The text of the decision can be found here.

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.


And the remedies, which tells us exactly what the decision means for the people of California:


Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence 3 that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection 4 rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional 5 violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 6 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex 7 couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same- 8 sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, 9 see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to 10 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.


This is the catch-all thread for news prior to the decision, which is supposed to come down between 4PM and 6PM EDT. It will be bumped up over the course of the day as updates/news comes in; fresh Blend brew will fall below this post.

Post links of information you come across in the comments.

* Your first stop should be Chris Geidner’s Prop 8 Decision Day FAQ at MetroWeekly. He has eight items you should know. His intro:

It’s deja vu all over again for California and across the nation, as the court released word that the decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger will be handed down later today, Wednesday, August 4. So, what does this mean? This is a primer related to the lawsuit and the legal decision; I will leave for other times and other posts any political or “movement” implications or consequences.

* If you’re looking for a roundup of cities where there are going to be public rallies after the ruling, head over to Rex Wockner’s pad, where he is collecting that info. If you know of any cities that aren’t on his list, you can email the info him at

* Pre-emptive legal flop sweat on the pro-Prop 8 side. Lisa Keen reports that the legal team representing bigotry is ready for a loss.

Attorneys representing supporters of Proposition 8 filed a motion with U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker Tuesday asking that-if he should rule Wednesday in favor of Proposition 8 opponents-he issue a stay of his decision to enable them to appeal.

Such a stay, if granted, would prevent “another purported window of same-sex marriage in California,” stated the attorneys, led by conservative Charles Cooper.

* In an exclusive to the Blend: not long after the ruling we will have legal analysis by National Center for Lesbian Rights Legal Director Shannon Price Minter and Senior Staff Attorney Christopher Stoll.

You can read NCLR analysis of the trial to date at the Blend.

* And as you can see in the left sidebar, we are following #prop8 tweets today via Hootsuite.

* It’s nowhere to hide on DOMA for the Obama admin soon. My friend Joe Sudbay notes this today:

Today’s Prop. 8 decision will give the Obama administration the opportunity to speak out for equality for all Americans. Don’t hold your breath. If this case gets to the Supreme Court, the Obama administration’s Solicitor General should weigh in given the constitutional implications. So, we may get some indication in a couple years.

We may not get a comment about this Prop. 8 decision anytime soon, but the White House is going to have to address the constitutionality of DOMA sometime soon.

…After the decision in the Massachusetts DOMA case is entered, Obama’s Department of Justice will have 60 days to decide whether to appeal that ruling. The DOJ’s lawyers will have to argue that DOMA is constitutional in order to appeal it. Is that Obama’s position?


Official Events in San Francisco, West Hollywood (Los Angeles) After Decision is Released

UPDATE: Livestream of the official plaintiffs press conference will be at Press conference to start within minutes of decision being issued.


*Perry v. Schwarzenegger/Prop. 8 Trial Plaintiffs Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami, Jeff Zarrillo

*Lead attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies

*American Foundation for Equal Rights Board President Chad Griffin

* Check out this hilarious DKos diary: Prop. 8 proponents file hilariously awkward motion.

The Prop. 8 proponents admit, and are worried about, the harm inflicted on gay couples who are put through the ordeal of a trial and then denied marriage rights. They said that…If there is actual harm done to LGBT Americans by putting them through situations where their rights and their happiness are constantly in flux then just stop fucking doing it. Just stop torturing us

* Click over to Purple Unions (via Gay Marriage Watch) for more event updates.

Pam Spaulding

Pam Spaulding