U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t

   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAKRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER,PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY JZARRILLO,Plaintiffs,CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,Plaintiff-Intervenor,vARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in hisofficial capacity as Governor ofCalifornia; EDMUND G BROWN JR, inhis official capacity as AttorneyGeneral of California; MARK BHORTON, in his official capacityas Director of the CaliforniaDepartment of Public Health andState Registrar of VitalStatistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in herofficial capacity as DeputyDirector of Health Information &Strategic Planning for theCalifornia Department of PublicHealth; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in hisofficial capacity as Clerk-Recorder of the County ofAlameda; and DEAN C LOGAN, in hisofficial capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for theCounty of Los Angeles,Defendants,DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL JKNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK AJANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIARENEWAL, as official proponentsof Proposition 8,Defendant-Intervenors./No C 09-2292 VRW

PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS ANDTRIAL EVIDENCE

g

CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS

g

FINDINGS OF FACT

g

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

g

ORDER 

 

   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t

   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

TABLE OF CONTENTSBACKGROUND TO PROPOSITION 8................1PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THIS ACTION.............3PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8...........5PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8............6TRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY........10CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS..................25PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESSES..................25PROPONENTS’ WITNESSES..................35FINDINGS OF FACT.......................54THE PARTIES.......................54 WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TORECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX60 WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTERESTIN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS71 WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8 ENACTEDA PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATEGOVERNMENT INTEREST...................85CONCLUSIONS OF LAW......................109DUE PROCESS.......................109EQUAL PROTECTION.....................117CONCLUSION..........................135REMEDIES...........................136

 

   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t

   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

Plaintiffs challenge a November 2008 voter-enactedamendment to the California Constitution (“Proposition 8” or “Prop8”). Cal Const Art I, § 7.5. In its entirety, Proposition 8provides: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid orrecognized in California.” Plaintiffs allege that Proposition 8deprives them of due process and of equal protection of the lawscontrary to the Fourteenth Amendment and that its enforcement bystate officials violates 42 USC § 1983.Plaintiffs are two couples. Kristin Perry and SandraStier reside in Berkeley, California and raise four childrentogether. Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami reside in Burbank,California. Plaintiffs seek to marry their partners and have beendenied marriage licenses by their respective county authorities onthe basis of Proposition 8. No party contended, and no evidence attrial suggested, that the county authorities had any ground to deny marriage licenses to plaintiffs other than Proposition 8.Having considered the trial evidence and the arguments ofcounsel, the court pursuant to FRCP 52(a) finds that Proposition 8is unconstitutional and that its enforcement must be enjoined.BACKGROUND TO PROPOSITION 8In November 2000, the voters of California adoptedProposition 22 through the state’s initiative process. Entitledthe California Defense of Marriage Act, Proposition 22 amended thestate’s Family Code by adding the following language: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized inCalifornia.” Cal Family Code § 308.5. This amendment furthercodified the existing definition of marriage as “a relationship