Word from San Francisco is that the federal district court has over-turned the same-sex marriage ban passed by voters in November 2008. The ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger is expected to be appealed to the 9th Circuit and could become one of the more significant cases decided by the United States Supreme Court in years.
The district court said it violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
The White House issued this statement: "The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans."
Windy City Times will have details throughout the day.
There are rallies throughout the country today, including at 6 p.m. tonight at Daley Center.
Excerpts from the decision itself:
CONCLUSION
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that oppositesex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
REMEDIES
Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to samesex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.
Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
See the complete finding at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/prop8/FF_CL_Final.pdf
PROP. 8 PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT ON STRIKING DOWN OF INITIATIVE
The Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California today ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the landmark Perry v. Schwarzenegger case, striking down California's Proposition 8 and finding that it violates the U.S. Constitution by denying gay men and lesbians the fundamental right to marry and denying them equal protection under the law. The ruling reestablishes the equal marriage rights in California that were stripped away by Prop. 8.
The plaintiffs in the case are two couples who want to marry but who were blocked by Prop 8: Kris Perry and Sandy Stier and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo.
"We came to court to seek for Kris, Sandy, Paul and Jeff the same right to marry that all other Americans enjoy, and to ensure that they receive equal protection under the law as guaranteed to every American by the Constitution. Through its decision today, the court has acted in the best traditions of a legal system established to uphold the Constitution and the principles of equality upon which this nation was founded," said attorney Theodore B. Olson. "On no less than 14 occasions, the Supreme Court has held that marriage is a fundamental right. This decision recognizes that Proposition 8 denied the plaintiffs, and tens-of-thousands of other Californians, that fundamental constitutional right and treated them unequally."
"The Supreme Court has long held that marriage is a fundamental right. Equal protection under the law is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and this ruling affirms that universal right of every American," plaintiff's attorney David Boies said. "Depriving the fundamental right to marry causes grievous harm to millions of Americans and their children."
"For our entire lives, our government and the law have treated us as unequal. This decision to ensure that our constitutional rights are as protected as everyone else's makes us incredibly proud of our country," Perry said.
"Kris and I have raised four children, own a home and have professional careers. But because of Proposition 8, our family is still not complete. For us, equal rights are about our family having the recognition and protections that other families have," Stier said.
"We just want to get married, just like our friends, family and relatives can. We are thankful to live in a nation of equal laws," Katami said.
"We hope this decision brings us closer to the day when Americans no longer have to fight in court for the rights the Constitution says we all already have. We are grateful that the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Ted Olson and David Boies came together to fight for us, and millions of others, so that finally, every American will truly be equal under the law," Zarrillo said.
"This decision follows the founding constitutional principle that every American is to be treated equally under the law. No law may violate the U.S. Constitution, and our courts were established to protect against unfair laws," said American Foundation for Equal Rights Board President Chad Griffin. "Today was an example of our nation living up to its founding ideals."
The American Foundation for Equal Rights brought together Theodore Olson and David Boies, who notably faced-off in Bush v. Gore, to demonstrate that Proposition 8 violates Americans' constitutional rights by creating two separate classes of people with different laws for each one, contrary to the nation's founding principles, including equal protection under the law.
This unprecedented federal court challenge was filed in May 2009, with both sides presenting their cases in court from Jan. 11 to Jan. 27. After Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, analyzed evidence, testimony, and briefs, closing arguments were held on June 16.
Leading civil rights organizations, legal scholars, doctors, scientists, and religious organizations have filed amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs, including: the California NAACP, Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund ( MALDEF ) , Asian Law Caucus, National Black Justice Coalition, South Asian Bar Association of Northern California, ACLU, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, National Center for Lesbian Rights, retired California Court of Appeal Justice Donald King, family law professors from across the state, American Anthropological Association, American Psychoanalytic Association, National Association of Social Workers, and the American Academy of Pediatrics California Chapter.
Recently, John Podesta, head of the progressive Center for American Progress, and Robert Levy, head of the libertarian Cato Institute, were named co-chairs of the American Foundation for Equal Rights Advisory Board, which also includes NAACP Chairman Julian Bond, UFW Founder Dolores Huerta and FOX News Commentator Margaret Hoover.
Kris and Sandy have been together for more than ten years and their family includes four boys. Both are in public service Kris leads a childhood health and education agency and Sandy works for a county health department. Their home life centers around their kids, with PTA meetings, soccer and music lessons taking up much of their free time.
Paul and Jeff have been together for nine years. Jeff is a general manager for a movie theater company and Paul is a business owner. They own a home together and are proud uncles.
The powerful testimony of the plaintiffs, along with the presentation of 17 witnesses and revealing cross-examination of the defendant-intervenors' witnesses, clearly exposed the unconstitutionality of Prop. 8.
"More than 30 years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized that marriage is one of the basic rights of man," the suit against Prop. 8 states, referring to the Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage.
Lambda Legal Applauds Ruling
"The evidence and legal arguments proved once again that withholding marriage harms devoted same-sex couples and their families, and helps no one."
( Los Angeles, August 4, 2010 ) - Jennifer C. Pizer, National Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal, issued the following statement in reaction to today's decision from U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker in Perry v. Schwarzenegger:
"This is historic. Last summer, Judge Walker asked for a detailed factual record so he could assess the public interests supposedly served by Proposition 8. The meticulous assessment of the Prop 8 defenders' case today makes clear: there's no there, there. In holding that Prop 8 cannot stand because it violates the equal protection and due process rights of California's lesbian and gay couples, this decision adds to the growing consensus in courts and legislatures across the country that there are no good reasons for excluding same-sex couples from marriage. Instead, the evidence and legal arguments proved once again that withholding marriage harms devoted same-sex couples and their families, and helps no one.
"The court examined the range of excuses used by anti-gay groups to justify this government discrimination against same-sex couples. The testimony of leading experts on everything from child development to adult psychology to the public costs of anti-gay discrimination laid bare the misinformation and outright lies that anti-gay groups have been pushing on the public.
"This thorough review of both sides' evidence vindicates the rights of LGBT people not only to marry based on love and commitment, as heterosexuals do, but to be treated equally and fairly by their government more generally. Just as past marriage victories laid the foundation for today's important win, the court's preparation of a detailed record for the Court of Appeals provides a potent tool for other legal cases and the many, ongoing educational campaigns. It doubtless will help more people see that anti-gay discrimination in marriage is destructive and unjustifiable.
"No one is under any illusion that today's decision is the end of this fight. Prop 8's proponents have made clear they will appeal. But today, we appreciate the clear and detailed analysis in this decision that will frame the case as it moves forward, and we congratulate the legal team of Ted Olson and David Boies, and of the City and County of San Francisco, for presenting such a thorough and compelling case in court."
The law firms Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and Boies, Schiller & Flexner filed Perry v. Schwarzenegger in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 22, 2009 on behalf of two same-sex couples who had been denied marriage licenses earlier that month. The case challenges California's Proposition 8, which changed the California Constitution on November 4, 2008 to eliminate lesbian and gay couples' right to marry in that state.
Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed two friend-of-the-court briefs in the case supporting the argument that Prop 8 violates the federal Constitution. The LGBT legal groups' amicus briefs explained that, given California's unique history and laws and the campaign process through which Prop 8 was enacted: ( 1 ) the measure is an unlawful denial of equal protection no matter what form of constitutional review is applied and ( 2 ) it fails the heightened due process review required under the U.S. Constitution.
As of today, ten countries allow same-sex couples to marry: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden ) . Lesbian and gay couples also can marry in Mexico City - the most populous city in North America.
In the United States, the following six jurisdictions allow same-sex couples to marry: Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont.
The California Supreme Court held in May 2009 that the estimated 18,000 couples who married in California between that court's marriage equality decision in May 2008 and Prop 8's passage on November 4, 2008 remain validly married under California law. At least Maryland and New York honor married same-sex couples' marital status from other states. At least California and New Jersey treat married same-sex couples as entitled to all state law rights and responsibilities through state domestic partnership or civil union rules.
According to U.S. Census figures for 2005, California is home to more than 100,000 same-sex couples, living in every county in the state and raising nearly 40,000 children but with fewer financial resources than their married counterparts. The data also show more than 1,300,000 lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals living in California, and that California's LGB population is racially and ethnically diverse and by far the largest nationally.
For more information, please go to http://www.lambdalegal.org/protecting-same-sex-relationships.
Rep. Mike Quigley responds
CHICAGOToday, U.S. Representative Mike Quigley ( D-IL ) issued the following statement after a California judge ruled Proposition 8, which prohibits same-sex marriage in California, was unconstitutional.
"Today's decision proves what I have known for a long time: this country is always moving in the direction of greater equality and greater fairness. I applaud California's state court for recognizing that the right to marriage is one all Americans should be able to enjoy and I sincerely hope that this decision is upheld against any challenges to it."
Judy Shepard: Prop 8 Verdict 'Moves America Closer to Its Ideals'
DENVER, Colo. A sweeping federal court verdict invalidating California's ban on same-sex marriages "moves America closer to its ideals of respecting individual freedom and treating all citizens equally under the law," Matthew Shepard Foundation board president Judy Shepard said Wednesday.
Shepard, the mother of 1998 Wyoming anti-gay hate crime victim Matthew Shepard, serves on the advisory board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which filed the legal challenge to the ban in May on behalf of citizens denied marriages by the 2008 law narrowly approved by voters.
"These plaintiffs are law-abiding, family-oriented, tax-paying citizens whose privacy was invaded, and whose dignity was affronted, by a misguided and unconstitutional law," Shepard continued.
"Their victory at trial shows that our courts still play a vital role in safeguarding the rights of minorities from majorities who misunderstand them. But more importantly, it proves the power of personal stories. Equal marriage rights are ultimately about people's families, and during the trial, their personal need for legal recognition of their relationships came through loud and clear," she added.
"After Matt came out to me, he once asked me if I thought gay couples would ever be allowed to get married," Shepard recalled. "I told him I didn't think it would happen in my lifetime, but it probably would in his. It's so sad, and ironic, that it turned out the other way. But this case warms my heart, to think that his dream is still coming true."
Judy Shepard and her husband Dennis established the Matthew Shepard Foundation in 1998 after their son's murder in Laramie, Wyoming, to honor him in a manner appropriate to his dreams, beliefs and aspirations. The Foundation seeks to "Replace Hate with Understanding, Compassion and Acceptance" through its educational, outreach and advocacy programs and by continuing to tell Matthew's story.
HRC responds
WASHINGTON The Human Rights Campaign the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender ( LGBT ) civil rights organization today praised the historic decision of Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which declared that the amendment to the California Constitution barring marriage for same-sex couples, adopted in November 2008 as Proposition 8, violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process.
"After hearing extensive evidence in support of marriage equality, and essentially no defense of the discrimination wrought by Prop 8, Judge Walker reached the same conclusion we have always known to be true the Constitution's protections are for all Americans, including the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community," said HRC President Joe Solmonese. "We thank the courageous plaintiff couples, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, and attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies for their tremendous efforts leading to today's decision and their ongoing commitment as the case moves forward on appeal. The battle for marriage equality continues, and we must all continue our work in courthouses and statehouses, in church pews and living rooms until equality is reality for LGBT people and our families everywhere."
In response to a 2008 decision by the California Supreme Court ending marriage discrimination in the state, anti-equality forces succeeded in placing a constitutional amendment on the November ballot. Despite over 18,000 same-sex couples having married, California voters adopted the amendment, known as Proposition 8. After the California Supreme Court determined in 2009 that the adoption of Prop 8 did not itself violate the California Constitution, two plaintiff couples -- Kris Perry and Sandy Stier and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo filed suit against the State of California in federal court, represented by attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies and supported by the American Foundation for Equal Rights. The proponents of Prop 8 intervened in the case to defend the constitutionality of the amendment. Judge Walker held a historic trial in January, in which the plaintiffs presented substantial testimony and evidence to show that Prop 8's only purpose is to discriminate against same-sex couples. Both sides have previously indicated that they would appeal Judge Walker's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the case may ultimately be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Amnesty International responds
( New York ) -- Amnesty International USA released the following statement today by Executive Director Larry Cox, in response to the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California striking down Proposition 8 and upholding the right of same-sex couples to marry:
"The U.S. District Court has sent a clear message on Proposition 8: discrimination by any means is unacceptable. This affirms not only equality in civil marriage, but the basic human right to be treated equally under the law, without regard to an individual's sexual orientation.
"Proposition 8 served only to stigmatize same-sex relationships in ways that can fuel further discrimination. Denying equal civil recognition of same-sex relationships compounds the effects of discrimination and undermines other rights, such as the right to housing or social security. Amnesty International welcomes today's ruling as an affirmation of equality under the law."
Reponses continued at www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=27665
www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php Prop 8 victory, ruling stayed ( UPDATED )
www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php Prop 8 rally takes place in Chicago Loop
www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php Prop 8 report explains 2008 vote loss