DOCSLIB.ORG

Hollingsworth V. Perry

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hollingsworth V. Perry 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER, PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY J 5 ZARRILLO, 6 Plaintiffs, 7 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 8 Plaintiff-Intervenor, 9 v 10 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his 11 official capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G BROWN JR, in 12 his official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B No C 09-2292 VRW 13 HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND 14 Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital TRIAL EVIDENCE 15 Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her g official capacity as Deputy 16 Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS California Department of Public g United States District Court United 17 Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk- For the Northern District of California For 18 Recorder of the County of FINDINGS OF FACT 19 Alameda; and DEAN C LOGAN, in his g official capacity as Registrar- 20 Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 21 g Defendants, 22 DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J ORDER 23 KNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ, HAK- SHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A 24 JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA 25 RENEWAL, as official proponents of Proposition 8, 26 Defendant-Intervenors. 27 / 28 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 BACKGROUND TO PROPOSITION 8 ................ 1 3 PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THIS ACTION ............. 3 4 PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8 ........... 5 5 PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8 ............ 6 6 TRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY ........ 10 7 8 CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS .................. 25 9 PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESSES .................. 25 10 PROPONENTS’ WITNESSES .................. 35 11 12 FINDINGS OF FACT ....................... 54 13 THE PARTIES ....................... 54 14 WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX 60 15 WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST 16 IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS 71 United States District Court United 17 WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE For the Northern District of California For 18 GOVERNMENT INTEREST ................... 85 19 20 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ...................... 109 21 DUE PROCESS ....................... 109 22 EQUAL PROTECTION ..................... 117 23 24 CONCLUSION .......................... 135 25 26 REMEDIES ........................... 136 27 28 1 Plaintiffs challenge a November 2008 voter-enacted 2 amendment to the California Constitution (“Proposition 8” or “Prop 3 8”). Cal Const Art I, § 7.5. In its entirety, Proposition 8 4 provides: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or 5 recognized in California.” Plaintiffs allege that Proposition 8 6 deprives them of due process and of equal protection of the laws 7 contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment and that its enforcement by 8 state officials violates 42 USC § 1983. 9 Plaintiffs are two couples. Kristin Perry and Sandra 10 Stier reside in Berkeley, California and raise four children 11 together. Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami reside in Burbank, 12 California. Plaintiffs seek to marry their partners and have been 13 denied marriage licenses by their respective county authorities on 14 the basis of Proposition 8. No party contended, and no evidence at 15 trial suggested, that the county authorities had any ground to deny 16 marriage licenses to plaintiffs other than Proposition 8. United States District Court United 17 Having considered the trial evidence and the arguments of For the Northern District of California For 18 counsel, the court pursuant to FRCP 52(a) finds that Proposition 8 19 is unconstitutional and that its enforcement must be enjoined. 20 21 BACKGROUND TO PROPOSITION 8 22 In November 2000, the voters of California adopted 23 Proposition 22 through the state’s initiative process. Entitled 24 the California Defense of Marriage Act, Proposition 22 amended the 25 state’s Family Code by adding the following language: “Only 26 marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in 27 California.” Cal Family Code § 308.5. This amendment further 28 codified the existing definition of marriage as “a relationship 1 between a man and a woman.” In re Marriage Cases, 183 P3d 384, 407 2 (Cal 2008). 3 In February 2004, the mayor of San Francisco instructed 4 county officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. 5 The following month, the California Supreme Court ordered San 6 Francisco to stop issuing such licenses and later nullified the 7 marriage licenses that same-sex couples had received. See Lockyer 8 v City & County of San Francisco, 95 P3d 459 (Cal 2004). The court 9 expressly avoided addressing whether Proposition 22 violated the 10 California Constitution. 11 Shortly thereafter, San Francisco and various other 12 parties filed state court actions challenging or defending 13 California’s exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage under the 14 state constitution. These actions were consolidated in San 15 Francisco superior court; the presiding judge determined that, as a 16 matter of law, California’s bar against marriage by same-sex United States District Court United 17 couples violated the equal protection guarantee of Article I For the Northern District of California For 18 Section 7 of the California Constitution. In re Coordination 19 Proceeding, Special Title [Rule 1550(c)], 2005 WL 583129 (March 14, 20 2005). The court of appeal reversed, and the California Supreme 21 Court granted review. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court 22 invalidated Proposition 22 and held that all California counties 23 were required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. See 24 In re Marriage Cases, 189 P3d 384. From June 17, 2008 until the 25 passage of Proposition 8 in November of that year, San Francisco 26 and other California counties issued approximately 18,000 marriage 27 licenses to same-sex couples. 28 \\ 2 1 After the November 2008 election, opponents of 2 Proposition 8 challenged the initiative through an original writ of 3 mandate in the California Supreme Court as violating the rules for 4 amending the California Constitution and on other grounds; the 5 California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 against those 6 challenges. Strauss v Horton, 207 P3d 48 (Cal 2009). Strauss 7 leaves undisturbed the 18,000 marriages of same-sex couples 8 performed in the four and a half months between the decision in In 9 re Marriage Cases and the passage of Proposition 8. Since 10 Proposition 8 passed, no same-sex couple has been permitted to 11 marry in California. 12 13 PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THIS ACTION 14 Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Proposition 15 8 under the Fourteenth Amendment, an issue not raised during any 16 prior state court proceeding. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on United States District Court United 17 May 22, 2009, naming as defendants in their official capacities For the Northern District of California For 18 California’s Governor, Attorney General and Director and Deputy 19 Director of Public Health and the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder and 20 the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk 21 (collectively “the government defendants”). Doc #1. With the 22 exception of the Attorney General, who concedes that Proposition 8 23 is unconstitutional, Doc #39, the government defendants refused to 24 take a position on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims and declined to 25 defend Proposition 8. Doc #42 (Alameda County), Doc #41 (Los 26 Angeles County), Doc #46 (Governor and Department of Public Health 27 officials). 28 \\ 3 1 Defendant-intervenors, the official proponents of 2 Proposition 8 under California election law (“proponents”), were 3 granted leave in July 2009 to intervene to defend the 4 constitutionality of Proposition 8. Doc #76. On January 8, 2010, 5 Hak-Shing William Tam, an official proponent and defendant- 6 intervenor, moved to withdraw as a defendant, Doc #369; Tam’s 7 motion is denied for the reasons stated in a separate order filed 8 herewith. Plaintiff-intervenor City and County of San Francisco 9 (“CCSF” or “San Francisco”) was granted leave to intervene in 10 August 2009. Doc #160 (minute entry). 11 The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary 12 injunction on July 2, 2009, Doc #77 (minute entry), and denied 13 proponents’ motion for summary judgment on October 14, 2009, Doc 14 #226 (minute entry). Proponents moved to realign the Attorney 15 General as a plaintiff; the motion was denied on December 23, 2009, 16 Doc #319. Imperial County, a political subdivision of California, United States District Court United 17 sought to intervene as a party defendant on December 15, 2009, Doc For the Northern District of California For 18 #311; the motion is denied for the reasons addressed in a separate 19 order filed herewith. 20 The parties disputed the factual premises underlying 21 plaintiffs’ claims and the court set the matter for trial. The 22 action was tried to the court January 11-27, 2010. The trial 23 proceedings were recorded and used by the court in preparing the 24 findings of fact and conclusions of law; the clerk is now DIRECTED 25 to file the trial recording under seal as part of the record. The 26 parties may retain their copies of the trial recording pursuant to 27 the terms of the protective order herein, see Doc #672. 28 \\ 4 1 Proponents’ motion to order the copies’ return, Doc #698, is 2 accordingly DENIED. 3 4 PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8 5 The Due Process Clause provides that no “State [shall] 6 deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due 7 process of law.” US Const Amend XIV, § 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Full Testimony
    DRAFT 11.02.2015 -Confidential- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION _________________________________________ SEXUAL MINORITIES UGANDA Civil Action 3:12-CV-30051 (MAP) Plaintiff, v. SCOTT LIVELY, individually and as President of Abiding Truth Ministries Defendant. _________________________________________ EXPERT REPORT OF DR. ILAN H. MEYER 1 I have been retained by the Center for Constitutional Rights to provide written opinion and possible live testimony as an expert witness on behalf of Plaintiff Sexual Minorities Uganda (“Plaintiff”) in connection with the pending action entitled Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Scott Lively, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, No. 3:12-cv-30051 and any related litigation. My work for this report is provided pro bono. I am not being compensated for research and the writing of this report. However, Plaintiff is reimbursing me for all reasonable and necessary out-of-pocket expenses incurred in relation to this work, including expenses related to any travel that would be necessary related to my work in this case. In addition, in the event Plaintiff or its counsel recovers attorneys’ fees or costs in this action and/or any related litigation, Plaintiff or its counsel will compensate me at an hourly rate of $250.00 per hour. Reimbursement of my expenses or other compensation is not in any way conditioned upon or affected by either the substantive results or conclusions of my work, or by the final outcome of this action. I. Qualifications I am the Williams Distinguished Senior Scholar of Public Policy at the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Law in Los Angeles, California.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Generations Quantitative Survey Methods V.21 Methodology And
    Generations Quantitative Survey Methods v.21 Methodology and Technical Notes Gallup Quantitative Survey May 26, 2021 Version 21 Evan A. Krueger Andy Lin Krystal R. Kittle Ilan H. Meyer 1 Table of Contents About the Generations Study ................................................................................................... 4 Generations Recruitment .......................................................................................................... 4 Data sources described in this document .............................................................................. 6 Generations eligibility ................................................................................................................ 6 Generations Sample ................................................................................................................... 9 How to characterize the sample? ...................................................................................................... 9 Sample: Baseline (Wave 1) .............................................................................................................. 10 Sample: Wave 2 .................................................................................................................................. 10 Sample: Wave 3 .................................................................................................................................. 11 Data Processing and Transformation ................................................................................. 12 New
    [Show full text]
  • Lgbtq+ Youth Need Inclusive Sex Education
    A CALL TO ACTION: LGBTQ+ YOUTH NEED INCLUSIVE SEX EDUCATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) youth – particularly those who are at the intersection of multiple marginalized communities – need and deserve to learn in settings that are inclusive of their experiences and that give them the necessary education to stay safe and healthy. Far too many LGBTQ+ youth are attending schools that lack inclusive policies and sitting in classrooms where their teachers and textbooks significantly fail to address their identities, community, and experiences. Nowhere is this absence more clear, and potentially more damaging, than in sex education. Sex education can be one of the few sources of reliable information on sexuality and sexual health for youth. Hundreds of studies have shown that well-designed and well-implemented sex education can reduce risk behavior and support positive sexual health outcomes among teens, such as reducing teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection (STI) rates.1 The National Sex Education Standards: Core Content and Skills, K-12 (Second Edition) outlines effective characteristics of comprehensive sex education, which goes beyond risk reduction to ensure young people receive the information they need to make informed decisions about their sexual and reproductive health and future. For LGBTQ+ youth to experience comparable health benefits to their non-LGBTQ+ peers, sex education programs must be LGBTQ+ inclusive. Inclusive programs are those that help young people understand gender identity and sexual orientation with age-appropriate and medically accurate information; incorporate positive examples of LGBTQ+ individuals, relationships and families; emphasize the need for protection during sex for people of all identities; and dispel common myths and stereotypes about behavior and identity.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States ______MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD.; and JACK C
    No. 16-111 In The Supreme Court of the United States ________________ MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD.; AND JACK C. PHILLIPS, Petitioners, v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION; CHARLIE CRAIG; AND DAVID MULLINS. Respondents. ________________ ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE ILAN H. MEYER, PHD, AND OTHER SOCIAL SCIENTISTS AND LEGAL SCHOLARS WHO STUDY THE LGB POPULATION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS ADAM P. ROMERO STEPHEN B. KINNAIRD THE WILLIAMS INSTITUTE Counsel of Record UCLA SCHOOL OF LAW RANDALL V. JOHNSTON 385 Charles E. Young Dr. E PETER S. LARSON Los Angeles, CA 90095 PAUL HASTINGS LLP (310) 267-4382 875 15th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 551-1700 stephenkinnaird @paulhastings.com SCOTT M. KLAUSNER JI HAE KIM MIRI SONG SERLI POLATOGLU PAUL HASTINGS LLP 515 South Flower Street Twenty-Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 683-6233. -i- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................... iii I. INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ........................ 1 II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................ 2 III. ARGUMENT ....................................................... 6 A. LGB People Face Discrimination and Other Minority Stressors Stemming From Anti-LGB Stigma .......................................... 9 1. LGB people have long endured discrimination. ............. 9 2. LGB People Face Minority Stressors Stemming from Anti-LGB Stigma and Prejudice ................................... 11 B. Exclusion From a Public Accommodation is a Prejudice Event and Increases Expectations of Rejection and Discrimination ............................................. 15 C. Minor ity Stress Adversely Affects the Health and Well-Being of LGB People and May Impact Relationship Quality and Stability ....................................................... 19 1. Minority Stress Negatively Impacts the Health and Well-Being of the LGB People .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • LGBT Identity and Crime
    LGBT Identity and Crime LGBT Identity and Crime* JORDAN BLAIR WOODS** Abstract Recent studies report that LGBT adults and youth dispropor- tionately face hardships that are risk factors for criminal offending and victimization. Some of these factors include higher rates of poverty, over- representation in the youth homeless population, and overrepresentation in the foster care system. Despite these risk factors, there is a lack of study and available data on LGBT people who come into contact with the crim- inal justice system as offenders or as victims. Through an original intellectual history of the treatment of LGBT identity and crime, this Article provides insight into how this problem in LGBT criminal justice developed and examines directions to move beyond it. The history shows that until the mid-1970s, the criminalization of homosexuality left little room to think of LGBT people in the criminal justice system as anything other than deviant sexual offenders. The trend to decriminalize sodomy in the mid-1970s opened a narrow space for schol- ars, advocates, and policymakers to use antidiscrimination principles to redefine LGBT people in the criminal justice system as innocent and non- deviant hate crime victims, as opposed to deviant sexual offenders. Although this paradigm shift has contributed to some important gains for LGBT people, this Article argues that it cannot be celebrated as * Originally published in the California Law Review. ** Assistant Professor of Law, University of Arkansas School of Law, Fayetteville. I am thankful for the helpful suggestions from Samuel Bray, Devon Carbado, Maureen Carroll, Steve Clowney, Beth Colgan, Sharon Dolovich, Will Foster, Brian R.
    [Show full text]
  • The Association Between Minority Stress and Oppression in the Lives of MSM in Cape Town, South Africa
    The association between minority stress and oppression in the lives of MSM in Cape Town, South Africa Ayesha McAdams-Mahmoud MPH, CHES 1, Rob Stephenson PhD 1, Christopher Rentsch MPH 1, 2, Catherine Finneran, MPH 1 1Hubert Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; 2Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA INTRODUCTION The mental health outcomes of men who have sex with men (MSM) are understudied in resource-poor settings. African MSM are members of those understudied populations, as their lived experiences and psychiatric outcomes are rarely explored in scientific literature. The lack of research persists despite growing networks of same-sex activity throughout the continent, high estimates of disease burden caused by psychiatric disorders, and an overarching “culture of denial” regarding same-sex behavior among most Africans (1, 2, 3). When people are members of stigmatizing and discriminating societies, the conflict between them and the dominant culture can result in minority stress, which can lead to internalized negative self-regard and adverse mental health outcomes (4). Amongst MSM in South Africa, where 80% of the population considers MSM behavior to be “always wrong”, the paucity of targeted research interventions on the population is especially pronounced and the population’s mental health outcomes are unexplored (5). The objectives of this study were to determine the degree to which a sample of MSM in Cape Town, South Africa experienced elements of minority stress due to discrimination. Researchers explored the experiences MSM had with the primary constructs in Ilan Meyer’s Theory of Minority Stress: Physical attack, internalized homophobia, perceived discrimination and stigma.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony in Perry V
    DECLARATION OF ILAN H. MEYER, PH.D. IN THE CASES OF BAYEV V. RUSSIA (NO. 67667/09), KISELEV V. RUSSIA (NO. 44092/12), AND ALEKSEYEV V. RUSSIA (NO. 56717/12) I. QUALIFICATIONS 1. I am a Senior Scholar of Public Policy at the Williams Institute at University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) in the United States of America. Prior to my current position, I was Professor of Clinical Sociomedical Sciences and Deputy Chair for Masters Programs in Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. 2. I am a member of the American Public Health Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Sociological Association. 3. In 1993, I received my Ph.D. in Sociomedical Sciences and Social Psychology from Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. My doctoral dissertation, titled Prejudice and pride: Minority stress and mental health in gay men, received distinguished designation, awarded to the top 10% of Columbia University doctoral dissertations, as well as the Marisa De Castro Benton Dissertation Award for outstanding contribution to the sociomedical sciences, and an honorable mention for the mental health section of the American Sociological Association’s award for best dissertation. 4. I was a predoctoral National Institute of Mental Health Fellow in Psychiatric Epidemiology at Columbia University from 1987 to 1992. I was a postdoctoral Fellow in Health Psychology at The Graduate Center at The City University of New York from 1993 to 1995 and a National Institute of Mental Health Research Fellow in Psychiatry, with a focus on AIDS, at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center from 1995 to 1996.
    [Show full text]
  • N:\Katharine Van Dusen\Civil\Perry V Schwarzenegger 09-2292\Findings\FF & CL FINAL.Wpd
    1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER, 5 PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY J ZARRILLO, 6 Plaintiffs, 7 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 8 Plaintiff-Intervenor, 9 v 10 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his 11 official capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G BROWN JR, in 12 his official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B No C 09-2292 VRW 13 HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND 14 Department of Public Health and TRIAL EVIDENCE State Registrar of Vital 15 Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her g official capacity as Deputy 16 Director of Health Information & CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS Strategic Planning for the 17 California Department of Public g United States District Court Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk- For the Northern District of California 18 FINDINGS OF FACT Recorder of the County of 19 Alameda; and DEAN C LOGAN, in his g official capacity as Registrar- 20 Recorder/County Clerk for the CONCLUSIONS OF LAW County of Los Angeles, 21 g Defendants, 22 ORDER DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J 23 KNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ, HAK- SHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A 24 JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA 25 RENEWAL, as official proponents of Proposition 8, 26 Defendant-Intervenors. 27 / 28 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 BACKGROUND TO PROPOSITION 8 ................ 1 3 PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THIS ACTION ............. 3 4 PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8 ........... 5 5 PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8 ...........
    [Show full text]
  • Report Model Legislation for Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry Or All
    SAME-SEX COUPLES AND MARRIAGE Model Legislation for Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry or All Couples to Form a Civil Union By Jennifer C. Pizer and Sheila James Kuehl August 2012 Same-Sex Couples and Marriage Model Legislation & Policy Context About the Authors Jennifer C. Pizer is Legal Director and the Arnold D. Kassoy Senior Scholar of Law at the Williams Institute. She has worked in the field of sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy exclusively for seventeen years, including drafting legislation to protect same-sex couples through marriage, civil union or domestic partnership, to secure the relationships between LGBT parents and their children, and to improve protections against discrimination in employment, housing, education, and health care. Pizer is a graduate of Harvard College and NYU School of Law. Sheila James Kuehl is the UCLA Regents’ 2012 Professor of Public Policy, where she has taught “Making Policy Through Laws and Rules.” She served eight years in the California State Senate and six years in the California Assembly, during which time she authored 171 bills that were signed into law addressing issues in family law, discrimination in education and employment, health care, the environment, and the rights of crime victims, among many others. A graduate of Harvard Law School, Senator Kuehl has taught law at UCLA, USC and Loyola Law Schools and is Founding Director of the Public Policy Institute at Santa Monica College. About the Williams Institute The Williams Institute is dedicated to conducting rigorous, independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy.
    [Show full text]
  • A Development Agenda for Sexual and Gender Minorities
    A DEVELOPMENT AGENDA FOR SEXUAL AND GENDER MINORITIES Andrew Park, Esq. DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS JUNE 2016 A DEVELOPMENT AGENDA FOR SEXUAL AND GENDER MINORITIES By Andrew Park, Esq. Director, International Programs The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 I. INTRODUCTION 14 II. FRAMEWORKS 22 A. Human Rights: Current frameworks for sexual orientation and gender identity 22 B. Bridging the gap from human rights to development 27 1. Diferences between human rights and development frameworks 27 a. Separate historical tracks 28 b. Diferent operational systems 31 c. Institutions versus individuals 32 d. Law v. lived experience 33 e. Absolutes v. trade-ofs 34 f. Universal v. targeted 35 2. Similarities and overlap 36 C. Economic frameworks 38 D. The capabilities approach 43 III. CREATING A DEVELOPMENT AGENDA FOR SEXUAL AND GENDER MINORITIES 46 A. Engaging in a community based process 48 B. Defining target populations 50 C. Understanding human development needs of sexual and gender minorities 56 1. Pathways to full development 56 2. Legal standards 59 3. Cultural demands 60 IV. A DEVELOPMENT AGENDA FOR SEXUAL AND GENDER MINORITIES 64 A. Life’s Course: Each person should have the capability to progress through the course of each of life’s stages, from birth to death 65 B. Health: Each person should be able to have good health, including sexual and reproductive health, adequate nourishment and shelter, and access to resources which promote health and well-being 68 C. Education: Each person should have the capability to learn, receive training and education, and acquire knowledge of one's self and one’s world 74 D.
    [Show full text]
  • Report-Ilan-Meyer-Smug 0
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION _________________________________________ SEXUAL MINORITIES UGANDA Civil Action 3:12-CV-30051 (MAP) Plaintiff , v. SCOTT LIVELY, individually and as President of Abiding Truth Ministries Defendant . _________________________________________ EXPERT REPORT OF DR. ILAN H. MEYER I have been retained by the Center for Constitutional Rights to provide written opinion and possible live testimony as an expert witness on behalf of Plaintiff Sexual Minorities Uganda (“Plaintiff”) in connection with the pending action entitled Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Scott Lively , U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, No. 3:12-cv-30051 and any related litigation. My work for this report is provided pro bono. I am not being compensated for research and the writing of this report. However, Plaintiff is reimbursing me for all reasonable and necessary out-of-pocket expenses incurred in relation to this work, including expenses related to any travel that would be necessary related to my work in this case. In addition, in the event Plaintiff or its counsel recovers attorneys’ fees or costs in this action and/or any related litigation, Plaintiff or its counsel will compensate me at an hourly rate of $250.00 per hour. Reimbursement of my expenses or other compensation is not in any way conditioned upon or affected by either the substantive results or conclusions of my work, or by the final outcome of this action. I. Qualifications I am the Williams Distinguished Senior Scholar of Public Policy at the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Law in Los Angeles, California.
    [Show full text]
  • District Court Trial Transcript
    Perry v. Schwarzenegger(MOBILE) Trial-Day 04 (Egan-Meyer) 1/14/2010 Printed : 1/15/2010 Perry v. Schwarzenegger(MOBILE) Trial-Day 04 (Egan-Meyer) 1/14/2010 8:30:00 AM - - Volume 4 672 Pages 670 - 990 APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For Defendant MENNEMEIER, GLASSMAN & STROUD NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BEFORE THE HONORABLE VAUGHN R. WALKER Gov. Schwarzenegger: 980 9th Street, Suite 1700 KRISTIN M. PERRY, ) Sacramento, California 95814-2736 SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, ) BY: ANDREW WALTER STROUD, ESQUIRE and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, ) For Defendant STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE ) Edmund G. Brown Jr.: 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 Plaintiffs, ) San Francisco, California 94102-7004 ) BY: TAMAR PACHTER, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL VS. ) NO. C 09-2292-VRW STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) Department of Justice ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his ) Office of the Attorney General official capacity as Governor of ) California; EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., ) 1300 I Street, 17th Floor in his official capacity as ) Sacramento, California 95814 Attorney General of California; ) BY: GORDON BURNS, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL MARK B. HORTON, in his official ) For Defendant- COOPER & KIRK capacity as Director of the ) Intervenors: 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. California Department of Public ) Washington, D.C. 20036 Health and State Registrar of ) BY: CHARLES J. COOPER, ESQUIRE Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, ) DAVID H. THOMPSON, ESQUIRE in her official capacity as Deputy ) HOWARD C. NIELSON, JR., ESQUIRE Director of Health Information & ) NICOLE MOSS, ESQUIRE Strategic Planning for the ) California Department of Public ) PETER A. PATTERSON, ESQUIRE Health; PATRICK O'CONNELL, in his ) ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND official capacity as ) 15100 North 90th Street Clerk-Recorder for the County of ) Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 Alameda; and DEAN C.
    [Show full text]