Hollingsworth v. Perry

1991:

gender. Second, it would not affect the procreative behavior of opposite-sex couples. Similarly, it could not reflect a reasonable attempt to "proceed with caution" in altering social institutions because more than 18,000 same-sex couples had already married and because its intention was to create an absolute barrier embedded within the constitution (rather than a cautious restriction). Voters were told instead that the proposition would "eliminate" the right of same-sex couples to marry. The law had just one effect, namely to strip a disfavored minority of an "extraordinarily significan" official designation - the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults. Stating that in law, the willful creation of a new legal status quo and withdrawal of the right to a designation with significant social consequences is very different from a mere declining to extend that designation to a group in the first place, he concluded that the "inevitable inference" was that Proposition 8's rationale was "disapproval of gays and lesbians as a class", and agreed with its unconstitutionality: "he People of California may not, consistent with the Federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the State and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class."

2161:"actual controversy" persist throughout all stages of litigation ... Standing "must be met by persons seeking appellate review, just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first instance."... The parties do not contest that respondents had standing to initiate this case against the California officials responsible for enforcing Proposition 8. But once the District Court issued its order, respondents no longer had any injury to redress, and the state officials chose not to appeal. The only individuals who sought to appeal were petitioners, who had intervened in the District Court, but they had not been ordered to do or refrain from doing anything. Their only interest was to vindicate the constitutional validity of a generally applicable California law. As this Court has repeatedly held, such a "generalized grievance"—no matter how sincere—is insufficient to confer standing. 2136:

Proposition 8 proponents lacked standing at the Court of Appeals level. Therefore, the case was returned to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to vacate its former ruling (affirming the district court's overturning of Proposition 8). The majority opinion was authored by Chief Justice Roberts and was joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor dissented. The Court's action left the original district court ruling (overturning Proposition 8) as the final ruling in the case. It also meant that the Supreme Court did not discuss the underlying merits of the case and the case did not result in a formal precedent for states other than California (although

1240:

parents. He noted that for significant number of these children, their adjustment would be promoted were their parents able to get married. He added that a field of developmental psychology came to the conclusion that what makes for an effective parent is the same both for a mother or a father, and that children do not need to have a masculine-behaving parent figure, a father, or feminine-behaving parent figure, a mother, in order to be well adjusted. Testimony showed that California was supportive of same-sex couple adoption and viewed it positively, providing testimony of both the state's experience of same-sex couples and parenting, which was not changed by Proposition 8. Defense witness

1935:. Because California officials had declined to defend the law, the federal court asked the state court to decide whether the backers of a challenged initiative had "a particularized interest in the initiative's validity or the authority to assert the State's interest in the initiative's validity" that would permit them to defend the law when state officials refuse to do so. The Ninth Circuit stayed the appeal pending a response from the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court heard oral argument on the certified question on September 6, 2011, and on November 17 ruled that the non-governmental proponents of Proposition 8 have the legal standing to defend it. Chief Justice 2246: 1961:

In describing the issue before the court, Reinhardt said the usage of the word "marriage" was what was at stake, not any substantive legal rights: "Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right—the right to obtain and use the designation of 'marriage' to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less."

1546:'s legal analyst, questioned the defense team's decision to "cede so much ground at trial to their opponents" and called "inconceivable" their gamble that the conservative Supreme Court might "save the day". He praised Judge Walker's handling of the case, especially in respect to the defendant-intervenors. "During the trial, Walker practically begged and cajoled the Prop 8 lawyers to do better for their cause. He asked them written questions to draw them out. He scolded them during closing arguments to make more persuasive arguments. They simply didn't or couldn't or wouldn't respond." 29: 2328: 2094: 2365: 1080:, described how previous government campaigns had attempted "to demonize gay people as dangerous sexual deviants and child molesters". He then analyzed campaign material from the Yes on 8 campaign to show how they played upon the same message. He analyzed the words of Dr. William Tam, which included assertions that, were California to fail to pass Proposition 8, other states would follow and "fall into Satan's hands", and that following legalization of same-sex marriage, the advocates of the " 1364:

especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.

2053: 1472:(strict scrutiny for fundamental rights), Walker noted that California's domestic partnership laws do not satisfy California's obligation to provide gays and lesbians the right to marry for two reasons: (1) domestic partnerships do not provide the same social meaning as marriage; and (2) domestic partnerships were created "specifically so that California could offer same-sex couples rights and benefits while explicitly withholding marriage from same-sex couples." 1980:

couples from an "honored status" permitted different-sex couples) since the matter could be decided on narrower grounds: "Proposition 8 singles out same-sex couples for unequal treatment by taking away from them alone the right to marry", a "distinct constitutional violation" in that it subjected a minority group to "the deprivation of an existing right without a legitimate reason." The opinion call this "the narrowest ground" for considering the case.

8574: 1809: 2195:(Citizens who had standing in their 'public official' roles did not retain standing once they left public office), and other cases unanimous on the point. The ruling summed up that Californian law provides a "right of proponents to defend their initiatives in California courts where Article III does not apply", but standing in federal court is based upon federal, not state, law; the same reasoning also invalidated the previous hearing by the Ninth Circuit. 1163:" is effective in changing a person's sexuality, and that it "sends a harmful and false message to young people that homosexuality is a disorder", directly leading to more discrimination. During cross-examination, he asserted that "sexual orientation is a combination of attraction, identity, and behavior, and that the complexities researchers face in defining sexual orientation are no different than those they face in defining other characteristics such as 436:. The following month, same-sex couples became able to marry in California. In November 2008, California's voters approved Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution that sought to restore a prior opposite-sex-couple limitation on marriage; but following its adoption, several lawsuits were filed that challenged the validity of the amendment, under various state constitutional provisions. On May 26, 2009, the California Supreme Court held, in 1897: 1587:. Whelan criticized in particular Judge Walker's repeated contention that certain facts about society were "beyond any doubt" or "beyond debate," such as Walker's contentions that same-sex parenting has been shown to be equally effective as opposite-sex parenting or that allowing same-sex couples to marry would not in any way negatively affect the rights of opponents of same-sex marriage. Whelan believes those points are in fact hotly contested. 1500:

make more persuasive arguments": David Blankenhorn, who had been allowed to testify, was ultimately judged as lacking "the qualifications to offer opinion testimony". The court found that Kenneth P. Miller's "opinions on gay and lesbian political power are entitled to little weight and only to the extent they are amply supported by reliable evidence." In 2012, Blankenhorn said he had changed his opinion and now accepted same-sex marriage.

1554:, a law professor from UC Davis argued that the defendant's decision to not put up a case may help them in the long run by arguing in higher courts that the evidence was irrelevant: Walker looked at whether a rational basis was supported by evidence, but might have considered instead whether a voter believing gay marriage might have a negative effect was entitled to be seen as holding their belief rationally, indifferent to any evidence. 2079:, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Olson and Boies stated that they would "address all the issues, focused on the fundamental constitutional right to marry of all citizens" before the Supreme Court, while defenders of Proposition 8 stated they would now have their first chance at a fair trial since they began defending Proposition 8. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 26, 2013. For the United States, 1602:, who is named as a defendant in the case, said that "for the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves." He also complimented Walker's conduct during the trial, congratulating his efforts to "respect both sides of the issue equally". Attorney General 1040:, an American history scholar, who testified that "marriage has never been universally defined as a union of one man and one woman, and that religion has never had any bearing on the legality of a marriage". The next day, she continued her testimony, which revolved around three key points: how marriage has historically been used "punitively" to demean disfavored groups, how the legally enshrined 2210:

plaintiff can sue a state in federal court if he or she thinks a state law is invalid and is angry about it. And that is simply not allowed. So, the people who appealed the Proposition 8 case had no interest in the case beyond their wish to see the amendment upheld and thus did not suffer the requisite personal injury to satisfy the 'cases' or 'controversies' requirements of Article III.

2381:

court decided that the videos should remain sealed. Writing for the panel, Reinhardt wrote: "The trial judge on several occasions unequivocally promised that the recording of the trial would be used only in chambers and not publicly broadcast. ... To revoke Chief Judge Walker's assurances after proponents had reasonably relied on them would cause serious damage to the integrity of the

2011:, described the courts as being "unable, and usually unwilling, to strongly challenge entrenched inequalities", and went on to suggest that while California may be ready to embrace same-sex marriage, the country is not, and as a result, the Supreme Court would be "wise to deny review ... or to go along with Judge Reinhardt's narrow ruling." Jane S. Schacter, writing at the 2330: 2334: 2333: 2329: 2335: 1811: 1815: 1814: 1810: 2064:) to the U.S. Supreme Court on July 31, 2012. On August 24, opponents of Proposition 8 asked the Supreme Court not to hear the case. Olson said, "It was with strong mixed emotions ... But in the end, we represent real, live people, and if the court doesn't take the case, we've won and our clients and thousands of others in California can get married." 1899: 1903: 1902: 1898: 1816: 1904: 2368: 2371: 2370: 2366: 2332: 2372: 2171:(" raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy."), 1813: 1901: 2369: 1253:

individuals are healthier on average and behave themselves in healthier ways than single individuals", saving the city from paying emergency room bills and insurance funds. He also testified that San Francisco's revenue would increase if same-sex marriage were legal, citing the period in 2008 when 5,100

1994:

Reinhardt's majority opinion is grounded in details specific to the case of California and supported by a narrow Constitutional principle. This narrowing was widely discussed and analyzed following the decision, with many legal commentators suggesting that the narrower decision made it more likely to

1960:

2–1 in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Reinhardt authored the majority opinion and Judge Smith filed a dissent on the constitutional issue while concurring that the defendant-intervenors had the standing to appeal and that Judge Walker's ruling should not be denied.

1863:

in support of Walker's ruling, characterized the panel as "ideologically diverse". On December 1, 2010, Proposition 8 proponents filed a motion to disqualify Reinhardt from hearing the case because his wife, Ramona Ripston, is the executive director of the ACLU of Southern California and thus put his

1184:

was an ideal compromise to believing that same-sex marriage was fundamental. "What hit me was that I had been prejudiced", he explained. During cross-examination, he agreed with the defendants that not all people who voted for Proposition 8 were "bigots", but that he believed their vote was "grounded

730:

that the campaign produce internal documents that related to the purpose and intent of the amendment and the development of political messages during the campaign. The Proposition 8 proponents objected to the request because of the potential adverse effect on political speech, among other grounds. On

628:

on trial based on the facts". Walker permitted only San Francisco to intervene, as it could speak to the impact of Proposition 8 on local governments. He also ordered the attorney general to assist San Francisco in analyzing Proposition 8's impact. Walker stated that necessary speed and swiftness "on

2380:

On September 19, 2011, Ware ordered the release of the trial videotapes to the public, which the defender-intervenors had sought to keep under seal. The Ninth Circuit stayed the release of the videos pending appeal, and heard oral arguments on the appeal on December 8, 2011. On February 2, 2012, the

2343:

Judge Walker retired in February 2011 and on April 6, told reporters that he is gay and has been in a relationship with a male doctor for about ten years. On April 25, supporters of Proposition 8 filed a motion in district court to vacate Walker's decision. They argued he should have recused himself

1499:

only two witnesses as experts, both assessed as poor quality who "either couldn't or wouldn't respond" effectively to questions under cross-examination, despite the trial judge (in the analysis of watching legal analysts) "practically beg and cajol the Prop 8 lawyers to do better for their cause to

1193:

Relationship psychologist Anne Peplau took the stand and argued that individuals gain physical, psychological, and social benefits from being married. Edmund A. Egan, the chief economist for San Francisco, agreed and said that the citizen's improved health would save city emergency health funds. She

1100:

who was also asked to analyze those words, explained how her encounters with similar Asian community organizers encouraged her to " into the closet and the door." David Thompson for the defense cross-examined Prof. Chauncey by focusing on the progress that had been made for mainstream acceptance of

700:

also filed a motion to intervene as a defendant despite the fact that the intervenor deadline had passed. They argued that the civil agencies named in the suit, the counties of Alameda and Los Angeles and the state government, were not actively defending the Proposition. They continued to argue that

541:

in the lawsuit, as did the City of San Francisco in a separate filing. The plaintiffs opposed allowing the groups or the city to intervene. On August 19, Judge Walker denied the legal groups' motions to intervene, but granted the City's, albeit in a limited capacity. Despite the other groups' failed

2260:

Following the Supreme Court decision, on June 28, 2013, the same Ninth Circuit panel dissolved its stay of the district court's order, allowing same-sex marriages to proceed in California. The same day, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, plaintiffs in the case, married with California Attorney General

2160:

ny person invoking the power of a federal court must demonstrate standing to do so. In other words, the litigant must seek a remedy for a personal and tangible harm. Although most standing cases consider whether a plaintiff has satisfied the requirement when filing suit, Article III demands that an

1239:

which provides very good understanding of the factors that affect the adjustment of children being raised by gay and lesbian parents. This substantial body of evidence documents that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual

2396:

filed a motion with the District Court to unseal the videotapes from the 2010 trial. The Court planned to maintain the seal until August 12, 2020. After various appeals filed by the proponents of Proposition 8 were resolved, the court released the videos on its YouTube page on October 12, 2022. On

2228:

to assert their rights, and that elected officials should not have the ability to nullify such laws simply by choosing not to defend them. Kennedy wrote: "In the end, what the Court fails to grasp or accept is the basic premise of the initiative process. And it is this. The essence of democracy is

1983:

Reinhardt then asked if "the People of California have legitimate reasons for ... tak away from same-sex couples the right to have their lifelong partnerships dignified by the official status of 'marriage'." Finding a close parallel concerning the removal of an existing right from a minority group

1964:

The decision was made on narrow grounds, although Reinhardt wrote that "were we unable ... to resolve the matter on the basis we do, we would not hesitate to proceed to the broader question - the constitutionality of denying same-sex couples the right to marry", and that in their decision the only

1363:

measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters' determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is

1055:

by David Thompson, who asked about her personal feelings on same-sex marriage to establish that she was an advocate rather than a dispassionate scholar. Defense counsel argued that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman because it provided a stable unit for procreation and child

2356:

that could provide some speculative future benefit to the presiding judge solely on the basis of the fact that the judge belongs to the class against whom the unconstitutional law was directed would lead to a Section 455(b)(4) standard that required recusal of minority judges in most, if not all,

2304:

who through their lawyer stated that their role was ultimately state supervised and it would be unfeasible to have a "patchwork" of different marriage criteria varying between the counties of a single state. On July 15, the court unanimously declined the request for immediate action and requested

2135:

On June 26, 2013, in a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court declined to revisit the Ninth Circuit's decision on the grounds that the backers of Proposition 8 had lacked standing to appeal and that "Petitioners' arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive". For the same reasons, the Court ruled that the

1979:

simply does not allow for 'laws of this sort'." It also states that the court did not need to consider Walker's reasons for holding Proposition 8 unconstitutional (that "it deprives same-sex couples of the fundamental right to marry" and violates the Equal Protection Clause by excluding same-sex

1264:

that the city itself was uniquely losing out on potential profits because Proposition 8 dissuaded gay tourists and their families from visiting the "cool, gray city of love" (as Walker referred to it) to get married. She also argued, through testimony by Ryan Kendall and Meyer, that the city was

1252:

In an exploration on the economics of Proposition 8, the plaintiffs called forward Edmund A. Egan, the chief economist for San Francisco. He testified that same-sex marriage would aid the city because "married individuals tend to accumulate more wealth than single individuals" and that "married

1990:

634-635 (1996), in that it was based on the narrowest ground upon which the matter could be decided, he rejected each of the reasons offered as justifications for Proposition 8. First, it had no effect on child-rearing since it made no change to laws governing parenting and adoption by either

669:

also declined to participate in the defense but said it was appropriate for the courts to hear the case and "resolve the merits of this action expeditiously" because it "presents important constitutional questions that require and warrant judicial determination." On November 2, 2010, Brown was

1675:

also disagreed with the ruling. She targeted the judge's sexuality and accused Walker of "substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution".

2209:

he interests of the people who proposed Proposition 8 are no different than the interests of any other citizen who believes that the constitutional amendment is valid. Allowing such a person (with no unique injury) to appeal an adverse federal court decision is roughly the same as saying any

1436:

Gay and lesbian adoption is widespread and is supported and encouraged in California law, providing evidence concerning same sex couples and parenting, with around 18% of same sex couples in California raising children. As a corollary, this provides evidence of fact that Proposition 8 is not

1968:

The majority opinion states that "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," and citing

1198:

are similar to those of heterosexual relationships and that permitting same-sex couples to marry will not harm the institution of marriage in any way. Peplau was cross-examined by Nicole Moss, who asked Peplau about the differences between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, but Peplau

2223:

in his dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Alito, Thomas and Sotomayor, expressed concern about the implications of the Supreme Court ruling, noting that voter initiatives existed precisely for when voters felt the State was insufficiently responsive to their concerns or as a way for

1715:, and therefore while the Courts of Appeal did in fact rule (and had affirmed the District Court decision), their ruling was subsequently withdrawn (vacated) in 2013 by direction of the Supreme Court, on the grounds that under Federal law they erred and should have dismissed the appeal.) 1432:

A parent's gender is not a factor in a child's adjustment. An individual's sexual orientation does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and

960:. The trial was intended to address issues such as how having same-sex parents affects children, whether same-sex marriages undermine opposite-sex marriages, the history of discrimination against gays, and the effects of prejudice against gays. Notable trial witnesses included historian 1009:

as Supreme Court precedent that sexual orientation is "an identifiable class" in opposition to the defense's argument that sexual orientation is "behavioral". Christian Legal Society had asserted that it did not restrict membership based on sexual orientation but based on "conduct and

1304:. Chauncey also admitted that employers in California are forbidden to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation. On the basis of these testimonies, the defense was arguing that homosexuals do not qualify as a special oppressed minority class in need of the court's protection. 1736:. Walker cast doubt on whether the defendant-intervenors had legal standing to appeal. If they lack standing, only the named defendants could appeal, and the principal named defendants, Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown, refused to participate in the defense. A 1939:

wrote in a unanimous opinion, "n the past official proponents of initiative measures in California have uniformly been permitted to participate ... in numerous lawsuits in California courts challenging the validity of the initiative measure the proponents sponsored" and a

2112: 2236:

suggested that, in the future, the state should be required to appoint a special attorney in the event that the state declines to undertake a defense, in order that a hearing on the law's constitutionality would not be dismissed before the merits had been considered.

1368:

He further noted that Proposition 8 was based on traditional notions of opposite-sex marriage and on moral disapproval of homosexuality, neither of which is a legal basis for discrimination. He noted that gays and lesbians are exactly the type of minority that

1565:'s handling of the case. "ADF presented only two witnesses at trial, following the 15 witnesses presented by those who challenged Proposition 8. Even Judge Walker commented that he was concerned by the lack of evidence presented by ADF on behalf of Prop 8." 1014:

that the conduct is not wrong". Ginsburg rejected that distinction, noting that with respect to sexual orientation the court has "declined to distinguish between status and conduct" and offering an analogy from an earlier opinion: "A tax on wearing

3042:"CITY ATTORNEY DENNIS HERRERA NEWS RELEASE San Francisco Moves to Intervene in Federal Challenge to Proposition 8 City Attorney Herrera says his office is 'singularly well-prepared' to help 'put anti-gay discrimination on trial based on the facts'" 2357:

civil rights cases. Congress could not have intended such an unworkable recusal statute." Supporters of Proposition 8 appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit. On November 21, 2011, the court consolidated this appeal with the merits appeal. The

1425:

Marriage of other groups, controversial on comparable grounds at the time, such as race or ethnicity, has not reduced the "vibrancy" or importance of marriage as a social institution, although many people raised concerns of its degradation at the

991:

made an opening statement for the defendants, saying that marriage had been universally limited to opposite-sex couples. The plaintiffs then testified about their personal experiences as gay Americans, and the reasons why they wished to marry.

752:. On December 11, 2009, the Ninth Circuit overturned Walker's ruling, saying that the release of the documents "would likely have a chilling effect on political association and the formulation of political expression" in a unanimous opinion by 1965:

facts that mattered are in fact adjudicative facts capable of being proper findings, about the parties and their actions and motives, and facts conceded by the defendants, and therefore the standard of review became irrelevant in the appeal.

337:, which had banned same-sex marriage. After the State of California refused to defend Proposition 8, the official sponsors of Proposition 8 intervened and appealed to the Supreme Court. The case was litigated during the governorships of both 1775:

to brief the issue of why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of standing. On August 17, 2010, the same Ninth Circuit panel ordered expedited briefing on the Imperial County appeal. The court also ordered both appeals calendared for

2331: 1541:

to the factual findings of the trial court", and praised Walker "for carefully and diligently going through the facts of the case, creating a detailed and compelling record for the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court". Andrew Cohen,

1399:

Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of sexual, affectional or romantic desires for and attractions to men, women or both sexes. An individual's sexual orientation can be expressed through self-identification, behavior or

542:

attempt to intervene in the lawsuit, they offered support to the legal team litigating the case, with James Esseks of the ACLU saying: "We are interested in doing whatever we can to make sure their case is as successful as possible".

781:

foreclosed any further review by the court. Failing that, the motion argued that all of the couples' claims failed as a matter of law. After a two-hour hearing on October 13, Walker denied the motion. He noted that the Supreme Court

2272:

The day after the Ninth Circuit dissolved its stay, proponents of Proposition 8 filed an emergency application asking the Supreme Court to enforce the usual 25-day period in which the losing party may make a petition for rehearing;

1211:, to testify on the mental and psychological harms of being denied the right to marry. "Young children do not aspire to be domestic partners, marriage is a common, socially approved goal," he said. He then explained the effects of 1812: 1900: 1048:", which she said strengthens marriage. She emphasized the importance of the institution of marriage by noting that "when slaves were emancipated, they flocked to get married. And this was not trivial to them, by any means". 693:, sought to intervene as defendants. The court allowed the official proponents to intervene, filling the void left by the state officials' acquiescence. The judge denied the request from the Campaign for California Families. 1452:

Judge Walker characterized the right at issue as "the right to marry", which, he wrote, "has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household", citing

3560: 2367: 722:

that would have immediately restored same-sex marriage in California until the lawsuit was decided. Walker deferred a ruling on the motion and said he would instead "proceed directly and expeditiously to the merits".

1144:

revealed that he believed the principle of equal human dignity applied to gay and lesbian Americans, and that "we would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were on the day before".

1465:. He went on to say that "ace and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage". 2110: 743:

in the district court. Stating that the proponents were unlikely to succeed in this appeal, Walker rejected the stay request on October 23. Regardless, the proponents continued to assert a First Amendment

3732: 1787: 1495:

presented by the plaintiffs were assessed as "amply qualified to offer opinion testimony on the subjects identified" and "offered credible opinion testimony on the subjects identified." The defense

1875: 6980: 6774: 2344:

or disclosed his relationship status, and unless he "disavowed any interest in marrying his partner", he had "a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case". District Court Chief Judge

643:

case is not just the right of California voters to reaffirm the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman, but whether marriage will be redefined in every state in the nation.

6381: 8485: 2309:

This decision only made same-sex marriage legal in California. The decision would not apply in other states where it was still not allowed. In 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided

1136:

in America — including undocumented aliens — have been the target of more restrictive ballot initiatives than gay men and lesbians. He accused Proposition 8 of being the type of

678:

was elected attorney general. Both ran on platforms promising not to defend the proposition, and the state continued to decline defending Proposition 8 in court after they assumed office.

485: 7496: 534:(ACLU) opposed the filing because they felt a federal challenge at this time might do more harm than good. Olson and AFER rebuffed this argument and defended the timing of the lawsuit. 4701: 5241: 2795: 1663:

commented: "this decision represents only the opening of a vigorous debate over the rights of the people to define and protect this most fundamental institution – marriage ..." The

1140:

that makes "gay and lesbian social progress seem like it comes at expense of other people and organizations and it makes the hill steeper". Under cross-examination, defense witness

2229:

that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government."

1257:

were issued. He estimated that the city of San Francisco was losing out on $ 37.2 million in retail and hotel spending and $ 2.5 million in sales and hotel tax revenue each year.

987:; that depriving gays and lesbians of the right to marry hurts them and their children; and that there was no reason or societal benefit in prohibiting them from getting married. 6024: 8622: 4345: 3557: 7938: 5553: 5148: 4590: 2284:

before the Supreme Court of California on July 12, 2013, to ask the court to stay, and then override, the statewide application of the court's ruling, contending it was not a

6281: 1864:

impartiality into question. Reinhardt denied the motion the next day. On December 6, 2010, the judges heard oral arguments, which were also televised and made available on

1530:, believed that Walker's strict handling of the case and meticulous evidence gathering would "make it more difficult for appellate courts to overturn this court's ruling." 6682:, and Smith, who declined to file a written opinion or join O'Scannlain's. Reinhardt and Hawkins filed a concurring opinion that agreed with denying the en banc rehearing. 5328: 1641:

also chimed in by tweeting, "What a huge historical day for equal rights in this country! They finally overturned Prop 8! There shouldn't be a law on true love. :)"

612:. San Francisco also filed a motion to intervene in the case. The City cited its work in the earlier cases that had provided "extensive evidence and proposed findings on 6607: 4446: 4256: 3476: 3011: 326: 3471: 2300:'s city attorney who stated that it was "the most basic concepts of American law ... that a state court will not overrule the federal judiciary", and by 24 defendant 575:

Clerk-Registrar, Patrick O'Connell, denied Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier a marriage license because they are a same-sex couple. For the same reason, Dean Logan, the

2183:(Article III standing "is not to be placed in the hands of 'concerned bystanders,' who will use it simply as a 'vehicle for the vindication of value interests.'"), 1437:

rationally connected to improving parenting, since it makes no attempt to amend or revoke state approval of any aspect of parenting by non-married same sex couples.

6858: 5032: 4087: 2036:

review by the Ninth Circuit. On June 5, 2012, the request was denied; at least four of the twenty-nine judges voted to rehear the case. The ruling was temporarily

2111: 5721: 5664: 7045: 1700:

The State of California did not appeal the decision. However, the defendant-intervenors (including the official proponents of Proposition 8) did challenge it.

1344: 1300:, the defense claimed that LGBT people have enjoyed increased political and social clout, with increased acceptance by society as exemplified by films such as 662: 3736: 8122: 6466: 4413: 2497: 2448: 177: 80: 8078: 5693: 4119: 7778: 7762: 7690: 6657: 4869: 1725: 814: 736: 3354: 2296:, who noted that "state officials are obligated to govern marriage equally in all counties and that Walker's ruling specifically covers those officials", 1728:. Imperial County, which was denied the right to intervene as a defendant, appealed that denial and Walker's decision. In January 2011, the Ninth Circuit 7796: 7621: 6888: 4152: 2958: 1771:. On August 16, 2010, the Ninth Circuit unanimously granted the motion to stay, ordered expedited briefing on the merits of the appeal, and directed the 3250: 2979: 2021:

approach to securing LGBT rights. Schacter and many other commentators also suggested that Reinhardt's decision may be deliberately directed at Justice

786:

on sexual orientation and gender discrimination had changed since 1972. Resolving the amendment's validity, Walker noted, required hearing testimony at

8637: 7219: 6010: 2397:

the 15th anniversary of the passage of Proposition 8, KQED invited the four persons who wished to marry to watch the videos and taped their reactions.

7471: 2177:("an asserted right to have the Government act in accordance with law is not sufficient, standing alone, to confer jurisdiction on a federal court"), 1649:

responded to the ruling by saying "I'm glad California has restored the right for all of its citizens to marry whomever they choose." The reaction on

5609: 4904: 868:

to indefinitely block live streams to various federal courthouses, although it refused to rule on plans to delay broadcasts on YouTube. A dissenting

732: 8169: 6389: 3041: 2274: 8199: 7026: 2959:"IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER, PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY J ZARRILLO" 8159: 5205: 5131: 1235:. He contended that there is a fairly substantial body of literature since the late 1970s that focuses specifically on the adjustment of children 629:

an issue of this magnitude and importance" were required and that the intervention of additional groups would only complicate and stall the case.

4937: 3788: 2076: 1705: 1660: 374: 308: 3228: 1606:, also a defendant, lauded the decision, calling it "great news for California". The mayors of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego — 1550:, a Yale law professor, suggested that the perceived slant of the trial evidence and the decision resulted from " supporters' sorry lawyering". 8617: 2103: 1410:

The State has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California.

1244:, under cross-examination, concurred that the well-being of children raised by same-sex couples would improve should they be allowed to marry. 7504: 6565: 6253: 1653:

like Twitter was overwhelmingly positive according to British news outlet The Independent, with the terms "overturned" and "prop. 8" becoming

8189: 1044:

in marriage had been disestablished during the 20th century and how the changes in the institution of marriage had mainly involved "shedding

4705: 4221: 8283: 8100: 7115: 5251: 2805: 932:

Filmmakers John Ireland and John Ainsworth filmed and distributed a re-enactment of the trial. Actors participating in the project include

4317: 3117: 1088:". Chauncey connected these messages to the earlier history of government demonizing gays and lesbians which he had previously discussed. 4391: 4998: 1704:(Subsequent to the appeal ruling, the Supreme Court eventually determined that in line with many other past cases, these parties lacked 8642: 8464: 7202: 6830: 6034: 5876: 3269: 2071:

in the case on December 7, 2012, ordering the parties to brief and argue the additional question of whether supporters of Prop. 8 have

579:

Clerk, denied Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo a marriage license. The couples sued the two county clerks and several state officials:

7444: 7235: 6083:"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Calendar for San Francisco, California December 6 – 10, 2010," November 26, 2010 5474: 4970: 4349: 2666: 8442: 7523: 7352: 6440: 5959: 2828: 671: 7736: 7289: 6412: 5152: 4594: 828:

On January 11, 2010, two days before the trial, the defendant-intervenors filed emergency papers with Supreme Court Circuit Justice

8204: 6693: 3843: 1689: 514: 8432: 7333: 6291: 5844: 4783: 8632: 8607: 5338: 4839: 2764: 2189:("Nor has this Court ever identified initiative proponents as Article-III-qualified defenders of the measures they advocated."), 1443:

Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.

7371: 4673: 8612: 8500: 8174: 7314: 5581: 1155:, contended that "structural stigma" in the form of laws like Proposition 8 directly encourages social stigma, harassment, and 802: 594: 322: 8142: 6230: 6137: 4728: 4260: 2927: 8382: 6125: 5748: 4617: 3750: 3297: 1579:

administration, criticized the ruling as being based on the judge's subjective and unsubstantiated views of current societal

1416:

Same sex couples are identical to opposite sex couples in terms of characteristics relevant to successful marriage and union.

6101: 5914: 4097: 3803: 2361:

in its February 7, 2012, decision found no evidence of bias on Walker's part and rejected arguments that he recuse himself.

983:

and San Francisco Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought to show that marriage is a

8415: 6752: 4519: 4453: 4324: 3974: 3059: 832:

to bar telecasting the trial, with the court ruling 8–1 to temporarily stay live streaming until January 13, with the lone

481: 8095: 5782: 8520: 7694: 7264: 6866: 5042: 3443: 997: 8065: 7840: 7251: 5387: 825:. Walker noted that he had received 138,574 comments on the plans to broadcast the trial, and all but 32 were in favor. 557:

It was still emotional to be denied . But in all fairness , she handled it really well. reiterated that we were denied

8397: 8377: 6895: 6862: 6721: 5415: 4425: 3945: 3677: 3648: 3527: 2041: 1777: 1668: 1181: 918: 450: 362: 33: 8437: 8184: 6205: 5443: 5274: 4812: 3755: — application for immediate stay of the district court's order permitting public broadcast of trial proceedings" 2883: 2152: 7766: 7653: 4283: 4162: 2416:– 2008 California State Supreme Court case holding same-sex marriage to be a right under the state constitution 1413:

Marriage has benefits which the State and individuals gain from, which apply to same and opposite sex marriage alike.

1121:

against lesbians and gay men prevents them from being treated by others as equal citizens in the political process".

7782: 5501: 3171: 1680:, president of NOM, criticized the "biased way conducted the trial." Some critics have characterized the ruling as 1512:

noted that Judge Walker's decision was crafted similarly to the standard used by Justice Kennedy in his decision in

8276: 5523: 4645: 3246: 3224: 3199: 2305:

arguments from the parties, and on August 14, in a one-sentence order, unanimously refused to take up the petition.

1537:

can make factual findings," lawyer Brian DeVine said in an analysis. He further noted that "a Court of Appeal must

1173: 690: 488:, to challenge the validity of Proposition 8 on behalf of two same-sex couples. The couples' legal team was led by 6476: 3144: 2585: 2474:– a 2014 documentary film following the case from its initiation through to the final Supreme Court decision 1403:

Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. An individual does not, through conscious decision,

1335:

On August 4, 2010, Walker announced his ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning Proposition 8 based on the

921:, an official feed from the group representing the plaintiffs (AFER), a California-based progressive organization 8510: 8392: 8334: 7068: 6953: 6056: 4129: 3978: 3359: 2419: 2406: 2018: 1572: 1429:

The costs and harm (to the State and to lesbians and gays) resulting from denial of marriage to same-sex couples.

1152: 462: 384: 7862: 7817: 1265:

burdened with higher incidents of mental health disorders and the subsequent costs to the public health system.

8627: 8602: 8410: 8254:

discusses the history and outcomes of the two landmark same-sex marriage cases with David Boies, posted by the

7707: 7588: 6899: 5638: 3364: 3326: 3036: 2954: 2185: 2167: 600:

Several groups sought to intervene as plaintiffs, including the groups who had prosecuted the actions entitled

576: 531: 458: 330: 199: 7631: 6650: 6069: 952:

In scheduling a trial for January 11, 2010, to gather facts about the case, Walker largely surprised both the

8427: 8362: 8054: 8045: 7563: 5982: 5831:

Today's decision by a federal district judge in San Francisco ... is an example of extreme judicial activism.

4754: 4542: 3577: 3254: 2909: 2631: 1522:, a law professor who supported Proposition 8, agreed with Professor NeJaime's assessment. Barry McDonald, a 8194: 6082: 4881: 2348:

heard arguments on the motion on June 13 and denied it the next day. Ware wrote in the decision, "Requiring

2288:

and applied only to the counties and specific individuals named in the suit. Their argument was rejected by

1518:, and suggested that Walker was "speaking" to Kennedy, who is commonly the swing vote on the Supreme Court. 408: 8578: 8505: 7419: 6149: 5361: 4914: 4092: 3916: 3420: 2833: 2245: 1156: 913: 388: 8164: 6350: 5613: 4508: 8405: 8329: 8269: 8238: 6938: 6808: 5848: 3045: 2542: 1737: 1685: 1286: 1224: 1164: 697: 587: 6981:"Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act, paves way for gay marriage to resume in California" 6748: 6189: 5092: 4476: 3415: 907:

Despite the ruling, the proceedings elicited unprecedented live coverage through social networking site

771:. Running more than 100 pages, the motion asked the court to rule that Proposition 8 did not offend the 8321: 7393: 5818: 5212: 5126: 2250: 1976: 1712: 1709: 1615: 1390: 1348: 1177: 929:, maintainer of the LGBT-oriented Law Dork blog, San Francisco-based attorney Chris Stoll, and others. 772: 572: 433: 7003: 4947: 8367: 8354: 8292: 7801: 5813: 3232: 2349: 1755:

On August 12, 2010, the defendant-intervenors filed an "emergency motion" in the Ninth Circuit for a

1741: 1650: 1278: 6801: 6025:"Gay marriage put on hold indefinitely in San Francisco, court rules, after judge overturned Prop 8" 2734: 2165:

The ruling also drew upon a "lengthy pedigree" of similar rulings on the same point of law, such as

524:, they were listed, for "their nonpartisan and strong legal approach to challenging Proposition 8." 6579: 6318: 5898: 4384: 4370: 3605: 2426: 2202: 1932: 1664: 1228: 423: 150: 7968: 6532: 3870: 8551: 8537: 8495: 8490: 6924: 6671: 5987: 5420: 4909: 4759: 4547: 4034: 3682: 3582: 3532: 3302: 3274: 2932: 2769: 2636: 2435: 2268:

Two legal challenges to the implementation of the ruling followed, both dismissed by the courts:

2254: 2080: 1752:, followed by the California Supreme Court on September 8, 2010, who denied without explanation. 1667:

of California stated: "... the courts do not have the right to distort the meaning of marriage".

1584: 1461: 1385:

and related testimony and evidence, which had been heard during the hearing. Examples included -

1340: 1314:

Today's decision is by no means California's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to

1232: 1101:

gays and lesbians in the last twenty years. Thompson noted anti-discrimination laws, support for

558: 99: 7119: 8558: 5527: 2389: 2289: 727: 719: 580: 493: 8025: 7093: 6602: 4186:"Gay marriage trial to begin in California, could set legal precedent for generations to come" 2667:"Anatomy of a Complaint: How Hollywood Activists Seized Control of the Fight for Gay Marriage" 1847:. Reinhardt, the most senior of the three judges, is considered a solid liberal. Hawkins is a 8247: 8126: 7989: 6835: 6698: 6635: 6029: 5932: 4942: 4222:"For Better or for Worse: California's gay-marriage trial is an all-star, high-stakes affair" 4157: 3885: 3625: 3504: 3387: 3094: 2984: 2861: 2501: 1759:

pending appeal. The stay motion was heard by a 3-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit made up of

1729: 1599: 1562: 1527: 1476: 1352: 1324: 1195: 818: 666: 583: 404: 338: 181: 75: 6499: 5873: 5554:"Social media wrap: Schwarzenegger, Newsom, Brown and others react to Prop. 8 ruling online" 2612: 2564: 1839:

The merits were heard by a different three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit consisting of

1618:, respectively — also praised the ruling. Both of California's United States Senators, 8514: 8421: 6500:"Animus Thick and Thin: The Broader Impact of the Ninth Circuit Decision in Perry v. Brown" 6282:"California Supreme Court Grants Standing in Prop 8 Case to Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage" 2676: 2442: 2412: 2311: 2292:, who on legal advice "ordered" the change to license issue, California's Attorney General 2138: 1768: 1764: 1611: 1598:

California's elected officials generally also responded positively to the ruling. Governor

1568: 1561:, which has litigated opposition to same-sex marriage in California since 2004, criticized 1102: 806: 745: 701:

the case needed a proper governmental defendant. On August 4, along with the ruling, Judge

686: 602: 428: 52: 8133: 3007:"Gay Rights Groups Seek to Intervene in Federal Challenge to Calif. Same-Sex Marriage Ban" 2838: 8: 8306: 8230: 7912: 6726: 6537: 6533:"The Ninth Circuit's Perry Decision and the Constitutional Politics of Marriage Equality" 6504: 5392: 3620: 2007: 1936: 1745: 1129: 1006: 877: 861: 740: 682: 649: 249: 3733:"Judge Vaughn Walker: 138,542 in favor, 32 opposed- Courage launched Trial Tracker Blog" 2702: 2565: 1199:

reiterated there are no significant differences. The plaintiffs also called forward Dr.

8372: 7741: 7712: 7593: 6630: 6570: 5852: 5305: 5070: 4817: 4678: 4650: 4622: 4124: 3710: 3705: 2707: 2517: 2504: 2470: 2345: 2179: 2013: 1941: 1928: 1852: 1538: 1523: 1475:

Judge Walker then found Proposition 8 unconstitutional because it does not pass even a

1455: 1404: 1360: 1336: 1208: 1204: 1160: 1113: 1097: 984: 969: 833: 757: 538: 370: 137: 122: 7537: 5874:

Attorney General's Opposition To Defendant-Intervenors' Motion For Stay Pending Appeal

5300: 3006: 64: 8544: 8450: 8339: 8220: 8021: 6286: 6258: 5937: 5558: 5333: 5097: 5007: 4975: 3176: 2903: 2865: 2671: 2590: 2233: 2037: 1856: 1840: 1756: 1681: 1514: 1509: 1419:

Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gays and lesbians.

1274: 1241: 1141: 1125: 1081: 1052: 1045: 988: 976: 873: 753: 608: 443: 438: 5065: 4065: 3499: 3063: 1595:

Rallies in support of the decision were planned in major cities across the country.

165: 153: 125: 7598: 7053: 6238: 5769:

This is simply another example of judicial activism and legislating from the bench.

4877: 4291: 4226: 4193: 4012: 2459: 2002: 1945: 1910:

The second hour of oral arguments addressed the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

1822:

Recording of the first hour of oral arguments that discussed the issue of standing.

1672: 1623: 1382: 1261: 1254: 1148: 965: 933: 922: 849: 845: 768: 735:

shielded all of those communications. The proponents appealed that decision to the

5756: 4185: 3033: 1927:

On January 4, 2011, in the appeal by the defendant-intervenors, the Ninth Circuit

391:

trial decision from 2010. Other findings from the trial decision, including Judge

8311: 8255: 8058: 7220:

Prop. 8 deserved a defense: The state shouldn't abandon measures passed by voters

6779: 5918: 5911: 5880: 5669: 5479: 5451: 5447: 5135: 4481: 3564: 2800: 2546: 2358: 2220: 2173: 2022: 1630: 1558: 1519: 1480: 1469: 1370: 1315: 1297: 1223:

Examining the impact of same-sex marriage on children, the plaintiffs introduced

1212: 1107: 1093: 1069: 1065: 961: 897: 893: 881: 829: 777: 613: 396: 265: 241: 237: 206:

to intervene as they could not demonstrate that they were harmed by the decision.

3089: 1381:

Over 50 pages of the opinion were devoted to documenting Walkers' summary of 80

7887: 7389: 6417: 5246: 2382: 2191: 2072: 1986: 1971: 1844: 1733: 1677: 1576: 1492: 1290: 1282: 1236: 1133: 1073: 1033: 980: 889: 837: 783: 621: 537:

Following a pre-trial hearing on July 2, 2009, the three legal groups moved to

510: 496: 377: 253: 229: 203: 8244: 8231:

Theodore Olson and David Boies discuss the trial, evidence, and legal approach

8179: 8039: 8012:

West, Robin L. (2012). "A Marriage is a Marriage is a Marriage: The Limits of

7290:"Application for Immediate Order Vacating Ninth Circuit Order Dissolving Stay" 6444: 4938:"Proposition 8 trial: Professor says gays and lesbian gaining political clout" 3245: 3223: 2584:

Garrison, Jessica; DiMassa, Cara Mia; Paddock, Richard C. (November 5, 2008).

2422:– State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in California 432:

that state statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex applicants violated the

8596: 8251: 7913:"12 years later, recordings of CA same-sex marriage trial are finally public" 6722:"Prop 8 To The Supreme Court? California Gay Marriage Ban Backers Look Ahead" 6231:"California Supreme Court: Proposition 8 Oral Arguments on Same Sex Marriage" 5787: 5586: 4217: 3895: 3848: 3820: 3767: 3448: 3331: 3090:"January trial set for U.S. court challenge to California's gay-marriage ban" 2316: 2297: 2293: 2262: 2225: 2084: 1749: 1724:

On August 4, 2010, the defendant-intervenors filed a notice of appeal to the

1619: 1547: 1137: 1118: 926: 869: 857: 761: 702: 675: 561:. It made us feel that we made the right decision to be a part of this case. 392: 334: 195: 8205:

Petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court: Sponsors of Proposition 8

6162: 8344: 8071: 7661: 7626: 6933: 6471: 5037: 4389:, 130 S. Ct. 2971, 2990; 561 US __ (2010), retrieved July 20, 2010. Citing 3122: 2301: 2285: 2277:

Kennedy, overseeing the Ninth Circuit, denied the request on June 30, 2013.

1848: 1760: 1646: 1638: 1607: 1077: 901: 885: 620:

to long claimed justifications for marriage discrimination". City Attorney

527: 501: 454: 403:

for future relevant cases. The case was docketed with the Supreme Court at

380:

to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so.

261: 221: 7797:"Judges bar viewing of gay marriage trial videos: what they're protecting" 7666: 6441:"Court overturns Prop. 8 in California, says state can't ban gay marriage" 2056:

A demonstration in front of the Supreme Court on the day of oral arguments

1293:, and a majority of state politicians all strongly opposed Proposition 8. 446:

that had been contracted before the proposition's passage remained valid.

8391: 8234: 8151: 5531: 2198: 2150:

The Supreme Court decided the case on the basis of lack of standing (see

2052: 1957: 1860: 1772: 1603: 1551: 1534: 1440:

Gays and lesbians have a long history of being victims of discrimination.

1041: 941: 658: 590: 489: 342: 273: 5783:"California court ruling lifts hopes for Oregon gay marriage supporters" 5329:"Ruling against Prop. 8 could lead to federal precedent on gay marriage" 3060:"San Francisco Moves to Intervene in Federal Challenge to Proposition 8" 860:

in support of live streaming and delayed broadcast, the court passed an

853: 661:

chose not to defend the lawsuit, saying that Proposition 8 violates the

202:, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage opponents did not have 6679: 6382:"California Proposition 8 same-sex-marriage ban ruled unconstitutional" 3890: 3815: 3762: 3392: 3148: 2791: 2353: 2127: 2068: 2026: 1997: 1919: 1831: 1422:

Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage.

1200: 1085: 1037: 937: 625: 171: 7046:"Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage" 5722:"California's Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional" 3986: 8261: 7939:"Inside the Trial That Overturned California's Same-Sex Marriage Ban" 6675: 5726: 5698: 4189: 3920: 2393: 1642: 1170: 1089: 1016: 957: 953: 749: 400: 366: 87: 8216: 7863:"Court orders release of videos of landmark same-sex marriage trial" 6802:"(Order List: 568 U.S.) Friday, December 7, 2012 Certiorari Granted" 5242:"The Prop 8 Ruling: Same-Sex Marriage Wins a Sweeping Legal Victory" 1117:. Thompson's line of questioning was intended to establish "whether 775:

without the need to find facts at a trial. The motion asserted that

321:

was a series of United States federal court cases that re-legalized

7445:"Breaking: Calif. Supreme Court refuses to revive Prop 8 challenge" 7116:"Supreme Court strikes down part of DOMA, dismisses Prop. 8 appeal" 6566:"Reaction: Splitting the Difference: Reflections on Perry v. Brown" 6206:"Panel asks California high court for guidance on gay-marriage ban" 6102:"Makeup Of Prop 8 Panel Seems Promising for Gay Marriage Advocates" 4971:"Witness in Prop. 8 trial cites wide support for gays and lesbians" 3200:"Schwarzenegger decides against defending Prop. 8 in federal court" 2454: 2281: 1355:

or vested interest in denying gays and lesbians marriage licenses:

810: 617: 518: 499:(who, incidentally, had previously represented opposite parties in 5524:"Governor Schwarzenegger Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Ruling" 4346:"High court's Christian Legal Society ruling already making waves" 1629:

Several Hollywood celebrities reacted positively to the decision.

7420:"California Supreme Court rejects bid to halt same-sex marriages" 5752: 5694:"Prop 8 ruling drives strong religious reactions: Outrage to joy" 5610:"Prop 8 Ruling Celebrated By Ellen DeGeneres, Paris Hilton, More" 5149:"List of 80 Findings of Fact in Perry v. Schwarzenegger Decision" 4287: 3982: 3953: 3924: 3472:"Discovery Fight in Suit Challenging Calif. Ban on Gay Marriages" 2033: 1654: 1634: 1496: 908: 822: 506: 8105: 7654:"Order Denying Defendant-Intervenors' Motion to Vacate Judgment" 4008: 3973: 3949: 1748:

Schwarzenegger and Brown to defend the case on appeal without a

1327:, defendant, reacting to Judge Walker's ruling on August 4, 2010 624:

said that his office is "singularly well-prepared" to help "put

6166: 5093:"Judge strikes down Prop. 8, allows gay marriage in California" 5033:"California's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Overturned in Court Ruling" 3251:"Attorney General November 2, 2010, Statewide General Election" 1865: 28: 8245:"Marriage Equality in America after the Supreme Court Ruling," 8051: 7973:

Decision and the Constitutional Politics of Marriage Equality"

7236:

Prop. 8 ruling raises fears about effects on other initiatives

6694:"California's Proposition 8 case headed to U.S. Supreme Court" 5933:"Online extra: Judge doubts anti-gay groups can appeal Prop 8" 4729:"San Diego mayor testifies about his reversal on gay marriage" 3944: 2953: 7888:"US District Court Northern District of California - YouTube" 6978: 6775:"Same-sex marriage crusaders ask Supreme Court to stand down" 6355:, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012). Retrieved February 22, 2012" 4375:

130 S. Ct. 2971 at 2990, 561 US __, Slip. op. at p. 23 (2010)

1580: 1468:

Before analyzing Proposition 8 under the applicable level of

787: 7069:"Supreme Court Bolsters Gay Marriage With Two Major Rulings" 6603:"9th Circuit Sides With Gay Couples in 2-1 Ruling on Prop 8" 6467:"Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Proposition 8 on Narrow Grounds" 6321:, 1125 (California Supreme Court November 17, 2011). 6150:

Explanation of Denying Motion to Disqualify, January 4, 2011

5639:"Lady Gaga Tweets 'SCREAM LOUD AMERICANOS' After Gay Ruling" 5362:"Gay Marriage Supporters Say Prop 8 Ruling Hard To Overturn" 2032:

On February 21, 2012, Proposition 8 supporters requested an

1626:, approved of the ruling as an advancement of equal rights. 1479:(as he explains in the Equal Protection context), much less 1285:

within California. He argued that all the major newspapers,

7004:"Supreme Court dismisses California's Proposition 8 appeal" 6254:"State justices to rule on Prop. 8 backers' legal standing" 6237:. September 6, 2011. The California Channel. Archived from 5665:"Current Twitter trends: Naomi Campbell, Prop 8 overturned" 3567:, pp. 42–43. November 1, 2009. Retrieved November 14, 2009. 3416:"Bush, Gore attorneys from 2000 team up to take on Prop. 8" 2541: 486:

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

327:

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

162: 134: 8129:

693 (2013) (Supreme Court decision) is available from:

7737:"Proposition 8 Hearing Video Is Ordered Released by Judge" 7526: (Supreme Court of California in August 14, 2013). 7394:"Marriage dispute ready for ruling (UPDATED: Stay denied)" 6954:"Gay marriage gets big boost in two Supreme Court rulings" 6011:"Emergency Motion Under Circuit Rule 27–3" August 12, 2010 805:

and be shown live at public courthouses in San Francisco,

767:

In September, Proposition 8 proponents filed a motion for

748:

over these documents, a sampling of which Walker reviewed

325:

in the state of California. The case began in 2009 in the

7841:"California Prop. 8 Bench Trial Video Will Remain Sealed" 6670:

The judges known to have voted for an en banc review are

6126:

Appellants' Motion for Disqualification, December 1, 2010

5444:"California Judge Strikes Down Prop 8 Marriage Amendment" 2796:"David Boies and Theodore Olson — The 2010 TIME 100" 2586:"Voters approve Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriages" 2060:

Proponents of Proposition 8 appealed the case (captioned

1543: 841: 840:. Although a coalition of media organizations, including 8175:

Archive of Amicus Curiae: San Francisco Attorney General

7472:"California Supreme Court rejects bid to revive Prop. 8" 6413:"Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Two Cases on Gay Marriage" 4849:. American Foundation for Equal Rights. January 15, 2010 2075:, i.e., a legal right to be involved in the case, under 1695: 333:. This decision overturned California ballot initiative 6631:"Prop. 8 supporters ask circuit court to review ruling" 5066:"Closing Arguments in Trial on California Gay Marriage" 4348:. First Amendment Center. July 20, 2010. Archived from 3808: — Amicus Opposition by non-party Media Coalition" 3229:"Governor November 2, 2010, Statewide General Election" 2466:

district trial based on the transcripts and interviews.

1780:

during the week of December 6, 2010, in San Francisco.

1645:

tweeted that the decision inspired her to write songs.

1332:

Judge Walker heard closing arguments on June 16, 2010.

442:

that (while Proposition 8 was a lawful enactment), all

8623:

United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court

8165:

Ninth Circuit decision (vacated by U.S. Supreme Court)

7497:"California Courts - Appellate Court Case Information" 5845:"Judge Walker is the problem; impeachment is the cure" 4042: 3355:"California's Imperial County to appeal Proposition 8" 3270:"Kamala Harris-Steve Cooley race could affect Prop. 8" 3172:"Jerry Brown again says Prop. 8 should be struck down" 2613:"Prop 8 proponents seek to nullify same-sex marriages" 2583: 813:, through an experimental new system developed by the 681:

Two groups, the official proponents of Proposition 8,

663:

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

329:, which found that banning same-sex marriage violates 8079:

Proposition 8's long and winding road to legal defeat

7350: 6345: 6343: 6341: 6339: 6337: 6335: 6333: 6331: 6329: 6327: 2921: 2919: 2449:

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 570

2280:

Proposition 8 supporters also sought a discretionary

2118:

Recording of oral arguments before the Supreme Court.

1281:

to testify that LGBT people had strong political and

7779: