legaldocs | Entries tagged with topic: marriage rights

GSE vs Dow, Superior Court Of New Jersey
Filed June 29, 2011
Initial complaint

LINK TO ORIGINAL: at LambdaLegal
Link to Searchable PDF: at my dropbox
~11500 words total.

Superior Court Of New Jersey Law Division: Mercer County
Docket No. __________
Civil Action

RECEIVED JUN 29 2011
Mercer County Superior Court
CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT

COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

GARDEN STATE EQUALITY; ( et al )

Plaintiffs,
- vs -

PAULA DOW, in her official capacity as Attorney General of New Jersey; ( et al )

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs, Garden State Equality ("GSE"), which is the state's largest organization advocating for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender ("LGBT") rights; and committed same-sex couples and their minor children ( named herein ) seek a declaration that their exclusion from the institution of civil marriage violates Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution of 1947 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and that for those couples who are legally married in another jurisdiction, it is unconstitutional for the Defendants to deny recognition of marriages validly entered in other jurisdictions by same-sex couples. Plaintiffs also seek an injunction preventing the Defendants from denying them access to civil marriage, and from maintaining the separate and unequal legal status of "civil union" solely for same-sex couples, and for those same-sex couples who are legally married in another jurisdiction, enjoining the Defendants from denying recognition of those marriages.

( Introduction continued: )

( Parties )

( Venue )

( Statement of Facts )
( Claims for Relief )
( Prayer for Relief )

( Certificate of No Other Actions )
( Designation of Trial Counsel )

elf

Perry v Schwarzenegger (Prop 8 California),
Final ruling released on August 4, 2010

LINK TO ORIGINAL: www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL (Bookmarked PDF or Word document available on request; just send me a PM with your email address.)
Approx.40,000 words. Formatting may not show a, b, c lists instead of 1, 2, 3. Sorry about that.

( Perry v Schwarzenneger header )

( (Linked) Table of Contents )

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 )

elf

Perry v Schwarzenegger (Prop 8 California),
Closing arguments delivered on June 16, 2010.
Link to original: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/hearing-transcripts/perry-trial-closing-arguments-transcript/
Approx. 35,000 words.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE HONORABLE VAUGHN R. WALKER

NO. C 09-2292-VRW

KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO,

Plaintiffs,

VS.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O'CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles,

Defendants.

San Francisco, California
Wednesday
June 16, 2010

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Reported By: Katherin Powell Sullivan, CRR CSR 5812
Debra L. Pas, CRR CSR 1196
Official Reporters – U.S. District Court

Volume 13
Pages 2953 -3115

( Appearances )

( Intro Proceedings )

( Olson (Plaintiff) Closing Argument )

( Stewart (Proponent) Closing Argument )

( Cooper (Proponent) Closing Argument )

( Olson Rebuttal Argument )

( Index & Certificate )