PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND TRIAL EVIDENCE

CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS

FINDINGS OF FACT

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

ORDER

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 TO PROPOSITION 8

In November 2000, the voters of California adopted Proposition 22 through the state’s initiative process. Entitled the California Defense of Marriage Act, Proposition 22 amended the state’s Family Code by adding the following language: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Cal. Family Code § 308.5 . This amendment further codified the existing definition of marriage as “a relationship between a man and a woman.” In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 , 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683 , 183 P.3d 384, 407 (2008).

In February 2004, the mayor of San Francisco instructed county officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The following month, the California Supreme Court ordered San Francisco to stop issuing such licenses and later nullified the marriage licenses that same-sex couples had received. See Lockyer v. City & County of San Francisco, 33 Cal.4th 1055 , 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 , 95 P.3d 459 (2004). The court expressly avoided addressing whether Proposition 22 violated the California Constitution.

Shortly thereafter, San Francisco and various other parties filed state court actions challenging or defending California’s exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage under the state constitution. These actions were consolidated in San Francisco superior court; the presiding judge determined that, as a matter of law, California’s bar against marriage by same-sex couples violated the equal protection guarantee of Article I Section 7 of the California Constitution. In re Coordination Proceeding, Special Title [Rule 1550(c) ], 2005 WL 583129 (March 14, 2005). The court of appeal reversed, and the California Supreme Court granted review. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22 and held that all California counties were required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. See In re Marriage Cases, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683 , 183 P.3d 384 . From June 17, 2008 until the passage of Proposition 8 in November of that year, San Francisco and other California counties issued approximately 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

After the November 2008 election, opponents of Proposition 8 challenged the initiative through an original writ of mandate in the California Supreme Court as violating the rules for amending the California Constitution and on other grounds; the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 against those challenges. Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364 , 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 591 , 207 P.3d 48 (2009). Strauss leaves undisturbed the 18,000 marriages of same-sex couples performed in the four and a half months between the decision in In re Marriage Cases and the passage of Proposition 8. Since Proposition 8 passed, no same-sex couple has been permitted to marry in California.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THIS ACTION

Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Proposition 8 under the Fourteenth Amendment, an issue not raised during any prior state court proceeding. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on May 22, 2009, naming as defendants in their official capacities California’s Governor, Attorney General and Director and Deputy Director of Public Health and the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder and the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk (collectively “the government defendants”). Doc. # 1. With the exception of the Attorney General, who concedes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, Doc. #39, the government defendants refused to take a position on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims and declined to defend Proposition 8. Doc. # 42 (Alameda County), Doc. # 41 (Los Angeles County), Doc. # 46 (Governor and Department of Public Health officials).

Defendant-intervenors, the official proponents of Proposition 8 under California election law (“proponents”), were granted leave in July 2009 to intervene to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Doc. # 76. On January 8, 2010, Hak-Shing William Tam, an official proponent and defendant-intervenor, moved to withdraw as a defendant, Doc. # 369; Tam’s motion is denied for the reasons stated in a separate order filed herewith. Plaintiff-inter venor City and County of San Francisco (“CCSF” or “San Francisco”) was granted leave to intervene in August 2009. Doc. # 160 (minute entry).

The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on July 2, 2009, Doc. # 77 (minute entry), and denied proponents’ motion for summary judgment on October 14, 2009, Doc. #226 (minute entry). Proponents moved to realign the Attorney General as a plaintiff; the motion was denied on December 23, 2009, Doc. # 319. Imperial County, a political subdivision of California, sought to intervene as a party defendant on December 15, 2009, Doc. # 311; the motion is denied for the reasons addressed in a separate order filed herewith.

The parties disputed the factual premises underlying plaintiffs’ claims and the court set the matter for trial. The action was tried to the court January 11-27, 2010. The trial proceedings were recorded and used by the court in preparing the findings of fact and conclusions of law; the clerk is now DIRECTED to file the trial recording under seal as part of the record. The parties may retain their copies of the trial recording pursuant to the terms of the protective order herein, see Doc. # 672. Proponents’ motion to order the copies’ return, Doc. # 698, is accordingly DENIED.

PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8

The Due Process Clause provides that no “State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” US Const. Amend. XIV, § 1. Plaintiffs contend that the freedom to marry the person of one’s choice is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause and that Proposition 8 violates this fundamental right because:

The Equal Protection Clause provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” US Const. Amend. XIV, § 1. According to plaintiffs, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it:

Plaintiffs argue that Proposition 8 should be subjected to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause because gays and lesbians constitute a suspect class. Plaintiffs further contend that Proposition 8 is irrational because it singles out gays and lesbians for unequal treatment, as they and they alone may not marry the person of their choice. Plaintiffs argue that Proposition 8 discriminates against gays and lesbians on the basis of both sexual orientation and sex.

Plaintiffs conclude that because Proposition 8 is enforced by state officials acting under color of state law and because it has the effects plaintiffs assert, Proposition 8 is actionable under 42 USC § 1983 . Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Proposition 8 is invalid and an injunction against its enforcement.

PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8

Proponents organized the official campaign to pass Proposition 8, known as ProtectMarriage.com—Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal (“Protect Marriage”). Proponents formed and managed the Protect Marriage campaign and ensured its efforts to pass Proposition 8 complied with California election law. See FF 13-17 below. After orchestrating the successful Proposition 8 campaign, proponents intervened in this lawsuit and provided a vigorous defense of the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

The ballot argument submitted to the voters summarizes proponents’ arguments in favor of Proposition 8 during the 2008 campaign. The argument states:

PX0001 California Voter Information Guide, California General Election, Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at PM 003365 (emphasis in original).

In addition to the ballot arguments, the Proposition 8 campaign presented to the voters of California a multitude of television, radio and internet-based advertisements and messages. The advertisements conveyed to voters that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships and dangerous to children. See FF 79-80 below. The key premises on which Proposition 8 was presented to the voters thus appear to be the following:

A state’s interest in an enactment must of course be secular in nature. The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs with out an accompanying secular purpose. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 571 , 123 S.Ct. 2472 , 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003); see also Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, 330 U.S. 1, 15 , 67 S.Ct. 504 , 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947).

Perhaps recognizing that Proposition 8 must advance a secular purpose to be constitutional, proponents abandoned previous arguments from the campaign that had asserted the moral superiority of opposite-sex couples. Instead, in this litigation, proponents asserted that Proposition 8:

Doc. # 8 at 17-18.

While proponents vigorously defended the constitutionality of Proposition 8, they did so based on legal conclusions and cross-examinations of some of plaintiffs’ witnesses, eschewing all but a rather limited factual presentation.

Proponents argued that Proposition 8 should be evaluated solely by considering its language and its consistency with the “central purpose of marriage, in California and everywhere else, * * * to promote naturally procreative sexual relationships and to channel them into stable, enduring unions for the sake of producing and raising the next generation.” Doc. # 172-1 at 21. Proponents asserted that marriage for same-sex couples is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty and thus its denial does not deprive persons seeking such unions of due process. See generally Doc. # 172-1. Nor, proponents continued, does the exclusion of same-sex couples in California from marriage deny them equal protection because, among other reasons, California affords such couples a separate parallel institution under its domestic partnership statutes. Doc. # 172-1 at 75 et seq.

At oral argument on proponents’ motion for summary judgment, the court posed to proponents’ counsel the assumption that “the state’s interest in marriage is procreative” and inquired how permitting same-sex marriage impairs or adversely affects that interest. Doc. # 228 at 21. Counsel replied that the inquiry was “not the legally relevant question,” id, but when pressed for an answer, counsel replied: ‘Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.” Id at 23.

Despite this response, proponents in their trial brief promised to “demonstrate that redefining marriage to encompass same-sex relationships” would effect some twenty-three specific harmful consequences. Doc. # 295 at 13-14. At trial, however, proponents presented only one witness, David Blankenhorn, to address the government interest in marriage. Blankenhorn’s testimony is addressed at length hereafter; suffice it to say that he provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate. During closing arguments, proponents again focused on the contention that “responsible procreation is really at the heart of society’s interest in regulating marriage.” Tr.3038:7-8. When asked to identify the evidence at trial that supported this contention, proponents’ counsel replied, “you don’t have to have evidence of this point.” Tr. 3037:25-3040:4.

Proponents’ procreation argument, distilled to its essence, is as follows: the state has an interest in encouraging sexual activity between people of the opposite sex to occur in stable marriages because such sexual activity may lead to pregnancy and children, and the state has an interest in encouraging parents to raise children in stable households. Tr. 3050:17-3051:10. The state therefore, the argument goes, has an interest in encouraging all opposite-sex sexual activity, whether responsible or irresponsible, procreative or otherwise, to occur within a stable marriage, as this encourages the development of a social norm that opposite-sex sexual activity should occur within marriage. Tr. 3053:10-24. Entrenchment of this norm increases the probability that procreation will occur within a marital union. Because same-sex couples’ sexual activity does not lead to procreation, according to proponents the state has no interest in encouraging their sexual activity to occur within a stable marriage. Thus, according to proponents, the state’s only interest is in opposite-sex sexual activity.

TRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY

The parties’ positions on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 raised significant disputed factual questions, and for the reasons the court explained in denying proponents’ motion for summary judgment, Doc. #228 at 72-91, the court set the matter for trial.

The parties were given a full opportunity to present evidence in support of their positions. They engaged in significant discovery, including third-party discovery, to build an evidentiary record. Both before and after trial, both in this court and in the court of appeals, the parties and third parties disputed the appropriate boundaries of discovery in an action challenging a voter-enacted initiative. See, for example, Doc. # # 187, 214, 237, 259, 372, 513.

Plaintiffs presented eight lay witnesses, including the four plaintiffs, and nine expert witnesses. Proponents’ evidentiary presentation was dwarfed by that of plaintiffs. Proponents presented two expert witnesses and conducted lengthy and thorough cross-examinations of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses but failed to build a credible factual record to support their claim that Proposition 8 served a legitimate government interest.

Although the evidence covered a range of issues, the direct and cross-examinations focused on the following broad questions:

Framed by these three questions and before detailing the court’s credibility determinations and findings of fact, the court abridges the testimony at trial:

WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX

All four plaintiffs testified that they wished to marry their partners, and all four gave similar reasons. Zarrillo wishes to marry Katami because marriage has a “special meaning” that would alter their relationships with family and others. Zar rillo described daily struggles that arise because he is unable to marry Katami or refer to Katami as his husband. Tr. 84:1-17. Zarrillo described an instance when he and Katami went to a bank to open a joint account, and “it was certainly an awkward situation walking to the bank and saying, ‘My partner and I want to open a joint bank account,’ and hearing, you know, ‘Is it a business account? A partnership?’ It would just be a lot easier to describe the situation—might not make it less awkward for those individuals, but it would make it—crystalize it more by being able to say * * * ‘My husband and I are here to open a bank account.’ ” Id. To Katami, marriage to Zarrillo would solidify their relationship and provide them the foundation they seek to raise a family together, explaining that for them, “the timeline has always been marriage first, before family.” Tr. 89:17-18.

Perry testified that marriage would provide her what she wants most in life: a stable relationship with Stier, the woman she loves and with whom she has built a life and a family. To Perry, marriage would provide access to the language to describe her relationship with Stier: “I’m a 45-year-old woman. I have been in love with a woman for 10 years and I don’t have a word to tell anybody about that.” Tr. 154:20-23. Stier explained that marrying Perry would make them feel included “in the social fabric.” Tr. 175:22. Marriage would be a way to tell “our friends, our family, our society, our community, our parents * * * and each other that this is a lifetime commitment * * * we are not girlfriends. We are not partners. We are married.” Tr. 172:8-12.

Plaintiffs and proponents presented expert testimony on the meaning of marriage. Historian Nancy Cott testified about the public institution of marriage and the state’s interest in recognizing and regulating marriages. Tr. 185:9-13. She explained that marriage is “a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another, and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another, and their agreement to join in an economic partnership and support one another in terms of the material needs of life.” Tr. 201:9-14. The state’s primary purpose in regulating marriage is to create stable households. Tr. 222:13-17.

Think tank founder David Blankenhorn testified that marriage is “a socially-approved sexual relationship between a man and a woman” with a primary purpose to “regulate filiation.” Tr. 2742:9-10, 18. Blankenhorn testified that others hold to an alternative and, to Blankenhorn, conflicting definition of marriage: “a private adult commitment” that focuses on “the tender feelings that the spouses have for one another.” Tr. 2755:25-2756:1; 2756:10-2757:17; 2761:5-6. To Blankenhorn, marriage is either a socially approved sexual relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of bearing and raising children who are biologically related to both spouses or a private relationship between two consenting adults.

Cott explained that marriage as a social institution encompasses a socially approved sexual union and an affective relationship and, for the state, forms the basis of stable households and private support obligations.

Both Cott and Blankenhorn addressed marriage as a historical institution. Cott pointed to consistent historical features of marriage, including that civil law, as opposed to religious custom, has always been supreme in regulating and defining marriage in the United States, Tr. 195:9-15, and that one’s ability to consent to marriage is a basic civil right, Tr. 202:2-5. Blankenhorn identified three rules of marriage (discussed further in the credibility determinations, section I below), which he testified have been consistent across cultures and times: (1) the rule of opposites (the “man/woman” rule); (2) the rule of two; and (3) the rule of sex. Tr. 2879:17-25.

Cott identified historical changes in the institution of marriage, including the removal of race restrictions through court decisions and the elimination of coverture and other gender-based distinctions. Blankenhorn identified changes that to him signify the deinstitutionalization of marriage, including an increase in births outside of marriage and an increasing divorce rate.

Both Cott and Blankenhorn testified that California stands to benefit if it were to resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Blankenhorn noted that marriage would benefit same-sex couples and their children, would reduce discrimination against gays and lesbians and would be “a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion.” Tr. 2850:12-13. Despite the multitude of benefits identified by Blankenhorn that would flow to the state, to gays and lesbians and to American ideals were California to recognize same-sex marriage, Blankenhorn testified that the state should not recognize same-sex marriage. Blankenhorn reasoned that the benefits of same-sex marriage are not valuable enough because same-sex marriage could conceivably weaken marriage as an institution. Cott testified that the state would benefit from recognizing same-sex marriage because such marriages would provide “another resource for stability and social order.” Tr. 252:19-23.

Psychologist Letitia Anne Peplau testified that couples benefit both physically and economically when they are married. Peplau testified that those benefits would accrue to same-sex as well as opposite-sex married couples. To Peplau, the desire of same-sex couples to marry illustrates the health of the institution of marriage and not, as Blankenhorn testified, the weakening of marriage. Economist Lee Badgett provided evidence that same-sex couples would benefit economically if they were able to marry and that same-sex marriage would have no adverse effect on the institution of marriage or on opposite-sex couples.

As explained in the credibility determinations, section I below, the court finds the testimony of Cott, Peplau and Badgett to support findings on the definition and purpose of civil marriage; the testimony of Blankenhorn is unreliable. The trial evidence provides no basis for establishing that California has an interest in refusing to recognize marriage between two people because of their sex.

WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS

Plaintiffs’ experts testified that no meaningful differences exist between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. Blankenhorn identified one difference: some opposite-sex couples are capable of creating biological offspring of both spouses while same-sex couples are not.

Psychologist Gregory Herek defined sexual orientation as “an enduring sexual, romantic, or intensely affectional attraction to men, to women, or to both men and women. It’s also used to refer to an identity or a sense of self that is based on one’s enduring patterns of attraction. And it’s also sometimes used to describe an enduring pattern of behavior.” Tr. 2025:5-11. Herek explained that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality; the vast majority of gays and lesbians have little or no choice in their sexual orientation; and therapeutic efforts to change an individual’s sexual orientation have not been shown to be effective and instead pose a risk of harm to the individual. Proponents did not present testimony to contradict Herek but instead questioned him on data showing that some individuals report fluidity in their sexual orientation. Herek responded that the data proponents presented does nothing to contradict his conclusion that the vast majority of people are consistent in their sexual orientation.

Peplau pointed to research showing that, despite stereotypes suggesting gays and lesbians are unable to form stable relationships, same-sex couples are in fact indistinguishable from opposite-sex couples in terms of relationship quality and stability. Badgett testified that same-sex and opposite-sex couples are very similar in most economic and demographic respects. Peplau testified that the ability of same-sex couples to marry will have no bearing on whether opposite-sex couples choose to marry or divorce.

Social epidemiologist Han Meyer testified about the harm gays and lesbians have experienced because of Proposition 8. Meyer explained that Proposition 8 stigmatizes gays and lesbians because it informs gays and lesbians that the State of California rejects their relationships as less valuable than opposite-sex relationships. Proposition 8 also provides state endorsement of private discrimination. According to Meyer, Proposition 8 increases the likelihood of negative mental and physical health outcomes for gays and lesbians.

Psychologist Michael Lamb testified that all available evidence shows that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents and that the gender of a parent is immaterial to whether an adult is a good parent. When proponents challenged Lamb with studies purporting to show that married parents provide the ideal child-rearing environment, Lamb countered that studies on child-rearing typically compare married opposite-sex parents to single parents or step-families and have no bearing on families headed by same-sex couples. Lamb testified that the relevant comparison is between families headed by same-sex couples and families headed by opposite-sex couples and that studies comparing these two family types show conclusively that having parents of different genders is irrelevant to child outcomes.

Lamb and Blankenhorn disagreed on the importance of a biological link between parents and children. Blankenhorn emphasized the importance of biological parents, relying on studies comparing children raised by married, biological parents with children raised by single parents, unmarried mothers, step families and cohabiting parents. Tr. 2769:14-24 (referring to DIX0026 Kristin Anderson Moore, Susan M Jekielek, and Carol Emig, Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It, Child Trends (June 2002)); Tr. 2771:1-13 (referring to DIX0124 Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Harvard 1994)). As explained in the credibility determinations, section I below, none of the studies Blankenhorn relied on isolates the genetic relationship between a parent and a child as a variable to be tested. Lamb testified about studies showing that adopted children or children conceived using sperm or egg donors are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by their biological parents. Tr. 1041:8-17. Blankenhorn agreed with Lamb that adoptive parents “actually on some outcomes outstrip biological parents in terms of providing protective care for their children.” Tr. 2795:3-5.

Several experts testified that the State of California and California’s gay and lesbian population suffer because domestic partnerships are not equivalent to marriage. Badgett explained that gays and lesbians are less likely to enter domestic partnerships than to marry, meaning fewer gays and lesbians have the protection of a state-recognized relationship. Both Badgett and San Francisco economist Edmund Egan testified that states receive greater economic benefits from marriage than from domestic partnerships. Meyer testified that domestic partnerships actually stigmatize gays and lesbians even when enacted for the purpose of providing rights and benefits to same-sex couples. Cott explained that domestic partnerships cannot substitute for marriage because domestic partnerships do not have the same social and historical meaning as marriage and that much of the value of marriage comes from its social meaning. Peplau testified that little of the cultural esteem surrounding marriage adheres to domestic partnerships.

To illustrate his opinion that domestic partnerships are viewed by society as different from marriage, Herek pointed to a letter sent by the California Secretary of State to registered domestic partners in 2004 informing them of upcoming changes to the law and suggesting dissolution of their partnership to avoid any unwanted financial effects. Tr. 2047:15-2048:5, PX2265 (Letter from Kevin Shelley, California Secretary of State, to Registered Domestic Partners). Herek concluded that a similar letter to married couples would not have suggested divorce. Tr. 2048:6-13.

The experts’ testimony on domestic partnerships is consistent with the testimony of plaintiffs, who explained that domestic partnerships do not satisfy their desire to marry. Stier, who has a registered domestic partnership with Perry, explained that “there is certainly nothing about domestic partnership* * * that indicates the love and commitment that are inherent in marriage.” Tr. 171:8-11. Proponents did not challenge plaintiffs’ experts on the point that marriage is a socially superior status to domestic partnership; indeed, proponents stipulated that “[t]here is a significant symbolic disparity between domestic partnership and marriage.” Doc. # 159-2 at 6.

Proponents’ cross-examinations of several experts challenged whether people can be categorized based on them sexual orientation. Herek, Meyer and Badgett responded that sexual orientation encompasses behavior, identity and attraction and that most people are able to answer questions about their sexual orientation without formal training. According to the experts, researchers may focus on one element of sexual orientation depending on the purpose of the research and sexual orientation is not a difficult concept for researchers to apply.

As explained in the credibility determinations, section I below, and the findings of fact, section II below, the testimony shows that California has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions.

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST

The testimony of several witnesses disclosed that a primary purpose of Proposition 8 was to ensure that California confer a policy preference for opposite-sex couples over same-sex couples based on a belief that same-sex pairings are immoral and should not be encouraged in California.

Historian George Chauncey testified about a direct relationship between the Proposition 8 campaign and initiative campaigns from the 1970s targeting gays and lesbians; like earlier campaigns, the Proposition 8 campaign emphasized the importance of protecting children and relied on stereotypical images of gays and lesbians, despite the lack of any evidence showing that gays and lesbians pose a danger to children. Chauncey concluded that the Proposition 8 campaign did not need to explain what children were to be protected from; the advertisements relied on a cultural understanding that gays and lesbians are dangerous to children.

This understanding, Chauncey observed, is an artifact of the discrimination gays and lesbians faced in the United States in the twentieth century. Chauncey testified that because homosexual conduct was criminalized, gays and lesbians were seen as criminals; the stereotype of gay people as criminals therefore became pervasive. Chauncey noted that stereotypes of gays and lesbians as predators or child molesters were reinforced in the mid-twentieth century and remain part of current public discourse. Lamb explained that this stereotype is not at all credible, as gays and lesbians are no more likely than heterosexuals to pose a threat to children.

Political scientist Gary Segura provided many examples of ways in which private discrimination against gays and lesbians is manifested in laws and policies. Segura testified that negative stereotypes about gays and lesbians inhibit political compromise with other groups: “It’s very difficult to engage in the give-and-take of the legislative process when I think you are an inherently bad person. That’s just not the basis for compromise and negotiation in the political process.” Tr. 1561:6-9. Segura identified religion as the chief obstacle to gay and lesbian political advances. Political scientist Kenneth Miller disagreed with Segura’s conclusion that gays and lesbians lack political power, Tr. 2482:4-8, pointing to some successes on the state and national level and increased public support for gays and lesbians, but agreed that popular initiatives can easily tap into a strain of antiminority sentiment and that at least some voters supported Proposition 8 because of anti-gay sentiment.

Proponent Hak-Shing William Tam testified about his role in the Proposition 8 campaign. Tam spent substantial time, effort and resources campaigning for Proposition 8. As of July 2007, Tam was working with Protect Marriage to put Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot. Tr. 1900:13-18. Tam testified that he is the secretary of the America Return to God Prayer Movement, which operates the website “lmanlwoman.net.” Tr. 1916:3-24. lmanlwoman.net encouraged voters to support Proposition 8 on grounds that homosexuals are twelve times more likely to molest children, Tr. 1919:3-1922:21, and because Proposition 8 will cause states one-by-one to fall into Satan’s hands, Tr. 1928:6-13. Tam identified NARTH (the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) as the source of information about homosexuality, because he “believe[s] in what they say.” Tr. 1939:1-9. Tam identified “the internet” as the source of information connecting same-sex marriage to polygamy and incest. Tr. 1957:2-12. Protect Marriage relied on Tam and, through Tam, used the website lmanlwoman.net as part of the Protect Marriage Asian/Pacific Islander outreach. Tr. 1976:10-15; PX2599 (Email from Sarah Polio, Account Executive, Schubert Flint Public Affairs (Aug 22, 2008) attaching meeting minutes). Tam signed a Statement of Unity with Protect Marriage, PX2633, in which he agreed not to put forward “independent strategies for public messaging.” Tr. 1966:16-1967:16.

Katami and Stier testified about the effect Proposition 8 campaign advertisements had on their well-being. Katami explained that he was angry and upset at the idea that children needed to be protected from him. After watching a Proposition 8 campaign message, PX0401 (Video, Tony Perkins, Miles McPherson, and Ron Prentice Asking for Support of Proposition 8), Katami stated that “it just demeans you. It just makes you feel like people are putting efforts into discriminating against you.” Tr. 108:14-16. Stier, as the mother of four children, was especially disturbed at the message that Proposition 8 had something to do with protecting children. She felt the campaign messages were “used to sort of try to educate people or convince people that there was a great evil to be feared and that evil must be stopped and that evil is us, I guess. * * * And the very notion that I could be part of what others need to protect their children from was just—it was more than upsetting. It was sickening, truly. I felt sickened by that campaign.” Tr. 177:9-18.

Egan and Badgett testified that Proposition 8 harms the State of California and its local governments economically. Egan testified that San Francisco faces direct and indirect economic harms as a consequence of Proposition 8. Egan explained that San Francisco lost and continues to lose money because Proposition 8 slashed the number of weddings performed in San Francisco. Egan explained that Proposition 8 decreases the number of married couples in San Francisco, who tend to be wealthier than single people because of their ability to specialize their labor, pool resources and access state and employer-provided benefits. Proposition 8 also increases the costs associated with discrimination against gays and lesbians. Proponents challenged only the magnitude and not the existence of the harms Egan identified. Badgett explained that municipalities throughout California and the state government face economic disadvantages similar to those Egan identified for San Francisco.

For the reasons stated in the sections that follow, the evidence presented at trial fatally undermines the premises underlying proponents’ proffered rationales for Proposition 8. An initiative 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 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.

I

CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS

PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESSES

Plaintiffs presented the testimony of the four plaintiffs, four lay witnesses and nine expert witnesses. Proponents did not challenge the credibility of the lay witnesses or the qualifications of the expert witnesses to offer opinion testimony.

Having observed and considered the testimony presented, the court concludes that plaintiffs’ lay witnesses provided credible testimony:

Plaintiffs called nine expert witnesses. As the education and experience of each expert show, plaintiffs’ experts were amply qualified to offer opinion testimony on the subjects identified. Moreover, the experts’ demeanor and responsiveness showed their comfort with the subjects of their expertise. For those reasons, the court finds that each of plaintiffs’ proffered experts offered credible opinion testimony on the subjects identified.

1. Nancy Cott, a historian, testified as an expert in the history of marriage in the United States. Cott testified that marriage has always been a secular institution in the United States, that regulation of marriage eased the state’s burden to govern an amorphous populace and that marriage in the United States has undergone a series of transformations since the country was founded.

2. George Chauncey, a historian, was qualified to offer testimony on social history, especially as it relates to gays and lesbians. Chauncey testified about the widespread private and public discrimination faced by gays and lesbians in the twentieth century and the ways in which the Proposition 8 campaign echoed that discrimination and relied on stereotypes against gays and lesbians that had developed in the twentieth century.

3. Lee Badgett, an economist, testified as an expert on demographic information concerning gays and lesbians, same-sex couples and children raised by gays and lesbians, the effects of the exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of marriage and the effect of permitting same-sex couples to marry on heterosexual society and the institution of marriage. Badgett offered four opinions: (1) Proposition 8 has inflicted substantial economic harm on same-sex couples and their children; (2) allowing same-sex couples to marry would not have any adverse effect on the institution of marriage or on opposite-sex couples; (3) same-sex couples are very similar to opposite-sex couples in most economic and demographic respects; and (4) Proposition 8 has imposed economic losses on the State of California and on California counties and municipalities. Tr. 1330:9-1331:5.

4. Edmund A Egan, the chief economist in the San Francisco Controller’s Office, testified for CCSF as an expert in urban and regional economic policy. Egan conducted an economic study of the prohibition of same-sex marriage on San Francisco’s economy and concluded that the prohibition negatively affects San Francisco’s economy in many ways. Tr. 683:19-684:19.

5. Letitia Anne Peplau, a psychologist, was qualified as an expert on couple relationships within the field of psychology. Peplau offered four opinions: (1) for adults who choose to enter marriage, that marriage is often associated with many important benefits; (2) research has shown remarkable similarities between same-sex and opposite-sex couples; (3) if same-sex couples are permitted to marry, they will likely experience the same benefits from marriage as opposite-sex couples; and (4) permitting same-sex marriage will not harm opposite-sex marriage. Tr. 574:6-19.

6. Han Meyer, a social epidemiologist, testified as an expert in public health with a focus on social psychology and psychiatric epidemiology. Meyer offered three opinions: (1) gays and lesbians experience stigma, and Proposition 8 is an example of stigma; (2) social stressors affect gays and lesbians; and (3) social stressors negatively affect the mental health of gays and lesbians. Tr. 817:10-19.

7. Gregory Herek, a psychologist, testified as an expert in social psychology with a focus on sexual orientation and stigma. Herek offered opinions concerning: (1) the nature of sexual orientation and how sexual orientation is understood in the fields of psychology and psychiatry; (2) the amenability of sexual orientation to change through intervention; and (3) the nature of stigma and prejudice as they relate to sexual orientation and Proposition 8. Tr. 2023:8-14.

8. Michael Lamb, a psychologist, testified as an expert on the developmental psychology of children, including the developmental psychology of children raised by gay and lesbian parents. Lamb offered two opinions: (1) children raised by gays and lesbians are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents; and (2) children of gay and lesbian parents would benefit if their parents were able to marry. Tr. 1009:23-1010:4.

9. Gary Segura, a political scientist, testified as an expert on the political power or powerlessness of minority groups in the United States, and of gays and lesbians in particular. Segura offered three opinions: (1) gays and lesbians do not possess a meaningful degree of political power; (2) gays and lesbians possess less power than groups granted judicial protection; and (3) the conclusions drawn by proponents’ expert Miller are troubling and unpersuasive. Tr. 1535:3-18.

PROPONENTS’ WITNESSES

Proponents elected not to call the majority of their designated witnesses to testify at trial and called not a single official proponent of Proposition 8 to explain the discrepancies between the arguments in favor of Proposition 8 presented to voters and the arguments presented in court. Proponents informed the court on the first day of trial, January 11, 2010, that they were withdrawing Loren Marks, Paul Nathanson, Daniel N Robinson and Katherine Young as witnesses. Doc. # 398 at 3. Proponents’ counsel stated in court on Friday, January 15, 2010, that their witnesses “were extremely concerned about their personal safety, and did not want to appear with any recording of any sort, whatsoever.” Tr. 1094:21-23.

The timeline shows, however, that proponents failed to make any effort to call their witnesses after the potential for public broadcast in the case had been eliminated. The Supreme Court issued a temporary stay of transmission on January 11, 2010 and a permanent stay on January 13, 2010. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 1132 , — L.Ed.2d — (2010); Hollingsworth v. Perry, — U.S.—, 130 S.Ct. 705 , — L.Ed.2d—(2010). The court withdrew the case from the Ninth Circuit’s pilot program on broadcasting on January 15, 2010. Doc. # 463. Proponents affirmed the withdrawal of their witnesses that same day. Tr. 1094:21-23. Proponents did not call their first witness until January 25, 2010. The record does not reveal the reason behind proponents’ failure to call their expert witnesses.

Plaintiffs entered into evidence the deposition testimony of two of proponents’ withdrawn witnesses, as their testimony supported plaintiffs’ claims. Katherine Young was to testify on comparative religion and the universal definition of marriage. Doc. #292 at 4 (proponents’ December 7 witness list) Doc. # 286-4 at 2 (expert report). Paul Nathanson was to testify on religious attitudes towards Proposition 8. Doc. # 292 at 4 (proponents’ December 7 witness list); Doc. # 280-4 at 2 (expert report).

Young has been a professor of religious studies at McGill University since 1978. PX2335 Young CV. She received her PhD in history of religions and comparative religions from McGill in 1978. Id. Young testified at her deposition that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality and that same-sex couples possess the same desire for love and commitment as opposite-sex couples. PX2545 (dep. tr.); PX2544 (video of same). Young also explained that several cultures around the world and across centuries have had variations of marital relationships for same-sex couples. Id.

Nathanson has a PhD in religious studies from McGill University and is a researcher at McGill’s Faculty for Religious Studies. PX2334 Nathanson CV. Nathan-son is also a frequent lecturer on consequences of marriage for same-sex couples and on gender and parenting. Id. Nathan-son testified at his deposition that religion lies at the heart of the hostility and violence directed at gays and lesbians and that there is no evidence that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than children raised by opposite-sex couples. PX2547 (dep. tr.); PX2546 (video of same).

Proponents made no effort to call Young or Nathanson to explain the deposition testimony that plaintiffs had entered into the record or to call any of the withdrawn witnesses after potential for contemporaneous broadcast of the trial proceedings had been eliminated. Proponents called two witnesses:

David Blankenhorn

Proponents called David Blankenhorn as an expert on marriage, fatherhood and family structure. Blankenhorn received a BA in social studies from Harvard College and an MA in comparative social history from the University of Warwick in England. Tr. 2717:24-2718:3; DIX2693 (Blankenhorn CV). After Blankenhorn completed his education, he served as a community organizer in low-income communities, where he developed an interest in community and family institutions after “seeing the weakened state” of those institutions firsthand, “especially how children were living without their fathers.” Tr. 2719:3-18. This experience led Blankenhorn in 1987 to found the Institute for American Values, which he describes as “a nonpartisan think tank” that focuses primarily on “issues of marriage, family, and child well-being.” Tr. 2719:20-25. The Institute commissions research and releases reports on issues relating to “fatherhood, marriage, family structure [and] child well-being.” Tr. 2720:6-19. The Institute also produces an annual report “on the state of marriage in America.” Tr. 2720:24-25.

Blankenhorn has published two books on the subjects of marriage, fatherhood and family structure: Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem (HarperCollins 1995), DIX0108, and The Future of Marriage (Encounter Books 2006), D1X0956. Tr. 2722:2-12. Blankenhorn has edited four books about family structure and marriage, Tr. 2728:13-22, and has co-edited or co-authored several publications about marriage. Doc. # 302 at 21.

Plaintiffs challenge Blankenhorn’s qualifications as an expert because none of his relevant publications has been subject to a traditional peer-review process, Tr. 2733:2-2735:4, he has no degree in sociology, psychology or anthropology despite the importance of those fields to the subjects of marriage, fatherhood and family structure, Tr. 2735:15-2736:9, and his study of the effects of same-sex marriage involved “read[ing] articles and halving] conversations with people, and tr[ying] to be an informed person about it,” Tr. 2736:13-2740:3. See also Doc. #285 (plaintiffs’ motion in limine). Plaintiffs argue that Blankenhorn’s conclusions are not based on “objective data or discernible methodology,” Doc. # 285 at 25, and that Blankenhorn’s conclusions are instead based on his interpretation of selected quotations from articles and reports, id at 26.

The court permitted Blankenhorn to testify but reserved the question of the appropriate weight to give to Blankenhorn’s opinions. Tr. 2741:24-2742:3. The court now determines that Blankenhorn’s testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight.

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that a witness may be qualified as an expert “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” The testimony may only be admitted if it “is based upon sufficient facts or data” and “is the product of reliable principles and methods.” Id. Expert testimony must be both relevant and reliable, with a “basis in the knowledge and experience of [the relevant] discipline.” Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147, 149 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999) (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579, 589, 592 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)).

While proponents correctly assert that formal training in the relevant disciplines and peer-reviewed publications are not dispositive of expertise, education is nevertheless important to ensure that “an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field.” Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 152 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 . Formal training shows that a proposed expert adheres to the intellectual rigor that characterizes the field, while peer-reviewed publications demonstrate an acceptance by the field that the work of the proposed expert displays “at least the minimal criteria” of intellectual rigor required in that field. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 43 F.3d 1311 , 1318 (9th Cir.1995) (on remand) (“Daubert II ”).

The methodologies on which expert testimony may be based are “not limited to what is generally accepted,” Daubert II, at 1319 n. 11, but “nothing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert.” General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 , 118 S.Ct. 512 , 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997). The party proffering the evidence “must explain the expert’s methodology and demonstrate in some objectively verifiable way that the expert has both chosen a reliable * * * method and followed it faithfully.” Daubert II, 43 F.3d at 1319 n. 11.

Several factors are relevant to an expert’s reliability: (1) “whether [a method] can be (and has been) tested”; (2) “whether the [method] has been subjected to peer review and publication”; (3) “the known or potential rate of error”; (4) “the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the [method’s] operation”; (5) “a * * * degree of acceptance” of the method within “a relevant * * * community,” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-94 ,113 S.Ct. 2786; (6) whether the expert is “proposing to testify about matters growing naturally and directly out of research they have conducted independent of the litigation,” Daubert II, 43 F.3d at 1317; (7) whether the expert has unjustifiably extrapolated from an accepted premise to an unfounded conclusion, see Joiner, 522 U.S. at 145-146 , 118 S.Ct. 512 ; (8) whether the expert has adequately accounted for obvious alternative explanations, see generally Claar v. Burlington Northern RR Co, 29 F.3d 499 (9th Cir.1994); (9) whether the expert “employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field,” Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 152 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 ; and (10) whether the field of expertise claimed by the expert is known to reach reliable results for the type of opinion the expert would give, see id. at 151 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 .

Blankenhorn offered opinions on the definition of marriage, the ideal family structure and potential consequences of state recognition of marriage for same-sex couples. None of Blankenhorn’s opinions is rehable.

Blankenhorn’s first opinion is that marriage is “a socially-approved sexual relationship between a man and a woman.” Tr. 2742:9-10. According to Blankenhorn, the primary purpose of marriage is to “regulate filiation.” Tr. 2742:18. Blankenhorn testified that the alternative and contradictory definition of marriage is that “marriage is fundamentally a private adult commitment.” Tr. 2755:25-2756:1; Tr. 2756:4-2757:17 (DIX0093 Law Commission of Canada, Beyond Conjugality: Recognizing and Supporting Close Personal Adult Relationships (2001)). He described this definition as focused on “the tender feelings that spouses have for one another,” Tr. 2761:5-6. Blankenhorn agrees this “affective dimension” of marriage exists but asserts that marriage developed independently of affection. Tr. 2761:9-2762:3.

Blankenhorn thus sets up a dichotomy for the definition of marriage: either marriage is defined as a socially approved sexual relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of bearing and raising children biologically related to both spouses, or marriage is a private relationship between two consenting adults. Blankenhorn did not address the definition of marriage proposed by plaintiffs’ expert Cott, which subsumes Blankenhorn’s dichotomy. Cott testified that marriage is “a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another, and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another, and then-agreement to join in an economic partnership and support one another in terms of the material needs of life.” Tr. 201:9-14. There is nothing in Cott’s definition that limits marriage to its “affective dimension” as defined by Blankenhorn, and yet Cott’s definition does not emphasize the biological relationship linking dependents to both spouses.

Blankenhorn relied on the quotations of others to define marriage and provided no explanation of the meaning of the passages he cited or their sources. Tr. 2744:4-2755:16. Blankenhorn’s mere recitation of text in evidence does not assist the court in understanding the evidence because reading, as much as hearing, “is within the ability and experience of the trier of fact.” Beech Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 51 F.3d 834, 842 (9th Cir.1995).

Blankenhorn testified that his research has led him to conclude there are three universal rules that govern marriage: (1) the rule of opposites (the “man/woman” rule); (2) the rule of two; and (3) the rule of sex. Tr. 2879:17-25. Blankenhorn explained that there are “no or almost no exceptions” to the rule of opposites, Tr. 2882:14, despite some instances of ritualized same-sex relationships in some cultures, Tr. 2884:25-2888:16. Blankenhorn explained that despite the widespread practice of polygamy across many cultures, the rule of two is rarely violated, because even within a polygamous marriage, “each marriage is separate.” Tr. 2892:1-3; Tr. 2899:16-2900:4 (“Q: Is it your view that that man who has married one wife, and then another wife, and then another wife, and then another wife, and then another wife, and now has five wives, and they are all his wives at the same time, that that marriage is consistent with your rule of two?* * * A: I concur with Bronislaw Malinowski, and others, who say that that is consistent with the two rule of marriage.”). Finally, Blankenhorn could only hypothesize instances in which the rule of sex would be violated, including where “[h]e’s in prison for life, he’s married, and he is not in a system in which any conjugal visitation is allowed.” Tr. 2907:13-19.

Blankenhorn’s interest and study on the subjects of marriage, fatherhood and family structure are evident from the record, but nothing in the record other than the “bald assurance” of Blankenhorn, Daubert II, 43 F.3d at 1316, suggests that Blankenhorn’s investigation into marriage has been conducted to the “same level of intellectual rigor” characterizing the practice of anthropologists, sociologists or psychologists. See Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 152 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 . Blankenhorn gave no explanation of the methodology that led him to his definition of marriage other than his review of others’ work. The court concludes that Blankenhorn’s proposed definition of marriage is “connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit” of Blankenhorn and accordingly rejects it. See Joiner, 522 U.S. at 146 , 118 S.Ct. 512 .

Blankenhorn’s second opinion is that a body of evidence supports the conclusion that children raised by their married, biological parents do better on average than children raised in other environments. Tr. 2767:11-2771:11. The evidence Blankenhom relied on to support his conclusion compares children raised by married, biological parents with children raised by single parents, unmarried mothers, step families and cohabiting parents. Tr. 2769:14-24 (referring to DIX0026 Kristin Anderson Moore, Susan M Jekielek, and Carol Emig, Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It, Child Trends (June 2002)); Tr. 2771:1-11 (referring to DIX0124 Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Harvard 1994)).

Blankenhorn’s conclusion that married biological parents provide a better family form than married non-biological parents is not supported by the evidence on which he relied because the evidence does not, and does not claim to, compare biological to non-biological parents. Blankenhorn did not in his testimony consider any study comparing children raised by their married biological parents to children raised by their married adoptive parents. Blankenhorn did not testify about a study comparing children raised by their married biological parents to children raised by their married parents who conceived using an egg or sperm donor. The studies Blankenhorn relied on compare various family structures and do not emphasize biology. Tr. 2768:9-2772:6. The studies may well support a conclusion that parents’ marital status may affect child outcomes. The studies do not, however, support a conclusion that the biological connection between a parent and his or her child is a significant variable for child outcomes. The court concludes that “there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.” Joiner, 522 U.S. at 146 , 118 S.Ct. 512. Blankenhorn’s reliance on biology is unsupported by evidence, and the court therefore rejects his conclusion that a biological link between parents and children influences children’s outcomes.

Blankenhorn’s third opinion is that recognizing same-sex marriage will lead to the deinstitutionalization of marriage. Tr. 2772:21-2775:23. Blankenhorn described deinstitutionalization as a process through which previously stable patterns and rules forming an institution (like marriage) slowly erode or change. Tr. 2773:4-24. Blankenhorn identified several manifestations of deinstitutionalization: out-of-wedlock childbearing, rising divorce rates, the rise of non-marital cohabitation, increasing use of assistive reproductive technologies and marriage for same-sex couples. Tr. 2774:20-2775:23. To the extent Blankenhorn believes that same-sex marriage is both a cause and a symptom of deinstitutionalization, his opinion is tautological. Moreover, no credible evidence supports Blankenhorn’s conclusion that same-sex marriage could lead to the other manifestations of deinstitutionalization.

Blankenhorn relied on sociologist Andrew Cherlin (D1X0049 The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage, 66 J Marriage & Family 848 (Nov. 2004)) and sociologist Norval Glen (DIX0060 The Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage, 41 Society 25 (Sept/Oet.2004)) to support his opinion that same-sex marriage may speed the deinstitutionalization of marriage. Neither of these sources supports Blankenhorn’s conclusion that same-sex marriage will further deinstitutionalize marriage, as neither source claims same-sex marriage as a cause of divorce or single parenthood. Nevertheless, Blankenhorn testified that “the further deinstitutionalization of marriage caused by the legalization of same-sex marriage,” Tr. 2782:3-5, would likely manifest itself in “all of the consequences [already discussed].” Tr. 2782:15-16.

Blankenhorn’s book, The Future of Marriage, DIX0956, lists numerous consequences of permitting same-sex couples to marry, some of which are the manifestations of deinstitutionalization listed above. Blankenhorn explained that the list of consequences arose from a group thought experiment in which an idea was written down if someone suggested it. Tr. 2844:1-12; DIX0956 at 202. Blankenhorn’s group thought experiment began with the untested assumption that “gay marriage, like almost any major social change, would be likely to generate a diverse range of consequences.” DIX0956 at 202. The group failed to consider that recognizing the marriage of same-sex couples might lead only to minimal, if any, social consequences.

During trial, Blankenhorn was presented with a study that posed an empirical question whether permitting marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples would lead to the manifestations Blankenhorn described as indicative of deinstitutionalization. After reviewing and analyzing available evidence, the study concludes that “laws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions have no adverse effect on marriage, divorce, and abortion rates, the percent of children born out of wedlock, or the percent of households with children under 18 headed by women.” PX2898 (Laura Langbein & Mark A Yost, Jr, Same-Sex Marriage and Negative Externalities, 90 Soc Sci Q 2 (June 2009) at 305-306). Blankenhorn had not seen the study before trial and was thus unfamiliar with its methods and conclusions. Nevertheless, Blankenhorn dismissed the study and its results, reasoning that its authors “think that [the conclusion is] so self-evident that anybody who has an opposing point of view is not a rational person.” Tr. 2918:19-21.

Blankenhorn’s concern that same-sex marriage poses a threat to the institution of marriage is further undermined by his testimony that same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage operate almost identically. During cross-examination, Blankenhorn was shown a report produced by his Institute in 2000 explaining the six dimensions of marriage: (1) legal contract; (2) financial partnership; (3) sacred promise; (4) sexual union; (5) personal bond; and (6) family-making bond. PX2879 (Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education, et al, The Marriage Movement: A Statement of Principles (Institute for American Values 2000)). Blankenhorn agreed that same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages would be identical across these six dimensions. Tr. 2913:8-2916:18. When referring to the sixth dimension, a family-making bond, Blankenhorn agreed that same-sex couples could “raise” children. Tr. 2916:17.

Blankenhorn gave absolutely no explanation why manifestations of the deinstitutionalization of marriage would be exacerbated (and not, for example, ameliorated) by the presence of marriage for same-sex couples. His opinion lacks reliability, as there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion Blankenhorn proffered. See Joiner, 522 U.S. at 146 , 118 S.Ct. 512 .

Blankenhorn was unwilling to answer many questions directly on cross-examination and was defensive in his answers. Moreover, much of his testimony contradicted his opinions. Blankenhorn testified on cross-examination that studies show children of adoptive parents do as well or better than children of biological parents. Tr. 2794:12-2795:5. Blankenhorn agreed that children raised by same-sex couples would benefit if their parents were permitted to marry. Tr. 2803:6-15. Blankenhorn also testified he wrote and agrees with the statement “I believe that today the principle of equal human dignity must apply to gay and lesbian persons. In that sense, insofar as we are a nation founded on this principle, we would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were the day before.” D1X0956 at 2; Tr. 2805:6-2806:1.

Blankenhorn stated he opposes marriage for same-sex couples because it will weaken the institution of marriage, despite his recognition that at least thirteen positive consequences would flow from state recognition of marriage for same-sex couples, including: (1) by increasing the number of married couples who might be interested in adoption and foster care, same-sex marriage might well lead to fewer children growing up in state institutions and more children growing up in loving adoptive and foster families; and (2) same-sex marriage would signify greater social acceptance of homosexual love and the worth and validity of same-sex intimate relationships. Tr. 2839:16-2842:25; 2847:1-2848:3; DIX0956 at 203-205.

Blankenhorris opinions are not supported by reliable evidence or methodology and Blankenhorn failed to consider evidence contrary to his view in presenting his testimony. The court therefore finds the opinions of Blankenhorn to be unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight. Kenneth P. Miller

Proponents called Kenneth P Miller, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, as an expert in American and California politics. Tr. 2427:10-12. Plaintiffs conducted voir dire to examine whether Miller had sufficient expertise to testify authoritatively on the subject of the political power of gays and lesbians. Tr. 2428:3-10. Plaintiffs objected to Miller’s qualification as an expert in the areas of discrimination against gays and lesbians and gay and lesbian political power but did not object to his qualification as an expert on initiatives. Tr. 2435:21-2436:4.

Miller received a PhD from the University of California (Berkeley) in 2002 in political science and is a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College. Doc. # 280-6 at 39-44 (Miller CV). Plaintiffs contend that Miller lacks sufficient expertise to offer an opinion on the relative political power of gay men and lesbians. Having considered Miller’s background, experience and testimony, the court concludes that, while Miller has significant experience with politics generally, he is not sufficiently familiar with gay and lesbian politics specifically to offer opinions on gay and lesbian political power.

Miller testified that factors determining a group’s political power include money, access to lawmakers, the size and cohesion of a group, the ability to attract allies and form coalitions and the ability to persuade. Tr. 2437:7-14. Miller explained why, in his opinion, these factors favor a conclusion that gays and lesbians have political power. Tr. 2442-2461.

Miller described religious, political and corporate support for gay and lesbian rights. Miller pointed to failed initiatives in California relating to whether public school teachers should be fired for publicly supporting homosexuality and whether HIV-positive individuals should be quarantined or reported as examples of political successes for gays and lesbians. Tr. 2475:21-2477:16. Miller testified that political powerlessness is the inability to attract the attention of lawmakers. Tr. 2487:1-2. Using that test, Miller concluded that gays and lesbians have political power both nationally and in California. Tr. 2487:10-21.

Plaintiffs cross-examined Miller about his knowledge of the relevant scholarship and data underlying his opinions. Miller admitted that proponents’ counsel provided him with most of the “materials considered” in his expert report. Tr. 2497:13-2498:22; PX0794A (annotated index of materials considered). See also Doc. # 280 at 23-35 (Appendix to plaintiffs’ motion in limine listing 158 sources that appear on both Miller’s list of materials considered and the list of proponents’ withdrawn expert, Paul Nathanson, including twenty-eight websites listing the same “last visited” 'date). Miller stated that he did not know at the time of his deposition the status of antidiscrimination provisions to protect gays and lesbians at the state and local level, Tr. 2506:3-2507:1, could only identify Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the federal Defense of Marriage Act as examples of official discrimination against gays and lesbians, Tr. 2524:4-2525:2, and that he has read no or few books or articles by George Chauncey, Miriam Smith, Shane Phelan, Ellen Riggle, Barry Tadlock, William Eskridge, Mark Blasius, Urvashi Vaid, Andrew Sullivan and John D’Emilio, Tr. 2518:15-2522:25.

Miller admitted he had not investigated the scope of private employment discrimination against gays and lesbians and had no reason to dispute the data on discrimination presented in PX0604 (The Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009, Hearings on HR 3017 before the House Committee on Education and Labor, 111 Cong, 1st Sess (Sept. 23, 2009) (testimony of R Bradley Sears, Executive Director of the Williams Institute)). Tr. 2529:15-2530:24. Miller did not know whether gays and lesbians have more or less political power than African Americans, either in California or nationally, because he had not researched the question. Tr. 2535:9-2539:13.

Plaintiffs questioned Miller on his earlier scholarship criticizing the California initiative process because initiatives eschew compromise and foster polarization, undermine the authority and flexibility of representative government and violate norms of openness, accountability, competence and fairness. Tr. 2544:10-2547:7. In 2001 Miller wrote that he was especially concerned that initiative constitutional amendments undermine representative democracy. Tr. 2546:14-2548:15.

Plaintiffs questioned Miller on data showing 84 percent of those who attend church weekly voted yes on Proposition 8, 54 percent of those who attend church occasionally voted no on Proposition 8 and 83 percent of those who never attend church voted no on Proposition 8. Tr. 2590:10-2591:7; PX2853 at 9 Proposition 8 Local Exit Polls—Election Center 2008, CNN). Plaintiffs also asked about polling data showing 56 percent of those with a union member in the household voted yes on Proposition 8. Tr. 2591:25-2592:6; PX2853 at 13. Miller stated he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the polling data. Tr. 2592:7-8. Miller did not explain how the data in PX2853 are consistent with his conclusion that many religious groups and labor unions are allies of gays and lesbians.

Miller testified that he did not investigate the extent of anti-gay harassment in workplaces or schools. Tr. 2600:7-17, 2603:9-24. Miller stated he had not investigated the ways in which anti-gay stereotypes may have influenced Proposition 8 voters. Tr. 2608:19-2609:1. Miller agreed that a principle of political science holds that it is undesirable for a religious majority to impose its religious views on a minority. Tr. 2692:16-2693:7.

Miller explained on redirect that he had reviewed “most” of the materials listed in his expert report and that he “tried to review all of them.” Tr. 2697:11-16. Miller testified that he believes initiatives relating to marriage for same-sex couples arise as a check on the courts and do not therefore implicate a fear of the majority imposing its will on the minority. Tr. 2706:17-2707:6. Miller explained that prohibiting same-sex couples from marriage “wasn’t necessarily invidious discrimination against” gays and lesbians. Tr. 2707:20-24.

The credibility of Miller’s opinions relating to gay and lesbian political power is undermined by his admissions that he: (1) has not focused on lesbian and gay issues in his research or study; (2) has not read many of the sources that would be relevant to forming an opinion regarding the political power of gays and lesbians; (3) has no basis to compare the political power of gays and lesbians to the power of other groups, including African-Americans and women; and (4) could not confirm that he personally identified the vast majority of the sources that he cited in his expert report, see PX0794A. Furthermore, Miller undermined the credibility of his opinions by conceding that gays and lesbians currently face discrimination and that current discrimination is relevant to a group’s political power.

Miller’s credibility was further undermined because the opinions he offered at trial were inconsistent with the opinions he expressed before he was retained as an expert. Specifically, Miller previously wrote that gays and lesbians, like other minorities, are vulnerable and powerless in the initiative process, see PX1869 (Kenneth Miller, Constraining Populism: The Real Challenge of Initiative Reform, 41 Santa Clara L Rev 1037 (2001)), contradicting his trial testimony that gays and lesbians are not politically vulnerable with respect to the initiative process. Miller admitted that at least some voters supported Proposition 8 based on anti-gay sentiment. Tr. 2606:11-2608:18.

For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that 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.

II

FINDINGS OF FACT

Having considered the evidence presented at trial, the credibility of the witnesses and the legal arguments presented by counsel, the court now makes the following findings of fact pursuant to FRCP 52(a). The court relies primarily on the testimony and exhibits cited herein, although uncited cumulative documentary evidence in the record and considered by the court also supports the findings.

THE PARTIES

Plaintiffs

1. Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier reside together in Alameda County, California and are raising four children. They are lesbians in a committed relationship who seek to marry.

2. On May 21, 2009, Perry and Stier applied for a marriage license from defendant O’Connell, the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder, who denied them a license due to Proposition 8 because they are of the same sex.

3. Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarcillo reside together in Los Angeles County, California. They are gay men in a committed relationship who seek to marry.

4. On May 20, 2009, Katami and Zarrillo applied for a marriage license from defendant Logan, the Los Angeles County Clerk, who denied them a license due to Proposition 8 because they are of the same sex.

Plaintiff-Intervenor

5. San Francisco is a charter city and county under the California Constitution and laws of the State of California. Cal. Const. Art. XI, § 5(a); SF Charter Preamble.

6. San Francisco is responsible for issuing marriage licenses, performing civil marriage ceremonies and maintaining vital records of marriages. Cal. Fam. Code §§ 350 (a), 401(a), 400(b).

Defendants

7. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the Governor of California.

8. Edmund G Brown, Jr is the Attorney General of California.

9. Mark B Horton is the Director of the California Department of Public Health and the State Registrar of Vital Statistics of the State of California. In his official capacity, Horton is responsible for prescribing and furnishing the forms for marriage license applications, the certificate of registry of marriage, including the license to marry, and the marriage 26 certificate. See Doc. #46 ¶ 15 (admitting Doc. # 1 ¶ 15).

10. Linette Scott is the Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health. Scott reports to Horton and is the official responsible for prescribing and furnishing the forms for marriage license applications, the certificate of registry of marriage, including the license to marry, and the marriage certificate. See Doc. #46 ¶ 16 (admitting Doc. # 1 ¶ 16).

11. Patrick O’Connell is the Alameda County Clerk-Registrar and is responsible for maintaining vital records of marriages, issuing marriage licenses and performing civil marriage ceremonies. See Doc. # 42 ¶ 17 (admitting Doc. # 1 ¶ 17).

12. Dean C Logan is the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk and is responsible for maintaining vital records of marriages, issuing marriage licenses and performing civil marriage ceremonies. Doc. # 41 ¶ 13 (admitting Doc. # 1 ¶ 18).

Defendantr-Intevenors (Proponents)

13. Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J Knight, Martin F Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam and Mark A Jansson are the “official proponents” of Proposition 8 under California law.

14. Proponents dedicated substantial time, effort, reputation and personal resources in campaigning for Proposition 8.

15. Proponents established ProtectMarriage.com—-Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal (“Protect Marriage”) as a “primarily formed ballot measure committee” under California law.

16. The Protect Marriage Executive Committee includes Ron Prentice, Edward Dolejsi, Mark A Jansson and Doug Swardstrom. Andrew Pugno acts as General Counsel. David Bauer is the Treasurer and officer of record for Protect Marriage.

17. Protect Marriage was responsible for all aspects of the campaign to qualify Proposition 8 for the ballot and enact it into law.

18. Protect Marriage is a “broad coalition” of individuals and organizations, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the “LDS Church”), the California Catholic Conference and a large number of evangelical churches.

WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX

19. Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.

20. A person may not marry unless he or she has the legal capacity to consent to marriage.

21. California, like every other state, has never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to procreate.

22. When California became a state in 1850, marriage was understood to require a husband and a wife. See Cal. Const., Art. XI § 14 (1849); In re Marriage Cases, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683 , 183 P.3d at 407 .

23. The states have always required the parties to give their free consent to a marriage. Because slaves were considered property of others at the time, they lacked the legal capacity to consent and were thus unable to marry. After emancipation, former slaves viewed their ability to marry as one of the most important new rights they had gained. Tr. 202:2-203:12 (Cott).

24. Many states, including California, had laws restricting the race of marital partners so that whites and nonwhites could not marry each other.

25. Racial restrictions on an individual’s choice of marriage partner were deemed unconstitutional under the California Constitution in 1948 and under the United States Constitution in 1967. An individual’s exercise of his or her right to marry no longer depends on his or her race nor on the race of his or her chosen partner.

26. Under coverture, a woman’s legal and economic identity was subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage. The husband was the legal head of household. Coverture is no longer part of the marital bargain.

27. Marriage between a man and a woman was traditionally organized based on presumptions of a division of labor along gender lines. Men were seen as suited for certain types of work and women for others. Women were seen as suited to raise children and men were seen as suited to provide for the family.

28. The development of no-fault divorce laws made it simpler for spouses to end marriages and allowed spouses to define their own roles within a marriage.

29. In 1971, California amended Cal. Civ. Code § 4101 , which had previously set the age of consent to marriage at twenty-one years for males and eighteen years for females, to read “[a]ny unmarried person of the age of 18 years or upwards, and not otherwise disqualified, is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.” Cal. Civ. Code § 4101 (1971); In re Marriage Cases, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683 , 183 P.3d at 408 .

30. In the 1970s, several same-sex couples sought marriage licenses in California, relying on the amended language in Cal. Civ. Code § 4101 . In re Marriage Cases, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683 , 183 P.3d at 409 . In response, the legislature in 1977 amended the marriage statute, former Cal. Civ. Code § 4100 , to read “[m]arriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman * * *.” Id. That provision became Cal. Fam. Code § 300 . The legislative history of the enactment supports a conclusion that unique roles of a man and a woman in marriage motivated legislators to enact the amendment. See In re Marriage Cases, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683 , 183 P.3d at 409 .

31. In 2008, the California Supreme Court held that certain provisions of the Family Code violated the California Constitution to the extent the statutes reserve the designation of marriage to opposite-sex couples. In re Marriage Cases, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683 , 183 P.3d at 452 . The language “between a man and a woman” was stricken from section 300, and section 308.5 (Proposition 22) was stricken in its entirety. Id., 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683 , 183 P.3d at 453 .

32. California has eliminated marital obligations based on the gender of the spouse. Regardless of their sex or gender, marital partners share the same obligations to one another and to their dependants. As a result of Proposition 8, California nevertheless requires that a marriage consist of one man and one woman.

33. Eliminating gender and race restrictions in marriage has not deprived the institution of marriage of its vitality.

35. The state has many purposes in licensing and fostering marriage. Some of the state’s purposes benefit the persons married while some benefit the state:

36. States and the federal government channel benefits, rights and responsibilities through marital status. Marital status affects immigration and citizenship, tax policy, property and inheritance rules and social benefit programs.

37. Marriage creates economic support obligations between consenting adults and for their dependents.

38. Marriage benefits both spouses by promoting physical and psychological health. Married individuals are less likely to engage in behaviors detrimental to health, like smoking or drinking heavily. Married individuals live longer on average than unmarried individuals.

39. Material benefits, legal protections and social support resulting from marriage can increase wealth and improve psychological well-being for married spouses.

40. The long-term nature of marriage allows spouses to specialize their labor and encourages spouses to increase household efficiency by dividing labor to increase productivity.

41. The tangible and intangible benefits of marriage flow to a married couple’s children.

WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS

42. Same-sex love and intimacy are well-documented in human history. The concept of an identity based on object desire; that is, whether an individual desires a relationship with someone of the opposite sex (heterosexual), same sex (homosexual) or either sex (bisexual), developed in the late nineteenth century.

43. 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 attraction. The vast majority of people are consistent in self-identification, behavior and attraction throughout their adult lives.

44. Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents’ assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence.

45. Proponents’ campaign for Proposition 8 assumed voters understood the existence of homosexuals as individuals distinct from heterosexuals.

46. Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.

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

48. Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex.

49. California law permits and encourages gays and lesbians to become parents through adoption, foster parenting or assistive reproductive technology. Approximately eighteen percent of same-sex couples in California are raising children.

50. Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive.

51. Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.

52. Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.

53. Domestic partners are not married under California law. California domestic partnerships may not be recognized in other states and are not recognized by the federal government.

54. The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.

55. Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.

56. The children of same-sex couples benefit when their parents can marry.

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST

57. Under Proposition 8, whether a couple can obtain a marriage license and enter into marriage depends on the genders of the two parties relative to one another. A man is permitted to marry a woman but not another man. A woman is permitted to marry a man but not another woman. Proposition 8 bars state and county officials from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It has no other legal effect.

58. Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.

59. Proposition 8 requires California to treat same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples.

60. Proposition 8 reserves the most socially valued form of relationship (marriage) for opposite-sex couples.

61. Proposition 8 amends the California Constitution to codify distinct and unique roles for men and women in marriage.

62. Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. Prior to Proposition 8, no religious group was required to recognize marriage for same-sex couples.

63. Proposition 8 eliminates the right to marry for gays and lesbians but does not affect any other substantive right under the California Constitution. Strauss, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 591 , 207 P.3d at 102 (“Proposition 8 does not eliminate the substantial substantive [constitutional] protections afforded to same-sex couples[.]”) (emphasis in original).

64. Proposition 8 has had a negative fiscal impact on California and local governments.

65. CCSF would benefit economically if Proposition 8 were not in effect.

66. Proposition 8 increases costs and decreases wealth for same-sex couples because of increased tax burdens, decreased availability of health insurance and higher transactions costs to secure rights and obligations typically associated with marriage. Domestic partnership reduces but does not eliminate these costs.

67. Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.

68. Proposition 8 results in frequent reminders for gays and lesbians in committed long-term relationships that their relationships are not as highly valued as opposite-sex relationships.

69. The factors that affect whether a child is well-adjusted are: (1) the quality of a child’s relationship with his or her parents; (2) the quality of the relationship between a child’s parents or significant adults in the child’s life; and (3) the availability of economic and social resources. Tr. 1010:13-1011:13 (Lamb).

70. The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual 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 well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.

71. Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted. Tr. 1014:25-1015:19; 1038:23-1040:17 (Lamb).

72. The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child’s adjustment outcomes. Tr. 1040:22-1042:10 (Lamb).

73. Studies comparing outcomes for children raised by married opposite-sex parents to children raised by single or divorced parents do not inform conclusions about outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents in stable, long-term relationships. Tr. 1187:13-1189:6 (Lamb).

74. Gays and lesbians have been victims of a long history of discrimination.

75. Public and private discrimination against gays and lesbians occurs in California and in the United States.

76. Well-known stereotypes about gay men and lesbians include a belief that gays and lesbians are affluent, self-absorbed and incapable of forming long-term intimate relationships. Other stereotypes imagine gay men and lesbians as disease vectors or as child molesters who recruit young children into homosexuality. No evidence supports these stereotypes.

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

78. Stereotypes and misinformation have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians.

79. The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian. The reason children need to be protected from same-sex marriage was never articulated in official campaign advertisements. Nevertheless, the advertisements insinuated that learning about same-sex marriage could make a child gay or lesbian and that parents should dread having a gay or lesbian child.

80. The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships,

Ill

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.

DUE PROCESS

The Due Process Clause provides that no “State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” US Const. Amend. XIV, § 1. Due process protects individuals against arbitrary governmental intrusion into life, liberty or property. See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719-720 , 117 S.Ct. 2258 , 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997). When legislation burdens the exercise of a right deemed to be fundamental, the government must show that the intrusion withstands strict scrutiny. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 388 , 98 S.Ct. 673 , 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978).

THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER

The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. See, for example, Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) (“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”); Zablocki 434 U.S. at 384 , 98 S.Ct. 673 (1978) (“The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”); Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 , 94 S.Ct. 791 , 39 L.Ed.2d 52 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 , 87 S.Ct. 1817 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967) (The “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 , 85 S.Ct. 1678 , 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) (“Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”).

The parties do not dispute that the right to marry is fundamental. The question presented here is whether plaintiffs seek to exercise the fundamental right to marry; or, because they are couples of the same sex, whether they seek recognition of a new right.

To determine whether a right is fundamental under the Due Process Clause, the court inquires into whether the right is rooted “in our Nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices.” Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 710 , 117 S.Ct. 2258 . Here, because the right to marry is fundamental, the court looks to the evidence presented at trial to determine: (1) the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States; and (2) whether plaintiffs seek to exercise their right to marry or seek to exercise some other right. Id.

Marriage has retained certain characteristics throughout the history of the United States. See FF 19, 34-35. Marriage requires two parties to give their free consent to form a relationship, which then forms the foundation of a household. FF 20, 34. The spouses must consent to support each other and any dependents. FF 34-35, 37. The state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of a stable, governable populace. FF 35-37. The state respects an individual’s choice to build a family with another and protects the relationship because it is so central a part of an individual’s life. See Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 204-205 , 106 S.Ct. 2841 , 92 L.Ed.2d 140 (1986) (Blackmun, J, dissenting).

Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse. FF 21. “[I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.” Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 567 , 123 S.Ct. 2472 . The Supreme Court recognizes that, wholly apart from procreation, choice and privacy play a pivotal role in the marital relationship. See Griswold, 381 U.S. at 485-486 , 85 S.Ct. 1678 .

Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre. FF 23-25. When the Supreme Court invalidated race restrictions in Loving , the definition of the right to marry did not change. 388 U.S. at 12 , 87 S.Ct. 1817 . Instead, the Court recognized that race restrictions, despite their historical prevalence, stood in stark contrast to the concepts of liberty and choice inherent in the right to marry. Id.

The marital bargain in California (along with other states) traditionally required that a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a union of equals. FF 26-27, 32. As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices like coverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouse’s role within a marriage. FF 26-27, 32. Marriage was thus transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals. Id. Yet, individuals retained the right to marry; that right did not become different simply because the institution of marriage became compatible with gender equality.

The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples. The evidence suggests many reasons for this tradition of exclusion, including gender roles mandated through coverture, FF 26-27, social disapproval of same-sex relationships, FF 74, and the reality that the vast majority of people are heterosexual and have had no reason to challenge the restriction, FF 43. The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. FF 19-20, 34-35. Race 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. FF 33. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.

Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs’ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States. Perry and Stier seek to be spouses; they seek the mutual obligation and honor that attend marriage, FF 52. Zarrillo and Katami seek recognition from the state that their union is “a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.” Griswold, 381 U.S. at 486 , 85 S.Ct. 1678 . Plaintiffs’ unions encompass the historical purpose and form of marriage. Only the plaintiffs’ genders relative to one another prevent California from giving their relationships due recognition.

Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy—namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS DO NOT SATISFY CALIFORNIA’S OBLIGATION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO MARRY

Having determined that plaintiffs seek to exercise their fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause, the court must consider whether the availability of Registered Domestic Partnerships fulfills California’s due process obligation to same-sex couples. The evidence shows that domestic partnerships were created as an alternative to marriage that distinguish same-sex from opposite-sex couples. FF 53-54; In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 , 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683 , 183 P.3d 384, 434 (2008) (One of the “core elements of th[e] fundamental right [to marry] is the right of same-sex couples to have then-official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships.”); id., 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683 , 183 P.3d at 402, 434, 445 (By “reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership,” the state communicates the “official view that [same-sex couples’] committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples.”). Proponents do not dispute the “significant symbolic disparity between domestic partnership and marriage.” Doc. # 159-2 at 6.

California has created two separate and parallel institutions to provide couples with essentially the same rights and obligations. Cal. Fam. Code § 297.5 (a). Domestic partnerships are not open to opposite-sex couples unless one partner is at least sixty-two years old. Cal. Fam. Code § 297 (b)(5)(B). Apart from this limited exception—created expressly to benefit those eligible for benefits under the Social Security Act—the sole basis upon which California determines whether a couple receives the designation “married” or the designation “domestic partnership” is the sex of the spouses relative to one another. Compare Cal. Fam. Code §§ 297-299.6 (domestic partnership) with §§ 300-536 (marriage). No further inquiry into the couple or the couple’s relationship is required or permitted. Thus, California allows almost all opposite-sex couples only one option-—marriage—and all same-sex couples only one option—domestic partnership. See id, FF 53-54.

The evidence shows that domestic partnerships do not fulfill California’s due process obligation to plaintiffs for two reasons. First, domestic partnerships are distinct from marriage and do not provide the same social meaning as marriage. FF 53-54. Second, domestic partnerships were created specifically so that California could offer same-sex couples rights and benefits while explicitly withholding marriage from same-sex couples. Id, Cal. Fam. Code § 297 (Gov Davis 2001 signing statement: “In California, a legal marriage is between a man and a woman. * * * This [domestic partnership] legislation does nothing to contradict or undermine the definition of a legal marriage.”).

The evidence at trial shows that domestic partnerships exist solely to differentiate same-sex unions from marriages. FF 53-54. A domestic partnership is not a marriage; while domestic partnerships offer same-sex couples almost all of the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage, the evidence shows that the withholding of the designation “marriage” significantly disadvantages plaintiffs. FF 52-54. The record reflects that marriage is a culturally superior status compared to a domestic partnership. FF 52. California does not meet its due process obligation to allow plaintiffs to marry by offering them a substitute and inferior institution that denies marriage to same-sex couples.

PROPOSITION 8 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DENIES PLAINTIFFS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT WITHOUT A LEGITIMATE (MUCH LESS COMPELLING) REASON

Because plaintiffs seek to exercise their fundamental right to marry, their claim is subject to strict scrutiny. Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 388 , 98 S.Ct. 673 . That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 , 63 S.Ct. 1178 , 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943). Under strict scrutiny, the state bears the burden of producing evidence to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 686 , 97 S.Ct. 2010 , 52 L.Ed.2d 675 (1977). Because the government defendants declined to advance such arguments, proponents seized the role of asserting the existence of a compelling California interest in Proposition 8.

As explained in detail in the equal protection analysis, Proposition 8 cannot withstand rational basis review. Still less can Proposition 8 survive the strict scrutiny required by plaintiffs’ due process claim. The minimal evidentiary presentation made by proponents does not meet the heavy burden of production necessary to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Proposition 8 cannot, therefore, withstand strict scrutiny. Moreover, proponents do not assert that the availability of domestic partnerships satisfies plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry; proponents stipulated that “[t]here is a significant symbolic disparity between domestic partnership and marriage.” Doc. # 159-2 at 6. Accordingly, Proposition 8 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

EQUAL PROTECTION

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” US Const. Amend. XIV, § 1. Equal protection is “a pledge of the protection of equal laws.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886). The guarantee of equal protection coexists, of course, with the reality that most legislation must classify for some purpose or another. See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631 , 116 S.Ct. 1620 , 134 L.Ed.2d 855 (1996). When a law creates a classification but neither targets a suspect class nor burdens a fundamental right, the court presumes the law is valid and will uphold it as long as it is rationally related to some legitimate government interest. See, for example, Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319-320 , 113 S.Ct. 2637 , 125 L.Ed.2d 257 (1993).

The court defers to legislative (or in this case, popular) judgment if there is at least a debatable question whether the underlying basis for the classification is rational. Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 464 , 101 S.Ct. 715 , 66 L.Ed.2d 659 (1981). Even under the most deferential standard of review, however, the court must “insist on knowing the relation between the classification adopted and the object to be attained.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 632 , 116 S.Ct. 1620 ; Heller, 509 U.S. at 321 , 113 S.Ct. 2637 (basis for a classification must “find some footing in the realities of the subject addressed by the legislation”). The court may look to evidence to determine whether the basis for the underlying debate is rational. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 228 , 102 S.Ct. 2382 , 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982) (finding an asserted interest in preserving state resources by prohibiting undocumented children from attending public school to be irrational because “the available evidence suggests that illegal aliens underutilize public services, while contributing their labor to the local economy and tax money to the state fisc”). The search for a rational relationship, while quite deferential, “ensure[s] that classifications are not drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 633 , 116 S.Ct. 1620 . The classification itself must be related to the purported interest. Plyler, 457 U.S. at 220 , 102 S.Ct. 2382 (“It is difficult to con ceive of a rational basis for penalizing [undocumented children] for their presence within the United States,” despite the state’s interest in preserving resources.).

Most laws subject to rational basis easily survive equal protection review, because a legitimate reason can nearly always be found for treating different groups in an unequal manner. See Romer, 517 U.S. at 633 , 116 S.Ct. 1620 . Yet, to survive rational basis review, a law must do more than disadvantage or otherwise harm a particular group. United States Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 , 93 S.Ct. 2821 , 37 L.Ed.2d 782 (1973).

SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR SEX DISCRIMINATION

Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 as violating the Equal Protection Clause because Proposition 8 discriminates both on the basis of sex and on the basis of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation discrimination can take the form of sex discrimination. Here, for example, Perry is prohibited from marrying Stier, a woman, because Perry is a woman. If Perry were a man, Proposition 8 would not prohibit the marriage. Thus, Proposition 8 operates to restrict Perry’s choice of marital partner because of her sex. But Proposition 8 also operates to restrict Perry’s choice of marital partner because of her sexual orientation; her desire to marry another woman arises only because she is a lesbian.

The evidence at trial shows that gays and lesbians experience discrimination based on unfounded stereotypes and prejudices specific to sexual orientation. Gays and lesbians have historically been targeted for discrimination because of their sexual orientation; that discrimination continues to the present. FF 74-76. As the case of Perry and the other plaintiffs illustrates, sex and sexual orientation are necessarily interrelated, as an individual’s choice of romantic or intimate partner based on sex is a large part of what defines an individual’s sexual orientation. See FF 42-43. Sexual orientation discrimination is thus a phenomenon distinct from, but related to, sex discrimination.

Proponents argue that Proposition 8 does not target gays and lesbians because its language does not refer to them. In so arguing, proponents seek to mask their own initiative. FF 57. Those who choose to marry someone of the opposite sex— heterosexuals—do not have their choice of marital partner restricted by Proposition 8. Those who would choose to marry someone of the same sex—homosexuals—have had their right to marry eliminated by an amendment to the state constitution. Homosexual conduct and identity together define what it means to be gay or lesbian. See FF 42-43. Indeed, homosexual conduct and attraction are constitutionally protected and integral parts of what makes someone gay or lesbian. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 579 , 123 S.Ct. 2472 ; FF 42-43; see also Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 561 U.S.—, 130 S.Ct. 2971, 2990 , — L.Ed.2d — (“Our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in [the context of sexual orientation].”) (June 28, 2010) (citing Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 583 , 123 S.Ct. 2472 (O’Connor, J, concurring)).

Proposition 8 targets gays and lesbians in a manner specific to their sexual orientation and, because of their relationship to one another, Proposition 8 targets them specifically due to sex. Having considered the evidence, the relationship between sex and sexual orientation and the fact that Proposition 8 eliminates a right only a gay man or a lesbian would exercise, the court determines that plaintiffs’ equal protection claim is based on sexual orientation, but this claim is equivalent to a claim of discrimination based on sex.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

As presently explained in detail, the Equal Protection Clause renders Proposition 8 unconstitutional under any standard of review. Accordingly, the court need not address the question whether laws classifying on the basis of sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened standard of review.

Although Proposition 8 fails to possess even a rational basis, the evidence presented at trial shows that gays and lesbians are the type of minority strict scrutiny was designed to protect. Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 313 , 96 S.Ct. 2562 , 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976) (noting that strict scrutiny may be appropriate where a group has experienced a “ ‘history of purposeful unequal treatment’ or been subjected to unique disabilities on the basis of stereotyped characteristics not truly indicative of their abilities”) (quoting San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 28 , 93 S.Ct. 1278 , 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973)). See FF 42-43, 46-48, 74-78. Proponents admit that “same-sex sexual orientation does not result in any impairment in judgment or general social and vocational capabilities.” PX0707 at RFA No 21.

The court asked the parties to identify a difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals that the government might fairly need to take into account when crafting legislation. Doc. # 677 at 8. Proponents pointed only to a difference between same-sex couples (who are incapable through sexual intercourse of producing offspring biologically related to both parties) and opposite-sex couples (some of whom are capable through sexual intercourse of producing such offspring). Doc. # 687 at 32-34. Proponents did not, however, advance any reason why the government may use sexual orientation as a proxy for fertility or why the government may need to take into account fertility when legislating. Consider, by contrast, City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 444 , 105 S.Ct. 3249 , 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985) (Legislation singling out a class for differential treatment hinges upon a demonstration of “real and undeniable differences” between the class and others); see also United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533 , 116 S.Ct. 2264 , 135 L.Ed.2d 735 (1996) (“Physical differences between men and women * * * are enduring.”). No evidence at trial illuminated distinctions among lesbians, gay men and heterosexuals amounting to “real and undeniable differences” that the government might need to take into account in legislating.

The trial record shows that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review to apply to legislative classifications based on sexual orientation. All classifications based on sexual orientation appear suspect, as the evidence shows that California would rarely, if ever, have a reason to categorize individuals based on their sexual orientation. FF 47. Here, however, strict scrutiny is unnecessary. Proposition 8 fails to survive even rational basis review.

PROPOSITION 8 DOES NOT SURVIVE RATIONAL BASIS

Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, as excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. One example of a legitimate state interest in not issuing marriage licenses to a particular group might be a scarcity of marriage licenses or county officials to issue them. But marriage licenses in California are not a limited commodity, and the existence of 18,000 same-sex married couples in California shows that the state has the resources to allow both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to wed. See Background to Proposition 8 above.

Proponents put forth several rationales for Proposition 8, see Doc. # 605 at 12-15, which the court now examines in turn: (1) reserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman and excluding any other relationship from marriage; (2) proceeding with caution when implementing social changes; (3) promoting opposite-sex parenting over same-sex parenting; (4) protecting the freedom of those who oppose marriage for same-sex couples; (5) treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples; and (6) any other conceivable interest.

PURPORTED INTEREST #1: RESERVING MARRIAGE AS A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN AND EXCLUDING ANY OTHER RELATIONSHIP

Proponents first argue that Proposition 8 is rational because it preserves: (1) “the traditional institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman”; (2) “the traditional social and legal purposes, functions, and structure of marriage”; and (3) “the traditional meaning of marriage as it has always been defined in the English language.” Doc. # 605 at 12-13. These interests relate to maintaining the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman for its own sake.

Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law. Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 239 , 90 S.Ct. 2018 , 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970). The “ancient lineage” of a classification does not make it rational. Heller, 509 U.S. at 327 , 113 S.Ct. 2637 . Rather, the state must have an interest apart from the fact of the tradition itself.

The evidence shows that the tradition of restricting an individual’s choice of spouse based on gender does not rationally further a state interest despite its “ancient lineage.” Instead, the evidence shows that the tradition of gender restrictions arose when spouses were legally required to adhere to specific gender roles. See FF 26-27. California has eliminated all legally-mandated gender roles except the requirement that a marriage consist of one man and one woman. FF 32. Proposition 8 thus enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.

The tradition of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not further any state interest. Rather, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 harms the state’s interest in equality, because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender. See FF 32, 57.

Proponents’ argument that tradition prefers opposite-sex couples to same-sex couples equates to the notion that opposite-sex relationships are simply better than same-sex relationships. Tradition alone cannot legitimate this purported interest. Plaintiffs presented evidence showing conclusively that the state has no interest in preferring opposite-sex couples to same-sex couples or in preferring heterosexuality to homosexuality. See FF 48-50. Moreover, the state cannot have an interest in disadvantaging an unpopular minority group simply because the group is unpopular. Moreno, 413 U.S. at 534 , 93 S.Ct. 2821 .

The evidence shows that the state advances nothing when it adheres to the tradition of excluding same-sex couples from marriage. Proponents’ asserted state interests in tradition are nothing more than tautologies and do not amount to rational bases for Proposition 8.

PURPORTED INTEREST #2: PROCEEDING WITH CAUTION WHEN IMPLEMENTING SOCIAL CHANGES

Proponents next argue that Proposition 8 is related to state interests in: (1) “[a]cting incrementally and with caution when considering a radical transformation to the fundamental nature of a bedrock social institution”; (2) “[decreasing the probability of weakening the institution of marriage”; (3) “[d]ecreasing the probability of adverse consequences that could result from weakening the institution of marriage”; and (4) “[decreasing the probability of the potential adverse consequences of same-sex marriage.” Doc. # 605 at 13-14.

Plaintiffs presented evidence at trial sufficient to rebut any claim that marriage for same-sex couples amounts to a sweeping social change. See FF 55. Instead, the evidence shows beyond debate that allowing same-sex couples to marry has at least a neutral, if not a positive, effect on the institution of marriage and that same-sex couples’ marriages would benefit the state. Id. Moreover, the evidence shows that the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or same-sex couples will remain unaffected if the state ceases to enforce Proposition 8. FF 55, 62.

The contrary evidence proponents presented is not credible. Indeed, proponents presented no reliable evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry will have any negative effects on society or on the institution of marriage. The process of allowing same-sex couples to marry is straightforward, and no evidence suggests that the state needs any significant lead time to integrate same-sex couples into marriage. See Background to Proposition 8 above. Consider, by contrast, Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 7 , 78 S.Ct. 1401 , 3 L.Ed.2d 5 (1958) (recognizing that a school district needed time to implement racial integration but nevertheless finding a delay unconstitutional because the school board’s plan did not provide for “the earliest practicable completion of desegregation”). The evidence shows that allowing same-sex couples to marry will be simple for California to implement because it has already done so; no change need be phased in. California need not restructure any institution to allow same-sex couples to marry. See FF 55.

Because the evidence shows same-sex marriage has and will have no adverse effects on society or the institution of marriage, California has no interest in waiting and no practical need to wait to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Proposition 8 is thus not rationally related to proponents’ purported interests in proceeding with caution when implementing social change.

PURPORTED INTEREST #3: PROMOTING OPPOSITE-SEX PARENTING OVER SAME-SEX PARENTING

Proponents’ largest group of purported state interests relates to opposite-sex parents. Proponents argue Proposition 8:(1) promotes “stability and responsibility in naturally procreative relationships”; (2) promotes “enduring and stable family structures for the responsible raising and care of children by their biological parents”; (3) increases “the probability that natural procreation will occur within stable, enduring, and supporting family structures”; (4) promotes “the natural and mutually beneficial bond between parents and their biological children”; (5) increases “the probability that each child will be raised by both of his or her biological parents”; (6) increases “the probability that each child will be raised by both a father and a mother”; and (7) increases “the probability that each child will have a legally recognized father and mother.” Doc. # 605 at 13-14.

The evidence supports two points which together show Proposition 8 does not advance any of the identified interests: (1) same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents are of equal quality, FF 69-73, and (2) Proposition 8 does not make it more likely that opposite-sex couples will marry and raise offspring biologically related to both parents, FF 43, 46, 51.

The evidence does not support a finding that California has an interest in preferring opposite-sex parents over same-sex parents. Indeed, the evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes. FF 70. Moreover, Proposition 8 has nothing to do with children, as Proposition 8 simply prevents same-sex couples from marrying. FF 57. Same-sex couples can have (or adopt) and raise children. When they do, they are treated identically to opposite-sex parents under California law. FF 49. Even if California had an interest in preferring opposite-sex parents to same-sex parents—and the evidence plainly shows that California does not— Proposition 8 is not rationally related to that interest, because Proposition 8 does not affect who can or should become a parent under California law. FF 49, 57.

To the extent California has an interest in encouraging sexual activity to occur within marriage (a debatable proposition in light of Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 571 , 123 S.Ct. 2472 ) the evidence shows Proposition 8 to be detrimental to that interest. Because of Proposition 8, same-sex couples are not permitted to engage in sexual activity within marriage. FF 53. Domestic partnerships, in which sexual activity is apparently expected, are separate from marriage and thus codify California’s encouragement of non-marital sexual activity. Cal. Fam. Code §§ 297-299.6 . To the extent proponents seek to encourage a norm that sexual activity occur* within marriage to ensure that reproduction occur within stable households, Proposition 8 discourages that norm because it requires some sexual activity and child-bearing and child-rearing to occur outside marriage.

Proponents argue Proposition 8 advances a state interest in encouraging the formation of stable households. Instead, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 undermines that state interest, because same-sex households have become less stable by the passage of Proposition 8. The inability to marry denies same-sex couples the benefits, including stability, attendant to marriage. FF 50. Proponents failed to put forth any credible evidence that married opposite-sex households are made more stable through Proposition 8. FF 55. The only rational conclusion in light of the evidence is that Proposition 8 makes it less likely that California children will be raised in stable households. See FF 50, 56.

None of the interests put forth by proponents relating to parents and children is advanced by Proposition 8; instead, the evidence shows Proposition 8 disadvantages families and their children.

PURPORTED INTEREST #4: PROTECTING THE FREEDOM OF THOSE WHO OPPOSE MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES

Proponents next argue that Proposition 8 protects the First Amendment freedom of those who disagree with allowing marriage for couples of the same sex. Proponents argue that Proposition 8:(1) preserves “the prerogative and responsibility of parents to provide for the ethical and moral development and education of then-own children”; and (2) accommodates “the First Amendment rights of individuals and institutions that oppose same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds.” Doc. # 605 at 14.

These purported interests fail as a matter of law. Proposition 8 does not affect any First Amendment right or responsibility of parents to educate their children. See In re Marriage Cases, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683 , 183 P.3d at 451-452 . Californians are prevented from distinguishing between same-sex partners and opposite-sex spouses in public accommodations, as California antidiscrimination law requires identical treatment for same-sex unions and opposite-sex marriages. Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, 36 Cal.4th 824 , 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 565 , 115 P.3d 1212, 1217-1218 (2005). The evidence shows that Proposition 8 does nothing other than eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. See FF 57, 62. Proposition 8 is not rationally related to an interest in protecting the rights of those opposed to same-sex couples because, as a matter of law, Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex. FF 62.

To the extent proponents argue that one of the rights of those morally opposed to same-sex unions is the right to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, as explained presently those individuals’ moral views are an insufficient basis upon which to enact a legislative classification.

PURPORTED INTEREST # 5: TREATING SAME-SEX COUPLES DIFFERENTLY FROM OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES

Proponents argue that Proposition 8 advances a state interest in treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples by: (1) “[ujsing different names for different things”; (2) “[mjaintaining the flexibility to separately address the needs of different types of relationships”; (3) “[ejnsuring that California marriages are recognized in other jurisdictions”; and (4) “[cjonforming California’s definition of marriage to federal law.” Doc. # 605 at 14.

Here, proponents assume a premise that the evidence thoroughly rebutted: rather than being different, same-sex and opposite-sex unions are, for all purposes relevant to California law, exactly the same. FF 47-50. The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples. See FF 48, 76-80. The evidence fatally undermines any purported state interest in treating couples differently; thus, these interests do not provide a rational basis supporting Proposition 8.

In addition, proponents appear to claim that Proposition 8 advances a state interest in easing administrative burdens associated with issuing and recognizing marriage licenses. Under precedents such as Craig v. Boren, “administrative ease and convenience” are not important government objectives. 429 U.S. 190, 198 , 97 S.Ct. 451 , 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976). Even assuming the state were to have an interest in administrative convenience, Proposition 8 actually creates an administrative burden on California because California must maintain a parallel institution for same-sex couples to provide the equivalent rights and benefits afforded to married couples. See FF 53. Domestic partnerships create an institutional scheme that must be regulated separately from marriage. Compare Cal. Fam. Code §§ 297-299.6 with Cal. Fam. Code §§ 300-536 . California may determine whether to retain domestic partnerships or eliminate them in the absence of Proposition 8; the court presumes, however, that as long as Proposition 8 is in effect, domestic partnerships and the accompanying administrative burden will remain. Proposition 8 thus hinders rather than advances administrative convenience.

PURPORTED INTEREST #6: THE CATCHALL INTEREST

Finally, proponents assert that Proposition 8 advances “[ajny other conceivable legitimate interests identified by the parties, amici, or the court at any stage of the proceedings.” Doc. # 605 at 15. But proponents, amici and the court, despite ample opportunity and a full trial, have failed to identify any rational basis Proposition 8 could conceivably advance. Proponents, represented by able and energetic counsel, developed a full trial record in support of Proposition 8. The resulting evidence shows that Proposition 8 simply conflicts with the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples. Those interests that are legitimate are unrelated to the classification drawn by Proposition 8. The evidence shows that, by every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal. FF 47-50. Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it does not treat them equally.

A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION

In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate. See Romer, 517 U.S. at 633 , 116 S.Ct. 1620 ; Moreno, 413 U.S. at 534 , 93 S.Ct. 2821 ; Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 , 104 S.Ct. 1879 , 80 L.Ed.2d 421 (1984) (“[T]he Constitution cannot control [private biases] but neither can it tolerate them.”).

The evidence shows that Proposition 8 was a hard-fought campaign and that the majority of California voters supported the initiative. See Background to Proposition 8 above, FF 17-18, 79-80. The arguments surrounding Proposition 8 raise a question similar to that addressed in Lawrence , when the Court asked whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce “profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles” through the criminal code. 539 U.S. at 571 , 123 S.Ct. 2472 . The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licenses. They cannot. California’s obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to “mandate [its] own moral code.” Id. (citing Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850 , 112 S.Ct. 2791 , 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992)). “[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,” has never been a rational basis for legislation. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 582 , 123 S.Ct. 2472 (O’Connor, J, concurring). Tradition alone cannot support legislation. See Williams, 399 U.S. at 239 , 90 S.Ct. 2018 ; Romer, 517 U.S. at 635 , 116 S.Ct. 1620 ; Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 579 , 123 S.Ct. 2472 .

Proponents’ purported rationales are nothing more than post-hoc justifications. While the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit post-hoc rationales, they must connect to the classification drawn. Here, the purported state interests fit so poorly with Proposition 8 that they are irrational, as explained above. What is left is evidence that Proposition 8 enacts a moral view that there is something “wrong” with same-sex couples. See FF 78-80.

The evidence at trial regarding the campaign to pass Proposition 8 uncloaks the most likely explanation for its passage: a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same- sex couples. FF 79-80. The campaign relied heavily on negative stereotypes about gays and lesbians and focused on protecting children from inchoate threats vaguely associated with gays and lesbians. FF 79-80; See PX0016 Video, Have You Thought About It? (video of a young girl asking whether the viewer has considered the consequences to her of Proposition 8 but not explaining what those consequences might be).

At trial, proponents’ counsel attempted through cross-examination to show that the campaign wanted to protect children from learning about same-sex marriage in school. See PX0390A Video, Ron Prentice Addressing Supporters of Proposition 8, Excerpt; Tr. 132:25-133:3 (proponents’ counsel to Katami: “But the fact is that what the Yes on 8 campaign was pointing at, is that kids would be taught about same-sex relationships in first and second grade; isn’t that a fact, that that’s what they were referring to?”). The evidence shows, however, that Proposition 8 played on a fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who are not heterosexual. FF 79; PX0099 Video, It’s Already Happened (mother’s expression of horror upon realizing her daughter now knows she can marry a princess).

The testimony of George Chauncey places the Protect Marriage campaign advertisements in historical context as echoing messages from previous campaigns to enact legal measures to disadvantage gays and lesbians. FF 74, 77-80. The Protect Marriage campaign advertisements ensured California voters had these previous fear-inducing messages in mind. FF 80. The evidence at trial shows those fears to be completely unfounded. FF 47-49, 68-73, 76-80.

Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples. FF 76, 79-80; Romer, 517 U.S. at 634 , 116 S.Ct. 1620 (“[L]aws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.”). Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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 opposite-sex 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 same-sex 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.

. All cited evidence is available at http://ecf. cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292. . To the extent any of the findings of fact should more properly be considered conclusions of law, they shall be deemed as such. . To the extent any of the conclusions of law should more properly be considered findings of fact, they shall be deerried as such.