willhave“noimpact”onthestabilityof institution ofmarriage.); couples tomarrywillnothaveanadverseeffectonthe were abletomarry.). children hadbenefittedfromthe fact thattheirparents same-sex couplesraisingchildren reportedthattheir married inMassachusettsshowsthat 95percentof same-sex couplesthattheirparents beabletomarry.); heterosexual couples.”; protection thatcivilmarriageaffordsthechildrenof unmarried gayandlesbianparentsdonothavethesame Civil Marriage Association, SupportofLegalRecognitionSame-Sex marriage thatareavailabletomarriedcouples.); children aredeniedalloftheeconomicbenefits exclusively heterosexualinstitution. social orderdoesnotdependuponmarriageasan Marriage andtheFamily factors, arecorrelatedwithratesofmaritalstability; 2002) Department ofHealthandHumanServicesat12(July United States Cohabitation, Marriage,Divorce,andRemarriageinthe States Marriage Dissolution,Divorce,andRemarriage:United : Raceandsocioeconomicstatus,amongother , USDepartmentofHealthandHumanServicesat2 Position Statement,AmericanPsychiatric American AnthropologicalAssociation,Statementon Matthew DBramlettandWilliamMosher, Matthew DBramlettandWilliamMosher,First , VitalandHealthStatistics23:22,US : Race,employmentstatus,education,age at1(July2005) 84 : Theviabilityofcivilizationor : “Thechildrenof United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8 Proposition8placestheforceoflawbehindstigmasagainst 58. UnderProposition8,whetheracouplecanobtainmarriage 57. WHETHER THEEVIDENCESHOWSTHATPROPOSITION8ENACTEDAPRIVATE MORAL VIEWWITHOUTADVANCINGALEGITIMATEGOVERNMENTINTEREST .Tr2047:13-2048:13(Herek:In2004, Californiaenacted d. Tr854:5-14(Meyer:“Proposition8,inits social c. Tr529:21-530:23(Chauncey:Thecampaignfor Proposition b. Tr611:13-19(Peplau: “[B]eingpreventedbythe a. society. lesbian relationshipsdonotdeservethefullrecognitionof and lesbiansarenotasgoodheterosexuals;gay intimate relationshipssimilartoheterosexualcouples;gays gays andlesbians,including:lesbiansdonothave PX0001 b. CalConstArtI,§ 7.5 (Proposition8); a. sex couples.Ithasnootherlegaleffect. and countyofficialsfromissuingmarriagelicensestosame- marry amanbutnotanotherwoman.Proposition8barsstate marry awomanbutnotanotherman.Aispermittedto two partiesrelativetooneanother.Amanispermitted license andenterintomarriagedependsonthegendersof legislation that increased thebenefitsand those ofheterosexuals.”); any valueatall; thattheyarecertainlynotequal to to berespected;thattheyareof secondaryvalue,ifof meaning, sendsamessagethatgay relationshipsarenot couples.); romantic fairytalesorweddings featuring opposite-sex issue, althoughchildrenarefrequently exposedto 8 presentedmarriageforsame-sex couplesasanadult studied, intermsoftheirimpact onrelationships.”); kinds ofstigmaanddiscriminationthathavebeen government frombeingmarriedisnodifferentthanother 8 “eliminatesrightofsame-sexcouplestomarry.” General Election,Tuesday,November4,2008: California VoterInformationGuide, 85 Proposition United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Proposition 8 reservesthemostsociallyvaluedformof 60. Proposition8requiresCaliforniatotreatsame-sexcouples 59. .PX2265 e. .Tr576:15-577:14(Peplau:Studyby Gary Gates,Lee a. relationship (marriage) foropposite-sexcouples. CompareCalFamCode§§300-536(marriage) with CalFam b. SeePX0710atRFANo41:AttorneyGeneraladmits that a. differently fromopposite-sexcouples. Tr2054:7-11(Herek: Proposition8isaninstanceof h. Tr2053:8-18(Herek: Structuralstigmaprovidesthe g. Tr972:14-17(Meyer: “Lawsareperhapsthestrongestof f. marriage.”); domestic partnershipsarevieweddifferentlythan that ——letterjustillustratesthewayinwhich divorced beforethisnewlawgoesintoeffect.Ithink that theyconsiderwhetherornotwanttoget the stategovernmentsendingletterstopeoplesuggesting were goingtoaffectmarriedcouples,thatyouwouldhave to imaginethatiftherewerechangesintaxlaws dissolve theirpartnership.Herek“find[s]itdifficult changes andtellingrecipientstoconsiderwhether to allregistereddomesticpartnersadvisingthemofthe 2004, theCaliforniaSecretaryofStatemailedaletter which becameeffectivein2005.Inthesecondhalfof responsibilities associatedwithdomesticpartnership, Badgett andDeborah Hosuggeststhatsame-sexcouples are Code §§297-299.6(registereddomestic partnerships). a questionabouthisorhermarital status; disclose hisorhersexualorientation whenrespondingto California, agayorlesbianindividual maybeforcedto couples andoneforopposite-sex couples ——existin because twotypesofrelationships ——oneforsame-sex structural stigma.). perceived tobemembersofcertaingroupsinsociety.); denigrate orattackparticulargroups,thosewhoare devalued. Italsogivesalevelofpermissionto context andidentifieswhichmembersofsocietyare social structuresthatupholdandenforcestigma.”); structure ofdomesticpartnership; partnership iftheydonotwishtobeboundbythenew and suggeststhatdomesticpartnersdissolvetheir domestic partnershiplawwillchangeonJanuary1,2005 State, toRegisteredDomesticPartners Letter fromKevinShelley,CaliforniaSecretaryof 86 : Shelleyexplains United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 Proposition 8 amendstheCaliforniaConstitutiontocodify 61. .PX0506 b. Tr1087:5-18(Lamb:The“traditionalfamily” referstoa a. distinct anduniquerolesformen andwomeninmarriage. PX0504B d. Tr2044:20-2045:22 (Herek: Thedifferencebetween c. PX1273 b. into” domesticpartnershipsorcivilunions.); “three timesmorelikelytogetmarriedthanenter between heterosexual andsamesexcoupleswhenit comes doesn’t passthen itwillbeillegaltodistinguish saying hereabout theconsequencesofthis,ifProp 8 need amotherand father.NowgoingonwhatSean was 2008) stays athomeandthefatheris breadwinner.); biologically relatedtotheirchildren wherethemother family withamarriedmotherand father whoareboth thing.” marriage, they’regoingtobetaughtthatit’sagood “that gaymarriageisnotjustadifferenttypeof Proposition 8doesnotpass,childrenwillbetaught Marriage, Excerpt about beingmarried.); So, clearly,theythoughttherewassomethingdifferent of themdid.Andmanythoseweredomesticpartners. became possibleforsame-sexcouplestomarry,thousands looking attherecenthistoryofCalifornia,whenit Americans ——itisnotsimplyaword.Inaddition, suggests adistinctioninthemindsoflargenumber partnerships orcivilunions,butnotmarriage.This willing toletsame-sexcoupleshavedomestic California andtheUnitedStates,whosaythattheyare there isasizableproportionofthepublic,bothin word. Ifwelookatpublicopiniondata,forexample, domestic partnershipsandmarriageismorethansimplya marrying itssocialandculturalmeaning.”; well-developed socialinstitutionthatgivestheactof marriage arelimitedbecausetheydonotmapontoa socially. Inpractice,theselegalalternativesto second-class citizenshipandarelessunderstood marriage, domesticpartnershipsmaybecomeamarkof to gayandlesbiancouples.”“[W]hencompared send averyclearmessageofdifferenceandinferiority political trappingsofstatusesthatarenotmarriage invention, lacked.”“Insomeplaces,theculturaland that registeredpartnership,asarecentpolitical as betterbecauseithadanadditionalsocialmeaning 58, 59,60 at13:“Children needalovingfamilyandyesthey Protect Marriage,TheFineLineTranscript (Oct1, M VLeeBadgett,WhenGayPeopleGetMarried Video, SatelliteSimulcastinDefenseof (NYU 2009) at0:38-0:56:Speakerwarnsthatif : “ManyDutchcouplessawmarriage 87 at United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .PX0506 c. .PX0480A g. PX1867 f. PX0506 e. PX390 d. vital.”; entirely differentthanIdoinourfamilyandbothare does inourfamilyandmywifeprovidessomething I knowthatprovidesomethingdifferentthanmywife coat toknowthatkidsneedamomanddad.I’mdad a humanbeingbutyoudon’tneedtobewearingwhite I’m notasociologist.psychologist.just at home.Howimportantitistohavethatkindofthing. about growingupinfamilieswithoutamotherandfather to adoption.UmYvettejustmentionedsomestatistics dads, maleandfemale, complementeachother.They don’t both motherlove and fatherlove.Andthatmoms and Prentice statesthat “[c]hildrenneedthechance to have fathers tochildren.”; and mothersfatherstotheir children, especially marriage istoattachmothersand fatherstooneanother Jennifer RobackMorsestatesthat “[t]hefunctionof but there’sabigdifferencebetween amanandwoman.”; is nodifferencebetweenawhite or ablackhumanbeing pointed outbutsexisfundamental toeverything.There 2008) more civilized.”; colored corduroywereneveragaintobeworn,Ibecame became morecivilized;whenshetoldmethatmyrust told methatmytablemannerswerelessthanadequateI and whenthewomanthatIlovepriortomymarryingher woman thatyoulovearecompelledtolistenher, if they’vechosentomarry,becausewhenyoudofindthe experience andeverymaninthisaudiencecandothesame civilized frankly,andIcantellyouthisfrompersonal not abouttwopeopleinlove,it’smenbecoming instead aboutwomencivilizingmen:“Again,becauseit’s at areligiousrallythatmarriageisnotaboutlovebut Proposition 8,PartI go backtowheretheycame.”; run tomommy.Why?Theyspent9monthsin noise intheroom.And,andwhenkidsgetscaredthey up. Dadwilljustsleepyouknowifthere’salittle different. Youknowmiddleofthenightmomwillwake dads don’thavethatbondbuttheydon’t.It’sjust a momandkiddifferentfromdad.I’mnotsaying those kidsareandthere’sjusta,abondbetween have likea,aradararoundthem.Theyknowwhere their kidstheyalwaysknowwherethoseare.They (Oct 1,2008) at15:“Skincolorismorallytrivial asyou Video, RonPrenticeAddressingSupportersof Transcript, ABCProtectingMarriage Protect Marriage,TheFineLineTranscript (Oct1, Protect Marriage,TheFineLineTranscript Video supporting Proposition 8 : “Whenmomsareintheparktakingcareof at5:25-6:04:Prenticetellspeople 88 at2:00-2:24: at27:6-9:Dr at 6 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 Proposition8doesnotaffecttheFirstAmendmentrightsof 62. .InreMarriageCases a. marriage forsame-sexcouples. Proposition 8,noreligiousgroup wasrequiredtorecognize those opposedtomarriageforsame-sexcouples.Prior PX0506 k. PX1867 j. .PX2403 h. .PX1868 i. compatible marriagecompanion.” “that Godcreatedthewomanbrideasgroom’s (Oct 1,2008) intentionally fatherlesshomes.”; marriage wouldsendusmoreinthatdirectionof problems forawholegenerationofchildrenandsame-sex “And weknowthatfatherlessnesshascausedsignificant that isaradicallyanti-humanthingtosay.”; just reallyoptionalforthefamily,notnecessary.And male andfemale,motherfather,husbandwifeare unravel thatinasignificantwayandsayreally 25, 2008) femininity.”; children theblessingofbothmasculinityand of skillsandtalentsabilities.Theybringto bring toamarriageandfamilythesamenaturalset Cal ConstArtI, § 4); contravention of his orherreligiousbeliefs.”) (Citing officiant willbe requiredtosolemnizeamarriage in with regardtosame-sex couples,andnoreligious required tochangeitsreligious policies orpractices official, oranyotherperson;no religionwillbe religious freedomofany organization, designation ofmarriagewillnot impinge uponthe same-sex couplestheopportunity to obtainthe Research Council,toPrentice they areraisedbymothersandfathers.’”; thousand studieshaveconcludedthatkidsdobestwhen healthy home.AsDrJamesDobsonnotes,‘Morethanten in everyotherway.Also,bothgendersareneededfora meant tocompleteeachotherphysically,emotionally,and between menandwomen.Infact,thetwogenderswere Proposition 8whichstates:“ThankGodforthedifference Christian votersthroughchurchestohelpthempromote Attached totheemailisakitbedistributed Protect Marriage,TheFineLineTranscript Transcript, ABCProtectingMarriage Email fromKenynCureton,Vice-President,Family Transcript, Love,Power,Mind at43:19-24:“Samesexmarriage,itwill : MilesMcPhersonstatesthatitisatruth , 189P3dat451-452(“[A]ffording 89 at 3 (Aug25,2008) (CCNsimulcastSept at 28:18-23: : at 5 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 4 Proposition8hashadanegativefiscalimpactonCalifornia 64. Proposition8eliminatestherighttomarryforgaysand 63. (emphasis inoriginal). [constitutional] protectionsaffordedtosame-sexcouples[.]”) (“Proposition 8doesnot CalFamCode§§400,420. c. Tr194:24-196:21(Cott:Civillaw,notreligiouscustom, b. .Tr1367:5-1368:1(Badgett:Denyingsame-sex couplesthe d. Tr720:1-12(Egan: “What we’rereallytalkingaboutin c. Tr1364:16-1369:4(Badgett: Denyingsame-sexcouplesthe b. Tr1330:23-25(Badgett: “Proposition8hasimposedsome a. and localgovernments. the CaliforniaConstitution.Strauss lesbians butdoesnotaffectanyothersubstantiverightunder United States.); is supremeindefiningandregulatingmarriagethe sign upforthestate’s sponsoredhealthprograms.). children, therewill bemorepeoplewhomightneed to cannot obtainhealth insurancefortheirpartners and state.” Similarly,totheextent thatsame-sexcouples for thosemeans-testedprogramsthat arepaidforbythe which “willmakethemmorelikely toneedandbeeligible right tomarrytendsreducesame-sex couples’income, you generatebecauseareina partnership.”); healthier youareoveryourlifetime. Howmuchwealth but theycanwindupbeingextremely powerful.Howmuch services, theseareimpactsthat are hardtoquantify, excessive relianceonbehavioral and otherhealth discriminated againstatschool,orleadingthemto Whether it’sweakeningtheireducationbecausethey’re productivity andintegrationintothelaborforce. discrimination asawaythatweakenspeople’s of marriageasaninstitution,andthelong-termcosts the nonquantifiableimpactsarelong-termadvantages same-sex partnersandlossofskilledworkers.); programs, highercostsforhealthcareofuninsured loss oftaxrevenue,higherusagemeans-tested right tomarryimposescostsonlocalgovernmentssuchas counties andmunicipalities.”); economic lossesontheStateofCaliforniaand eliminatethesubstantialsubstantive 90 , 207P3dat102 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 Proposition8increasescostsanddecreaseswealthforsame- 66. CCSFwouldbenefiteconomicallyifProposition8werenotin 65. .PX1259MVLeeBadgett,UnequalTaxes onEqualBenefits: d. Tr1341:2-1342:13(Badgett:Couplesthatwould marrybut c. Tr1331:12-1337:25(Badgett:Marriageconfers economic b. Tr1330:14-16(Badgett: Proposition8has“inflicted a. these costs. marriage. Domesticpartnershipreducesbutdoesnoteliminate to securerightsandobligationstypicallyassociatedwith availability ofhealthinsuranceandhighertransactionscosts sex couplesbecauseofincreasedtaxburdens,decreased CCSFenactedtheEqual BenefitsOrdinancetomandatethat c. CCSFwouldbenefiteconomicallyfromdecreased b. CCSFwouldbenefitimmediatelyfromincreasedwedding a. effect. employers typically donotprovidecoveragefordomestic unmarried domestic partneraredoublyburdened:Their Institute at1(Dec 2007):“[W]orkerswhohavean The TaxationofDomestic PartnerBenefits access tohealthinsurance.); tangible economicharmsuchashigher taxesandlimited would notenterintoadomesticpartnership suffer and morepositiveworkplaceoutcomes.); reduced transactionscosts,health andinsurancebenefits benefits includinggreaterspecialization oflabor, children wholivehereinCalifornia.”); substantial economicharmonsame-sexcouplesandtheir challenges. Tr714:15-715:10(Egan). of enforcingtheordinanceanddefendingitagainstlegal opposite-sex spousesofemployees.CCSFbearsthecost employees withbenefitsequaltothoseprovided city contractorsandvendorsprovidesame-sexpartnersof (Egan); Tr 685:10-14;689:4-10;692:12-19;720:1-12 mental healthcostsandgreaterwealthaccumulation. decreased absenteeismatworkandinschools,lower discrimination againstgaysandlesbians,resultingin 691:24-692:3; Tr708:16-20(Egan); number ofcountyresidentswithhealthinsurance.Tr revenue andassociatedexpendituresanincreased 91 , TheWilliams United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .PX1269 j. PX0188 f. PX2898 e. .PX1266 i. PX1261 h. PX0189 g. parents, eitheranadoptionora parentage judgment.”; declaring bothpartnerstobetheir child’slegal recommending thatallcouplesobtain acourtjudgment National CenterforLesbianRights] isstrongly children borntoregistereddomestic partners,[the marriage. “Despite*automatic legalprotectionfor partnerships createmoretransactions coststhanexistin as sociallyinefficient.”; resulting inhighertransactionscosts,widelyregarded homosexual couples,thereisnoclearrightofownership, clear towhomanestatereverts,butinthecasesof death ofindividuals.Inmarriedrelationships,itis This isequallytrueinthetreatmentofestateson inequitable treatmentandarenotinsuredproperly.* population thatshouldbeinsured,butinsteadreceive domestic partners,therearelargeportionsofthe spousal benefitsdonottransfer(inmostcases)to failures ininsuranceandfinancialmarkets.Because (2009) partner’s coverageistaxedasincometotheemployee.”; partners; andevenwhenpartnersarecovered,the value oftheestate taxdisadvantagefacedbysame-sex government datasources, thisreportestimatesthe dollar Institute at1(July 2009) Disadvantages for Same-SexCouples it MeansforYouandYourFamily California, TheCaliforniaDomestic PartnershipLaw:What unmarried same-sexcouplesin2008; percent ofCaliforniafirmsofferedhealthinsuranceto California HealthCareFoundation households.”; contributes tohealthcaredisparitiesaffectingsame-sex 160.979 Disparities inSame-SexPartnerHouseholds,PolicyD- households.”; the sameprotectionsaffordedchildreninheterosexual protections. *[C]hildreninsame-sexhouseholdslack heterosexual workers,andalsolackotherfinancial If theyhavehealthinsurance,paymorethanmarried same-sex householdshavelessaccesstohealthinsurance. Alvin Head(presenter) Health, HealthCareDisparitiesinSame-SexHouseholds,C and NegativeExternalities : “Forexample,thebanongaymarriageinduces Michael Steinberger, FederalEstateTax National CenterforLesbianRights andEquality California EmployerHealthBenefitsSurvey, at1:“[E]xclusionfromcivilmarriage American MedicalAssociationPolicy:HealthCare Report oftheCouncilonScienceandPublic Laura LangbeinandMarkAYost,Same-SexMarriage at9:“Surveydataconfirmthat 92 , 490SocSciQ293,307 : “Usingdatafrom several

at 13(2009):Domestic at 7 , TheWilliams (Dec2008) : Only56 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 Proposition8singlesoutgaysandlesbianslegitimates 67. .Tr854:5-22(Meyer:Proposition8“sendsamessage that f. PX0001 e. Tr407:8-408:4(Chauncey: Thefearofhomosexualsas d. Tr820:23-822:5(Meyer: Oneofthestereotypesthatis c. Tr826:21-828:4(Meyer: Domesticpartnershipdoesnot b. Tr2054:7-11(Herek: In“adefinitionalsense,” a. not goodparents. long-term lovingrelationshipsandthatgayslesbiansare stereotype thatgaysandlesbiansareincapableofforming their unequaltreatment.Proposition8perpetuatesthe average, morethan$3.3million.” estimated 73same-sexcouples,costingeachofthem,on and marriedcouplesintheestatetaxcodewillaffectan couples. In2009,thedifferentialtreatmentofsame-sex welcoming environment.”). prejudicial attitudes. Sothatdoesn’taddupto avery mind, encourageor atleastisconsistentwithholding itself. Anditsendsamessagethat would,in[Meyer’s] the valuesofstate;inthis case, theConstitution gay peopletomarry,italsosends astrongmessageabout in additiontoachievingtheliteral aimsofnotallowing certainly notequaltothoseofheterosexuals. *[So] of secondaryvalue,ifanyvalue atall;thattheyare gay relationshipsarenottoberespected; thattheyare traditional marriage.”(emphasis inoriginal); there isnodifference “TEACHERS COULDBEREQUIREDtoteachyoungchildrenthat General Election,Tuesday,November4,2008 who mighthaveclosecontactwithchildren.); to gayteachers,parentsandmarriedcouples——people in debatesovergayrights,andwithparticularattention child molestersorasrecruiterscontinuestoplayarole in andnotsuccessfulathavingintimaterelationships.); that gaymenandlesbiansareincapableof,uninterested part ofthestigmasurroundinggaymenandlesbiansis marriage.); it doesnotprovidethesymbolicorsocialmeaningof eliminate thestructuralstigmaofProposition8because gays andlesbians.); Proposition 8isaninstanceofstructuralstigmaagainst California VoterInformationGuide, betweengaymarriageand 93 atPM3365: United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 Thefactors that affectwhetherachildiswell-adjustedare: 69. Proposition8resultsinfrequentremindersforgaysand 68. parents orsignificant adultsinthechild’slife; and(3)the parents; (2)the quality oftherelationshipbetween achild’s (1) thequalityofachild’srelationship withhisorher Tr841:17-844:11;845:7-10 (Meyer:Forlesbiansandgay f. Tr175:5-17(Stier: Itischallengingtofilloutforms e. Tr174:3-175:4(Stier: Ithasbeendifficulttoexplain d. Tr151:20-24(Perry: Apassengeronaplaneonceassumed c. Tr1471:1-1472:8(Badgett:Badgett’sinterviewswith b. Tr846:22-847:12(Meyer:Whengaymenandlesbianshave a. relationships. relationships arenotashighlyvaluedopposite-sex lesbians incommittedlong-termrelationshipsthattheir about, I’mgayandnotaccepted here.”). person ——asocialdisapprovaland rejection.“It’s because theformevokessomething muchlargerforthe event, itissignificantforthe gay orlesbianperson has noboxtocheck.Whilecorrecting aformisminor marital statuscanbesignificantbecausetheform-filler men, fillingoutaformrequiringthemtodesignatetheir can gosmoothly.”); to folkswhatthatismakesureourtransaction and saying‘domesticpartner’makingsureIexplain know, scratchingsomethingout,puttingalinethroughit married ordivorcedbecause“Ihavetofindmyself,you in doctor’sofficesthataskwhethersheissingle, not married.); to othersherrelationshipwithPerrybecausetheyare “partner.”); for StierbecausePerryreferredtoasher that shecouldtaketheseatPerryhadbeensaving status conveysamessageofinferiority.); recognition ofmarriageandbelievethatthealternative same-sex couplesindicatethatvaluethesocial my fellowcitizens.”); is ——notrespectedbymystateorcountry, explain, I’mreallynotseenasequal.——mystatus to explainwhytheyarenotmarried,“have 94 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 Childrendo not needtoberaisedbyamaleparentand 71. Thegenderofachild’sparentisnotfactorin 70. 1011:13 (Lamb). availability ofeconomicandsocialresources.Tr1010:13- (Lamb). will bewell-adjusted.Tr1014:25-1015:19; 1038:23-1040:17 a femaleparentdoesnotincrease thelikelihoodthatachild female parenttobewell-adjusted, andhavingbothamale PX2547(NathansonNov 12,2009DepTr49:05-49:19: c. PX2565 b. Tr1025:4-23(Lamb: Studieshavedemonstrated“very a. developmental psychology. conclusion isacceptedbeyondseriousdebateinthefieldof successful andwell-adjusted.Theresearchsupportingthis children raisedbyheterosexualparentstobehealthy, Children raisedbygayorlesbianparentsareaslikely determine whetherthatindividualcanbeagoodparent. adjustment. Thesexualorientationofanindividualdoesnot at 2:20-3:10(videoofsame). marry doesnotcauseanyproblemsforchildren);PX2546 conclude thatpermittinggayandlesbianindividualsto Sociological andpsychologicalpeer-reviewedstudies about gaypeople——areunfounded.”; generally groundedinprejudiceagainstandstereotypes children oflesbianandgayparents——concernsthatare science hasshownthattheconcernsoftenraisedabout Orientation andHomosexuality Your Questions:ForaBetterUnderstandingofSexual of thefactorsthataffectchildren’sadjustment.”); are “completelyconsistentwithourbroaderunderstanding children raisedbyheterosexualparents.”Theseresults lesbian parentsarejustaslikelytobewell-adjusted conclusively thatchildrenwhoareraisedbygayand American PsychologicalAssociation,Answersto 95

at 5 (2008 ): “[S]ocial United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 4 Gaysandlesbianshavebeenvictimsofalonghistory 74. Studiescomparingoutcomesforchildrenraisedbymarried 73. Thegeneticrelationshipbetweenaparentandchildisnot 72. .PX2581 d. PX2566 c. Tr361:11-15(Chauncey: Gaysandlesbians“have b. Tr3080:9-11(Proponents’ counsel:“Wehavenever a. discrimination. Tr 1187:13-1189:6(Lamb). raised bysame-sexparentsinstable,long-termrelationships. parents donotinformconclusionsaboutoutcomesforchildren opposite-sex parentstochildrenraisedbysingleordivorced (Lamb). related toachild’sadjustmentoutcomes.Tr1040:22-1042:10 Branch, IRS,tothe PrideFoundationat1,4-5(Oct 8, society.”; of conductoffensive bothtothemoresandlaw ofour the useofGovernmentfundsandauthority infurtherance homosexual activity,particularly amongtheyouth,and authority ofaGovernmentposition willbeusedtofoster Government business,thehazardthat theprestigeand with aknownoradmittedsexualdeviate totransact offense tomembersofthepublic who arerequiredtodeal the commontoilet,showerandliving facilities,the deviate toeroticstimulationthrough on-the-jobuseof assaults, theunavoidablesubjection ofthesexual employees ofhomosexualadvances, solicitationsor service efficiency,theapprehension causedother by homosexualconductandtheconsequentdisruptionof considerations herearetherevulsionofotheremployees homosexuals fromfederalemployment.“Pertinent Society’s requesttorescindthepolicybanningactive 25, 1966) Commission, totheMattachineSocietyofWashington(Feb details ofdiscriminationagainstgaysandlesbians); effects.”); seealsoTr361-390(Chauncey:discussing twentieth century.Andthathascontinuinglegaciesand public andprivateauthoritiesoverthecourseof experienced widespreadandacutediscriminationfromboth history ofdiscrimination.”); lesbians havebeenthevictimsofalongandshameful disputed andwehaveofferedtostipulatethatgays Letter fromEDColeman, ExemptOrganizations Letter fromJohnWMacy,Chairman,CivilService at2-4:TheCommissionrejectedtheMattachine 96 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 Publicandprivatediscriminationagainstgayslesbians 75. .PX0605 g. Tr1569:11-1571:5(Segura:“[O]verthelast fiveyears, f. Tr548:23(Chauncey: Thereisstillsignificant e. PX0672at26; PX0673at28;PX0674PX067526; d. c. PX0711atRFANos3, 8,13,18,23:AttorneyGeneral b. PX0707atRFANo29:Proponentsadmitthatgaysand a. occurs inCaliforniaandtheUnitedStates. not ‘charitable.’” behavior” “contrarytopublicpolicyand[is]therefore, the homosexualcommunity”was“pervertedordeviate the organization’sgoalof“advanc[ing]welfare exemption underInternalRevenueCode§501(c)(3)because 1974) Discrimination on theBasisofSexualOrientation and of theiridentity thanagaymanorlesbian.”); endures thelikelihood ofbeingharmedasaconsequence 2008; “Thereissimplynootherperson insocietywho and “[f]ifty-fivepercentofall hate-motivated rapes”in accounted for“71percentofall hate-motivated murders” extreme formsofhatebasedviolence”; thehatecrimes an actofviolence*wearetalking aboutthemost crimes committedagainstgaysand lesbiansalsoinclude to experienceviolence”;“73percent ofallthehate acts ofbiasmotivatedviolence” and “arefarmorelikely representing alargerand portion ofthenumber toward gaymenandlesbians”;“gays andlesbiansare there hasactuallybeenanincrease inviolencedirected States.); discrimination againstlesbiansandgaymenintheUnited bias occurredeachyearinCalifornia; and 283hatecrimeeventsmotivatedbysexualorientation California PX0676 at20(CaliforniaDeptofJustice,HateCrimein motivated bysexualorientationbias; 20 percentofallhatecrimeoffensesinCaliforniawere California PX0676 at1(CaliforniaDeptofJustice,HateCrimein PX0672 at18;PX067320;PX0674PX06753; occurred in2008; 2005, 246occurredin2006,2632007and283 bias occurredinCalifornia2004,255 admits 263hatecrimeeventsbasedonsexualorientation discrimination; lesbians continuetoexperienceinstancesof : ThePrideFoundationisnotentitledtoan The WilliamsInstitute, etal,Documenting , 2004-2008) , 2004-2008):From2004to2008,between17and : From2004to2008,between246 97 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 Well-knownstereotypesaboutgaymenandlesbiansincludea 76. .Tr2599:17-2604:7(Miller: Milleragreesthat“thereare k. Tr2572:11-16(Miller: Gaysandlesbiansarestillthe j. Tr2510:23-2535:7(Miller: Milleragreesthat“therehas i. .DIX1162 a. homosexuality. Noevidencesupports thesestereotypes. as childmolesterswhorecruityoung childreninto stereotypes imaginegaymenandlesbians asdiseasevectorsor incapable offorminglong-termintimaterelationships.Other belief thatgaysandlesbiansareaffluent,self-absorbed PX0619 h. orientation.”). against intheworkplacebecauseoftheirsexual refused work,paidless,andotherwisediscriminated some gaysandlesbianswhoarefiredfromtheirjobs, “object ofprejudiceandstereotype.”); lesbians.); discrimination intheUnitedStates”againstgaysand against gaysandlesbiansthat“thereisongoing lesbians” and“widespreadpersistent”discrimination been severeprejudiceanddiscriminationagainstgays cause someonetorape.’”; * anuncontrolledpassionsimilartothatwhichwould Senator RichardMountjoythat“beinggay‘isasickness lesbians, includinga1999statementbyCaliforniaState all fiftystatesshowhostilitytowardsgaysand by legislators,judges,governorsandotherofficialsin Gender IdentityinStateEmployment understanding poverty amongLGBTpeople.”; service providers, andthemediaawayfromfully affluence steers policymakers, communityorganizations men asanaffluentelite**. [T]he misleadingmythof (Mar 2009) Gay, andBisexualCommunity Officials, 1980-Present of AnimusagainstLGBTPeoplebyStateandLocal is similarforprivatesectoremployeesinCalifornia; government employees”andthepatternofdiscrimination orientation andgenderidentityagainst[California] unconstitutional discriminationonthebasisofsexual “There isawidespreadandpersistentpatternof The WilliamsInstitute,Chapter14:OtherIndicia Randy Albelda,etal,Povertyin the Lesbian, : “Apopularstereotypepaintslesbians andgay 98

at 14-8 , TheWilliamsInstitute (2009)

at 1 : Statementsmade (Sept2009) : at 1 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .PX1011 d. Tr820:23-822:5(Meyer:Oneofthestereotypesthatis c. Tr474:12-19(Chauncey:Medicalpronouncementsthatwere b. .PX2337 h. Tr585:22-586:8(Peplau:Thereisnoempirical support g. Tr484:24-485:5 (Chauncey:Thefederalgovernmentwas f. Tr361:23-363:9(Chauncey: Eventhoughnotallsodomy e. “a pariah,sotospeak.”); participate insocietythewayeveryoneelsedoes——as isolates, asunconnectedtosocietyandpeoplewhodonot Gay menandlesbianshavebeendescribedassocial in andnotsuccessfulathavingintimaterelationships. that gaymenandlesbiansareincapableof,uninterested part ofthestigmasurroundinggaymenandlesbiansis and lesbians.); themselves amanifestationofdiscriminationagainstgays of legitimationtoanti-homosexualsentimentandwere hostile togaysandlesbiansprovidedapowerfulsource under theinfluence ofapervert.Governmentofficials case ofyoungand impressionablepeoplewhomight come in pervertedpractices. Thisisparticularlytrue inthe frequently attempt toenticenormalindividuals engage influence onhis fellow employees.Theseperverts will pervert inaGovernmentagencytends tohaveacorrosive investigation hasshownthatthe presence ofasex (1950) in Government,SRepNo81-241,81st Congress,2dSess relationships.); relationships areinferiortoheterosexual have troubleformingstablerelationships orthatthose for thenegativestereotypesthat gaymenandlesbians group.”); because oftheassociationAIDSwitha“despised slow torespondtheAIDScrisis,andthiswasinpart homosexual andheterosexualsodomy.); when infacttheGeorgialawatissuecriminalizedboth as thoughthelawatissuesimplybearsonhomosexualsex This wasmoststrikinginBowersvHardwick the criminalizationofhomosexualsexinparticular. of thetwentiethcentury,sodomylawscametosymbolize laws solelypenalizedhomosexualconduct,overthecourse his queen.Livetogether?Yes.Happily?Hardly.”; sonnet bycomparisonwithadialoguebetweenbutchand argument betweenhusbandandwifeisapassionatelove the ‘happy’partremainstobeseen.Thebitterest mighty rarebirdsamongthehomosexualflock.Moreover, together happilyforyears?Whataboutthem?Theyare Rees 1969) About Sex(ButWereAfraidtoAsk) at4:“Mostoftheauthoritiesagree andour Employment ofHomosexualsandOther SexPerverts David Reuben,EverythingYouAlwaysWantedtoKnow : “Whataboutallofthehomosexualswholive 99 129-151at143(Van , whichreads United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .PX2281 k. Tr397:2-6;397:25-398:5(Chauncey:“[I]nsomeways, j. Tr395:6-25(Chauncey:Likemostoutsidergroups,there i. .Tr402:21-24(Chauncey:Thesearticles (inPX2281)were n. PX2281 m. Tr400:18-401:8 (Chauncey:ThisexcerptfromCoronet l. emerged asasexdeviant.); sex deviants.Throughthesecampaigns,thehomosexual against assaultsonchildrenfocusedsexpervertsor homosexuals aschildmolesters.”Thesepresscampaigns series ofpressandpolicecampaignsthatidentified developed betweenthe1930sand‘50s,whentherewerea the mostdangerousstereotypesforhomosexualsreally develop stereotypicalimagesofgaypeople.); religious groups,haveworkedinacoordinatedwayto a rangeofgroups,includingmedicalprofessionalsand have beenstereotypesassociatedwithgaypeople;indeed, Government office.”; of theGovernment.Onehomosexualcanpollutea subjected tothattypeofinfluencewhileintheservice and womenwhoarebroughtintoFederaljobsnotbe particularly importantthatthethousandsofyoungmen influence outoftheagenciesundertheircontrol.Itis have theresponsibilityofkeepingthistypecorrosive threat totheirchildren.”); “were beingtaught tobelievethathomosexualsposed a concerned aboutthe safetyoftheirchildren,and who mostly addressed to adultswhowereunderstandably sexes *andiseverseekingfor youngervictims.”; homosexual isaninveterateseducer oftheyoungboth * Alltoooftenwelosesight ofthefactthat a ‘queer’individualwhoneverhurts anyonebuthimself. more innocuousform,istoofrequently regardedasmerely General ofCaliforniain1949:“The sexpervert,inhis Contains astatementmadebySpecial AssistantAttorney indicates thattheauthorsaretalking aboutchildren.); other people.Andtheterm“innocent”prettyclearly homosexuality asadiseaseinwhichthecarriersinfect of moraldecay.Inaddition,thereisasense Magazine even murder.”; depravity, suchasdrugaddiction,burglary,sadism,and descended throughperversionstootherformsof stop withinfectingtheiroften-innocentpartners:they moral restraints.*Somemalesexdeviantsdonot assumes theroleofhomosexual,heoftenthrowsoffall circulation CoronetMagazine (McGraw-Hill 1993 William Graebner,ed,TrueStoriesfromthePast Chauncey, ThePostwarSexCrimePanic George Chauncey,ThePostwarSexCrimePanic , PX2281at171,depictshomosexualsassubjects ): Containsexcerptsfromwide- 100 , Fall1950:“Onceaman , at170-171 160,171 , in : United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 Religiousbeliefsthatgayandlesbianrelationshipsare 77. .Tr1035:13-1036:19(Lamb:Socialsciencestudieshave p. Tr407:8-408:4(Chauncey:Oneofthemostenduring o. .Tr395:14-18(Chauncey:Manyclergy inchurches e. PX0390 d. Tr1565:2-1566:6(Segura: “[R]eligionisthechief c. PX2545(YoungNov13, 2009DepTr55:15-55:20, b. PX2547(NathansonNov 12,2009DepTr102:3-8:Religions a. lesbians. sinful orinferiortoheterosexualrelationshipsharmgaysand likely toabusechildren.). disproven thehypothesisthatgaysandlesbiansaremore with children.); married couples——peoplewhomighthaveclosecontact with particularattentiontogayteachers,parentsand continues toplayaroleindebatesovergayrights,and of homosexualsaschildmolestersorrecruiters images ofhomosexualsthatstaywithustoday.Thisfear creation andthenreenforcementofaseriesdemonic legacies oftheemergencethesestereotypesis have ledcampaigns againstgayrights.); considered homosexuality asin,preachedagainst it and It startsatGenesis 2.”; “that’s notwhatGodwanted.* * It’srealbasic. “marriage” andapplyittotheir relationships, because mind” whensame-sexcoupleswant to takethename campaign andat4:00-4:30:Prentice explainsthat“wedo that “Godhasledtheway”for ProtectMarriage Proposition 8,PartI It’s verydifficulttoovercomethat.”); opportunity structureveryhostile togayinterests. huge percentageofthepublicmakes the*political that gaysaremorallyinferioronaregularbasisto [B]iblical condemnationofhomosexualityandtheteaching arrayed againsttheinterestsofgaysandlesbians.* powerful organization,andinlargemeasuretheyare American societythanthechurch.*[I]t’savery difficult tothinkofamorepowerfulsocialentityin the chiefobstacleforacoupleofreasons.*[I]t’s obstacle forgayandlesbianpoliticalprogress,it’s homosexuality as“sinful.”);PX2544(videoofsame); also idat61:18-22,62:13-17(CatholicChurchviews and prejudiceagainstgaylesbianindividuals);see 56:21-57:7: Thereisareligiouscomponenttothebigotry contributes togaybashing);PX2546(videoofsame); teach thathomosexualrelationsareasinand Video, RonPrenticeAddressingSupporters of at0:20-0:40:Prenticeexplains 101 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .PX0168 k. .PX0005 h. PX2853 g. Tr440:19-441:2(Chauncey:Thereligiousargumentsthat f. .PX0771 l. PX0301 j. PX0770 i. the approvalofdeviantbehavior.”; recognition ofhomosexualunions * wouldmean mean doingviolencetothesechildren”; and“legal adopted bypersonslivinginsuch unionswouldactually gravely contrarytochastity”;“[a]llowing childrentobe objectively disorderedandhomosexualpracticesaresins approved”; “[t]hehomosexualinclinationis* law” and“[u]ndernocircumstancescan*be family”; “homosexualactsgoagainstthenaturalmoral or evenremotelyanalogoustoGod’splanformarriageand considering homosexualunionstobe“inanywaysimilar 22, 2009) weekly votedinfavorofProposition8; recognition oftheirequalityisagainstGod’swill.); that homosexualityitselforgaypeoplethe Anita Bryant’s“SaveOurChildren”campaign,whichargue Proposition 8campaignandmanyofthecampaignssince mirrored byargumentsthathavebeenmobilizedinthe marriage andintegrationasagainstGod’swillare were mobilizedinthe1950stoargueagainstinterracial Proclamation President Clinton’s GayandLesbianPrideMonth at large.”; dangerous bothtotheindividuals involvedandtosociety homosexual lifestyle,whichtheBible callssinfuland marriage’ wouldconveyasocietal approvalofa Same-Sex Marriage Document onLegalRecognitionofHomosexualUnions Between HomosexualPersons,ExcerptsfromVatican Regarding ProposalstoGiveLegalRecognitionUnions depravity.’”; “Sacred Scripturecondemnshomosexualactsas‘aserious Recognition toUnionsBetweenHomosexualPersons Considerations RegardingProposalstoGiveLegal sins.”; condone thepracticeofhomosexualityorothersexual and rationalization,revisebiblicalpassagesinorderto arguments withthosewho,throughtheuseofcasuistry and onefemale.*Wewillavoidunproductive Bible definesmarriageasacovenantalunionofonemale Protecting BiblicalMarriage 2008 , CNN Southern BaptistConvention,SBC Resolution, On Southern Baptist Convention, Resolutionon Catholics fortheCommonGood,Considerations Congregation fortheDoctrineofFaith, Leaflet, JamesLGarlow,TheTenDeclarationsFor Proposition 8LocalExitPolls-ElectionCenter : Thereareabsolutelynogroundsfor at8:84percentofpeoplewhoattendedchurch (June1999)

at 1 (June2003) 102 : “TheBibleclearly teachesthat

at 1 (June25,2008) : “Legalizing‘same-sex at2: : “The (Nov United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8 Stereotypes and misinformationhaveresultedinsocial 78. .PX2839 m. .Tr1554:14-19(Segura:Ballotinitiatives banning b. Tr413:22-414:6(Chauncey:The“SaveOurChildren” a. legal disadvantagesforgaysand lesbians. Tr2676:8-2678:24(Miller: Milleragreeswithhisformer r. Tr1566:18-22(Segura: “[Proponents’expert]DrYoung q. PX2844 p. PX2842 o. PX2840 n. God.”; homosexual behaviorisanabominationandshamefulbefore states.); marriage equality havebeenpassedinthirty-three earlier stereotypesofhomosexuals aschildmolesters.); antidiscrimination law,anditdrew onandrevived an enactmentthataddedsexualorientation toan Bryant, afamousBaptistsinger. Itsoughttooverturn campaign inDadeCounty,Florida in 1977wasledbyAnita 8.). Democrats votedforBarackObamaandalsoProposition California’s Democraticvoters”explainwhysomany statement that“thereligiouscharacteristicsof discrimination.”); interest inthepublicsphereandtoprejudice that’s conducivetohatefulacts,oppositiontheir [plays] animportantroleincreatingasocialclimate freely admitsthatreligioushostilitytohomosexuals against God.”; is tobeapproachedastheresultofhumanity’srebellion of Life together inmarriageashusbandandwife.”; distortion ofHisdesirethatonemanandwomanlive through HisWordthathomosexualityisasinful Lutheran Church-MissouriSynod perversion ofGod’screatedorder.”; 5: “Homosexualbehavior,asallsexualdeviation,isa Regards theInstitutionsofGod relationship asGodintendedittobe.”; in fallenman,andaperversionofthesexual distortion oftheimageGodasitisstillreflected Homosexuality , OrthodoxChurchofAmerica On Marriage,Family,Sexuality,andtheSanctity A LBarry,WhatAbout*Homosexuality The ChristianLife——Conduct:As Evangelical PresbyterianChurch,PositionPaperon at3:“[H]omosexualpracticeisa 103 at1:“TheLordteachesus , FreeMethodistChurch at1:“Homosexuality , The at United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .Tr1563:5-1564:21(Segura:“[T]heAmerican public isnot i. Tr1560:22-1561:9(Segura: “[T]heroleofprejudiceis h. Tr564:4-16(Chauncey: Theterm“thegayagenda”was g. Tr412:20-413:1(Chauncey: Theseriesofinitiativeswe f. Tr424:18-23(Chauncey:“[T]hewaveofcampaignsthatwe e. Tr538:15-539:10(Chauncey:Chaunceyislessoptimistic d. Tr2608:16-18(Miller:“Myviewisthatatleastsome c. and lesbians, thatcouldbepoliticallyadvantageous elected officials thattheycansaybadthingsabout gays gays andlesbians ascorebelow50,that’stelling groups. When“two-thirds ofallrespondentsare giving whereas athirdto 45percentdidthesameforother lesbians belowthemidpoint, thescoreof50, groups; over65percentofrespondents placedgaysand the averagescoreforreligious, racial andethnic gays andlesbiansareasmuch 16 to20pointsbelow very fondofgaysandlesbians.” Warmnessscoresfor process.”); for compromiseandnegotiationin thepolitical are aninherentlybadperson.That’s justnotthebasis give-and-take ofthelegislative process whenIthinkyou limited. It’sverydifficulttoengageinthe beliefs, thentherangeofcompromiseisdramatically threat tofreedom,ifthere’sthesedeeply-seated somehow *morallyinferior,athreattochildren, profound. *[I]fthegroupisenvisionedasbeing long-standing stereotypes.); the ideaofaunitaryagendaandthatpicksupon overturn gayrightslaws.Thetermtriestoconstruct early 1990sinsupportofinitiativesdesignedto mobilized particularlyeffectivelyinthelate1980sand another exampleofcontinuingprejudiceandhostility.); have seensincethemid-to-late1970sovergayrightsare the sameimagery.”); that theycontinuewithasimilarintentandusesomeof rights campaignsofasortthatIhavebeendescribing; are, ineffect,thelateststageandcycleofanti-gay have seenagainstgaymarriagerightsinthelastdecade measures.); of popularreferendahaveenactedthesediscriminatory been enactedbylegislativevote,butatremendousnumber would prohibitsame-sexcouplesfrommarrying.Somehave enacted legislationorconstitutionalamendmentsthat Chauncey wroteWhyMarriage?TheHistoryShapingToday’s United Statesthanhewasin2004.Since2004,when now thatsame-sexmarriagewillbecomecommoninthe stereotypes andprejudice.”); people votedforProposition8onthebasisofanti-gay Debate overGayEquality 104 , themajorityofstateshave United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 TheProposition8campaignreliedonfearsthatchildren 79. .PX0619 j. .Tr2608:16-18(Miller:“Myviewis that atleastsome c. PX0710atRFANo51:AttorneyGeneraladmits thatsomeof b. Tr424:24-429:6(Chauncey:Proposition8Official Voter a. lesbian child. or lesbianandthatparentsshoulddreadhavingagay that learningaboutsame-sexmarriagecouldmakeachildgay advertisements. Nevertheless,theadvertisementsinsinuated sex marriagewasneverarticulatedinofficialcampaign lesbian. Thereasonchildrenneedtobeprotectedfromsame- exposed totheconceptofsame-sexmarriagemaybecomegayor PX0796 k. vote onthequestion,usuallybylargemargins.” amendments inallthirtystateswheretheywereableto between amanandwoman.*Votersapprovedmarriage constitutional amendmentsdefiningmarriageasaunion and 2008,thirtystatesheldstatewideelectionsonstate Américaines 46,52(2009) voters tothepollsforthatcause.”); could befertilegroundtotrymobilizesomeofthese the sameway.”Additionally,“theinitiativeprocess to thembecause*manypartsoftheelectoratefeel stereotypes andprejudice.”); people votedfor Proposition 8onthebasisofanti-gay fear ofandprejudiceagainsthomosexual menandwomen; the advertisinginfavorofProposition 8wasbasedon images ofgaypeople.); Guide evokedfearsaboutandcontained stereotypical but NotSame-SexMarriage Religious Divide:WhyCaliforniaVotersSupportedObama which wouldcausesomeonetorape.”; sickness *anuncontrolledpassionsimilartothat California statesenatordescribedhomosexualityas“a “bestiality, humansacrifice,andcannibalism.”A state representativecomparedhomosexualityto about gaysandlesbiansinallfiftystates.AnArizona Institute collectednegativecommentsmadebypoliticians Officials, 1980-Present of AnimusagainstLGBTPeoplebyStateandLocal Kenneth PMiller,TheDemocraticCoalition’s The WilliamsInstitute,Chapter14:OtherIndicia 105 at9(2009) : “Inthedecadebetween1998 , 119RevueFrançaised’Études : TheWilliams United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .Tr553:23-554:14(Chauncey:Tam’s“What IfWeLose” h. PX0577 d. .PX0513 g. PX0015 f. PX2150 e. letter isconsistent initstonewithamuchlonger church.” (aswritten); pastors. Ifthe church refuse,theywouldsuethe the bigchurchesandrequesttobe marriedbytheir children’s grandchildren?3.Gay activistswouldtarget is safe,ourgrandchildrenmaynot. Whataboutour children wouldbecomehomosexuals. Evenifourchildren fantasize marryingsomeoneofthe samesex.More Satan’s hand.2.Everychild,when growingup,would in California.Onebyone,other stateswouldfallinto happen *1.Same-Sexmarriage willbeapermanentlaw this criticalbattle.Ifwelose, thiswillverylikely is: legalizehavingsexwithchildren *Wecan’tlose prostitution. Whatwillbenext? Ontheiragendalist legalizing same-sexmarriage,theywanttolegalize lose notimeinpushingthegayagenda——after government, whichisundertheruleofhomosexuals.They prostitution.’ ThisisputforthbytheSFcity Francisco voterswillvoteonaballotto‘legalize does notpass; unarticulated consequencestochildrenifProposition8 With Schools Thought AboutIt? Mandatory.”; ‘tolerance.’ AcceptanceofGayMarriageisNow on California.Theirrulingmeansitisnolongerabout ignored fourmillionvotersandimposedsame-sexmarriage activist judgesontheSupremeCourtinSanFrancisco magazine knowverywell:campaignsmatter.”; Prop 8victoryprovessomethingthatreadersofPolitics significant implicationsfortherestofsociety.”“The entertain allowinggaymarriage,butnotifdoingsohad Californians wouldaffordthegaycommunity.They “[T]here werelimitstothedegreeoftolerance inculcated inyoungchildrenthroughpublicschools.” focusing on“howthisnew‘fundamentalright’wouldbe identified” andtheydecidedtocreatecampaignmessaging reactions toavarietyofconsequencesourissueexperts hard incountlessfocusgroupsandsurveystoexplore would notbeenoughtoprevail.”“Weprobedlongand believed thatacampaigninfavoroftraditionalmarriage involved inacommittedgayrelationship.”“Westrongly Californians andwasnotonlyaboutthetwoindividuals same-sex marriagehadbroaderimplicationsfor would dependonourabilitytoconvincevotersthat Politics Letter fromTam Video, FinallytheTruth Mailing leaflet,ProtectMarriage Frank SchubertandJeffFlint,PassingProp8 at 45-47 : ProtectMarriagetelevisionadsthreatening ; andPX0091 (Feb 2009) 106 to “friends”:“ThisNovember,San : “[P]assingProposition8 Video, EverythingtoDo ; PX0016 Video, HaveYou : “[F]our , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .PX0116 i. .Tr1913:17-1914:12(Tam:Tamsupported Proposition8 o. PX0079 n. PX0015 m. Tr1579:5-21(Segura: “[O]neoftheenduring*tropes l. PX0391 k. Tr530:24-531:11(Chauncey:TheWirthlins’advertisement j. discrimination.); decades andalongerhistoryofanti-gay major themesoftheanti-gayrightscampaignsprevious history ofanti-gayrhetoric.Itreproducesmanythe stability ofthe family.”); important forAsian families,theculturalissues, the Jane orJohnwhen Igrowup?Becausethisisvery won’t growupto fantasize orthinkabout,Should Imarry because hethinks“itisveryimportant thatourchildren Children needtobeprotectedfrom gaysandlesbians; Community Newsletter&VoterGuide (Oct/Nov2008) the needtoprotectchildren; Proposition 8: Miles McPhersonandRonPrentice Asking forSupportof Oppose Same-SexMarriage Already Happened into alesbian.”); failed, thepublicschoolsaregoingtoturnmydaughter underlying messageofthatis*ifProp8 was toldthatIcouldmarryaprincesstoo.’Andthe campaign advertisementsaying,*‘Atschooltoday,I to children.*[I]ntheProp8campaign[there]wasa of anti-gayargumentationhasbeenthatgaysareathreat incrementally now,butwholehogtotheotherside.”; how itwillbecompletelyturnedover,notjust 8 lesbian people.); to anextensionoffundamentalcivilrightsgayand recognized isanimpositiononotherpeople,asopposed being askedtoberecognizedandhavetheirrelationships addition, itsuggeststhatthefactgaypeopleare sexual identity,asifhomosexualitywereachoice.In homosexuality threatenschildrenandtheir implies thattheveryexposuretoideaof reading, socialstudiesandspelling; be taughtandpromotedineverysubject,includingmath, in Massachusettshomosexualityandgaymarriagewillsoon level ofsociety,especiallyonchildren,andclaimthat warn thatredefiningmarriagehasanimpactonevery Marriage , PartIIat1:25-1:40:“It’sallabouteducation,and Asian AmericanEmpowermentCouncil, AsianAmerican Video, FinallytheTruth Ron PrenticeAddressingSupportersofProposition Video, MassachusettsParentsOpposeSame-Sex : RobbandRobinWirthlin,Massachusettsparents, Proposition 8campaignvideosfocused on ; PX0116 107 ; PX0401 Video, MassachusettsParents ; PX0099 Video, TonyPerkins, Video, It’s : United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 ThecampaigntopassProposition8reliedonstereotypes 80. .PX0480AVideosupportingProposition8at0:58-1:12: q. Tr558:16-560:12(Chauncey:Tam’sdepositiontestimony p. .CompareabovewithTr412:23-413:1, 418:11-419:22, b. Tr429:15-430:8,431:17-432:11, 436:25-437:15, a. relationships. show thatsame-sexrelationshipsareinferiortoopposite-sex teach themathome.” contrary tothevaluesthattheirfamilyisattempting be indoctrinatedwithamessagethatisabsolutely the wayside,thenineverypublicschool,childrenwill Prentice statesthat“[i]ftraditionalmarriagegoesby an associationbetweenhomosexualityanddisease.); with theideathathomosexualityisachoiceandthere there aregaypeopleintheworld.Itisalsoconsistent children couldbeintroducedinschooltotheideathat sympathy tohomosexuality.Theyopposetheideathat the issueisnotjustmarriageequalityitself——it lesbian coupleswouldleadchildrentobecomegay.And exposure tohomosexualityormarriagesofgayand displays thedeepfearaboutideathatsimple Struggle toBuild aGayRightsMovementinAmerica Dudley Clendinen and AdamNagourney,OutforGood: The 420:3-20; PX1621 gay people.); people ratherthansimplyanextension ofcivilrightsto seek anyrecognitionthisisanimposition onother message usedinearliercampaigns thatwhengaypeople understand asundesirable.Thecampaign conveyeda young peopletobecomegay,which votersareto and theirrelationshipsisgoing to leadagenerationof strongly echoestheideathatmere exposuretogaypeople learned thataprincesscanmarry aprincess,which the littlegirlwhocomesintotell hermomthatshe and theirrelationships.Themost strikingimageisof children needtobeprotectedfromexposuregaypeople inferior, thathomosexualityisundesirableand conveyed amessagethatgaypeopleandrelationshipsare harmed bytherecognitionofgaymarriage.Thecampaign people offaithandreligiousgroupswouldsomehowbe ads focusedonprotectingchildrenandtheconcernthat Marriage (color) and white) Happened Video, WhetherYouLikeItOrNot Truth 438:8-439:6, 529:25-531:11;PX0015 Everything toDoWithSchools ; PX0016 ; PX1763 ; PX1775 : (Chauncey:Thecampaigntelevisionandprint ; PX1775A Video, HaveYouThoughtAboutIt? Poster withPhoneNumber,Protect Pamphlet, SaveOur Children; Photo leaflet,ProtectMarriage(black Photo leaflet,ProtectMarriage 108 ; PX0099 ; PX0091 Video, Finallythe Video, It’sAlready Video, PX0864 ; PX0029

at 303 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 deemed tobefundamental, thegovernmentmustshow thatthe 720 (1997).Whenlegislationburdens theexerciseofaright liberty orproperty.SeeWashington vGlucksberg individuals againstarbitrarygovernmental intrusionintolife, process oflaw.”USConstAmend XIV, §1.Dueprocessprotects deprive anypersonoflife,liberty, orproperty,withoutdue DUE PROCESS sexual orientation. marry andcreatesanirrationalclassificationonthebasisof unconstitutionally burdenstheexerciseoffundamentalright to challenge isindependentlymeritorious,asProposition8both and EqualProtectionClausesoftheFourteenthAmendment.Each 3 findings offact,they shallbedeemedassuch.

To the extent any ofthe To theextent .PX0008 c. * *.”) (Barack Obama:“I’mnotinfavorofgaymarriage PX0025 Protection ofChildrenis[sic]atRisk(Oct31,2008) Clarifies Yeson8Proponents’Concerns:Educationand materials invokefearsaboutthegayagenda. exposed toindoctrinationongaylifestyles.These that unlessProposition8passes,childrenwillbe (Oct 11,2008) Graders TakentoSanFranciscoCityHallforGayWedding content similartotheProposition8campaign.); anti-gay initiativecampaignsusedovertmessagingof (Touchstone 1999) The DueProcessClauseprovidesthatno“State[shall] Plaintiffs challengeProposition8undertheDueProcess

Leaflet, ProtectMarriage,VoteYESonProp8 Memorandum, ProtectMarriage,NewYouTubeVideo ; PX1565 conclusionsoflaw : Proposition8campaignmaterialswarn CONCLUSIONS OFLAW News Release,ProtectMarriage,First : (Chauncey:Oneoftheearliest III 109 should moreproperly beconsidered 3 , 521US702,719- ; United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 support andpubliccommitment.”);Zablocki fundamental right”andmarriageisan“expression[]ofemotional protected bytheDueProcessClause.See,forexample,Turnerv PARTNER REGARDLESSOFGENDER THE RIGHTTOMARRYPROTECTSANINDIVIDUAL’SCHOICEOFMARITAL 374, 388(1978). seek toexercise the fundamentalrighttomarry; or, becausethey fundamental. The questionpresentedhereiswhether plaintiffs involved inourpriordecisions.”). projects. Yetitisanassociation forasnobleapurposeany political faiths;abilateralloyalty, notcommercialorsocial that promotesawayoflife,not causes; aharmonyinliving,not and intimatetothedegreeofbeingsacred.Itisanassociation is acomingtogetherforbetterorworse,hopefullyenduring, men.”); GriswoldvConnecticut rights essentialtotheorderlypursuitofhappinessbyfree to marryhaslongbeenrecognizedasoneofthevitalpersonal Amendment.”); LovingvVirginia the libertiesprotectedbyDueProcessClauseofFourteenth personal choiceinmattersofmarriageandfamilylifeisone 639-40 (1974)(“ThisCourthaslongrecognizedthatfreedomof individuals.”); ClevelandBoardofEducationvLaFleur (“The righttomarryisoffundamentalimportanceforall Safely intrusion withstandsstrictscrutiny.ZablockivRedhail , 482US78,95(1987)(“[T]hedecisiontomarryisa The freedomtomarryisrecognizedasafundamentalright The partiesdonotdisputethatthe righttomarryis , 381US479,486(1965)(“Marriage , 388US1,12(1967)(The“freedom 110 , 434USat384(1978) , 414US632, , 434US United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 intercourse.” Lawrence to besaidmarriage issimplyabouttherightto have sexual intercourse. FF 21. “[I]twoulddemeanamarried couplewereit license ismorethanato haveprocreativesexual intent beforeissuingamarriage license; indeed,amarriage J, dissenting). life. SeeBowersvHardwick relationship becauseitissocentralapartofanindividual’s individual’s choicetobuildafamilywithanotherandprotectsthe a stable,governablepopulace.FF35-37.Thestaterespectsan marriage createsstablehouseholds,whichinturnformthebasis of dependents. FF34-35,37.Thestateregulatesmarriagebecause 20, 34.Thespousesmustconsenttosupporteachotherandany relationship, whichthenformsthefoundationofahousehold.FF requires twopartiestogivetheirfreeconsentforma the historyofUnitedStates.SeeFF19,34-35.Marriage their righttomarryorseekexercisesomeotherright.Id. the UnitedStates;and(2)whetherplaintiffsseektoexercise determine: (1)thehistory,traditionandpracticeofmarriagein fundamental, thecourtlookstoevidencepresentedattrial Glucksberg “in ourNation’shistory,legaltraditions,andpractices.” Process Clause,thecourtinquiresintowhetherrightisrooted right. are couplesofthesamesex,whethertheyseekrecognitionanew Never hasthestateinquiredinto procreativecapacityor Marriage hasretainedcertaincharacteristicsthroughout , 521USat710.Here,becausetherighttomarryis To determinewhetherarightisfundamentalundertheDue , 539USat567. TheSupremeCourt , 478US186,204-205(1986)(Blackmun, 111 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 disapproval ofsame-sex relationships,FF74,and therealitythat including gender roles mandatedthroughcoverture, FF26-27,social evidence suggests manyreasonsforthistradition ofexclusion, States traditionallyhasnotbeen opentosame-sexcouples.The institution ofmarriagebecamecompatible withgenderequality. marry; thatrightdidnotbecome different simplybecausethe women asequals.Id.Yet,individuals retainedtherightto male-dominated institutionintoanrecognizingmenand marriage. FF26-27,32.Marriagewasthustransformedfroma coverture thathadmadegenderaproxyforspouse’srolewithin a equality ofthesexes,theyeliminatedlawsandpracticeslike union ofequals.FF26-27,32.Asstatesmovedtorecognizethe now isregardedasantitheticaltothenotionofmarriagea doctrine ofcoverture;thisonce-unquestionedaspectmarriage identity besubsumedbyherhusband’suponmarriageunderthe states) traditionallyrequiredthatawoman’slegalandeconomic concepts oflibertyandchoiceinherentintherighttomarry.Id. despite theirhistoricalprevalence,stoodinstarkcontrasttothe US at12.Instead,theCourtrecognizedthatracerestrictions, Loving FF 23-25.WhentheSupremeCourtinvalidatedracerestrictionsin most statesbutarenowseenasarchaic,shamefulorevenbizarre. US at485-486. play apivotalroleinthemaritalrelationship.SeeGriswold recognizes that,whollyapartfromprocreation,choiceandprivacy , thedefinitionofrighttomarrydidnotchange.388 The evidenceattrialshowsthat marriage intheUnited The maritalbargaininCalifornia(alongwithother Race restrictionsonmaritalpartnerswereoncecommonin 112 , 381 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 marriage intheUnited States.PerryandStierseek tobespouses; consistent withthe coreofthehistory,tradition andpracticeof committed relationships, andplaintiffs’relationships are equals. essential partofmarriage;marriage underlawisaunionof marriage underCalifornialaw.FF 48.Gendernolongerformsan in termsoftheirabilitytoperform therightsandobligationsof same-sex couplesaresituatedidenticallytoopposite-sex other andtotheirdependents.Relativegendercompositionaside, relevant tothestateindeterminingspouses’obligationseach core oftheinstitutionmarriage.FF33.Today,genderisnot inequality, butsuchrestrictionswereneverpartofthehistorical restrictions shapedmarriageduringerasofraceandgender and formahousehold.FF19-20,34-35.Racegender right tochooseaspouseand,withmutualconsent,jointogether roles insocietyandmarriage.Thattimehaspassed. artifact ofatimewhenthegenderswereseenashavingdistinct order tomarry.FF21.Rather,theexclusionexistsasan required spousestohaveanabilityorwillingnessprocreatein excluding same-sexcouplesfrommarriage,asstateshavenever marriage. Theevidencedidnotshowanyhistoricalpurposefor evolution intheunderstandingofgenderratherthanachange institution freefromstate-mandatedgenderrolesreflectsan movement ofmarriageawayfromagenderedinstitutionandtowardan to challengetherestriction,FF43.Theevidenceshowsthat the vastmajorityofpeopleareheterosexualandhavehadnoreason Plaintiffs seektohavethestate recognizetheir The righttomarryhasbeenhistoricallyandremainsthe 113 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 from opposite-sexcouples.FF53-54; InreMarriageCases created asanalternativetomarriage thatdistinguishsame-sex sex couples.Theevidenceshows that domesticpartnershipswere Partnerships fulfillsCalifornia’sdueprocessobligationtosame- must considerwhethertheavailabilityofRegisteredDomestic fundamental righttomarryundertheDueProcessClause,court ALLOW PLAINTIFFSTOMARRY DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPSDONOTSATISFYCALIFORNIA’SOBLIGATIONTO relationships forwhattheyare:marriages. marriage. Rather,plaintiffsaskCaliforniatorecognizetheir from whatopposite-sexcouplesacrossthestateenjoy——namely, marriage” wouldsuggestthatplaintiffsseeksomethingdifferent characterize plaintiffs’objectiveas“therighttosame-sex recognition. another preventCaliforniafromgivingtheirrelationshipsdue and formofmarriage.Onlytheplaintiffs’gendersrelativetoone 381 USat486.Plaintiffs’unionsencompassthehistoricalpurpose family relationships.”); idat402,434,445(By “reserving the and statureasthat accordedtoallotherofficially recognized official familyrelationship accordedthesamedignity, respect, right [tomarry]istheof same-sex couplestohavetheir 384, 434(Cal2008)(Oneofthe“core elementsofth[e]fundamental enduring, andintimatetothedegreeofbeingsacred.”Griswold union is“acomingtogetherforbetterorworse,hopefully 52. ZarrilloandKatamiseekrecognitionfromthestatethattheir they seekthemutualobligationandhonorthatattendmarriage,FF Having determinedthatplaintiffsseektoexercisetheir Plaintiffs donotseekrecognitionofanewright.To 114 , 183P3d , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 and donotprovide thesamesocialmeaningasmarriage. FF53-54. reasons. First, domestic partnershipsaredistinct frommarriage fulfill California’s dueprocessobligationtoplaintiffs fortwo id, FF53-54. all same-sexcouplesonlyoneoption ——domesticpartnership.See almost allopposite-sexcouplesonly oneoption——marriageand relationship isrequiredorpermitted. Thus,Californiaallows (marriage). Nofurtherinquiryintothecoupleorcouple’s Code §§297-299.6(domesticpartnership)with300-536 the sexofspousesrelativetooneanother.CompareCalFam designation “married”orthe“domesticpartnership”is which Californiadetermineswhetheracouplereceivesthe for benefitsundertheSocialSecurityAct——solebasisupon limited exception——createdexpresslytobenefitthoseeligible sixty-two yearsold.CalFamCode§297(b)(5)(B).Apartfromthis are notopentoopposite-sexcouplesunlessonepartnerisatleast and obligations.CalFamCode§297.5(a).Domesticpartnerships institutions toprovidecoupleswithessentiallythesamerights partnership andmarriage.”Doc#159-2at6. dispute the“significantsymbolicdisparitybetweendomestic relationships ofopposite-sexcouples.”).Proponentsdonot relationships areoflesserstaturethanthecomparable communicates the“officialviewthat[same-sexcouples’]committed new andunfamiliardesignationofdomesticpartnership,”thestate to opposite-sexcoupleswhileofferingsame-sexonlythe historic andhighlyrespecteddesignationofmarriageexclusively The evidenceshowsthatdomestic partnerships donot California hascreatedtwoseparateandparallel 115 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 elections.” West VirginiaStateBoardofEducation vBarnette not besubmitted to [a]vote;theydependonthe outcome ofno supported Proposition 8isirrelevant,as“fundamental rightsmay Zablocki right tomarry,theirclaimissubject tostrictscrutiny. REASON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTWITHOUTALEGITIMATE (MUCHLESSCOMPELLING) PROPOSITION 8ISUNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSEITDENIESPLAINTIFFSA sex couples. substitute andinferiorinstitutionthatdeniesmarriagetosame- obligation toallowplaintiffsmarrybyofferingthema partnership. FF52.Californiadoesnotmeetitsdueprocess marriage isaculturallysuperiorstatuscomparedtodomestic disadvantages plaintiffs.FF52-54.Therecordreflectsthat the withholdingofdesignation“marriage”significantly responsibilities associatedwithmarriage,theevidenceshowsthat partnerships offersame-sexcouplesalmostalloftherightsand 53-54. Adomesticpartnershipisnotamarriage;while exist solelytodifferentiatesame-sexunionsfrommarriages.FF the definitionofalegalmarriage.”). partnership] legislationdoesnothingtocontradictorundermine legal marriageisbetweenamanandwoman.*This[domestic Code §297(GovDavis2001signingstatement:“InCalifornia,a explicitly withholdingmarriagefromsame-sexcouples.Id,CalFam California couldoffersame-sexcouplesrightsandbenefitswhile Second, domesticpartnershipswerecreatedspecificallysothat , 434USat388.Thatthemajority ofCaliforniavoters Because plaintiffsseektoexercise theirfundamental The evidenceattrialshowsthatdomesticpartnerships 116 , 319 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 laws.” YickWov Hopkins XIV, §1.Equal protection is“apledgeofthe ofequal jurisdiction the equal protectionofthelaws.” US ConstAmend provides thatnostateshall“deny toanypersonwithinits EQUAL PROTECTION Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, Proposition8violatestheDueProcessClauseof between domesticpartnershipandmarriage.”Doc#159-2at6. stipulated that“[t]hereisasignificantsymbolicdisparity satisfies plaintiffs’fundamentalrighttomarry;proponents do notassertthattheavailabilityofdomesticpartnerships cannot, therefore,withstandstrictscrutiny.Moreover,proponents tailored toacompellinggovernmentinterest.Proposition8 production necessarytoshowthatProposition8isnarrowly presentation madebyproponentsdoesnotmeettheheavyburdenof plaintiffs’ dueprocessclaim.Theminimalevidentiary can Proposition8survivethestrictscrutinyrequiredby Proposition 8cannotwithstandrationalbasisreview.Stillless compelling CaliforniainterestinProposition8. proponents seizedtheroleofassertingexistencea government defendantsdeclinedtoadvancesucharguments, Services International tailored toacompellinggovernmentinterest.CareyvPopulation burden ofproducingevidencetoshowthatProposition8isnarrowly US 624,638(1943).Understrictscrutiny,thestatebears The EqualProtectionClauseofthe FourteenthAmendment As explainedindetailtheequalprotectionanalysis, , 431US678,686(1977).Becausethe , 118US356,369 (1886).Theguarantee 117 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the underlyingbasisforclassificationisrational.Minnesota popular) judgmentifthereisatleastadebatablequestionwhether (1993). 633. Theclassification itselfmustberelatedto thepurported disadvantaging the groupburdenedbythelaw.”Romer “ensure[s] thatclassifications arenotdrawnfor thepurposeof The searchforarationalrelationship, whilequitedeferential, their labortothelocaleconomy and taxmoneytothestatefisc”). illegal aliensunderutilizepublic services,whilecontributing to beirrationalbecause“theavailable evidencesuggeststhat by prohibitingundocumentedchildren fromattendingpublicschool (1982) (findinganassertedinterestinpreservingstateresources underlying debateisrational.PlylervDoe court maylooktoevidencedeterminewhetherthebasisfor the realitiesofsubjectaddressedbylegislation”).The US at321(basisforaclassificationmust“findsomefootingin and theobjecttobeattained.”Romer “insist onknowingtherelationbetweenclassificationadopted most deferentialstandardofreview,however,thecourtmust v CloverLeafCreameryCo interest. See,forexample,HellervDoe long asitisrationallyrelatedtosomelegitimategovernment right, thecourtpresumeslawisvalidandwillupholditas but neithertargetsasuspectclassnorburdensfundamental Evans legislation mustclassifyforsomepurposeoranother.SeeRomerv of equalprotectioncoexists,course,withtherealitythatmost , 517US620,631(1996).Whenalawcreatesclassification The courtdeferstolegislative(orinthiscase, , 449US456,464(1980).Evenunderthe 118 , 517USat632;Heller , 509US312,319-320 , 457US202,228 , 517USat , 509 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 historically been targetedfordiscriminationbecause oftheir prejudices specific tosexualorientation.Gays and lesbianshave experience discrimination basedonunfoundedstereotypes and another womanarisesonlybecause sheisalesbian. partner becauseofhersexualorientation; herdesiretomarry Proposition 8alsooperatestorestrict Perry’schoiceofmarital restrict Perry’schoiceofmarital partnerbecauseofhersex.But 8 wouldnotprohibitthemarriage.Thus,Propositionoperates to woman, becausePerryisawoman.Ifwereman,Proposition Here, forexample,PerryisprohibitedfrommarryingStier,a orientation discriminationcantaketheformofsexdiscrimination. basis ofsexandonthesexualorientation.Sexual Protection ClausebecauseProposition8discriminatesbothonthe SEXUAL ORIENTATIONORSEXDISCRIMINATION 528, 534(1973). group. UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculturevMoreno must domorethandisadvantageorotherwiseharmaparticular Romer found fortreatingdifferentgroupsinanunequalmanner.See protection review,becausealegitimatereasoncannearlyalwaysbe preserving resources.). presence withintheUnitedStates,”despitestate’sinterestin rational basisforpenalizing[undocumentedchildren]their interest. Plyler , 517USat633.Yet,tosurviverationalbasisreview,alaw The evidenceattrialshowsthat gays andlesbians Plaintiffs challengeProposition8asviolatingtheEqual Most lawssubjecttorationalbasiseasilysurviveequal , 457USat220(“Itisdifficulttoconceiveofa 119 , 413US United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 relationship toone another,Proposition8targets them specific totheir sexualorientationand,because oftheir (O’Connor, J,concurring)). orientation].”) (June28,2010)(citing Lawrence distinguish betweenstatusandconduct in[thecontextofsexual 2971, No08-1371SlipOpat23(“Our decisionshavedeclinedto 43; seealsoChristianLegalSociety vMartinez what makessomeonegayorlesbian.Lawrence attraction areconstitutionallyprotectedandintegralpartsof gay orlesbian.SeeFF42-43.Indeed,homosexualconductand Homosexual conductandidentitytogetherdefinewhatitmeansto be marry eliminatedbyanamendmenttothestateconstitution. someone ofthesamesex——homosexualshavehadtheirrightto restricted byProposition8.Thosewhowouldchoosetomarry heterosexuals ——donothavetheirchoiceofmaritalpartner Those whochoosetomarrysomeoneoftheoppositesex—— arguing, proponentsseektomasktheirowninitiative.FF57. and lesbiansbecauseitslanguagedoesnotrefertothem.Inso sex discrimination. discrimination isthusaphenomenondistinctfrom,butrelatedto, individual’s sexualorientation.SeeFF42-43.Sexualorientation partner basedonsexisalargepartofwhatdefinesan interrelated, asanindividual’schoiceofromanticorintimate illustrates, sexandsexualorientationarenecessarily FF 74-76.AsthecaseofPerryandotherplaintiffs sexual orientation;thatdiscriminationcontinuestothepresent. Proposition 8targets gaysandlesbiansinamanner Proponents arguethatProposition8doesnottargetgays 120 , 539USat579;FF42- , 561US__,130SCt , 539USat583 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 fairly needtotake intoaccountwhencraftinglegislation. Doc between heterosexuals andhomosexualsthatthegovernment might general socialandvocationalcapabilities.” PX0707atRFANo21. orientation doesnotresultinany impairmentinjudgmentor FF 42-43,46-48,74-78.Proponents admitthat“same-sexsexual San AntonioSchoolDistrictvRodriguez characteristics nottrulyindicative oftheirabilities”(quoting subjected touniquedisabilitiesonthebasisofstereotyped experienced a“‘historyofpurposefulunequaltreatment’orbeen (noting thatstrictscrutinymaybeappropriatewhereagrouphas Massachusetts BoardofRetirementvMurgia are thetypeofminoritystrictscrutinywasdesignedtoprotect. basis, theevidencepresentedattrialshowsthatgaysandlesbians be subjecttoaheightenedstandardofreview. whether lawsclassifyingonthebasisofsexualorientationshould review. Accordingly,thecourtneednotaddressquestion Clause rendersProposition8unconstitutionalunderanystandard of STANDARD OFREVIEW to aclaimofdiscriminationbasedonsex. claim isbasedonsexualorientation,butthisequivalent exercise, thecourtdeterminesthatplaintiffs’equalprotection Proposition 8eliminatesarightonlygaymanorlesbianwould relationship betweensexandsexualorientationthefactthat specifically duetosex.Havingconsideredtheevidence, The courtaskedthe partiestoidentifyadifference Although Proposition8failstopossessevenarational As presentlyexplainedindetail,theEqualProtection 121 , 411US1,28(1973)).See , 427US307,313(1976) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 \\ \\ survive evenrational basisreview. however, strictscrutinyisunnecessary. Proposition8failsto individuals basedontheirsexual orientation.FF47.Here, that Californiawouldrarely,if ever, haveareasontocategorize based onsexualorientationappear suspect,astheevidenceshows classifications basedonsexualorientation. Allclassifications appropriate standardofreviewtoapplylegislative legislating. differences” thatthegovernmentmightneedtotakeintoaccount in men andheterosexualsamountingto“realundeniable No evidenceattrialilluminateddistinctionsamonglesbians,gay (“Physical differencesbetweenmenandwomen*areenduring.”). see alsoUnitedStatesvVirginia “real andundeniabledifferences”betweentheclassothers); class fordifferentialtreatmenthingesuponademonstrationof Living Center legislating. Consider,bycontrast,CityofCleburnev government mayneedtotakeintoaccountfertilitywhen may usesexualorientationasaproxyforfertilityorwhythe Proponents didnot,however,advanceanyreasonwhythegovernment intercourse ofproducingsuchoffspring).Doc#687at32-34. opposite-sex couples(someofwhomarecapablethroughsexual producing offspringbiologicallyrelatedtobothparties)and sex couples(whoareincapablethroughsexualintercourseof #677 at8.Proponentspointedonlytoadifferencebetweensame- The trialrecordshowsthatstrictscrutinyisthe , 473US432,444(1985)(Legislationsinglingouta 122 , 518US515,533(1996) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 traditional meaning ofmarriageasithasalways been definedin legal purposes,functions, andstructureofmarriage”; and(3)“the as theunionofa manandawoman”;(2)“thetraditional socialand because itpreserves:(1)“thetraditional institutionofmarriage AND AWOMANEXCLUDINGANYOTHER RELATIONSHIP PURPORTED INTEREST#1:RESERVING MARRIAGE ASAUNIONBETWEENMAN other conceivableinterest. same-sex couplesdifferentlyfromopposite-sexcouples;and(6)any of thosewhoopposemarriageforsame-sexcouples;(5)treating sex parentingoversame-sexparenting;(4)protectingthefreedom caution whenimplementingsocialchanges;(3)promotingopposite- excluding anyotherrelationshipfrommarriage;(2)proceedingwith reserving marriageasaunionbetweenmanandwoman 8, seeDoc#605at12-15,whichthecourtnowexaminesinturn:(1) above. opposite-sex couplestowed.SeeBackgroundProposition8 shows thatthestatehasresourcestoallowbothsame-sexand the existenceof18,000same-sexmarriedcouplesinCalifornia marriage licensesinCaliforniaarenotalimitedcommodity,and of marriagelicensesorcountyofficialstoissuethem.But issuing marriagelicensestoaparticulargroupmightbescarcity state interest.Oneexampleofalegitimateinterestinnot from marriageissimplynotrationallyrelatedtoalegitimate under theEqualProtectionClause,asexcludingsame-sexcouples PROPOSITION 8DOESNOTSURVIVERATIONALBASIS Proponents firstarguethatProposition 8isrational Proponents putforthseveralrationalesforProposition Proposition 8cannotwithstandanylevelofscrutiny 123 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 couples tosame-sex couplesequatestothenotion thatopposite-sex 57. only onantiquatedanddiscredited notionsofgender.SeeFF32, because itmandatesthatmenand women betreateddifferentlybased shows thatProposition8harmsthe state’sinterestinequality, couples doesnotfurtheranystate interest.Rather,theevidence life. foregone notionthatmenandwomenfulfilldifferentrolesincivic the evidenceshowstobenothingmorethananartifactofa enshrines intheCaliforniaConstitutionagenderrestrictionthat consist ofonemanandwoman.FF32.Proposition8thus mandated genderrolesexcepttherequirementthatamarriage roles. SeeFF26-27.Californiahaseliminatedalllegally- when spouseswerelegallyrequiredtoadherespecificgender the evidenceshowsthattraditionofgenderrestrictionsarose further astateinterestdespiteits“ancientlineage.”Instead, individual’s choiceofspousebasedongenderdoesnotrationally apart fromthefactoftraditionitself. Heller “ancient lineage”ofaclassificationdoesnotmakeitrational. for alaw.WilliamsvIllinois a womanforitsownsake. to maintainingthedefinitionofmarriageasunionamanand the Englishlanguage.”Doc#605at12-13.Theseinterestsrelate , 509USat327.Rather,thestatemusthaveaninterest Proponents’ argument thattraditionprefersopposite-sex The traditionofrestrictingmarriage toopposite-sex The evidenceshowsthatthetraditionofrestrictingan Tradition alone,however,cannotformarationalbasis , 399US235,239(1970).The 124 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 beyond debatethat allowingsame-sexcouplestomarry hasatleast sweeping socialchange. SeeFF55.Instead,the evidenceshows rebut anyclaimthat marriageforsame-sexcouples amountstoa marriage.” Doc#605at13-14. probability ofthepotentialadverse consequencesofsame-sex weakening theinstitutionofmarriage”; and(4)“[d]ecreasingthe probability ofadverseconsequences thatcouldresultfrom of weakeningtheinstitutionmarriage”;(3)“[d]ecreasing of abedrocksocialinstitution”;(2)“[d]ecreasingtheprobability when consideringaradicaltransformationtothefundamentalnature state interestsin:(1)“[a]ctingincrementallyandwithcaution SOCIAL CHANGES PURPORTED INTEREST#2:PROCEEDINGWITHCAUTIONWHENIMPLEMENTING for Proposition8. nothing morethantautologiesanddonotamounttorationalbases marriage. Proponents’assertedstateinterestsintraditionare it adherestothetraditionofexcludingsame-sexcouplesfrom is unpopular.Moreno disadvantaging anunpopularminoritygroupsimplybecausethe 48-50. Moreover,thestatecannothaveaninterestin couples orinpreferringheterosexualitytohomosexuality.SeeFF has nointerestinpreferringopposite-sexcouplestosame-sex Plaintiffs presentedevidenceshowingconclusivelythatthestate Tradition alonecannotlegitimatethispurportedinterest. relationships aresimplybetterthansame-sexrelationships. The evidenceshowsthatthestateadvancesnothingwhen Plaintiffs presentedevidenceat trial sufficientto Proponents nextarguethatProposition8isrelatedto , 413USat534. 125 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 \\ proceeding withcaution whenimplementingsocial change. thus notrationally relatedtoproponents’purported interestsin to grantmarriagelicensessame-sex couples.Proposition8is California hasnointerestinwaiting andnopracticalneedtowait have noadverseeffectsonsociety ortheinstitutionofmarriage, institution toallowsame-sexcouples tomarry.SeeFF55. no changeneedbephasedin.Californianotrestructureany simple forCaliforniatoimplementbecauseithasalreadydoneso; evidence showsthatallowingsame-sexcouplestomarrywillbe for “theearliestpracticablecompletionofdesegregation”).The unconstitutional becausetheschoolboard’splandidnotprovide implement racialintegrationbutneverthelessfindingadelay 1, 7(1958)(recognizingthataschooldistrictneededtimeto Proposition 8above.Consider,bycontrast,CoopervAaron integrate same-sexcouplesintomarriage.SeeBackgroundto evidence suggeststhatthestateneedsanysignificantleadtime to allowing same-sexcouplestomarryisstraightforward,andno on societyortheinstitutionofmarriage.Theprocess allowing same-sexcouplestomarrywillhaveanynegativeeffects credible. Indeed,proponentspresentednoreliableevidencethat state ceasestoenforceProposition8.FF55,62. homosexuality orsame-sexcoupleswillremainunaffectedifthe Moreover, theevidenceshowsthatrightsofthoseopposedto and thatsame-sexcouples’marriageswouldbenefitthestate.Id. a neutral,ifnotpositive,effectontheinstitutionofmarriage Because theevidenceshowssame-sex marriagehasandwill The contraryevidenceproponentspresentedisnot 126 , 358US United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Proposition 8simply preventssame-sexcouplesfrom marrying.FF 70. Moreover,Proposition 8hasnothingtodowith children,as genders areirrelevant tochildren’sdevelopmental outcomes.FF parents. Indeed,theevidenceshows beyondanydoubtthatparents’ has aninterestinpreferringopposite-sex parentsoversame-sex related tobothparents,FF43,46, 51. opposite-sex coupleswillmarryand raiseoffspringbiologically 69-73, and(2)Proposition8doesnotmakeitmorelikelythat same-sex parentsandopposite-sexareofequalquality,FF Proposition 8doesnotadvanceanyoftheidentifiedinterests:(1) have alegallyrecognizedfatherandmother.”Doc#605at13-14. mother”; and(7)increases“theprobabilitythateachchildwill probability thateachchildwillberaisedbybothafatherand both ofhisorherbiologicalparents”;(6)increases“the (5) increases“theprobabilitythateachchildwillberaisedby beneficial bondbetweenparentsandtheirbiologicalchildren”; family structures”;(4)promotes“thenaturalandmutually procreation willoccurwithinstable,enduring,andsupporting biological parents”;(3)increases“theprobabilitythatnatural for theresponsibleraisingandcareofchildrenbytheir relationships”; (2)promotes“enduringandstablefamilystructures (1) promotes“stabilityandresponsibilityinnaturallyprocreative relates toopposite-sexparents.ProponentsargueProposition8: SEX PARENTING PURPORTED INTEREST#3:PROMOTINGOPPOSITE-SEXPARENTINGOVERSAME- The evidencedoesnotsupportafinding thatCalifornia The evidencesupportstwopointswhichtogethershow Proponents’ largestgroupofpurportedstateinterests 127 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the benefits,including stability,attendanttomarriage. FF50. of Proposition8. Theinabilitytomarrydenies same-sex couples because same-sex households havebecomelessstable bythepassage evidence showsthatProposition8 underminesthatstateinterest, in encouragingtheformationofstable households.Instead,the marriage. activity andchild-bearingchild-rearing tooccuroutside Proposition 8discouragesthatnormbecauseitrequiressomesexual to ensurethatreproductionoccurwithinstablehouseholds, seek toencourageanormthatsexualactivityoccurwithinmarriage activity. CalFamCode§§297-299.6.Totheextentproponents thus codifyCalifornia’sencouragementofnon-maritalsexual activity isapparentlyexpected,areseparatefrommarriageand within marriage.FF53.Domesticpartnerships,inwhichsexual same-sex couplesarenotpermittedtoengageinsexualactivity 8 tobedetrimentalthatinterest.BecauseofProposition8, in lightofLawrence sexual activitytooccurwithinmarriage(adebatableproposition FF 49,57. not affectwhocanorshouldbecomeaparentunderCalifornialaw. not rationallyrelatedtothatinterest,becauseProposition8does evidence plainlyshowsthatCaliforniadoesnot——Proposition8is preferring opposite-sexparentstosame-sex——andthe California law.FF49.Evenifhadaninterestin they do,aretreatedidenticallytoopposite-sexparentsunder 57. Same-sexcouplescanhave(oradopt)andraisechildren.When Proponents argueProposition8advances astateinterest To theextentCaliforniahasaninterestinencouraging , 539USat571)theevidenceshowsProposition 128 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1212, 1217-1218(Cal 2005).Theevidenceshowsthat Proposition8 sex marriages.Koebke vBernardoHeightsCountry Club law requiresidentical treatmentforsame-sexunions andopposite- spouses inpublicaccommodations, asCaliforniaantidiscrimination from distinguishingbetweensame-sex partnersandopposite-sex Marriage Cases responsibility ofparentstoeducate theirchildren.SeeInre Proposition 8doesnotaffectany FirstAmendmentrightor sex marriageonreligiousormoralgrounds.”Doc#605at14. Amendment rightsofindividualsandinstitutionsthatopposesame- education oftheirownchildren”;and(2)accommodates“theFirst parents toprovidefortheethicalandmoraldevelopment Proposition 8:(1)preserves“theprerogativeandresponsibility of marriage forcouplesofthesamesex.Proponentsarguethat First Amendmentfreedomofthosewhodisagreewithallowing MARRIAGE FORSAME-SEXCOUPLES PURPORTED INTEREST#4:PROTECTINGTHEFREEDOMOFTHOSEWHOOPPOSE children. evidence showsProposition8disadvantagesfamiliesandtheir parents andchildrenisadvancedbyProposition8;instead,the will beraisedinstablehouseholds.SeeFF50,56. that Proposition8makesitlesslikelyCaliforniachildren FF 55.Theonlyrationalconclusioninlightoftheevidenceis opposite-sex householdsaremademorestablethroughProposition8. Proponents failedtoputforthanycredibleevidencethatmarried These purportedinterestsfailasamatteroflaw. Proponents nextarguethatProposition8protectsthe None oftheinterestsputforthbyproponentsrelatingto , 183P3dat451-452.Californians areprevented 129 , 115P3d United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 FF 48,76-80.The evidencefatallyunderminesany purportedstate that same-sexcouples aredifferentfromopposite-sex couples.See that moralandreligious viewsformtheonlybasis forabelief law, exactlythesame.FF47-50. Theevidenceshowsconclusively opposite-sex unionsare,forall purposes relevanttoCalifornia thoroughly rebutted:ratherthan being different,same-sexand Doc #605at14. “[c]onforming California’sdefinitionofmarriagetofederallaw.” marriages arerecognizedinotherjurisdictions”;and(4) different typesofrelationships”;(3)“[e]nsuringthatCalifornia “[m]aintaining theflexibilitytoseparatelyaddressneedsof couples by:(1)“[u]singdifferentnamesforthings”;(2) interest intreatingsame-sexcouplesdifferentlyfromopposite-sex OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES PURPORTED INTEREST#5:TREATINGSAME-SEXCOUPLESDIFFERENTLYFROM enact alegislativeclassification. individuals’ moralviewsareaninsufficientbasisuponwhichto same-sex couplesfrommarrying,asexplainedpresentlythose those morallyopposedtosame-sexunionsistherightprevent homosexuality ortomarriageforcouplesofthesamesex.FF62. Proposition 8doesnotaffecttherightsofthoseopposedto opposed tosame-sexcouplesbecause,asamatteroflaw, rationally relatedtoaninterestinprotectingtherightsofthose marry inCalifornia.SeeFF57,62.Proposition8isnot does nothingotherthaneliminatetherightofsame-sexcouplesto Here, proponentsassumeapremise thattheevidence Proponents arguethatProposition8advancesastate To theextentproponentsarguethatoneofrights 130 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 basis Proposition 8couldconceivablyadvance.Proponents, opportunity anda fulltrial,havefailedtoidentify anyrational #605 at15.But proponents, amiciandthecourt, despiteample parties, amici,orthecourtatany stageoftheproceedings.”Doc “[a]ny otherconceivablelegitimate interestsidentifiedbythe PURPORTED INTEREST#6:THECATCHALL INTEREST hinders ratherthanadvancesadministrativeconvenience. accompanying administrativeburdenwillremain.Proposition8thus as Proposition8isineffect,domesticpartnershipsandthe absence ofProposition8;thecourtpresumes,however,thataslong whether toretaindomesticpartnershipsoreliminatetheminthe 297-299.6 withCalFamCode§§300-536.Californiamaydetermine be regulatedseparatelyfrommarriage.CompareCalFamCode§§ 53. Domesticpartnershipscreateaninstitutionalschemethatmust equivalent rightsandbenefitsaffordedtomarriedcouples.See FF maintain aparallelinstitutionforsame-sexcouplestoprovidethe administrative burdenonCaliforniabecausemust administrative convenience,Proposition8actuallycreatesan 198 (1976).Evenassumingthestateweretohaveaninterestin convenience” arenotimportantgovernmentobjectives.429US190, precedents suchasCraigvBoren associated withissuingandrecognizingmarriagelicenses.Under 8 advancesastateinterestineasingadministrativeburdens not providearationalbasissupportingProposition8. interest intreatingcouplesdifferently;thus,theseinterestsdo Finally, proponentsassertthatProposition 8advances In addition,proponentsappeartoclaimthatProposition , “administrativeeaseand 131 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 neither canittolerate them.”). (1984) (“[T]heConstitution cannotcontrol[private biases]but 633; Moreno not aproperbasisonwhichtolegislate. SeeRomer than arelationshipbetweentwomen ortwowomen,thisbeliefis that arelationshipbetweenman andawomanisinherentlybetter homosexuality, animustowardsgays andlesbiansorsimplyabelief FF 78-80.Whetherthatbeliefisbasedonmoraldisapprovalof same-sex couplessimplyarenotasgoodopposite-sexcouples. the record,thatProposition8waspremisedonbelief proponents’ caseisaninference,amplysupportedbyevidencein OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLESISNOTAPROPERBASISFORLEGISLATION A PRIVATEMORALVIEWTHATSAME-SEXCOUPLESAREINFERIORTO it doesnottreatthemequally. 47-50. Proposition8violatestheEqualProtectionClausebecause citizens, opposite-sexcouplesandsame-sexareequal.FF their same-sexcounterparts;instead,aspartners,parentsand every availablemetric,opposite-sexcouplesarenotbetterthan classification drawnbyProposition8.Theevidenceshowsthat, couples. Thoseintereststhatarelegitimateunrelatedtothe are nothingmorethanafearorunarticulateddislikeofsame-sex Fourteenth Amendment. that Proposition8simplyconflictswiththeguaranteesof record insupportofProposition8.Theresultingevidenceshows represented byableandenergeticcounsel,developedafulltrial In theabsenceofarationalbasis,whatremains Many ofthepurportedinterestsidentifiedbyproponents , 413USat534;PalmorevSidoti 132 , 466US429,433 , 517USat United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Proposition 8uncloaks themostlikelyexplanation foritspassage: 78-80. view thatthereissomething“wrong” withsame-sexcouples.SeeFF above. Whatisleftevidence that Proposition8enactsamoral poorly withProposition8thatthey areirrational,asexplained classification drawn.Here,the purported stateinterestsfitso not prohibitpost-hocrationales, theymustconnecttothe post-hoc justifications.WhiletheEqualProtectionClausedoes Lawrence legislation. SeeWilliams (O'Connor, J,concurring).Traditionalonecannotsupport been arationalbasisforlegislation.Lawrence disapproval, withoutanyotherassertedstateinterest,”hasnever Southeastern PavCasey “mandate [its]ownmoralcode.”Id(citingPlannedParenthoodof California’s obligationistotreatitscitizensequally,not principles throughregulationofmarriagelicenses.Theycannot. question hereiswhetherCaliforniavoterscanenforcethosesame principles” throughthecriminalcode.539USat571.The “profound anddeepconvictionsacceptedasethicalmoral a majorityofcitizenscouldusethepowerstatetoenforce similar tothataddressedinLawrence 80. TheargumentssurroundingProposition8raiseaquestion initiative. SeeBackgroundtoProposition8above,FF17-18,79- campaign andthatthemajorityofCaliforniavoterssupported , 539USat579. Proponents’ purportedrationalesarenothingmorethan The evidenceshowsthatProposition8wasahard-fought The evidenceattrial regardingthecampaigntopass , 505US833,850,(1992)).“[M]oral , 399USat239;Romer 133 , whentheCourtaskedwhether , 517USat635; , 539USat582 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 these previousfear-inducing messagesinmind.FF 80.The Marriage campaign advertisementsensuredCalifornia votershad disadvantage gays andlesbians.FF74,77-80.The Protect messages frompreviouscampaigns to enactlegalmeasures Marriage campaignadvertisements in historicalcontextasechoing knows shecanmarryaprincess). (mother’s expressionofhorrorupon realizingherdaughternow are notheterosexual.FF79;PX0099 into homosexualsandthatparentsshoulddreadhavingchildrenwho played onafearthatexposuretohomosexualitywouldturnchildren referring to?”).Theevidenceshows,however,thatProposition8 second grade;isn’tthatafact,that’swhattheywere kids wouldbetaughtaboutsame-sexrelationshipsinfirstand fact isthatwhattheYeson8campaignwaspointingat, Excerpt Video, RonPrenticeAddressingSupportersofProposition8, from learningaboutsame-sexmarriageinschool.SeePX0390A examination toshowthatthecampaignwantedprotectchildren but notexplainingwhatthoseconsequencesmightbe). the viewerhasconsideredconsequencestoherofProposition8 Have YouThoughtAboutIt? associated withgaysandlesbians.FF79-80;SeePX0016 focused onprotectingchildrenfrominchoatethreatsvaguely relied heavilyonnegativestereotypesaboutgaysandlesbians morally superiortosame-sexcouples.FF79-80.Thecampaign a desiretoadvancethebeliefthatopposite-sexcouplesare ; Tr132:25-133:3(proponents’counseltoKatami:“Butthe The testimonyofGeorgeChauncey places theProtect At trial,proponents’counselattemptedthroughcross-

(video ofayounggirlaskingwhether 134 Video, It’sAlreadyHappened Video, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ the courtconcludesthatProposition 8isunconstitutional. constitutional obligationtoprovide marriagesonanequalbasis, because Proposition8preventsCalifornia fromfulfillingits has nointerestindiscriminatingagainstgaymenandlesbians, sex couplesaresuperiortosame-sexcouples.BecauseCalifornia enshrine intheCaliforniaConstitutionnotionthatopposite- Indeed, theevidenceshowsProposition8doesnothingmorethan singling outgaymenandlesbiansfordenialofamarriagelicense. Equal ProtectionClauseoftheFourteenthAmendment. without anyrationaljustification,Proposition8violatesthe affected.”). BecauseProposition8disadvantagesgaysandlesbians imposed isbornofanimositytowardtheclasspersons now beforeusraisetheinevitableinferencethatdisadvantage couples. FF76,79-80;Romer moral viewthatsame-sexcouplesareinferiortoopposite-sex conclusively thatProposition8enacts,withoutreason,aprivate deny rightstogaymenandlesbians.Theevidenceshows 47-49, 68-73,76-80. evidence attrialshowsthosefearstobecompletelyunfounded.FF Proposition 8failstoadvanceanyrationalbasisin Moral disapprovalaloneisanimproperbasisonwhichto CONCLUSION , 517USat634(“[L]awsofthekind 135 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 defendant-intervenors pursuanttoFRCP58. plaintiffs andplaintiff-intervenorsagainstdefendants The clerkisDIRECTEDtoenterjudgmentwithoutbondinfavorof control orsupervisionshallnotapplyenforceProposition8. directing theofficialdefendantsthatallpersonsundertheir official defendantsfromapplyingorenforcingProposition8and judgment permanentlyenjoiningitsenforcement;prohibitingthe Due ProcessandEqualProtectionClauses,thecourtordersentry of defend Proposition8intheseproceedings. see FF64-66;moreover,Californiaofficialshavechosennotto sex couplesandhasnotsufferedanydemonstratedharmasaresult, couples, asithasalreadyissued18,000marriagelicensestosame- 8. Californiaisabletoissuemarriagelicensessame-sex violations untilstateofficialsceaseenforcementofProposition rights andthattheywillcontinuetosuffertheseconstitutional that Proposition8violatestheirdueprocessandequalprotection Plaintiffs havedemonstratedbyoverwhelmingevidence IT ISSOORDERED. Because Proposition8isunconstitutionalunderboththe REMEDIES

United StatesDistrictChiefJudge VAUGHN RWALKER 136