Perry v Schwarzenegger (Prop 8 California),
Final ruling released on August 4, 2010
LINK TO ORIGINAL: www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-
Approx.40,000 words. Formatting may not show a, b, c lists instead of 1, 2, 3. Sorry about that.
Plaintiffs challenge a November 2008 voter-enacted amendment to the California Constitution (“Proposition 8” or “Prop 8”). Cal Const Art I, § 7.5. In its entirety, Proposition 8 provides: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Plaintiffs allege that Proposition 8 deprives them of due process and of equal protection of the laws contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment and that its enforcement by state officials violates 42 USC § 1983.
Plaintiffs are two couples. Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier reside in Berkeley, California and raise four children together. Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami reside in Burbank, California. Plaintiffs seek to marry their partners and have been denied marriage licenses by their respective county authorities on the basis of Proposition 8. No party contended, and no evidence at trial suggested, that the county authorities had any ground to deny marriage licenses to plaintiffs other than Proposition 8.
Having considered the trial evidence and the arguments of counsel, the court pursuant to FRCP 52(a) finds that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and that its enforcement must be enjoined.
( Background )
( Procedural History )
( Plaintiffs' Case )
( Proponents' Defense )
( Trial Proceedings & Summary of Testimony )
( Credibility: Plaintiffs' Witnesses )
( Credibility: Proponents' Witnesses )
( Findings of Facts )
( Facts: The Parties )
( Whether Evidence Supports Refusal to Recognize Marriage )
( Whether Evidence Shows an Interest in Differentiating )
( Whether Evidence Shows a Private Moral View )
( Conclusions of Law: Due Process )
( Conclusions of Law: Equal Protection )
( Conclusion )
( Remedies )