High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS' AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S TRIAL MEMORANDUM
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
Theodore B. Olson, SBN 38137
tolson@gibsondunn.com
Matthew D. McGill,
pro hac vice
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036Telephone: (202) 955-8668, Facsimile: (202) 467-0539Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., SBN 132009
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
Christopher D. Dusseault, SBN 177557Ethan D. Dettmer, SBN 196046333 S. Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90071Telephone: (213) 229-7804, Facsimile: (213) 229-7520BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLPDavid Boies,
pro hac vice
dboies@bsfllp.com
333 Main Street, Armonk, New York 10504Telephone: (914) 749-8200, Facsimile: (914) 749-8300Jeremy M. Goldman, SBN 218888
jgoldman@bsfllp.com
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900, Oakland, California 94612Telephone: (510) 874-1000, Facsimile: (510) 874-1460Attorneys for PlaintiffsKRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER,PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLODennis J. Herrera, SBN 139669Therese M. Stewart, SBN 104930Danny Chou, SBN 180240One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett PlaceSan Francisco, California 94102-4682Telephone: (415) 554-4708, Facsimile (415) 554-4699Attorneys for Plaintiff-IntervenorCITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KRISTIN M. PERRY,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,andCITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,Plaintiff-Intervenor,v.ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
et al.,
DefendantsandPROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTSDENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,
et al.,
Defendant-Intervenors.CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
PLAINTIFFS' AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S TRIAL MEMORANDUMFinal Pretrial Conference
Date: December 16, 2009Time: 10:00 a.m.Judge: Chief Judge WalkerLocation: Courtroom 6, 17
th
FloorTrial Date: January 11, 2010(Proposed Findings of Fact, Exhibit List, WitnessList, Designation of Discovery Excerpts, andMotions
in Limine
filed herewith)
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document281 Filed12/07/09 Page1 of 21
i
09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS' AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S TRIAL MEMORANDUM
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageI. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................1 II. SUMMARY OF FACTS..................................................................................................................2 III. PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS..................................................................................................................3 A. Prop. 8 Violates The Due Process Clause Of The FourteenthAmendment...................................................................................................................3 1. Prop. 8 Substantially Impairs Plaintiffs' Fundamental Right ToMarry.................................................................................................................4 2. Prop. 8 Is Not Narrowly Tailored To Further A CompellingState Interest......................................................................................................5 a. Procreation................................................................................6
b. "Responsible Procreation.".......................................................7
c. Tradition....................................................................................7
d. Recognition of California Marriages by OtherStates.........................................................................................8 e. Administrative Convenience.....................................................9
f. Moral Disapproval....................................................................9
B. Prop. 8 Violates The Equal Protection Clause Of The FourteenthAmendment.................................................................................................................10 1. Prop. 8 Discriminates Against Gay And Lesbian Individuals OnThe Basis Of Their Sexual Orientation...........................................................11 2. Prop. 8 Discriminates Against Gay And Lesbian Individuals OnThe Basis Of Their Sex...................................................................................14 C. Prop. 8 Violates Section 1983.....................................................................................15
IV. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................15
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document281 Filed12/07/09 Page2 of 21
ii
09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS' AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S TRIAL MEMORANDUM
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena
,515 U.S. 200 (1995).........................................................................................................................11
Bowen v. Gilliard
,483 U.S. 587 (1987).........................................................................................................................11
Bowers v. Hardwick
,478 U.S. 186 (1986).........................................................................................................................13
Brown v. Bd. of Educ
.,347 U.S. 483 (1954)...........................................................................................................................5
Carey v. Population Servs. Int'l,
431 U.S. 678 (1977).......................................................................................................................4, 5
Christian Science Reading Room Jointly Maintained v. City & County of San Francisco
,784 F.2d 1010 (9th Cir. 1986)..........................................................................................................11
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.
,473 U.S. 432 (1985)...............................................................................................................1, 11, 12
City of Ladue v. Gilleo
,512 U.S. 43 (1994).............................................................................................................................6
Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v.
LaFleur
,414 U.S. 632 (1974)...........................................................................................................................4
Craig v. Boren
,429 U.S. 190 (1976)...........................................................................................................................9
Elisa B. v. Superior Court
,117 P.3d 660 (Cal. 2005)...................................................................................................................7
Fla. Star v. B.J.F
.,491 U.S. 524 (1989)...........................................................................................................................6
Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist
.,324 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2003)..........................................................................................................14
Griswold v. Connecticut
,381 U.S. 479 (1965).................................................................................................................4, 6, 11
Hernandez-Montiel v. INS
,225 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2000)....................................................................................................12, 13
High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office
,895 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1990)............................................................................................................13
In re Golinski
,No. 09-80173, 2009 WL 2222884 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2009).............................................................10
In re Levenson
,No. 09-80172, 2009 WL 3878233 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2009).......................................................8, 14
In re Marriage Cases
,183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008)..........................................................................................................
passim
Kerrigan v. Comm'r of Pub. Health
,957 A.2d 407 (Conn. 2008).............................................................................................5, 11, 12, 13
Knight v. Superior Court
,26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 687 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).........................................................................................7
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document281 Filed12/07/09 Page3 of 21
Add a Comment