On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court in a historic ruling concluded that statutes that treat persons differently because of their sexual orientation should be subjected to strict scrutiny, and that the existing California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying.

Read the full decision.

On May 25, 2009 the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 as constitutional, stating "the measure does not transform or undermine the judicial function; this court will continue to exercise its traditional responsibility to faithfully enforce all of the provisions of the California Constitution, which now include the new section added through the voters' approval of Proposition 8."

Read the full decision.

On April 25, 2011, supporters of Proposition 8 filed a motion in district court to vacate Judge Walker's decision. They argued he should have recused himself because of his homosexual orientation or should have disclosed his long-term relationship status, and unless he "disavowed any interest in marrying his partner," he had "a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case." District Court Judge James Ware heard arguments on the motion on June 13 and denied the motion.

Read the full decision.

Parties are set to appear before the California Supreme Court in September for oral argument on the issue of standing.

February 7, 2012:
9th Circuit Rules Proposition 8 Unconstitutional.
Read the decision.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger is a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8. The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Judge Vaughn R. Walker beginning on January 11th, 2010.

Day-by-day trial transcripts are provided here by the America Foundation for Equal Rights.

Closing arguments took place in June. Before closing arguments, Judge Walker asked both sides to consider some pertinent questions in their closing arguments.

On August 4, 2010, Walker announced his ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning Proposition 8 based on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Walker concluded that California had no rational basis or vested interest in denying gays and lesbians marriage licenses. Highlights of his decision include:

• Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.
• The exclusion [of gays and lesbians] exist 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 gender of a child's parent is not a factor in a child's adjustment.
• The evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes.
• Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.
• Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples.

Read the full decision.

We know it's 136 pages but before you pass, here is a cheat sheet designed by our very own Prop 8 Films team!

The losing party appealed Judge Walkers decision. On Monday, December 6, 2010, both sides addressed the issue of standing. David Boies faced off against the proponents of Prop. 8 and Imperial County, arguing that they lack the requirements necessary to appeal the Federal District Court decision.

Each side then argued the merits of the case. Theodore B. Olson asserted that marriage is a fundamental right, denying that right to gay and lesbian Americans harms them and their families, and that Prop. 8 violates our nation's promise of equality for all.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, after hearing both sides, issued an order asking the California Supreme Court for guidance on the standing issue. The California Supremes will hear arguments from both sides on the issue in September, 2011.

Watch the Oral Arguments:

Part 1 on Standing

Part 2 on Merits of the Case