Perry v. Schwarzenegger
704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78817, 2010 WL 3025614 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that withdraws from a specific group the fundamental right to marry, and which classifies individuals based on sexual orientation, violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment when the law lacks any rational basis or legitimate state interest.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, and Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami, are two same-sex couples in long-term, committed relationships in California.
- Following a 2008 California Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, approximately 18,000 same-sex couples married in the state.
- In November 2008, California voters passed Proposition 8, an initiative that amended the California Constitution to state: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
- As a result of Proposition 8, California ceased issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
- Both plaintiff couples sought to marry their partners but were denied marriage licenses by their respective county officials.
- The sole reason provided by county officials for denying the marriage licenses was the existence of Proposition 8.
Procedural Posture:
- Kristin Perry, Sandra Stier, Jeffrey Zarrillo, and Paul Katami (Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against California state officials in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, challenging the federal constitutionality of Proposition 8.
- As state officials declined to defend the law, the official proponents of Proposition 8 were granted permission by the court to intervene as Defendant-Intervenors.
- The City and County of San Francisco was also granted permission to intervene as a Plaintiff-Intervenor.
- The court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court denied the Proponents' motion for summary judgment, finding there were disputed issues of material fact.
- The court held a twelve-day bench trial to hear evidence and testimony from both sides.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does California's Proposition 8, which amends the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker
Yes. Proposition 8 is unconstitutional because it violates both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The law unconstitutionally burdens the fundamental right to marry and irrationally discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. Due Process Clause: The right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. This right is not a new 'right to same-sex marriage,' but rather the existing fundamental right to choose a marital partner, which cannot be denied based on gender. The historical exclusion of same-sex couples was an artifact of a time when gender roles were strictly defined by law, a concept that has since been discarded. California's domestic partnership system is not an adequate substitute for marriage, as it was intentionally created as a separate and inferior status that lacks the profound social meaning of marriage. Because Proposition 8 burdens a fundamental right, it is subject to strict scrutiny. The proponents of the law failed to provide a compelling state interest, and in fact, the law cannot even survive the less stringent rational basis review. Equal Protection Clause: Proposition 8 creates a classification based on sexual orientation that disadvantages gay men and lesbians. The court found it unnecessary to decide whether sexual orientation is a suspect class because the law fails even the most deferential standard of review: rational basis. The court systematically reviewed and rejected all of the proponents' asserted state interests—such as tradition, proceeding with caution, promoting opposite-sex parenting, and protecting religious freedom—finding they were either not legitimate or not rationally related to the law. The evidence demonstrated that the only conceivable basis for Proposition 8 was moral disapproval of homosexuality and animus toward gays and lesbians, which are not legitimate state interests. Therefore, the law is an irrational and unconstitutional classification.
Analysis:
This decision represents a landmark trial court ruling that, for the first time in federal court, established a comprehensive factual record on the issue of same-sex marriage. By conducting a full trial, the court systematically dismantled the common justifications for marriage bans, such as tradition and procreation, finding them unsupported by credible evidence. This case provided a powerful factual and legal blueprint for future litigation, shifting the debate by concluding that there is no rational basis for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, thereby setting the stage for subsequent appellate review and, ultimately, the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.
