3:09-cv-02292 #280

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document280 Filed12/07/09 Page1 of 35
1 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

Theodore B. Olson, SBN 38137
2 tolson@gibsondunn.com
Matthew D. McGill, pro hac vice
3 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 955-8668, Facsimile: (202) 467-0539
4 Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., SBN 132009
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
5 Christopher D. Dusseault, SBN 177557
Ethan D. Dettmer, SBN 196046
6 333 S. Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90071
7 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
David Boies, pro hac vice
8 dboies@bsfllp.com
333 Main Street, Armonk, New York 10504
9 Telephone: (914) 749-8200, Facsimile: (914) 749-8300
Jeremy M. Goldman, SBN 218888
10 jgoldman@bsfllp.com
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900, Oakland, California 94612
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12 KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER,
PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO
13 Dennis J. Herrera, SBN 139669
Therese M. Stewart, SBN 104930
14 Danny Chou, SBN 180240
15 One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, California 94102-4682
16 Telephone: (415) 554-4708, Facsimile (415) 554-4699
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor
17 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
19
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
20 KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al.,
Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ AND PLAINTIFF-
21 INTERVENOR’S NOTICE OF MOTION
and AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
22 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, PORTIONS OF THE EXPERT REPORT,
OPINIONS, AND TESTIMONY OF
Plaintiff-Intervenor, KENNETH P. MILLER
23
v. PLAINTIFFS’ MIL NO. 2 OF 2
24
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., [Declaration of Jeremy M. Goldman In Support
25 Defendants, and Proposed Order Filed Concurrently
Herewith]
and
26
PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS Date: December 16, 2009 [Pre-Trial Conf.]
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al., Time: 10:00 a.m.
27 Judge: Chief Judge Walker
Defendant-Intervenors. Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor
28 Trial Date: January 11, 2010
09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS’ AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO
EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF THE EXPERT REPORT, OPINIONS, AND TESTIMONY OF KENNETH P. MILLER
1 TO THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 16, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
3
counsel may be heard, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San
4
Francisco Division, Courtroom 6, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California
5
94102, Plaintiffs Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarillo
6
7 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Plaintiff-Intervenor the City and County of San Francisco (“Plaintiff-
8 Intervenor”) will and hereby do move in limine pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) for an order (1)
9 striking Paragraphs 53 through 72 of the rebuttal expert report of Kenneth P. Miller, Ph.D., who was
10
designated as a rebuttal expert witness in this matter by Defendant-Intervenors Dennis Hollingsworth,
11
Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, Mark A. Jansson, and
12
ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal (collectively, “Proponents”), and
13
(2) precluding Dr. Miller from offering any opinions or testimony at trial relating to the topics or
14
15 materials in the stricken paragraphs.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ii
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .........................................................................1
4
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................1
5
FACTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………..1
6
The Miller Report Does Not Rebut the Segura Report ................................................................1
7
The Miller Report Duplicates The Nathanson Report .................................................................2
8
ARGUMENT………………….. .............................................................................................................4
9
I. THE MILLER REPORT DOES NOT REBUT THE SEGURA REPORT .........................................5
10
II. THE MILLER REPORT DUPLICATES THE NATHANSON REPORT.........................................7
11
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 iii
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
FEDERAL CASES
3
4 Clausen v. M/V New Carissa,

339 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2003) ......................................................................................................4
5
Crowley v. Chait,
6 322 F. Supp. 2d 530 (D.N.J. 2004) ...............................................................................................8
7
Internet Services v. Immersion Corp.,
8 No. C-06-02009, 2008 WL 2051028 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2008)..................................................4
9 Jarritos, Inc. v. Los Jarritos,

No. C-05-02380, 2007 WL 1302506 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2007)................................................4, 5
10
J.W. v. City of Oxnard,
11
No. CV 07-06191, 2008 WL 4810298 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2008).................................................5
12
Johnson v. Grays Harbor Committee Hospital,
13 No. C06-5502, 2007 WL 4510313 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 18, 2007) .................................................5
14 Lindner v. Meadow Gold Dairies, Inc.,

249 F.R.D. 625 (D. Haw. 2008) ...................................................................................................5
15
16 Scientific Components Corp. v. Sirenza Micro., Inc.,

No. 03 CV 1851, 2008 WL 4911440 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2008) ..................................................7
17
United States v. So. Cal. Edison Co.,
18 1:01 CV 5167, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24592 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2005) ...................................6
19
Universal Trading & Investment Co. v. Kiritchenko,
20 No. C-99-03073, 2007 WL 2141296 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2007) ...................................................5
21 Yeti By Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp.,

259 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................................4
22
23
RULES
24
25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)(ii).......................................................................................................2, 4, 6, 7

26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) .............................................................................................................................5
27
28 iv
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 INTRODUCTION
3 Proponents have designated a rebuttal expert, Dr. Kenneth P. Miller, whose report contains a
4 lengthy section on religion that duplicates almost in its entirety the previously served report of Dr.
5 Paul Nathanson, and that does not actually rebut anything in the report of Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Gary
6 M. Segura. Accordingly, the challenged section of Dr. Miller’s report is doubly improper and should
7 be stricken on both grounds: (1) although it ostensibly rebuts the report of Dr. Segura, Dr. Miller’s
8 report does not actually do so and instead mischaracterizes a single sentence of the report as a pretext
9 to offer non-responsive “rebuttal” testimony; and (2) that section of Dr. Miller’s report impermissibly
10 duplicates the report filed by Proponents’ expert, Dr. Nathanson, in their case-in-chief.
11 FACTS
12 Pursuant to the Court’s Civil Minute Order dated August 19, 2009 (the “August 19, 2009
13 Order,” Exhibit A to the Declaration of Jeremy M. Goldman, Esq., (“Goldman Decl.”)), initial expert
14 reports were filed by Plaintiffs and the Proponents on October 2, 2009. Plaintiffs served the report of
15 Dr. Segura (“Segura Report,” Goldman Decl. Ex. B). Proponents served the report of Paul
16 Nathanson, Ph.D. (“Nathanson Report,” Goldman Decl. Ex. C). Appended to the back of Dr.
17 Nathanson’s report was an “Index of Material Considered.” Goldman Decl. Ex. D. In accordance
18 with the agreement of the parties, rebuttal expert reports were served on November 9, 2009.
19 Proponents served the rebuttal expert report of Kenneth P. Miller, Ph.D. (“Miller Report,” Goldman
20 Decl. Ex. E). Dr. Miller’s report also included an “Index of Material Considered” at the end.
21 Goldman Decl. Ex. F.
22 The Miller Report Does Not Rebut the Segura Report
23 Dr. Segura, a Professor of American Politics in the Department of Political Science at Stanford
24 University, discusses in his report “the relative political power of gays and lesbians as a class of
25 citizens, and their level of political vulnerability.” Segura Report at 2. In one sentence of the report,
26 Dr. Segura noted that “the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the campaign in favor of
27 Proposition 8 was conceived and funded by a cooperative effort of the Roman Catholic Archbishop
28 of San Francisco and the senior leadership of the Mormon Church.” Segura Report at 12. Dr.
1
1 Segura does not refer to the role of religious leaders or denominations in the Proposition 8 campaign
2 in any other section of the report; he does not argue that religion played a role on only one side of the
3 controversy; he does not claim that religious leaders were active only to support the passage of
4 Proposition 8.
5 Nonetheless, based on this sentence in Dr. Segura’s report, Dr. Miller devotes six single-spaced
6 pages of his report to “rebutting” a claim that “Proposition 8 was the result of concerted activity by
7 certain religious groups. See Segura Report at 12.” Miller Report, ¶ 53. After attributing this
8 opinion to Dr. Segura, Dr. Miller does not offer the contrary opinion that Proposition 8 was not “the
9 result of concerted activity by certain religious groups.” Instead, he writes: “Based on my own
10 review of the relevant materials, I conclude that religious groups both supported and opposed
11 Proposition 8.” Miller Report, ¶ 53. Paragraphs 53-72 of the Miller Report then detail at length his
12 conclusions regarding the stances that various religious denominations took regarding Proposition 8.
13 As set forth below, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)(ii), a rebuttal expert report is
14 “intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party
15 under Rule 26 (a)(2)(B).” These sections of the Miller Report cannot be considered a rebuttal report
16 because they do not contradict or rebut a claim made by Dr. Segura. Thus, they do not constitute
17 proper rebuttal expert report material, and should be stricken, and Dr. Miller’s testimony limited to
18 exclude any opinions or testimony regarding those sections at trial.
19 The Miller Report Duplicates The Nathanson Report
20 The Nathanson Report – served on October 2, 2009, and thus part of the Proponents’ case-in-
21 chief – is devoted to the discussion of “religious attitudes toward Proposition 8.” Nathanson Report,
22 ¶ 2. Like Dr. Miller – but over a month earlier – Dr. Nathanson offered the opinion in his report that
23 religious communities both supported and opposed Proposition 8:
24 Several religious communities—such as the (Mormon) Church of Jesus Christ of
25 Latter-day Saints, the Southern Baptists, and Orthodox Judaism—do support
26 Proposition 8. But within these communities are dissenters and even dissenting
27 organizations. Moreover, other religious communities—such as the Episcopal Church,
28
2
1 the Unitarian Universalist Association, the United Church of Christ, and Reform
2 Judaism—vigorously oppose Proposition 8.
3 Id. Thus, the thesis of the Nathanson Report is identical to that of Paragraphs 53-72 of the Miller
4 Report.
5 But the two reports share more than just a thesis; nearly every paragraph of the Miller Report
6 has an analog in the Nathanson Report. The striking and extensive similarities between the two
7 reports are set forth at length in the chart attached as Appendix A to this memorandum. Among those
8 similarities are the following:
9 • Dr. Miller concluded that “religious communities do not speak with one voice on matters
10 relating to same-sex marriage and homosexuality,” and that even within the Catholic
11 Church, which supported Proposition 8, “adherents can differ on the issue.” Miller
12 Report, ¶¶ 55-56. Dr. Nathanson concluded that “Bishops of the California Catholic
13 Conference support Proposition 8. So does a Catholic fraternal organization, the Knights
14 of Columbus.” Yet, he stated, “Catholics are profoundly divided over the issue,” and
15 “dissenters lack support from the hierarchy, it is true, but everyone hears their ‘voices.’”
16 Nathanson Report, ¶ 16.
17 • Dr. Miller cited the liberal position taken by some Protestant clergy, arguing that
18 “[n]umerous Christian laypersons, clergy, local congregations, and even entire
19 denominations, have stood at the forefront of the movement for LGBT rights and the
20 effort to win legal recognition for same-sex marriage.” Miller Report, ¶ 55. Dr.
21 Nathanson cited religious leaders who spoke against Proposition 8, saying that “[a]t the
22 very least, they confer religious prestige on the cause of opposition to Proposition 8,” and
23 then named several such religious leaders. Nathanson Report, ¶ 18.
24 • Dr. Miller cited the adoption in 2005 by the Twenty-fifth General Synod of the United
25 Church of Christ of a resolution urging congregations and individuals to support
26 legislation to grant equal marriage rights to couples regardless of gender. Miller Report, ¶
27 66. Dr. Nathanson stated that “[o]n 4 July 2005, the United Church of Christ officially
28 endorsed gay marriage.” Nathanson Report, fn. 18.
3
1 • Dr. Miller catalogues and contrasts the positions of the Orthodox, Conservative, Reform,
2 and Reconstructionist Jewish communities. Miller Report, ¶ 70. Dr. Nathanson does the
3 same. ¶¶ 31, 38, fn. 30.
4 In addition, the reports by Dr. Miller and Dr. Nathanson each include an “Index of Materials
5 Considered.” Over 150 of the materials listed on Dr. Nathanson’s index also appear on Dr. Miller’s
6 index. See Appendix B, attached hereto, comparing Goldman Decl. Ex. F with Goldman Decl. Ex.
7 D. The nature of those materials – which include press releases, newspaper articles, and websites –
8 makes it likely that Dr. Miller simply copied them from Dr. Nathanson to support the same opinion
9 already offered in Dr. Nathanson’s report. Moreover, the index for Dr. Miller’s sources lists 28
10 websites that not only appear on Dr. Nathanson’s index, but also show the same “last visited” date –
11 all of which precede the date when Dr. Segura’s report was served on the Proponents. Those sources
12 are separately listed in Appendix C to this memorandum. The religion section of Dr. Miller’s report,
13 and the support for it, is plainly duplicative of Dr. Nathanson’s report. Moreover, the fact that Dr.
14 Nathanson addressed these same issues in his report, before Plaintiffs served their reports, makes
15 clear that these opinions are not truly rebuttal at all but rather are opinions Proponents fully intend to
16 offer in support of their own case.
17 ARGUMENT
18 The decision whether to admit or exclude expert testimony is submitted to the sound
19 discretion of the trial court. Clausen v. M/V New Carissa, 339 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2003).
20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C) requires the parties to disclose experts and their reports
21 “at the times and in the sequence that the court orders.” Rebuttal reports are those “intended solely to
22 contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
23 26(a)(2)(C)(ii). Failure to abide by the disclosure rules subjects a party to sanctions pursuant to Fed.
24 R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1), including the exclusion of evidence. “Rule 37(c)(1) gives teeth to these
25 requirements by forbidding the use at trial of any information required to be disclosed by Rule 26(a)
26 that is not properly disclosed.” Yeti By Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106
27 (9th Cir. 2001); Internet Servs. v. Immersion Corp., No. C-06-02009, 2008 WL 2051028, at *1 (N.D.
28 Cal. May 13, 2008) (quoting Yeti By Molly Ltd., 259 F.3d at 1106); Jarritos, Inc. v. Los Jarritos, No.
4
1 C-05-02380, 2007 WL 1302506, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2007) (same), aff’d on this ground and
2 rev’d on other grounds, 2009 WL 2487066 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2009).
3 The appropriate way to limit the expert’s testimony at trial is through a motion in limine.
4 “[T]he remedy for noncompliant expert reports is usually exclusion of the witness’ testimony under
5 Rule 37(c) upon a proper motion in limine.” Universal Trading & Inv. Co. v. Kiritchenko, No. C-99-
6 03073, 2007 WL 2141296, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2007); see also Johnson v. Grays Harbor Cmty.
7 Hosp., No. C06-5502, 2007 WL 4510313, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 18, 2007).
8 I. THE MILLER REPORT DOES NOT REBUT THE SEGURA REPORT
9 Although it purports to rebut the Segura Report, the challenged section of the Miller Report
10 (Paragraphs 53-72) does not actually contradict any claim Dr. Segura made in his report. Since the
11 Miller Report was designated as a rebuttal expert report – and served on the November 9 date for
12 rebuttal reports rather than the October 2 date for initial reports – both the report and his testimony
13 must be limited to subjects and evidence that fairly rebut Plaintiffs’ experts. See Johnson, 2007 WL
14 4510313, at *2 (“By virtue of Plaintiff’s designation of his experts purely as rebuttal experts,
15 Plaintiff has limited his experts to rebuttal testimony.”).
16 A rebuttal report may be stricken and the expert excluded from testifying at trial if the subject
17 matter of the report does not actually rebut the other party’s expert testimony. The Jarritos court
18 struck the bulk of the rebuttal expert reports because “the substance of their reports [did] not actually
19 rebut or even directly address [opposing expert’s] opinion.” Jarritos, Inc., 2007 WL 1302506, at *5.
20 In J.W. v. City of Oxnard, No. CV 07-06191, 2008 WL 4810298 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2008), the trial
21 court excluded the testimony of one of the plaintiff’s expert rebuttal witnesses because the plaintiff
22 “failed to show that [the expert’s] testimony would be given ‘solely to contradict or rebut’
23 defendants’ expert testimony,” as the defendants had not designated any expert testimony on the
24 same subject that the plaintiff’s expert could possibly rebut. Id. at *4; see also Lindner v. Meadow
25 Gold Dairies, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 625, 637 (D. Haw. 2008) (portion of rebuttal witness report that does
26 not contradict or rebut anything in other party’s expert report “does not constitute a proper rebuttal
27 report,” would be stricken, and expert would not be permitted to testify at trial regarding that portion
28 of the report).
5
1 Dr. Miller’s opinions in paragraphs 53 to 72 of his report consist of a survey of positions
2 taken by religious denominations related to Proposition 8:
3 • the position of the Catholic Church and most Evangelical churches in opposition to same-
4 sex marriage and homosexuality, and the support by Catholic Church and many
5 Evangelical churches for Proposition 8. Miller Report, ¶¶ 55-57.
6 • statements by the Southern Baptist Convention and the American Baptist Churches in the
7 U.S.A opposing same-sex marriage, and the formation of a dissenting group within the
8 Baptist organization. Miller Report, ¶¶ 58-59.
9 • the positions of the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, and the Lutheran
10 Church-Missouri Synod on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Miller Report, ¶¶ 61-
11 63.
12 • efforts by liberal Protestant clergy to support LGBT rights, including same-sex marriage.
13 Miller Report, ¶ 55.
14 • positions taken by groups such as the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist
15 Association, the California Council of Churches and certain Episcopal church members
16 urging recognition of same-sex marriage. Miller Report, ¶¶ 65-68.
17 • the positions of Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist Jewish
18 movements regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Miller Report, ¶ 70.
19 The single sentence of the Segura Report offered as the basis for these six pages of “rebuttal”
20 is pretext. Dr. Segura’s reference to the San Francisco Chronicle article regarding the role of the
21 Roman Catholic and Mormon Churches in conceiving and funding the campaign for Proposition 8 is
22 not contradicted by the paragraphs describing positions taken by other religious denominations.
23 Rather than contradict or rebut Dr. Segura’s report, Dr. Miller confirms that both the Catholic Church
24 and the Mormon Church supported Proposition 8. Miller Report, ¶¶ 56, 60. Moreover, it is improper
25 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C) to use a single line from an expert’s report as a springboard into an
26 tangential subject matter. In United States v. Southern California Edison Co., 1:01-CV-5167, 2005
27 U.S. Dist. Lexis 24592, at *14-16 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2005), the court struck a rebuttal expert’s
28 opinion that seized upon a single line in the other party’s expert report to launch a “detailed and
6
1 expansive analysis” of an ancillary subject, writing that the party proffering the rebuttal “might as
2 well thread an elephant through the eye of a needle.” Id. at *15.
3 Paragraphs 53-72 of Dr. Miller’s report do not meet the requirement that they be “intended
4 solely to contradict or rebut” the evidence proffered in the single sentence of Dr. Segura’s report,
5 because they confirm, rather than contradict or rebut, the facts in Dr. Segura’s statement. Fed. R.
6 Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)(ii). Moreover, as discussed below, the use of that sentence is pretextual: It is an
7 impermissible effort to put into the mouth of a new expert words that were already offered by another
8 expert as part of Proponents’ case-in-chief.
9 II. THE MILLER REPORT DUPLICATES THE NATHANSON REPORT
10 Paragraphs 53-72 of Dr. Miller’s report present nearly identical information to that contained
11 in the Nathanson Report, served on October 2. Where a party designates a purported rebuttal witness
12 who simply repeats the analysis of a witness designated as part of that party’s case-in-chief, the
13 rebuttal witness’s testimony may be limited at trial to preclude any duplicative testimony. See
14 Scientific Components Corp. v. Sirenza Microdevices, Inc., No. 03 CV 1851, 2008 WL 4911440, *3-
15 4 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2008).
16 In Scientific Components, which centered on the merchantability of amplifiers, the plaintiff
17 had first offered a witness in its case-in-chief to discuss the stability of the amplifiers, but then
18 offered a second witness, ostensibly a rebuttal witness, who included in his report a section that
19 “improperly repeats and restates” the analysis of the original report. Id. at *3. The court held that the
20 repetitive portion was not “intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence” as required by Fed. R.
21 Civ. P. 26 (a)(2)(C)(ii) and prejudice to the other party could be eliminated by limiting the witness’s
22 trial testimony to exclude any testimony that would duplicate the other witness. Id. at *3-4 (original
23 emphasis).
24 As set forth supra and in Appendix A, the reports submitted by Drs. Miller and Nathanson are
25 startlingly alike:
26 • Each expresses the thesis that religious groups acted both in support of and in opposition
27 to Proposition 8.
28
7
1 • Each details the support for Proposition 8 by the Catholic Church, as well as that church’s
2 views on homosexuality and same-sex marriage, and the views of the other major religion
3 that was a significant supporter of Proposition 8, the Mormon Church.
4 • Each examines denominations that have taken official stances either in support of
5 Proposition 8 or against same-sex marriage, but, according to Drs. Miller and Nathanson,
6 experience some dissent among their adherents on the issue.
7 • Each examines the positions on homosexuality or same-sex marriage by other
8 denominations – in fact, they often cite the same denominations.
9 • Each details efforts by some Protestants churches in California to advocate for same-sex
10 marriage.
11 • Each examines the varying positions among the Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and
12 Reconstructionist branches of Judaism.
13 Moreover, the “Index of Materials Considered” appended to each report indicates that Drs. Miller and
14 Nathanson considered over 150 identical materials, including websites, press releases, and newspaper
15 articles. See Appendix B. That list of duplicative materials includes 28 websites that have the same
16 “last visited” date. See Appendix C. It is not plausible that Dr. Nathanson and Dr. Miller visited
17 these 28 websites on the exact same date – each of which, moreover, proceeds the date on which Dr.
18 Segura’s report was served on the Proponents and therefore available to Dr. Miller.
19 It appears that Proponents are likely violating the rules governing rebuttal reports in an
20 attempt to substitute a new expert for a prior expert with whom they may now not wish to proceed.
21 But whatever the Proponents’ motivation in serving a duplicative rebuttal report, their tactic is
22 improper. Rebuttal testimony “is limited to that which is precisely directed to rebutting new matter
23 or new theories” and “is not an opportunity for the correction of any oversights in the [party’s] case
24 in chief.” Crowley v. Chait, 322 F. Supp. 2d 530, 550-51 (D.N.J. 2004) (internal citations and
25 quotation marks omitted). Not only are Dr. Miller’s opinions duplicative and cumulative to the
26 extent they repeat opinions offered by Dr. Nathanson, they also are not proper rebuttal because
27 whatever need there is for such evidence was known to Proponents when they served their initial
28
8
1 reports. The portions of the Miller Report should be excluded and the witness’s testimony limited at
2 trial to exclude any testimony regarding those subjects.
3 CONCLUSION
4 For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor request that the Court enter
5 an order striking paragraphs 53-72 of Dr. Miller’s report and precluding him from offering opinions
6 or testimony on the subject matters expressed therein.
7
Dated: December 7, 2009
9
10
By: /s
11 Jeremy M. Goldman
12
and
13 David Boies, pro hac vice
Steven C. Holtzman, SBN 144177
14
15 Rosanne C. Baxter, pro hac vice
Theodore H. Uno, SBN 248603
16 Richard J. Bettan, pro hac vice
Joshua Schiller, pro hac vice
17 Beko Reblitz-Richardson, SBN 238027
18
Attorneys for Plaintiffs KRISTIN M. PERRY,
19 SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and
JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO
20
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
21
22 Matthew D. McGill, pro hac vice
Amir C. Tayrani, SBN 229609
Christopher D. Dusseault, SBN 177557
24 Ethan D. Dettmer, SBN 196046
Sarah E. Piepmeier, SBN 227094
25 Theane Evangelis Kapur, SBN 243570
Enrique A. Monagas, SBN 239087
26
27 Attorneys for Plaintiffs KRISTIN M. PERRY,

SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, AND
28 JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO
9
2 Dennis J. Herrera
City Attorney
3 Therese M. Stewart
Chief Deputy City Attorney
4 Danny Chou
Chief of Complex and Special Litigation
5 Ronald P. Flynn
Vince Chhabria
6 Erin Bernstein
Christine Van Aken
7 Mollie M. Lee
Deputy City Attorneys
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
APPENDIX A
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN NATHANSON AND MILLER REPORTS
MILLER NATHANSON
Based on my own review of the relevant As I will demonstrate, religious attitudes to
materials, I conclude that religious groups Proposition 8 vary considerably. Several
both supported and opposed Proposition 8. religious communities—such as the
¶ 53 (Mormon) Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, the Southern Baptists,
and Orthodox Judaism—do support
Proposition 8. But within these
communities are dissenters and even
dissenting organizations. Moreover, other
religious communities—such as the
Episcopal Church, the Unitarian
Universalist Association, the United
Church of Christ, and Reform Judaism—
vigorously oppose Proposition 8. ¶ 2
It is notable that the religious community Bishops of the California Catholic
does not speak with one voice on matters Conference support Proposition 8. So does
relating to same-sex marriage and a Catholic fraternal organization, the
homosexuality. The Catholic Church and Knights of Columbus. Nonetheless, this
most Evangelical churches defend the position has “met with mixed reactions
historic Christian doctrine that marriage is among church members, including
a union between a man and a woman. Even clergy.” Catholics are profoundly divided
within these faiths, adherents can differ on over gay marriage (along with many
the issue of same-sex marriage. ¶ 55 other social and political problems);
dissenters lack support from the hierarchy,
it is true, but everyone hears their “voices.”
¶ 16 (footnote omitted)
California’s mainline Protestant Although religious leaders usually speak
congregations and clergy have often staked officially for their denominations or
out the liberal position in these their organizations, some who support [sic]
denominational controversies. Numerous Proposition 8 speak primarily for
Christian laypersons, clergy, local themselves—in this case, usually (though
congregations, and even entire not always) as gay people or people
denominations, have stood at the with gay friends or relatives. At the very
forefront of the movement for LGBT rights least, they confer religious prestige on
and the effort to win legal recognition the cause of opposition to Proposition 8.
for same-sex marriage. ¶ 55 These supporters of gay rights include
V. Gene Robinson (Episcopalian bishop of
New Hampshire); Denise L. Eger
(rabbi of Congregation Kol Ami in West
Hollywood and president of the Board
of Rabbis of Southern California); Mark
Pelavin (associate director of the
1
Religious Action Center for Reform

Judaism in Washington D.C.); and Elliot
Dorff (Conservative rabbi and rector of
American Jewish University in Los
Angeles). ¶ 18
The Roman Catholic Church has As evidence, they point to the fact that that
consistently defended church teaching some churches—notably the
that marriage is a union between a man and Roman Catholic Church and the (Mormon)
a woman, and has opposed efforts to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
grant legal recognition to same-sex unions. Saints—actively promoted Proposition 8. ¶
In 2003, the Administrative Committee of 15 (footnote omitted).
the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
issued a statement declaring: “we strongly Officially supporting Proposition 8, and
oppose any legislative and judicial therefore supporting traditional marriage,
attempts, both at state and federal levels, to are the Roman Catholic Church . . . ¶ 17
grant same-sex unions the equivalent status
and rights of marriage—by naming them
marriage, civil unions or by other means.”
The Catholic Church actively supported
Proposition 8. ¶ 56
The Southern Baptist Convention is the Several religious communities—such as
largest Protestant denomination in the (Mormon) Church of Jesus Christ of
the United States. In 2003, the Southern Latter-day Saints, the Southern Baptists,
Baptist Convention reaffirmed its and Orthodox Judaism—do support
support for the traditional definition of Proposition 8. ¶ 2.
marriage and its opposition to legal
recognition of “same-sex marriage or other Officially supporting Proposition 8, and
equivalent unions.” ¶ 58 therefore supporting traditional marriage,
are the Roman Catholic Church, the
Mormon Church, the Lutheran Church-
Missouri Synod, the Southern Baptist
Convention, and various organizations that
represent Orthodox Judaism. ¶ 17
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Several religious communities—such as
Saints (LDS) has approximately the (Mormon) Church of Jesus Christ of
6 million members in the U.S. and 700,000 Latter-day Saints, the Southern Baptists,
in California. The church affirms that and Orthodox Judaism—do support
marriage between a man and a woman is Proposition 8. ¶ 2.
ordained by God and it opposes legal
recognition of same-sex relationships. ¶ 60 Officially supporting Proposition 8, and
therefore supporting traditional marriage,
are the Roman Catholic Church, the
Mormon Church, the Lutheran Church-
2
The United Methodist Church (UMC), the In September 2008, California Faith for
nation’s second-largest Protestant Equality met in a West Hollywood
denomination (11 million members), is church to oppose Proposition 8. Director
deeply divided over questions of Kerry Chaplin told clergy and
homosexuality and same-sex unions. The laypeople that they should bear in mind the
General Conference of the UMC, the “spectrum of beliefs and opinions in
denomination’s governing body, has the religious community [about gay
affirmed that it “support[s] laws in civil marriage] … Leaders in the Episcopal and
society that define marriage as the union of United Methodist churches, two
one man and one woman.” However, denominations torn over the homosexuality
many Methodist congregations in debate, oppose [Proposition 8] on civil
California have been at the forefront of a rights grounds.”8 On 1 November 2008,
movement in the church to affirm same-sex San Francisco’s Glide Memorial [United
unions. Numerous United Methodist Methodist] Church held an
ministers in California have challenged interreligious celebration of gay marriage.
denominational authorities by performing ¶ 21
weddings for same-sex couples. In June
2009, 82 retired UMC pastors in Central United Methodist Church in
Northern California signed a resolution Sacramento sponsored “Sing Out the Vote
offering to perform such ceremonies on and Take to the Streets: An Interfaith ‘No
behalf of active ministers who feel on 8’ Celebration. ¶ 22
constrained by church discipline. The two
United Methodist regional assemblies
based in California declared their
opposition to Proposition 8. The (Southern)
California-Pacific assembly called on
Methodists to “work with all their might
for [Proposition 8’s] defeat” and many
UMC clergy and laypersons actively
opposed the measure. ¶ 61
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is The Presbyterian Church (USA): Although
another large mainline Protestant not all Presbyterians oppose
denomination that is internally divided on Proposition 8, many do. ¶ 28.
questions of homosexuality and same-sex
unions. The General Assembly of PCUSA
has not explicitly addressed the
issue of same-sex marriage. PCUSA has
denied ordination to persons in gay and
lesbian relationships as a consequence of
its rule that ministers must live in
“fidelity within the covenant of marriage
between a man and a woman, or chastity
in singleness.” A strong faction in the
denomination has challenged this rule. The
General Assembly has voted to remove this
3
limitation, but this action has not

received the necessary ratification from
local presbyteries. ¶ 62
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Officially supporting Proposition 8, and
supports the traditional definition of therefore supporting traditional marriage,
marriage and urged its members to support are the Roman Catholic Church, the
Proposition 8. ¶ 63 Mormon Church, the Lutheran Church-
The Episcopal Church (2.1 million Moreover, other religious communities—
members in the U.S.) has become such as the Episcopal Church, the Unitarian
increasingly active in promoting LGBT Universalist Association, the United
rights. In 2003, the Church consecrated Church of Christ, and Reform Judaism—
its first openly gay bishop and the church vigorously oppose Proposition 8. ¶ 2
supports the ordination of gay clergy, a
position which causes tension within the But many other churches, including
global Anglican Communion. In 2006, the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal
the General Convention of the Episcopal dioceses of California, and the
Church stated its “support of gay and Unitarians opposed Proposition 8. ¶ 15
lesbian persons and [opposition to] any
state or federal constitutional amendment
prohibiting gay marriages or civil unions.”
In September 2008, California’s six
most senior Episcopal bishops issued a
joint statement urging voters to defeat
Proposition 8. The bishops argued that “the
Christian values of monogamy,
commitment, love, mutual respect, and
witness of monogamy are enhanced for all
by providing [the right to marry] to gay and
straight alike.” ¶65
In October 2008, a national newsletter Two rabbinical associations came out
published by Integrity, a group within the against Proposition 8, as did Bishops in
Episcopal Church that advocates LGBT Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist and
rights, reported: “We are delighted by several Black church traditions and other
the super work of our many ongoing Christian leaders.” ¶ 25
groups in the Western Region—especially
the many members, groups, and parishes
opposing California's Proposition 8 (the
anti-marriage amendment). We are very
excited by the support of all the
California bishops for the Vote No On Prop
8 campaign and by the work of many
groups and parishes in hosting benefit
parties, phone banks, and other anti-ballot
4
events.” . . . In 2009, the General

Convention voted to give bishops the
option to bless same-sex unions. ¶ 65
In 2005, the Twenty-fifth General Synod of On 4 July 2005, the United Church of
the United Church of Christ Christ officially endorsed gay marriage:”
(UCC) adopted a resolution urging Whereas the Bible affirms and celebrates
congregations and individuals to “support human expressions of love and partnership,
local, state and national legislation to grant calling us to live out fully that gift of God
equal marriage rights to couples in responsible, faithful, committed
regardless of gender, and to work against relationships that recognize and respect the
legislation, including constitutional image of God in all people; and Whereas
amendments, which denies civil marriage the life and example of Jesus of Nazareth
rights to couples based on gender.” provides a model of radically inclusive
Numerous UCC congregations in love and abundant welcome for all; and
California have mobilized in support of Whereas we proclaim ourselves to be
same-sex listening to the voice of a Still Speaking
marriage, by opposing Proposition 8 and God at that at all times in human history
endorsing legislation to grant there is always yet more light and truth to
marriage rights to same-sex couples. ¶ 66 break forth from God’s holy word …
Therefore let it be resolved that the
Twenty-fifth General Synod of the United
Church of Christ affirms equal
marriage rights for couples regardless of
gender and declares that the government
should not interfere with couples regardless
of gender who choose to marry and share
fully and equally in the rights,
responsibilities and commitment of legally
recognized marriage; and Let it be further
resolved that the Twenty-fifth General
Synod of the United Church of Christ
affirms equal access to the basic rights,
institutional protections and quality of life
conferred by the recognition of marriage
…” Fn. 18
The Unitarian Universalist Association has In 1996, the Unitarian Universalist
adopted numerous resolutions Association officially endorsed gay
supporting equal rights for LGBT persons, marriage: “Because Unitarian Universalists
including support for same-sex unions. affirm the inherent worth and dignity of
In 1996, the General Assembly of the UUA every person; and Because marriage is held
adopted a resolution reaffirming its in honor among the blessings of life …
support for legal recognition for marriage Therefore be it resolved that the 1996
between members of the same sex and General Assembly of the Unitarian
urged the organization to make its position Universalist Association adopts a position
known through the media and for local in support of legal recognition for marriage
member congregations to promote it in between members of the same sex …” Fn.
5
their home communities. Unitarian 19

Universalist congregations have actively
pursued this goal. ¶ 67
The California Council of Churches is a At around that time, the Council of
prominent advocate of LGBT Churches of Santa Clara County
rights. This association represents 51 Committee against Proposition 8,
different mainline Protestant and Orthodox consisting of approximately 25 local
denominations and groups with more than churches, sponsored the following
1.5 million members. Its member announcement in the San Jose Mercury
organizations include the denominations or News: “As people of faith, we believe that
local affiliates of the American all people are made in the image of God.
Baptist Churches, African Methodist We believe in loving, faithful, and
Episcopal Church, African Methodist committed relationships. We affirm
Episcopal Zion Church, Armenian Church everyone’s right to the freedom to marry.
of America, Christian Church We urge you to vote no on Proposition 8.
(Disciples of Christ), Christian Methodist Don’t eliminate marriage for anyone.”10
Episcopal Church, Church of the Among those who signed this
Brethren, Church Women United, announcement (in addition to members of
Community of Christ, Episcopal Church, the Metropolitan Community Church) were
Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Evangelical Episcopalians, Unitarians, United
Lutheran Church of America, Greek Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists,
Orthodox Church, Moravian Church, Presbyterians, and members of the United
National Baptist Convention, Orthodox Church of Christ. ¶ 21
Clergy Council, Presbyterian Church
(USA), Reformed Church in America,
Swedenborgian Church, United Church of
Christ, the United Fellowship of
Metropolitan Community Churches, and
the United Methodist Church. ¶ 68
The California Council of Churches states At around that time, the Council of
that it is devoted to “creat[ing] Churches of Santa Clara County
a world that cares for all of its citizens Committee against Proposition 8,
regardless of economic class, ages, gender, consisting of approximately 25 local
race and ethnicity, religious belief, or churches, sponsored the following
sexual orientation.” The CCC operates an announcement in the San Jose Mercury
office in Sacramento to represent these News: “As people of faith, we believe that
member organizations on matters of all people are made in the image of God.
public policy, and advocates on behalf of We believe in loving, faithful, and
LGBT rights, including the right of committed relationships. We affirm
same-sex couples to marry. It opposed everyone’s right to the freedom to marry.
Proposition 8, filed amicus briefs in We urge you to vote no on Proposition 8.
support of same-sex marriage in both In re Don’t eliminate marriage for anyone.”10
Marriage Cases and Strauss v. Among those who signed this
Horton, and through California Church announcement (in addition to members of
IMPACT, endorsed A.B. 43 (Leno), the the Metropolitan Community Church) were
legislative measure seeking to end the ban Episcopalians, Unitarians, United
6
on same-sex marriage in California. ¶ 69 Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists,

Presbyterians, and members of the United
Church of Christ. ¶ 21
[Religious denominations opposing

Proposition 8] have
described themselves to California’s
Supreme Court,22 so there is no need to
repeat that exhaustive account here. ¶ 26
Fn. 22: Application for Leave to Join Brief

of Amici Curiae California Council of
Churches et al. in Support of Petitioners,
Strauss et al. v. Horton et al., Nos.
S168047/S168066 /S168078 (Cal. 2009)..
The leadership of Orthodox Judaism Orthodox Judaism generally supports
defines marriage as an institution Proposition 8 and therefore opposes gay
between a man and a woman and does not marriage . . . ¶ 31.
accept same-sex marriage. ¶ 70
Hebrew scripture clearly forbids (male)
homosexuality. Many groups that represent
Orthodox Judaism support Proposition 8
(and therefore opposed gay marriage).
Among the Orthodox organizations that
take this position are the Orthodox Union,
Agudath Israel of America, and Agudath
Israel of California. ¶ 38 (footnote
omitted)
The Conservative Jewish movement does (Conservative Jews are, as usual, more
not sanctify gay marriage, but grants divided than the others.) ¶ 31.
autonomy to individual rabbis to choose
whether or not to recognize same-sex Conservative Judaism originated to occupy
unions. ¶ 70 the middle ground between Orthodox
traditionalism and Reform liberalism. It
allows liberal interpretations of Jewish
scripture and liberal rulings on matters of
Jewish law, but it tries also to maintain the
authority of both. This strategy does not
always satisfy those at either end of the
continuum between traditionalism and
liberalism. As a result, Conservative
Judaism allows a great deal of latitude to
suit the needs of individuals, whether
ordained or lay, and congregations. fn. 30.
7
The Reform and Reconstructionist Jewish Several Jewish denominations explicitly

movements strongly support oppose Proposition 8 and therefore
LGBT rights, including the right of same- support gay marriage: Reform Judaism,
sex couples to marry. Numerous Jewish Reconstructionist Judaism, and many
congregations, organizations, and rabbis independent Jewish communities.
have mobilized in favor of same-sex Moreover, many denominational and
marriage and in opposition to Proposition interdenominational Jewish organizations
8. ¶ 70 (most of them based in New York) take
the same position. These include the
American Jewish Committee; the National
Council of Jewish Women, the Anti-
Defamation League; the Union for Reform
Judaism; and the Jewish Community
Relations Council of San Francisco. ¶ 31
8
APPENDIX B
IDENTICAL SOURCES CITED IN DR. MILLER’S AND
DR. NATHANSON’S INDEXES OF MATERIALS CONSIDERED1
Miller Description Nathanson

Index No. Index No.
80 California Council of Churches Amicus Brief in Strauss v. Horton, 221
Nos. S168047/
S168066/S168078
82 Defendant –Intervenors’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary 58
Judgment, and
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for
Summary Judgment in Perry et al. v. Schwarzenegger, et al., No. 09-
CV-2292 in the Northern District of
California.
91 A Brief Summary As to Why Promoting California’s Proposition 8 3
Was Contrary to Both Scripture & Official LDS Doctrine,
http://h1.ripway.com/lds4gaymarriage/prop8.htm
(last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
94 Lavina Fielding Anderson, Against Proposition 8, BY COMMON 15
CONSENT, July 2008.
95 Marc Andrus & Steven Charleston, After Prop 8, Love Endures, 13
http://diocal.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=336
&Itemid=215 (last
visited Sept. 27, 2009).
96 Marc Handley Andrus, The Rt. Rev. Marc Handley Andrus writes 14
letter to the diocese inresponse to Proposition 8 Decision,
http://oasiscalifornia.org/2009%20andrus%20resonds%20prop%208%
20decision.htm
97 Asian American & Pacific Islander Clergy Support the Right of Same- 17
Sex Couples to
Marry, http://www.netrj.org/resources/library/api-clergy-support-
marriage.htm (last
103 Letter from Ed Bacon, Rector, All Saints Church, Pasadena, Cal., to 20
members of All
Saints Church, available at http://www.allsaintspas.
org/site/PageServer?pagename=ActionTable.
104 Christy Baker. The Civil Right to Civil Marriage. August 3, 2008 21
Unitarian Universalist Church of Berkeley.
http://www.uucb.org/sermons/2008080301
1
Compare Goldman Decl. Ex. F with Goldman Decl. Ex. D.
1
106 Stephen Baxter, The Rev. Carole Vincent of Almaden Hills United 23
Methodist Church plans to retire at the end of June, WILLCOX GLEN
RESIDENT, Feb. 6, 2009.
107 Posting of Becks to Living in the O, 166
http://oaklandliving.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/joinoaklanders-to-
protest-the-supreme-court-ruling-on-prop-8/ (May 26, 2009).
109 Paster Susan Brecht Speaks out Against Prop 8: Pacific School of 218
Religion,
http://www.psr.edu/alum-rev-susan-brecht-against-prop-8 (last visited
Sept. 27, 2009).
110 A Brief Summary of Actions, Evangelical Lutheran Church in 80
America, August 17-23, 2009.
111 Jerry Brown, Sermon, Protecting the Institution of Marriage…, Yom 29
Kippur, 5769/2008
116 The California Nevada Conference of the United Methodist Church, 34
California UM Bishops on Record as ‘Prop 8’ Seems Headed for
Courts,
http://www.cnumc.org/news_detail.asp?TableName=oNews_PJAYM
Y&PKValue=978 (Nov. 14, 2008).
117 The California Nevada Conference of the United Methodist Church, 35
Cal-Nevada Ums Join ‘No on 8’ Rallies,
http://www.cnumc.org/news_detail.asp?PKValue=988 (Nov. 20,
2008).
121 Christ Chapel of Laguna Beach Orange County California Gay, 38
http://www.christchapeloflaguna.org/events.htm (last visited Sept. 27,
2009).
124 Church of the Foothills, Pastor/Staff, http://chotf.org/staff.html (last 39
visited Sept. 27,
2009).
125 Congregational Church of Belmont, http://www.uccbelmont.org/ (last 46
visited Sept. 27,
2009).
126 Congregation Shomrei Torah, All in God’s Image, 43
http://www.shomreitorah.org/inthenews.html (last visited Sept. 27,
2009).
127 Congregation Shomrei Torah, Opposing Prop. 8 Interfaith service will 44
support gay marriage, http://www.shomreitorah.org/inthenews.html
128 Congregation Shomrei Torah, Please let my moms be married, 45
http://www.shomreitorah.org/inthenews.html (last visited Sept. 27,
2009).
129 David J. Cooper, Teshuva on Prop 8, KOL KEHILLA (Kehilla Cmty. 47
Synagogue, Piedmont, Cal.), Dec. 2008, at 1.
131 Created in God’s Image, B’reishit 5769, October 24, 2008. 53
2
133 DIGNITY Los Angeles – Photos – Wedding of Jim and Raol 2008, 59
http://www.dignitylosangeles.org/photos-15-prop8-pg.htm (last
134 . Email from Dignity Los Angeles to Dignity Los Angeles Members 60
(Aug. 27, 2008, 6:39 PST).
145 Lisa Edwards, From the Rabbi’s Study . . . Wedding Blues, G’VANIM 71
(Beth Cayim Chadashim, L.A., Cal.), Nov.-Dec. 2008, at 2.
147 Election Forum, STILL SPEAKING . . . (Cmty. Church of Atascadero, 74
Atascadero, Cal.), Oct. 2008, at 1.
148 David Ellenson, Editorial, Prop 8 goes against God’s love for every 76
person, JTA, Nov. 3, 2008.
151 Equality Action Project, Day of Decision Rallies. 56
157 Joe Fanelli, et al., Day of Decision and the Day After, FIRST WORDS 82
(First Unitarian
Univeralist Church of San Diego, San Diego, Cal.), July 2009, at 1.
159 FCCB Votes No on Prop. 8, FCCB THE CARILLON (First 87
Congregational Church of
Berkeley, United Church of Christ, Berkeley, Cal.), Sept. 21, 2008, at
1.
161 The Flaming Chalice Newsletter, September 2008. 90
175 Leslie Fulbright, Matthai Kuruvila, Prop 8 Rivals Seek Support in 100
Black Churches, SF Gate, October 22, 2008.
176 Gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) continue 109
to have highest number of HIV infections in the U.S. Called Out
eNews-August 2008
http://www.ucc.org/newsletter/called-out/called-out-enews-august-
2008.html
177 Rabbi Laura Geller. The Jigsaw Puzzle of Creation: A Jewish View 110
Against Proposition 8. October 24, 2008.
178 George Gittleman, Rabbi, Congregation Shomrei Torah, Torah 116
Teaches: Love the Stranger, Oct. 2008.
183 Rev. Bill Hamilton-Holway. We Can Make a Difference: Election 125
2008. October 12, 2008 Unitarian Universalist Church of Berkeley.
184 Duke Helfand, Board of rabbis opposes California anti-gay-marriage 128
initiative. LA Times. September 26, 2008
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/09/proposition-
8-i.html
185 Duke Helfand, Clergy on Both Sides of Proposition 8 Speak Out 129
(California), LA Times, Oct. 26, 2008.
187 Seth Hemmelgarn, Black Faith, Community Leaders Urge 132
Churchgoers to Oppose Prop8, BAY AREA REP., Oct. 23, 2008.
188 Seth Hemmelgarn, Churches Play Key Role in Prop 8 Campaigns, 133
The Bay Area Reporter, September 18, 2008.
189 Duke Helf, California’s top Episcopal bishops oppose gay marriage 126
ban, L.A. TIMES, Sept. 11, 2008.
3
190 Tim Herdt, Supreme Court decides Tuesday on Prop 8, VENTURA 134
COUNTY STAR, May 22, 2009.
191 House of Danu – House of Danu Takes Stand on Proposition 8, 135
http://www.houseofdanu.com/content/view/13/1 (last visited Sept. 27,
2009).
193 HUC-JIR Weekly Digest, Rabbis on Anti-Gay Marriage Prop 8, 137
http://huc.edu/external/newsletter/08/10/17/ (last visited Sept. 27,
2009).
197 Identity-Based Ministries, Report to the UUA Board of Trustees, 140
December 2008.
198 Inclusive Baptist Church, Welcoming & Affirming All, Readings for 141
the Day: Matthew 2:1-12 and ‘The Journey of the Magi’ by T.S. Eliot,
http://www.baptistchurchsf.org/sermons/detail.php?month=Jan%2020
09&mId=67 (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
199 Inclusive Baptist Church, Welcoming & Affirming All, Their Story, 142
Our Story,
http://www.baptistchurchsf.org/sermons/detail.php?month=Nov%202
008&mId=65#168 (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
200 Inner Light Center, Communicate Prop 8, 143
http://www.innerlightministries.com/documents/communications-on-
8.pdf (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
202 Integrity InfoLetter (Integrity, Rochester, N.Y.), Oct. 2008. 144
204 Elysse James, Anti-Prop 8 rally at church on Thursday, O.C. REG., 145
Mar. 4, 2008.
205 Jewish Community Mobilization for Marriage Equality, No on Prop 209
8!
206 Jewish Community Relations Council, Statement on Same-Sex Civil 146
Marriage, February 14, 2006.
207 The Jewish Gaily Forward (Congregation Shaar Zabav, S.F., Cal.), 147
Sept.-Oct. 2008.
209 Deborah L. Johnson, Gutting Equality Out of the Constitution, 151
http://www.innerlightministries.com/download/Gutting_Equality_Pro
p-8_Rev_Deborah_L_Johnson.pdf (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
210 Bronwen Jones & Kris Langabeer, Marriage Equality Team Fights to 153
Defeat Proposition 8, Unitarian Universalist Community Church of
Santa Monica Newsletter, Sept. 2008.
211 Bronwen Jones, Vote No on Prop. 8: Three Months of UUCCSM 152
Grassroots Activism, Unitarian Universalist Community Church of
Santa Monica Newsletter, Nov. 2008.
213 Rabbi Jim Kaufman. ROSH HASHANA SERMON, 2008. 154
214 Kehilla Community Synagogue – Increase the Visibility of the “No on 157
Proposition 8” Campaign,
http://www.kehillasynagogue.org/article.php/20081024174712292
(last visited on Sept. 27, 2009).
4
216 Zelda Kennedy, et al., “Let No One Put Asunder” – Reflections on the 158
Sanctity of Marriage, SAINTS ALIVE (All Saints Episcopal Church,
Pasadena, Cal.), Nov. 16, 2008, at
1.
217 KOL KEHILLA (Kehilla Cmty. Synagogue, Piedmont, Cal.), Nov. 2008. 159
219 Rabbi Klein, The Isain Newsletter, September, 2008. 99
220 Jessica Garrison Corina Knoll, Prop 8 Opponents Rally Across 106
California to Protest Gay-Marriage Ban, LA Times, November 16,
2008.
221 Maria L. LaGanga, Loudly and colorfully, opposing sides debate 160
Proposition 8, L.A. TIMES, Mar. 6, 2009.
222 Kris Langabeer & Bronwen Jones, Help Make History! Help Defeat 163
Prop. 8, Unitarian Universalist Community Church of Santa Monica
Newsletter, Oct. 2008.
226 Posting of Angela Lopez to CrossLeft: Balancing the Christian Voice, 167
Christians Against Proposition 8, http://www.crossleft.org/node/6644
(Nov. 15, 2008, 11:45).
227 Los Angeles: All Saints, Pasadena, clergy opt out of civil marriages 169
until gay couples can legally wed,
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/aroundtheworld/2009/06/los-angeles-
allsaints-pasadena-clergy-opt-out-of-civil-marriages-until-gay-
couples-can-legally-wed/(June 5, 2009).
228 Love, Marriage and Voting NO on Proposition 8, 178
http://www.mccla.org/love_marriage_prop_8.html#4.
231 Seba Martinez, AP Story Features Mormon Supporter of Marriage 171
Equality, October 6, 2008.
http://www.affirmation.org/news/2008_057.shtml
232 Dennis McMillan, Religious Leaders Speak Out Against Prop 8, S.F. 183
BAY TIMES, Mar. 12, 2009.
233 Members of Basileia participate in Rally to Overturn Prop. 8, 185
WCNNEWSLETTER (The Welcoming Cmty. Network, Independence,
Mo.), Mar. 2009, at 2.
236 The Metropolitan Community Church of San Jose, MCC Sane Jose 180
Creates Two New “No on Eight” Videos.
237 The Metropolitan Community Church of San Jose, “No on 8” Rally at 181
MCC on September 21.
239 Barbara Meyers, Quarterly Report to MPUCC Board of Trustees, 176
Mission Peak Unitarian Universalist Congregation, December 2008.
240 Lee Michael, Activist Rev. Still Performing Gay Marriages, Santa 41
Monica Mirror,
http://www.smmirror.com/MainPages/DisplayArticleDetails.asp?eid=
8761.
242 Modesto area religious leaders respond to Proposition 8 ruling, THE 188
MODESTO BEE, May 27, 2009.
249 Neighborhood Unitarian Universalist Church of Pasedena Newsletter, 196
October 26, 2008.
5

November 2, 2008.
October 19, 2008
March 1, 2009.
254 Jim Nelson Sermon, Today and Tomorrow, June 14, 2009. 200
255 Erin Yazgan, UC Santa Cruz Raises Its Voice Against Prop 8, City on 337
a Hill Press, November 20, 2008.
256 NEWS – LUTHERANS LOVE!! Lutherans Concerned/Los Angeles, 205
http://www.lutheranslove.com/ChapterNews.html (last visited Sept.
27, 2009).
257 News! News! – Hollywood Lutheran Church, Congregation Still 206
Opposed Proposition 8!,
http://www.hollywoodlutheran.org/HLCNews.html (last visited Sept.
27, 2009).
259 Open and Affirming – The Journey Continues, CCC (Cmty. 215
Congregational Church, Tiburon, Cal.), Oct. 2008, at 2.
260 Pacific School of Religion, PSR Faculty and Staff Arrested Following 247
Prop 8 Decision, May 26, 2009.
261 Pacific School of Religion, Religious Leaders Against Prop 8, 253
October 28, 2008.
262 Pacific Southwest District of the Unitarian Universalist Association at 16
Camp de Benneville Pines, Annual Meeting, May 1-3, 2009.
263 Palomar Unitarian Universalist Fellowship Telescope Newsletter, 296
November 2008.
264 Pastoral Letter on the Supreme Court’s Prop 8 Ruling, 219
ttp://www.uusf.org/Flame/nl-090526-Prop8PastoralLetter.html (last
266 PCD Currents, News from the Pacific Central District of the UUA, 202
May 10, 2009.
267 PCD Currents, News from the Pacific Central District of the UAA, 203
May 25, 2009.
268 PCD Currents, Proposition 8 Passes in California, November 10, 245
2008.
271 Pilgrim Congregationalist, Prop 8 Update, May 5, 2009. 186
272 Dan Pine, Jews take to the streets after Prop. 8 ruling, JWEEKLY.COM, 223
May 28, 2009.
273 Frank Pizzoli, Breaking News: CA Prop. 8 Opponents Speak to 224
Central Voice, Press
Release, October 20, 2006.
277 Press Release, Affirmation: Gay & Lesbian Mormons, Gay Mormons 227
and Allies Coming Together Against Proposition 8: October 11
Gathering in Los Angeles (Oct. 4, 2008).
6
278 Press Release, Cal. Council of Churches, Religious Leaders, Faith 229
Organizations to
Court: Invalidate Prop 8 (Jan. 14, 2009).
279 Press Release, NO on Prop 8, Faith Leaders Across State to Speak Out 238
Against
Proposition 8 (Oct. 31, 2008).
281 Press Release, Congregation Kol Ami, Congregation Kol Ami Says 231
Court Ruling to Uphold Proposition-8 is a Set-Back for Civil Rights
and Religious Rights for Everyone (May 26, 2009).
282 Press Release, Jewish Family Serv., Jewish Family Service of Los 234
Angeles Opposes California Proposition 8 (Oct. 17, 2008).
284 Press Release, Recon Movement, Judaism’s Reconstructionist 239
Movement Condemns Bans on Same-Sex Marriage (Nov. 21, 2008).
285 Press Release, Rick Schlosser, Reverend, Cal. Council of Churches, 240
Proposition 8 Amici Brief Filing Press Conference (Jan. 14, 2009).
288 Protests held in Calif. on post-Prop.8 Sunday, Assoc. Press, Nov. 9, 241
2008,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27634025/ns/politics-decision_08/
289 The PSWD NetwUUrk Newsletter, Fall 2008 204
290 The PSWD NetwUUrk Newsletter, Summer 2009. 248
291 Redlands United Church of Christ, Wanderings Newsletter, April 322
2009.
293 Religious Action Center, Reform Movement Perspective. 252
297 Response to CA Supreme Court Decision on Prop. 8, FCCB THE 256
CARILLON (First Congregational Church of Berkeley, United Church
of Christ, Berkeley, Cal.), May 31, 2009, at 1.
298 J.B. Sacks, Rabbi, Congregation Sha’ar Zahav, Abraham and Obama: 260
Reflections on Senator Obama’s Victory and the Passage of
Proposition 8.
300 Hugo Salinas, Affirmation Couples Get Married, AFFIRMATION: GAY 263
& LESBIAN
MORMONS, June 2008,
http://www.affirmation.org/voices/robert_moore.shtml (last
301 Hugo Salinas, Marching for Equality: A Conversation with Robert 262
Moore,
http://www.affirmation.org/voices/robert_moore.shtml (last visited
Sept. 27, 2009).
303 Santa Clara County Council of Churches – Council of Churches Urges 264
NO on Proposition 8, http://www.councilofchurches-
scc.org/article.php/aspeopleoffaith (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
304 Santa Clara County Council of Churches – Court Ruling on Prop 8 265
Tuesday, May 26: Pray Together!,
http://www.councilofchurchesscc.org/article.php?story=courtdecision
&query=prop (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
7
310 Seventh-Day Adventist Kinship, Prop 8 Results, November 5, 2008. 242

311 Rabbi Shifra. 2008 Yom Kippur Sermon. 269
312 Sierra Foothills Unitarian Universalists, December Services, 271
December 2008.
313 Sierra Foothills Unitarian Universalists, May Services, May 2009 273
314 Sierra Foothills Unitarian Universalists, June Services, June 2009. 272
315 The SLO UU News, September 2008. 276
316 The SLO UU News, November 2008 275
317 The SLO UU News, July 2009 274
324 Greg Stewart, Minister’s Mailbox: Reduce, Reuse, Repeal!, FIRST 288
NEWS (The First Unitarian Universalist Soc’y of S.F., S.F., Cal.), Mar.
2009, at 3.
325 St. Francis Times, Festival of the Reformation, October 26, 2008. 286
326 St. Francis Times, All Saints Sunday, November 2, 2008.
327 St. Francis Times, Day of Pentecost, May 31, 2009. 283
329 Arvid Straube, Arvid’s Arcana: Lies, Fears and Marriage Licenses, 289
FIRST WORDS (First Unitarian Universalist Church of San Diego, San
Diego, Cal.), Apr. 2009, at 2.
330 Deborah Streeter, Congregations continue to respond to Prop. 8, 290
UNITED CHURCH NEWS – THE PAC., Feb.-Mar. 2009, at B7.
332 Tapestry, A Unitarian Universalist Congregation, Annual Committee 281
Reports, FY July 1, 2007-June 30, 2008
335 Paul Tellstrom, Proper 19 A “Forgiveness,” 297
http://www.iucc.org/Sermon/sermon-09-15-08.pdf (last visited Sept.
27, 2009).
336 Paul Tellstrom, Stewardship Sunday/Veterans Day “Joe,” 298
http://www.iucc.org/Sermon/sermon-11-09-08.pdf (last visited Sept.
27, 2009).
338 Morris A. Thurston, Religious Organizations Should Not Rely on 301
False or Misleading Legal Arguments in their Zeal to Support
California Proposition 8, AFFIRMATION: GAY & LESBIAN MORMONS,
Oct. 2, 2008,
http://www.affirmation.org/me/religious_organizations.shtml (last
339 Kerana Todorov, Rally against Prop. 8, NAPA VALLEY REG., Nov. 16, 302
2008.
341 Gregory Tomlin, Split among American Baptists over homosexuality 303
is final, Baptist Press, May 18, 2006.
342 Transcript of “Equally Speaking”, The Human Rights Campaign, 138
October 16, 2008.
343 Transcript of “Equally Speaking”, The Human Rights Campaign, 139
October 22, 2008.
8
344 Tom Tugend, Rabbis on anti-gay marriage Prop 8: Yes, no, maybe, 305
JEWISHJOURNAL.COM, Oct. 9, 2008,
http://www.jewishjournal.com/elections/article/rabbis_on_anti_gay_m
arriage_prop_8_yes_no_maybe_20081009/ (last visited Sept. 27,
2009).
345 The Unigram. The Monthly Newsletter of the Unitarian Universalist 307
Society of Sacramento. Vol. 39, No. 5. November 2008.
www.uuss.org
346 Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, Unitarian 311
Universalists Protest Proposition 8, June 3, 2009
347 Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Visalia, Calendar August 2008. 308
http://www.uuvisalia.org/newsletter/2008/uuvisalia_august_2008.html
348 Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry, Marriage Equality. 309
http://www.uulmca.org/programs/me.html
349 United Church of Christ, Called Out eNews – October 2008. 306
351 UUA, Support of the Right to Marry for Same-Sex Couples, 1996 344
Resolution of Immediate of Witness.
352 UUCB, From Our Co-Ministers, October 2008. 98
353 The UUC qUUarterly, Unitarian Universalist Church of Davis, Spring 315
2009
354 UUSS Online Calendar Week of November 2, 2008. Unitarian 310
Universalist Society of Sacramento. www.uuss.org
355 UU Update, Unitarian Universalist Congregation, Santa Rose, August 316
2008.
358 Vestry of Saint Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church, Meeting 184
Minutes, September 23, 2008.
359 Video Clip, “Foes of Proposition 8 hold interfaith Service,” San Diego 92
Tribune, November 2, 2008 available at
http://video.signonsandiego.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=2347
697&item_index=2 5&genre_id=4676&sort=NULL
360 David W. Virtue, California Episcopal Bishops Excoriate Passage of 319
Proposition 8, VIRTUEONLINE, Nov. 9, 2008,
http://virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9324
361 Rev. Rebecca Voelkel. A Time To Build Up: ANALYSIS OF THE 317
NO ON PROPOSITION 8 CAMPAIGN AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
FOR FUTURE PROLGBTQQIA RELIGIOUS ORGANIZING.
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s National Religious
Leadership Roundtable. 2009.
364 Welcome! To the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Tuolumne 326
County, General Announcements,
http://www.mlodeuu.com/current_events.html (last visited Sept. 27,
2009).
368 Rev. Faith Whitmore. Faith Whitmore Invocation. May 26, 2009. 84
http://www.stmarksumc.com/invocation
9
369 John Wildermuth, Both sides make last-minute Prop. 8 push, S.F. 331
CHRONICLE, Nov. 2, 2008.
372 Nancy Wilson, Queer Theology as Change Agent, MCC Moderator, 332
March 3, 2009.
373 Greg Wolfe, Equality for All Rally – May 26, 2009, Congregation Bet 334
Haverim.
378 Summary of Actions of the 76th General Convention 111
10
APPENDIX C
WEBSITES WITH THE SAME “LAST VISITED” DATE CITED IN
DR. MILLER’S AND DR. NATHANSON’S INDEXES OF MATERIALS CONSIDERED1
Miller Description Nathanson

Index Index No.
No.
91 A Brief Summary As to Why Promoting California’s Proposition 8 Was 3
Contrary to Both Scripture & Official LDS Doctrine,
http://h1.ripway.com/lds4gaymarriage/prop8.htm
95 Marc Andrus & Steven Charleston, After Prop 8, Love Endures, 13
http://diocal.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=336&Itemid=
215 (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
96 Marc Handley Andrus, The Rt. Rev. Marc Handley Andrus writes letter to the 14
diocese in response to Proposition 8 Decision,
http://oasiscalifornia.org/2009%20andrus%20resonds%20prop%208%20decisi
on.htm
97 Asian American & Pacific Islander Clergy Support the Right of Same-Sex 17
Couples to
Marry, http://www.netrj.org/resources/library/api-clergy-support-marriage.htm
(last
109 Paster Susan Brecht Speaks out Against Prop 8: Pacific School of Religion, 218
http://www.psr.edu/alum-rev-susan-brecht-against-prop-8 (last visited Sept. 27,
2009).
121 Christ Chapel of Laguna Beach Orange County California Gay, 38
http://www.christchapeloflaguna.org/events.htm (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
124 Church of the Foothills, Pastor/Staff, http://chotf.org/staff.html (last visited 39
Sept. 27,
2009).
125 Congregational Church of Belmont, http://www.uccbelmont.org/ (last visited 46
Sept. 27, 2009).
126 Congregation Shomrei Torah, All in God’s Image, 43
http://www.shomreitorah.org/inthenews.html (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
127 Congregation Shomrei Torah, Opposing Prop. 8 Interfaith service will support 44
gay marriage, http://www.shomreitorah.org/inthenews.html (last visited Sept.
27, 2009).
128 Congregation Shomrei Torah, Please let my moms be married, 45
1
Compare Goldman Decl. Ex. F with Goldman Decl. Ex. D.
1
133 DIGNITY Los Angeles – Photos – Wedding of Jim and Raol 2008, 59
http://www.dignitylosangeles.org/photos-15-prop8-pg.htm (last visited Sept.
27, 2009).
191 House of Danu – House of Danu Takes Stand on Proposition 8, 135
http://www.houseofdanu.com/content/view/13/1 (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
193 HUC-JIR Weekly Digest, Rabbis on Anti-Gay Marriage Prop 8, 137
http://huc.edu/external/newsletter/08/10/17/ (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
198 Inclusive Baptist Church, Welcoming & Affirming All, Readings for the Day: 141
Matthew 2:1-12 and ‘The Journey of the Magi’ by T.S. Eliot,
http://www.baptistchurchsf.org/sermons/detail.php?month=Jan%202009&mId=
67 (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
199 Inclusive Baptist Church, Welcoming & Affirming All, Their Story, Our Story, 142
http://www.baptistchurchsf.org/sermons/detail.php?month=Nov%202008&mId
=65#168 (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
200 Inner Light Center, Communicate Prop 8, 143
http://www.innerlightministries.com/documents/communications-on-8.pdf (last
209 Deborah L. Johnson, Gutting Equality Out of the Constitution, 151
http://www.innerlightministries.com/download/Gutting_Equality_Prop-
8_Rev_Deborah_L_Johnson.pdf (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
256 NEWS – LUTHERANS LOVE!! Lutherans Concerned/Los Angeles, 205
http://www.lutheranslove.com/ChapterNews.html (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
257 News! News! – Hollywood Lutheran Church, Congregation Still Opposed 206
Proposition 8!, http://www.hollywoodlutheran.org/HLCNews.html (last visited
Sept. 27, 2009).
264 Pastoral Letter on the Supreme Court’s Prop 8 Ruling, 219
ttp://www.uusf.org/Flame/nl-090526-Prop8PastoralLetter.html (last visited
Sept. 27, 2009).
301 Hugo Salinas, Marching for Equality: A Conversation with Robert Moore, 262
http://www.affirmation.org/voices/robert_moore.shtml (last visited Sept. 27,
2009).
303 Santa Clara County Council of Churches – Council of Churches Urges NO on 264
Proposition 8, http://www.councilofchurches-
scc.org/article.php/aspeopleoffaith (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
304 Santa Clara County Council of Churches – Court Ruling on Prop 8 Tuesday, 265
May 26: Pray Together!,
http://www.councilofchurchesscc.org/article.php?story=courtdecision&query=p
rop (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
335 Paul Tellstrom, Proper 19 A “Forgiveness,” 297
http://www.iucc.org/Sermon/sermon-09-15-08.pdf (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
336 Paul Tellstrom, Stewardship Sunday/Veterans Day “Joe,” 298
2
338 Morris A. Thurston, Religious Organizations Should Not Rely on False or 301
Misleading Legal Arguments in their Zeal to Support California Proposition 8,
AFFIRMATION: GAY & LESBIAN MORMONS, Oct. 2, 2008,
http://www.affirmation.org/me/religious_organizations.shtml (last visited Sept.
27, 2009).
344 Tom Tugend, Rabbis on anti-gay marriage Prop 8: Yes, no, maybe, 305
http://www.jewishjournal.com/elections/article/rabbis_on_anti_gay_marriage_prop_8_
yes_no_maybe_20081009/ (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
3
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document280-1 Filed12/07/09 Page1 of 2
1 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

2 tolson@gibsondunn.com
Matthew D. McGill, pro hac vice
3 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
5 Christopher D. Dusseault, SBN 177557
Ethan D. Dettmer, SBN 196046
6 333 S. Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90071
David Boies, pro hac vice
8 dboies@bsfllp.com
333 Main Street, Armonk, New York 10504
10 jgoldman@bsfllp.com
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900, Oakland, California 94612
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12 KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER,
PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO
13 Dennis J. Herrera, SBN 139669
Therese M. Stewart, SBN 104930
14 Danny Chou, SBN 180240
15 One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, California 94102-4682
16 Telephone: (415) 554-4708, Facsimile (415) 554-4699
18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19
20 KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al.,
Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF JEREMY M.
21 GOLDMAN IN SUPPOPRT OF
and PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO
22 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF THE EXPERT
REPORT, OPINIONS, AND TESTIMONY
23 Plaintiff-Intervenor, OF KENNETH P. MILLER
24 v. PLAINTIFFS’ MIL NO. 2 OF 2
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,
25 Date: December 16, 2009 [Pre-Trial Conf.]
Defendants, Time: 10:00 a.m.
26 and Judge: Chief Judge Walker
Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor
27 PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al.,
Trial Date: January 11, 2010
28 Defendant-Intervenors.
09-CV-2292 VRW GOLDMAN DECLARATION ISO PLAINTIFFS’ AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S NOTICE OF MOTION
AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF THE EXPERT REPORT, OPINIONS, AND TESTIMONY OF
KENNETH P. MILLER
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document280-1 Filed12/07/09 Page2 of 2
1 I, Jeremy M. Goldman, hereby declare:
2 I am a partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, attorneys for plaintiffs
3 Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo, in the above matter. I submit
4 this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to exclude portions of the expert report,
5 opinions, and testimony of Kenneth P. Miller.
6 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Court’s Civil Minute
7 Order dated August 19, 2009.
8 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the expert report of Gary M.
9 Segura, Ph.D. dated October 2, 2009.
10 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the expert report of Paul
11 Nathanson, Ph.D. dated October 2, 2009.
12 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the “Index of Materials
13 Considered” for the expert report of Paul Nathanson, Ph.D.
14 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the expert report of Kenneth
15 P. Miller, Ph.D. dated November 9, 2009.
16 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the “Index of Materials
17 Considered” for the expert report of Kenneth P. Miller, Ph.D.
18
19 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United
20 States that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on December 7,
21 2009, in Oakland, California.
22
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
23
24
25 By: /s/
Jeremy M. Goldman
26
27
28
1
09-CV-2292 VRW GOLDMAN DECLARATION ISO PLAINTIFFS’ AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S NOTICE OF MOTION
AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF THE EXPERT REPORT, OPINIONS, AND TESTIMONY OF
KENNETH P. MILLER
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document280-2 Filed12/07/09 Page1 of 3
EXHIBIT A
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document280-2
Document160 Filed08/19/09
Filed12/07/09 Page1
Page2ofof23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL MINUTE ORDER
VAUGHN R. WALKER
United States District Chief Judge
DATE: August 19, 2009
COURTROOM DEPUTY: Cora Klein Court Reporter: Belle Ball
CASE NO. C 09-2292 VRW
CASE TITLE: KRISTIN PERRY et al v. ARNOLD SCHWARNEGGER et al
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS: PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS:

David Boies, Theodore B Olson Our Family Coalition:
Theodore Boutrous, Christopher Dusseault Shannon P Minter, Christopher Stoll,
Theane Kapur, Enrique Monagas James Esseks, Elizabeth Gill,
Jeremy Goldman, Theodore Uno Matthew Coles, Jennifer Pizer
Matthew D McGill
PLAINTIFF INTERVENOR:
City and County of San Francisco:
Therese Stewart, Christine Van Aken
Erin Bernstein, Dennis Herrera
DEFENDANTS:
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mark Horton, Linette Scott:
Kenneth C Mennemeier
Edmund G Brown- Attorney General of California:

Gordon Burns, Tamar Pachter
Patrick O’Connell - Clerk Recorder for County of Alameda:

Claude Kolm, Lindsey Stern
Dean C Logan - Registrar Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles:
Judy Whitehurst
INTERVENOR DEFENDANTS:
Prop 8 Official Proponents and protectmarriage.com:
Charles J Cooper
David H Thompson
Campaign For California Families:
Rena Lindevaldsen
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document280-2
Document160 Filed08/19/09
Filed12/07/09 Page2
Page3ofof23
PROCEEDINGS and RESULTS:
The Court heard argument from counsels and ruled as follows:
1. Motion to intervene as party plaintiffs filed by the Our Family coalition, Doc #79 -
denied.
2. Motion for intervention as intervenor-defendant filed by Campaign for California
Families, Doc # 91 - denied.
3. Motion to intervene filed by City and County of San Francisco, Doc #109 - granted
in part to allow San Francisco to present issue of alleged effect on governmental
interests.
4. Trial setting and scheduling as follows:
a. Designation of witnesses presenting evidence under FRE 702, 703 or 705
and production of written reports pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(2)(B): October 2,
2009;
b. Dispositive motions to be served and filed so as to be heard on October 14,
2009 at 10 AM;
c. Completion of all discovery, except for evidence intended solely to contradict
or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party
under FRCP 26(a)(2)(B): November 30, 2009;
d. Completion of discovery on the same subject matter identified by another
party under FRCP 26(a)(2)(B): December 31, 2009; see FRCP 26(a)(2)(C)(ii);
e. Pretrial conference: December 16, 2009 at 10 AM;
f. Trial: January 11, 2010 at 8:30 AM.
5. With respect to any disputes regarding discovery, counsel are directed to comply with
Civ LR 37-1(b) and the court’s standing order 1.5.
6. In the absence of the assigned judge, counsel are directed to bring any discovery
disputes before Magistrate Judge Joseph C Spero.
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PERRY, et al.,
v. CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
SCHWARZENEGGER, et al. DECLARATION OF

PAUL NATHANSON, PhD. ,
AS EXPERT WITNESS FOR
DEFENDANT
PROPOSITION 8 AND RELIGION
1. I, Paul Nathanson, declare as follows:
2. In the following report, I discuss religious attitudes toward Proposition 8. As I

will demonstrate, religious attitudes to Proposition 8 vary considerably. Several
religious communities—such as the (Mormon) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints, the Southern Baptists, and Orthodox Judaism—do support
Proposition 8. But within these communities are dissenters and even dissenting
organizations. Moreover, other religious communities—such as the Episcopal
Church, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the United Church of Christ, and
Reform Judaism—vigorously oppose Proposition 8. Despite their conflicting
points of view, religious people have generally attested to the good faith of those
on the other side.
My qualifications
3. I would describe my field within religious studies as comparative religion,

which (unlike the normative field of theology) relies on the premise that you
cannot understand the phenomenon of religion per se without studying several
specific religions—that is, how each is both similar to and different from the
others. Most academics in this field use historical, textual, or anthropological
methods to study more than one religion. And I have done so, specializing in
Judaism and Christianity. In addition, I have focused on contemporary American

worldviews and how they affect traditional notions such as gender and marriage.
With Katherine Young, I have developed a theoretical perspective on religion
and secularity as “ideal types” at opposite ends of a continuum. Between them
lies a wide range of phenomena including various hybrid worldviews (or
“secular religions”). The latter function in many or almost all ways as traditional
religions but lack at least one characteristic and therefore defining feature of
religion.
4. I am being compensated at a rate of $300/hour for my work in this matter.
5. I study two basic kinds of evidence. In some cases, I approach topics directly by
making use of current research (such as social-scientific studies or legal
documents). In other cases, I approach topics indirectly by analyzing the
artifacts of popular culture (especially movies and television shows) as distinct
from those of elite culture (such as philosophical or theological works).
Whatever their aesthetic value, these popular artifacts reveal important, but often
implicit, features of the society that both produces and “consumes” them. This
method is widely used in gender studies and cultural studies, and I find it very
useful in religious studies as well. It relies on the pioneering work of scholars in
the field of semiotics (or symbolic anthropology). Of particular interest to me,
given my training, are those artifacts that provide evidence of widespread
attitudes (especially in the United States) toward religion and secularity. Using
one method or the other (or both), I have written and spoken extensively on
religion in relation to topics that are relevant to the debate over Proposition 8:
(a) marriage and gay marriage in general; (b) fatherhood in particular; (c)
popular religion; and (d) secularity.
6. Marriage and gay marriage: My articles include “Pop Goes the Family:
Marriage in Popular Culture,” in The Conjugal Bond: Interdisciplinary
Approaches to the Institution of Marriage (under review); [with Katherine K.
Young] “Redefining Marriage or Deconstructing Society: A Canadian Case
Study, Journal of Family Studies, 3.2 (November 2007): 133-178; “Men,
Misogyny and Misandry,” Ottawa Citizen, 6 April 2007; [with Katherine K.
Young] “The Future of an Experiment,” in Divorcing Marriage, ed. Douglas
Farrow and Dan Cere (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2004); [with
Katherine K. Young] "Non au mariage gai," La Presse, 9 July 2003: A-15; and
[with Katherine Young] "Comment: Keep It All in the Family," Globe and Mail,
2 May 2003: A-15.
7. My lectures include [with Katherine K. Young] “Gender Equality and Sex

Differences: The Effects on Parents and Children,” lecture for the conference on
Who Is Called a “Parent” and Why? An Interdisciplinary Investigation of Core
2
Questions at the Heart of Today’s Family Debates (Charlottesville, Virginia: 16-

18 October 2008); “Pop Goes the Family: Marriage in Popular Culture,” lecture
for Illuminating Marriage, a conference organized by the Institute for the Study
of Marriage, Law and Culture (Kananaskis, Alberta: 18-20 May 2005); [with
Katherine K. Young] “Gay Adults v. Children: Rights in Conflict,” guest lecture
for the Lord Reading Law Society (Montreal: 4 May 2005); “Gay Marriage,”
guest lecture for Dr. Martha Bernstein at Vanier College (Montreal: 10 January
2005; “Marriage in Popular Culture,” lecture for The Great Canadian Marriage
Debate, a symposium held at Loyola High School (Montreal: 14 January 2004);
“Marriage in Popular Culture,” lecture for Revisioning Marriage in Postmodern
Culture, a conference sponsored by Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law, and
Culture (Toronto: 10-12 December 2003); [with Katherine K. Young] “Gay
Marriage” lecture for Redefining Marriage: Mapping the Debate: A Symposium,
sponsored by the Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law, and Culture (Toronto:
4 October 2003); [with Katherine K. Young, “Marriage-a-la-mode: Answering
Advocates of Gay Marriage,” lecture for Sex, Marriage, and the Family, a
conference held at Emory University (Atlanta: 27-30 March 2003); and [with
Katherine K. Young] “Questioning Some of the Claims for Gay Marriage,”
presentation for the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights (Ottawa: 20 February 2003); and “Misanthropy on the Soaps,”
lecture for Wars of the Ring: Revisioning Marriage in Postmodern Culture, a
conference sponsored by McGill University’s Newman Centre (Montreal: 23
March 2002).
8. Fatherhood: My publications include: [with Katherine K. Young] Legalizing

Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men
(Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2006; especially chapter 6 and
appendix 9); [with Katherine K. Young] Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of
Contempt for Men in Popular Culture (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University
Press, 2001).
9. My lectures include: “Fatherhood,” for a panel discussion on the family, tenth

annual conference of World Alliance for Youth (New Haven: Yale University,
25-26 September 2009); [with Katherine K. Young] “Gender Equality and Sex
Differences: The Effects on Parents and Children,” lecture for a conference on
Who Is Called a “Parent” and Why? An Interdisciplinary Investigation of Core
Questions at the Heart of Today’s Family Debates (Charlottesville, Virginia: 16-
18 October 2008); [with Katherine K. Young] “Coming of Age as a Villain:
What Boys Need to Know about Misandry,” lecture for the conference on Boys
and the Boy Crisis (Washington, D.C.: 13-14 July 2007); “Pop Goes the Family:
Marriage in Popular Culture,” lecture for Illuminating Marriage, a conference
organized by the Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law and Culture
(Kananaskis, Alberta: 18-20 May 2005); “Coming of Age in the Movies: Myth
3
and Manhood in Rebel without a Cause,” in Gender in World Religions 5-7

(1994-1997): 28-76.
10. Secularity: My publications include: Over the Rainbow: The Wizard of Oz as a

Secular Myth of America (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991);
[with Katherine K. Young] “From Religion to Secularity: The Continuum of
Worldviews,” in What Is Religion? Religion in the Courts and the Academy, ed.
Dan Cere and Katherine K. Young [forthcoming]; “I Feel, Therefore I Am: The
Princess of Passion and the Implicit Religion of Our Time,” in Implicit Religion,
2.2 (1999): 59-87 (reprinted in Centrepoints, 4.1 (Spring 2000): 809); “You Can’t
Go Home Again, or Can You? Reflections on the Symbolism of TV Families at
Christmastime,” in Journal of Popular Culture, 27. 2 (1993): 149-162.
11. My lectures include: “The Wizard of Oz as a Secular Myth of America,” lecture

for Dr. Barbara Galli, (Montreal, Concordia University, 2 October 2008);
“Science Fiction: On the Frontier between Religion and Medicine,” lecture for
the American Academy of Religion: Eastern International Region (Montreal: 2
May 2008); “From Babylon to Babylon-on-the-Hudson: Religion and Secularity
in Modern America,” lecture for Dr. Ted Trost at the University of Alabama:
Judaic Studies-College of Arts and Sciences (Tuscaloosa: 14 November 1999);
“Myth and Ritual in Popular Films,” lecture for the Thomas More Institute of
Canada (Montreal: 23 November 1996); “Cinema as Secular Myth and Secular
Parable,” lecture for a conference of the Learned Societies (Montreal: 2 June
1995).
12. Popular religion: My publications include review essays of the following books:
Myths America Lives By, by Richard T. Hughes and Something for Nothing: Luck
in America, by Jackson Lears, in Implicit Religion, 7.3 (November 2004); The
End of the World as We Know It: Faith, Fatalism, and Apocalypse in America,
by Daniel Wojcik, in Material History Review (Fall 2000): 89-91; Houses of
God: Region, Religion, and Architecture in the United States, by Peter W.
Williams, in Material History Review (Fall 1999): 95-96; The Landscape of
Belief: Encountering the Holy Land in Nineteenth-Century American Art and
Culture, by John Davis, in Material History Review (Spring 1999): 82-83;
Material Christianity: Religion and Popular Culture in America, by Colleen
McDannell, in Material History Review, 46 (Fall 1997): 93-98; Icons of American
Protestantism; The Art of Warner Sallman, ed. David Morgan, in Material
History Review, 45 (Spring 1997): 69-76; Children of Peace, by John McIntyre, in
Material History Review, 43 (Spring 1996): 84-87; Make Room for TV: Television
and the Postwar Ideal in America, by Lynn Spigel, in Material History Review,
40 (Fall 1994): 88-89.
4
13. My lectures include: “On Being Jewish in Canada,” lecture for the Canadian
Studies Center, Plymouth State College of the University System of New
Hampshire (Plymouth: 1 November 1991); “Myth and Ritual in Popular Films,”
lecture for the Thomas More Institute of Canada (Montreal: 23 November 1996);
“Cinema as Secular Myth and Secular Parable,” lecture for a conference of the
Learned Societies (Montreal: 2 June 1995); “Over the Rainbow,” lecture for the
St. James Literary Society (Montreal: 1 November 1994); “Religion and Film,”
lecture for the Ecumenical Jury at the World Film Festival (Montreal: 26 August
1994); “Over the Rainbow: The Wizard of Oz as a Secular Myth of America,”
lecture for The American Academy of Religion (Kansas City: 25 November
1991); “Home for Christmas,” lecture for The Popular Culture Association and
The American Culture Association (Toronto: March 1991); and “The Wizard of
Oz: Sacred Time in Secular America,” lecture for The Popular Culture
Association and the American Culture Association (Toronto: March 1987).
Religious attitudes toward Proposition 8
14. In the weeks and days leading up to Election Day 2008, November 4,
Californians organized either to support or to oppose Proposition 8.1 By defining
“marriage” as the union of one man and one woman, the proposition prevents
gay2 marriages in the state (but would not dissolve existing ones).
15. Many secular opponents of Proposition 8 believe that “religion” exercised an

undue influence on the vote and thus undermined the separation of church and
state.3 As evidence, they point to the fact that that some churches—notably the
Roman Catholic Church and the (Mormon) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints4—actively promoted Proposition 8. But many other churches, including
the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal dioceses of California, and the
Unitarians opposed Proposition 8. This diversity of views is the background
against which I consider three questions: (1) Is religion inherently incompatible
with the redefinition of marriage to include gay couples? (2) Does religious
support for the historical definition of marriage necessarily entail animus toward
gay people, thus amounting to bigotry and “bad faith”? (3) Do secular advocates
for gay marriage ignore religion? My focus is on Christian and Jewish sources;
although California has many religious communities, Christian and Jewish ones
have been the most involved in the debate over Proposition 8.
5
Is religion inherently incompatible with opposition to Proposition 8 (and therefore

with support for gay marriage)?
16. The answer is, in a word, no. In the first place, not all religious communities are
either willing or (administratively) able to make official pronouncements that
are binding on all members. The Catholic Church is one of a few exceptions.
Bishops of the California Catholic Conference support Proposition 8. So does a
Catholic fraternal organization, the Knights of Columbus. Nonetheless, this
position has “met with mixed reactions among church members, including
clergy.”5 Catholics are profoundly divided over gay marriage (along with many
other social and political problems); dissenters lack support from the hierarchy,
it is true, but everyone hears their “voices.”
17. Most religious communities affiliate themselves with denominations, but the
lines of authority and levels of hierarchy within denominations vary widely.
Even reasons for either supporting or opposing gay marriage can vary widely.
Some denominations are relatively unified in support of Proposition 8 and others
relatively unified against it. Officially supporting Proposition 8, and therefore
supporting traditional marriage, are the Roman Catholic Church, the Mormon
Church, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Southern Baptist Convention,
and various organizations that represent Orthodox Judaism. Officially opposing
Proposition 8, and therefore supporting gay marriage, are the United Church of
Christ,6 the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Metropolitan Community
Church (which was founded in 1968 by and primarily for gay people), Reform
Judaism, and Reconstructionist Judaism. But most denominations, being divided
or ambivalent or “evolving,” have proposed various forms of compromise. Even
those that overtly oppose Proposition 8, for example, sometimes experience
conflict within their denominations or congregations over precisely what this
might entail: presiding as religious authorities over gay “unions,” say, or
presiding as civil servants over gay “weddings.”7
18. Although religious leaders usually speak officially for their denominations or
their organizations, some who support Proposition 8 speak primarily for
themselves—in this case, usually (though not always) as gay people or people
with gay friends or relatives. At the very least, they confer religious prestige on
the cause of opposition to Proposition 8. These supporters of gay rights include
V. Gene Robinson (Episcopalian bishop of New Hampshire); Denise L. Eger
(rabbi of Congregation Kol Ami in West Hollywood and president of the Board
of Rabbis of Southern California); Mark Pelavin (associate director of the
Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism in Washington D.C.); and Elliot
Dorff (Conservative rabbi and rector of American Jewish University in Los
Angeles).
6
19. In this section, I examine (a) interreligious organizations that oppose Proposition
8; (b) religious denominations that oppose Proposition 8; and (c) dissenters
within denominations that support Proposition 8. My survey is by no means
exhaustive, of course, because the goal here is merely to indicate that not all
religious people oppose gay marriage.
20. Interreligious organizations: Opponents of Proposition 8 and therefore

supporters of gay marriage have crossed the boundaries between denominations
and even between religions. Many events both before and since the vote have
included not only Christians of various denominations, after all, but also non-
Christians.
21. In September 2008, California Faith for Equality met in a West Hollywood
church to oppose Proposition 8. Director Kerry Chaplin told clergy and
laypeople that they should bear in mind the “spectrum of beliefs and opinions in
the religious community [about gay marriage] … Leaders in the Episcopal and
United Methodist churches, two denominations torn over the homosexuality
debate, oppose [Proposition 8] on civil rights grounds.”8 On 1 November 2008,
San Francisco’s Glide Memorial [United Methodist] Church held an
interreligious celebration of gay marriage. “This … included an appearance by
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome, a powerful sermon by Rev. Dorsey
Blake, and musical performances, including the San Francisco Gay Men’s
Chorus. Rev. Mark Wilson, who has led the First Congregational Gospel Choir,
provided musical leadership throughout the service. About 30 married couples,
both gay and straight, streamed up to the chancel to renew their marriage
promises.” Also present were ordained members of the United Church of Christ,
including the Conference Minister Rev. Mary Susan Gast. After the service at
Glide came “Get Out the Vote and Visibility Actions training.” The Ecumenical
Council of San Diego County organized a series of discussions by religious
leaders. Rev. Gloria Espeseth came from Gethsemane Lutheran Church in San
Diego, for instance, to preach that “the Bible also pushes believers to sometimes
move beyond tradition to do what is right.”9 At around that time, the Council of
Churches of Santa Clara County Committee against Proposition 8, consisting of
approximately 25 local churches, sponsored the following announcement in the
San Jose Mercury News: “As people of faith, we believe that all people are
made in the image of God. We believe in loving, faithful, and committed
relationships. We affirm everyone’s right to the freedom to marry. We urge you
to vote no on Proposition 8. Don’t eliminate marriage for anyone.”10 Among
those who signed this announcement (in addition to members of the
Metropolitan Community Church) were Episcopalians, Unitarians, United
Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, and members of the United
Church of Christ.
7
22. Also on 1 November 2008, St. John’s [Episcopal] Cathedral in Los Angeles
sponsored “Faith for Equality: A Multi-Faith No on Prop. 8 Celebration; The
First Congregational Church in Long Beach sponsored “Living Equally, Loving
Equally: Interfaith Service Celebrating Love and Commitment for All Couples.
St. Paul’s [Episcopal] Cathedral in San Diego sponsored an interfaith service
and press conference. Central United Methodist Church in Sacramento
sponsored “Sing Out the Vote and Take to the Streets: An Interfaith ‘No on 8’
Celebration. The next day, the Orange Coast Unitarian Universalist Church in
Costa Mesa sponsored an interfaith vigil and “phone banking” against
Proposition 8. The Center for Spiritual Living, in Santa Rosa, sponsored “Live
Equally, Love Equally: [An] Interfaith Service in Support of Marriage. The First
Unitarian Church of San Jose sponsored “Day of the Dead Alter” with a “no on
8” theme. “Mixing their own prayers with politics, as many as 400 opponents of
Proposition 8 showed up for the interfaith service near Balboa Park, billed as
Make the Right Call in answer to TheCall [an event that supported Proposition
8] … Clergy and members of different faiths wore ‘No on 8’ stickers on their
vestments … ‘The purpose of today is to stand on the side of love,’ said the
Very Rev. Scott Richardson, dean of St. Paul’s Episcopal Cathedral.’ … The
Rev. Mary Sue Brookshire of the United Church of Christ in La Mesa spoke of a
lesbian friend who felt her life was incomplete because of society’s treatment of
gays. ‘As long as she is not fully human, neither am I,’ said Brookshire, whose
homily was interrupted by applause several times.”11 In May 2009, San
Francisco’s Grace Cathedral was the venue for an interreligious prayer vigil in
opposition to Proposition 8. Attending were not only Christians from various
denominations but also Jews, Buddhists, and Sikhs. Rabbi Sydney Mintz, of
[Reform] Congregation Emanuel-El, opened the vigil.12
23. California Faith for Equality, too, has strongly opposed Proposition 8: “As
people of faith, many of us are called to act for justice. To heal the rift between
faith communities and lesbian, gay … people, we are driven to engage our
congregations and people of faith in the movement for … equality and to
safeguard religious freedom. Clergy and lay leaders from a diversity of religious
traditions are uniting in … a statewide network … committed to equality. The
California Faith for Equality coalition helps faith leaders and communities,
some of whom may not have the support of their denominational bodies, to
become effectively engaged in the struggle for equality, while also helping
secular LGBT leadership connect with these faith communities.”13 Another
statement is more specific: “California Faith for Equality is fulfilling our
mission through grassroots organizing by identifying and mobilizing supportive
clergy, congregations and laypeople, and by entering dialogue with clergy and
people of faith across the spectrum of inclusiveness toward LGBT people.”
California Faith for Equality is affiliated with the following organizations:
8
Freedom to Marry; Human Rights Campaign, Religion and Faith Program;

National Black Justice Coalition; National Gay and Lesbian Task Force;
Equality California; Equality for All Campaign; Jews for Marriage Equality; Let
California Ring; Marriage Equality USA, California Chapter; Unitarian
Universalist Legislative Ministry; API [Asian and Pacific Islander] Equality;
Center for Gay and Lesbian Studies in Religion and Ministry; Barbara
Jordan/Bayard Rustin Coalition; API Equality-Los Angeles; Vote for Equality;
Pacific School of Religion; Network on Religion and Justice for Asian Pacific
Islander, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender People; and the Arcus
Foundation.
24. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is not a religious organization, but it
has recognized the need to work with and within “progressive” religious
communities to oppose Proposition 8. “We need to recognize,” its report says,
“that we will never win our ‘rights’ without the progressive faith community,
because the secularist argument doesn’t work.”14 The task force has planned and
executed a very sophisticated campaign to enlist support for gay marriage within
religious communities.
25. By its own account the task force has been very effective, and I see no reason to
disagree. For example, it takes credit for mobilizing Jewish leaders: “We gained
the support of 258 California rabbis—they signed our clergy statement and
allowed us to publicize their names/affiliations in ads and on the Web.”15 In
addition, the task force claimed that those “religious communities that had done
preparatory work (both theologically and practically) to equip themselves for a
secular/political campaign formed the backbone of the No on Proposition 8
religious work, particularly the Unitarian Universalist Association, many United
Church of Christ and Episcopal congregations, and Reform, Reconstructionist
and Renewal Jewish congregations. Two rabbinical associations came out
against Proposition 8, as did Bishops in Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist and
several Black church traditions and other Christian leaders.”16 And the
“interfaith worship service entitled ‘Standing on the Side of Love,’ held at Glide
Memorial Church in San Francisco, was a great success in terms of community
participation and media coverage.”17
26. Religious denominations: The fact is that many religious denominations

strongly oppose Proposition 8 and therefore strongly support gay marriage. Only
the Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ,18 the
Unitarian Universalist Association,19 Reform Judaism,20 and Reconstructionist
Judaism21 oppose Proposition 8 officially, but other denominations have
generated strong opposition to it not only among members (including ordained
ones) but also local congregations and affiliated organizations. They have
described themselves to California’s Supreme Court,22 so there is no need to
9
repeat that exhaustive account here. A few examples will serve my purpose: (i)
the Episcopal Church; (ii) the Presbyterian Church (USA); and (iii) several
branches of Judaism.
27. The Episcopal Church: The six main23 bishops in California oppose Proposition
8. And their opposition is consistent with opposition at the parish level. On 1
November 2008, some protesters against Proposition 8 gathered at morning
prayers at St. Paul’s Episcopal Cathedral in San Diego; later, Mayor Jerry
Sanders and his lesbian daughter, Lisa, joined them for a candlelight vigil.
Others protesters fasted and prayed at Qualcomm Stadium.24 On 25 May 2009,
moreover, San Francisco’s Grace [Episcopal] Cathedral held a prayer service in
support of gay marriage.25
28. The Presbyterian Church (USA): Although not all Presbyterians oppose
Proposition 8, many do. Among them are members of More Light Presbyterians,
an organization that is affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (USA). It has
worked since 1974 to end discrimination against gay people (and others) within
both the church and the state. “Since 1978, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has
denounced discrimination against lesbian and gay persons in civil society. This
official national nondiscrimination in civil life policy has been reaffirmed in
subsequent years and the Presbyterian Church (USA) has also affirmed the right
and choice for its ministers to perform blessings of same-sex couples. In June
2008, the 218th General Assembly … meeting in San Jose, California, removed
the anti-gay church policy statements from 1978 and passed an overture calling
for the end to discrimination … in membership and service in ministry … ”26
29. Presbyterians were active before the vote, not surprisingly, and have remained
active ever since. On 28 October 2008, a group of Presbyterians took action.
With help from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)
and California Faith for Equality, the Covenant Network for Presbyterians27
asked members to join the Presbyterian Witness Event for Marriage Equality
and to Say No to Prop 8. They gathered at both Immanuel Presbyterian Church
in Los Angeles and Calvary Presbyterian Church in San Francisco. “Our friends
and colleagues at GLAAD,” says the online notice, “are working to secure
media coverage for each of these witness events. Clergy are encouraged to wear
ministerial collars or stoles; elders, deacons and other church leaders are
encouraged to wear identifiable religious symbols such as stoles or crosses.”28 In
February 2009, moreover, Rev. David Thompson, pastor of Sacramento’s
Westminster Presbyterian Church, created a controversy by lamenting
Proposition 8.29
30. Judaism: Jewish denominations per se have less authority over their leaders and
congregations than many Christian ones do. Non-Orthodox denominations adopt
10
official positions on social or political controversies, for instance, but allow

rabbis or congregations to adopt their own positions. Whatever positions their
denominations might take on gay marriage, for instance, many Jews—both
rabbis and laypeople—feel free to join either Jewish or interreligious
organizations that represent other positions.
31. Several Jewish denominations explicitly oppose Proposition 8 and therefore

support gay marriage: Reform Judaism, Reconstructionist Judaism, and many
independent Jewish communities. Moreover, many denominational and inter-
denominational Jewish organizations (most of them based in New York) take
the same position. These include the American Jewish Committee; the National
Council of Jewish Women, the Anti-Defamation League; the Union for Reform
Judaism; and the Jewish Community Relations Council of San Francisco.
(Conservative Jews are, as usual, more divided than the others.)30 Orthodox
Judaism generally supports Proposition 8 and therefore opposes gay marriage,
on the other hand, but there are Orthodox dissenters; I discuss them in the next
section.
Dissenters within religious communities that support Proposition 8
32. Not even the most conservative religious traditions are monolithic in their
support for Proposition 8 and opposition to gay marriage. They now have not
only individual dissenters but also organized dissenters. In this section, I discuss
(a) Catholic dissenters; (b) Mormon dissenters; (c) Evangelical dissenters; and
(d) Orthodox dissenters.
33. Catholic dissenters: According to its mandate, Dignity “is an independent

support group for ‘lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgendered Catholics, their
families and friends.’” It originated in San Diego to provide counseling for gay
people and then became a support group. In 1973, it went national and now has
53 chapters in the United States. One of its main goals is to change the church’s
teachings on sexuality. “We believe that gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgendered persons can express their sexuality in a manner that is consonant
with Christ’s teaching. We believe that we can express our sexuality physically
in a unitive manner that is loving, life-giving, and life-affirming … Dignity …
[is] an instrument through which we may be heard by and promote reform in the
Church.” In 1986, due to Dignity’s opposition to Catholic teachings, the church
withdrew its support.”31 Similar to Dignity is New Ways Ministry. Founded in
1977, its mission is to “promote justice and reconciliation between lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender … Catholics, their families, and the wider Catholic
community … We work toward this end by providing resources and programs
that provide the most current scientific and theological understandings of
sexuality and sexual orientation … Although the hierarchy of the Catholic
11
Church does not yet approve of same-sex marriage, New Ways Ministry’s
constituents believe that our church’s social justice tradition … compels us to
work for full equal rights for same-sex couples inc omitted relationships”32
34. More radical and politicized than Dignity is Soulforce. According to its “vision”
statement, “Soulforce is determined to help end oppression against lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender people; determined to help change the minds and
hearts of religious and political leaders whose words and influence led (directly
and indirectly) to that oppression; and determined to be guided in our every
action by the principles of relentless nonviolent resistance as lived and taught by
M.K. Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Soulforce ultimately seeks to
challenge systems of injustice, not people.”33 From the beginning, in 1999,
Soulforce has been “in conversation” with the Church. “This spring, we are
asking the Vatican to take a stand against harmful language and join with many
at the United Nations in signing the Declaration on Sexual Orientation and
Gender Identity. Working in solidarity with grassroots activists here and abroad,
we are calling on the Vatican to support the safety of all individuals.”34
35. Meanwhile, the Church has continued to support its Courage Apostolate, which
operates solely as a support group. It originated in 1980 and now has more than
90 chapters in the United States. Members accept the doctrine that homosexual
behavior is chosen and therefore sinful but also the doctrine that homosexual
orientation results from a “disorder” and is therefore not sinful. The main goal
of Courage is to support members living chastely by encouraging strong platonic
friendships.35
36. Mormon dissenters: The direct Mormon equivalent to Dignity is Affirmation.

It “serves the needs of gay Mormon women and men, as well as bisexual and
transgender LDS and their supportive family and friends, through social and
educational activities.”36 Like members of Dignity, those of Affirmation are
dissenters. “Although many of us are no longer members of the LDS Church,”
reads one of Affirmation’s documents, “we celebrate being part of the great
Mormon tradition. We are a family that consists of active members of the LDS
faith, former members and non-members. Our membership consists of
individuals situated all over the sexual mosaic. We are all at different places in
our coming-out-process. Affirmation’s mission is to provide a forum for gay
Mormons to associate with their peers. We seek to meet the needs of persons
experiencing frustration or alienation from family, friends, and the Church
because of their sexual orientation.”37
37. Evangelical dissenters: Gay evangelicals, too, have organized despite lack of
acceptance from their denominations. The Evangelical Network is for “Bible
believing churches, ministries, Christian workers, and individuals bound
12
together by a common shared faith, united in purpose and witness and

established as a positive resource and support for Christian gays and lesbians.”38
According to its president, Todd Ferrell, the network “has been challenged … to
be more vocal when it comes to social justice issues … While we are not a
political organization and will remain as such, we feel the time has come, and it
is ‘for such a time as this’ that … we will be a voice in the wilderness that
declares the Word of the Lord … as ministers, leaders and example-making
Christians, we have a call to support justice and fairness for all.”39 Apart from
anything else, the network has spoken out against Proposition 8 and on behalf of
gay marriage.40
38. Orthodox dissenters: Because Orthodox Judaism is very unfamiliar to most

outsiders, I see a need to explain the context of Orthodox dissent in more detail
than that of dissent in other religious communities. Hebrew scripture clearly
forbids (male) homosexuality. Many groups that represent Orthodox Judaism41
support Proposition 8 (and therefore opposed gay marriage). Among the
Orthodox organizations that take this position are the Orthodox Union, Agudath
Israel of America, and Agudath Israel of California.
39. Although some Orthodox rabbis continue to argue that Jewish law might be able
to accommodate gay marriage,42 they do not argue that it does. These dissenters
want to change the halakhah (Jewish law) without deviating from Orthodox
tradition. And there is a way, in theory, to do so: the takkanah. This is a rabbinic
law that has no direct foundation in scripture and sometimes implicitly
contradicts scripture. One famous example is the eleventh-century takkanah of
Rabbi Gershom ben Judah, which prohibited polygyny even though scripture
clearly indicates that many early Israelites—including Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob—married more than one woman. By the prophetic period, however, a new
ideal of marriage had emerged due to a new theology that linked a husband’s
fidelity to his one wife with God’s fidelity to his (one) chosen people. By the
eleventh century, very few, if any, Ashkenazi Jews (those who lived in western,
central, and eastern Europe) were polygynous. Gershom found the takkanah
necessary so that Jews could protect themselves, however, because Christians
often attacked them for their alien ways. Sephardi Jews (of what are now Spain
and Portugal) saw no need for a takkanah. They lived among Muslims, after all,
who allowed men to marry up to four wives.
40. But the takkanah is a last resort, because it undermines the entire rabbinic
system, which assumes that God revealed not only the written Torah (scripture)
to Moses but also the “oral Torah” (all rabbinic interpretations of the former).
The rabbis do not claim to have created their own interpretations; on the
contrary, they claim merely to have discovered those that God had already
revealed to Moses. The oral Torah’s authority, in short, relies heavily on the
13
written Torah’s authority. It relies on the assumption that God would not
contradict in the oral revelation what he says in the written revelation. To
undermine either source of revelation, oral or written, is therefore to risk
undermining the entire system. It seems very unlikely that Orthodox rabbis will
issue a takkanah that allows gay couples to marry in an Orthodox ceremony.
41. It is worth pointing out here that some Orthodox rabbis personally oppose
Proposition 8, moreover, though not necessarily because they actually support
gay marriage. At issue for them is not gay marriage for Jews but gay marriage
for non-Jews (or at least non-Orthodox Jews). Why would they support
something for non-Jews that either they or their more conservative peers
actually oppose for Jews (at least Orthodox Jews)? Some of them might believe
not only that the acceptance of gay marriage is inevitable among non-Jews (and
non-Orthodox Jews) but also that it will never gain acceptance among Orthodox
Jews. Many Orthodox rabbis, at any rate, can agree on historical grounds about
the need for Jews to ally themselves with those who speak in the name of civil
rights (even if they privately question the applicability of civil rights specifically
to the cause of gay marriage).43 This way, even the more conservative among
Orthodox rabbis can have it both ways: maintaining a traditional interpretation
of Jewish law, which unambiguously forbids not only gay marriage but also gay
relationships, while advocating a radical reinterpretation of civil law (which
makes this particular Orthodox position unlike both the Catholic and Mormon
ones.)44 But not all Orthodox Jews support gay marriage even for non-Jews (or
non-Orthodox Jews). The Orthodox Union, for instance, worries that gay
marriage will lead to legal penalties for any public opposition: “Religious
institutions and people face charges of bigotry and could be denied government
funding and more if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land.”45
42. Conclusion: The assumption that religion per se supports Proposition 8 (and
therefore opposes gay marriage) is clearly false. But even a modified version of
this assumption, that only conservative religion per se opposes gay marriage and
gay people, is clearly much more complex than many people imagine. Although
conservative dissenters could leave their communities, many choose to stay. I
have no reason to doubt that they are both sincerely hopeful that the latter will
eventually make room for their point of view and sincerely devoted to their
religious traditions.
Does religious support for the historic definition of marriage necessarily entail
animus toward gay people, thus amounting to bigotry and “bad faith”?
43. In a word, the answer (once again) is no. Consider the following analogy. Most
Jewish leaders distinguish carefully between those who oppose this or that
14
policy of Israel and those who implicitly oppose the very existence of Israel—
that is, those who reveal their underlying anti-Semitism not only by adopting a
double standard (condoning even more questionable policies of non-Jewish
states) but also by undermining efforts of the Jewish state to defend itself. At
any rate, many ordinary Jews do equate almost any opposition to Israeli policies
with anti-Semitism. In other words, they accuse other Americans of bad faith:
using criticism of Israel or even anti-Zionism as a front for anti-Semitism. And
some critics of Israel surely do hate it as a Jewish state. But using this accusation
so broadly tends to stifle debate over American foreign policy and even dissent
within the American Jewish community itself.
44. In this section, I discuss the accusation of bad faith in connection with (a) the
use of secular (non-religious) arguments by religious people to support
Proposition 8 and (b) some examples of good faith.
45. The use of secular (non-religious) arguments to support Proposition 8:

Many religious people have used secular arguments to support Proposition 8
instead of religious ones. This has led to the accusation that they have done so in
bad faith—that is, they have disguised their underlying religious motivations
and thus imposed religious doctrines on other people. But it does not follow
logically that these secular arguments are either irrelevant or sinister simply
because of their selection by people who happen to be religious (along with
many who are not religious). Every argument stands or falls on its own merit,
after all, no matter which people articulate it or why they do so. When religious
people use secular arguments in the public square, they demonstrate only what
religious and secular people have in common.
46. In the case of Catholicism, moreover, the use of secular arguments has a very
long history. This is due partly to the philosophical tradition of natural law,
which Thomas Aquinas established in the thirteenth century. According to
natural law, people can learn about salvation only from scripture. But they can
learn about everything else, including morality, by observing the natural order.
Not all people draw the same conclusions from nature, and not all Catholics are
going to draw conclusions that explicitly contradict scripture. Apart from
information about salvation itself, nonetheless, Catholics are open to the broad
search for knowledge; they do not owe “blind” allegiance to scripture in this
regard. If Catholics agree with other people, as they sometimes do, then that is
so much the better from their point of view.
47. Some religious people adopt secular arguments that rely ultimately not on the
rejection of civil rights for gay people, moreover, but on the acknowledgment of
competing civil rights for children—a population that is even more vulnerable
than gay adults. Given the colliding interests of two populations, people can give
15
priority to one or the other without arguing that one is worthy and the other
unworthy of civil rights. They can disagree passionately, in other words, without
resorting to the accusation of bad faith. The latter (using lies, pretexts, or fronts
for some repressive and oppressive “hidden agenda”) involves a combination in
any context of dishonesty or hypocrisy, opportunism or expediency, and
cynicism or selective cynicism. 46
48. Good faith: Although Focus on the Family uses secular arguments for opposing
gay marriage, it is an explicitly Christian organization. Its representative in
many debates is Glenn Stanton. And opposing him in many of these debates is
John Corvino, a gay man. The two have become close friends. Neither accuses
the other of bad faith. Bloggers responded emotionally, both pro and con, to an
article that Corvino wrote about the friendship.47 “Over the years,” wrote Craig,
Stanton has “grown to know a gay man who ‘doesn’t fit what … [straight people
have] been told about gays’ and I’ve learned that not all people who opposes
LGBT equality approach it from a hate/fear perspective.”48
49. The California Council of Churches, which represents many Christian churches,
vigorously opposes Proposition 8 but nonetheless says that support for it is
merely mistaken—that is, neither stupid nor sinister. “[W]e recognize that many
churches and people of faith believe they must oppose the freedom to marry
based on what they have been taught the Bible has to say on the subject.
Therefore, we have produced this study guide to help congregations in
California struggling with differences of opinion on the subject of marriage
equality to discuss the biblical texts, theology, church traditions, and civil rights
from a place of compassion and love of neighbor—the central elements of Jesus’
teachings.”49 Moreover, the council urges people to distinguish between civil
ceremonies (which should be available to all citizens) and religious ones (which
churches might not, presumably in good faith, make available to all members).
We can agree to guarantee civil rights even as denominations

deliberate with the issue of marriage equality as an element of
church law/rites/blessings. Equal protection under the law,
tolerance and respect for diversity, and defining one’s own views
while permitting other views, are consistent with authentic
religious commitments where we all can live in a world of
differences and ambiguities while still respecting other people’s
secular rights … Separation of church and state requires us to
respect differences in each denomination or church. Those
seeking to permit same-sex marriage must have equal standing
with those that do not … It is anti-democratic to impose one
religious viewpoint on everyone else… It is our prayer that
people of faith throughout California will engage in open and
16
honest conversation about this important issue from a place of

compassion, love, and grace.50
50. Conclusion: A few religious people do say now and then that “God hates gay
people.”51 Although these accusations are deeply troubling,52 they are
exceptions to the rule. Most religious people, especially religious leaders, do not
believe this, because that would make no sense of their own theologies. Both
Jewish and Christian theology focus ultimately on divine compassion, mercy,
and forgiveness. Even though the god of both traditions forbids some forms of
behavior, the same god loves all people and seeks reconciliation with all
people—including sinners, because all people are sinners in one way or another
by definition (and therefore in need of either Torah or Christ). Thus, I see no
reason to assume that religious supporters of Proposition 8 are motivated by
hostility toward gay people. Moreover, the strategies of gay activists themselves
clearly indicate that many religious people are not consumed by anti-gay
bigotry.
Do secular advocates of gay marriage write off religion as a pernicious force?
51. Again, the answer is clearly no. After ignoring religious communities, the
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force now actively promotes support for gay
marriage in liberal religious communities. Their explicit premise has been that
support for gay marriage is plentiful in these religious communities. This
premise would make no sense if they assume that all religious people are
contaminated by animus toward gay people. At issue here, then, is how gay
advocates interact with religious people. The answer is very simple. They
mobilize, train, and fund members of liberal denominations—both gay and
straight—who might not otherwise become allies in the campaign against
Proposition 8. Here is the task force’s mission statement along with that of its
action fund:
The mission of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is to

build the grassroots power of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender (LGBT)53 community. We do this by training activists,
equipping state and local organizations with the skills needed to
organize broad-based campaigns to defeat anti-LGBT referenda
and advance pro-LGBT legislation, and building the organizational
capacity of our movement. Our Policy Institute, the movement’s
premier think tank, provides research and policy analysis to
support the struggle for complete equality and to counter right-
wing lies. As part of a broader social justice movement, we work
to create a nation that respects the diversity of human expression
and identity and creates opportunity for all.
17
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund, founded
in 1974 as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Inc., works
to build the grassroots political power of the LGBT community to
win complete equality. We do this through direct and grassroots
lobbying to defeat anti-LGBT ballot initiatives and legislation and
pass pro-LGBT legislation and other measures. We also analyze
and report on the positions of candidates for public office on issues
of importance to the LGBT community.
52. Realizing that many secular people, including many gay people, strongly
disapprove of religion, the task force nonetheless tried to mobilize religious
allies.
Although the larger LGBTQQIA54 movement continues to have an

ambivalent relationship to religion as an organizing focal point and
religious institutions as an organizing entry point, getting to the
finish line on marriage equality, employment non-discrimination
and other pro-LGBTQQIA issues will require speaking to voters
who consider these issues in a language that is familiar to them.
This often means setting essential information within religious
contexts and having it come from religious leaders. To meet this
challenge the Arcus Foundation funded the National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force’s National Religious Leadership Roundtable to
convene a two-day gathering of 32 California and national experts
in religious communities and pro-LGBTQQIA religious organizing
… [which] took place in Pasadena, California, at All Saints
Episcopal Church on January 15-16, 2009.55
53. Rebeccal Voelkel, a minister of the United Church of Christ, wrote the task
force’s report: “A Time To Build Up: Analysis of the No on Proposition 8
Campaign and its Implications for Future Pro-LGBTQQIA Religious
Organizing.” She relied on discussions at the National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force’s National Religious Leadership Roundtable.56 In view of the emphasis on
past failures and future strategies, I suggest that this task force spearheaded
many or most of the events that I have already mentioned. Consequently, I find
it worthwhile to review its report in some detail.
54. The report defines religion as both a problem and a solution. Religious people
have campaigned not only to prevent gay marriage but also to prevent adoption
by gay couples. “In other words,” says the report, “the primary opposition to
LGBTQQIA people and families is religious—in language, culture, strategy and
organizing.”57 On the other hand, religion presents an opportunity. “We need to
18
recognize that we will never win our ‘rights’ without the progressive faith
community, because the secularist argument doesn’t work.”58 Another kind of
religious “voice,” in other words, could “counter the religious-based opposition
and change hearts and minds if they are allowed to get out there.”59
55. The task force’s first priority is to make contact with allies behind the lines:
religious people who are gay, religious people who have gay relatives or friends,
and religious leaders who are either gay or “gay positive.” But the task force
recognizes that suitable theological rhetoric can turn almost any “progressive”
parishioner into a potential ally. “Pro-LGBTQQIA faith-based leadership is a
major resource and a required leader in future change efforts. Pro-LGBTQQIA
faith-based leaders and leadership structures bring significant resources to the
fight—the ability to speak with moral authority to large numbers and through a
variety of communication vehicles. Faith-based advocates share a ‘common
platform’ built on values of dignity of human life and a commitment to justice.
These common values present the opportunity to build advocacy agendas across
denominations and faith traditions in support of coordinated strategies.”60
56. Elsewhere, the report says that gay people need to know about “the enormous
influential role of religion in American public life and the social capital that
religious leaders have with their congregants.”61 In that case, of course, funders
should support projects that recognize the hitherto ignored power of opposition
to Proposition 8 from “progressive” religious communities. “Since it is a
conservative faith voice that dominates the anti-gay movement, moderate to
progressive faith voices must be an integral part of campaigns from day one. It
is vital that campaigns have at least one credible, politically savvy faith leader as
part of the core strategy team.”62 Moreover, the task force extends its horizon
beyond this or that Christian community: “Multi-faith organizing is another
example of progress that can be used as a model for bridging the secular-
religious divide.”63 Leaving no stone unturned, however, the task force
acknowledges the possibility of gaining at least some support even in
conservative communities—that is, in the “significant minority within
conservative religious institutions.”64
57. Generalities aside, the task force proposes specific strategies, each of which
must be tailored for one particular community.65 These include “using worship
services, making announcements or putting information in the bulletins of
different congregations, preachers doing public speaking at rallies, marches and
town hall meetings, choirs representing different congregations singing about
justice and abundances on the steps of the Capitol before lobbying for a just
budget, using religious rites such as giving religious communities the
opportunity to bless couples in public ways, employing religious symbols such
as lighting candles for justice, caroling at home of legislators (if the Legislature
19
1
The Yes campaign brought in $39.9 million, the No campaign $43.3 million
(“Proposition 8,” [dated:] 12 September 2009, California Proposition 8 (2008),
[visited:] 21 September 2009, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8.
2
Some women prefer to call themselves “lesbians,” but others prefer “gay women.” For
the sake of convenience, I have used “gay” in connection with both men and women.
Other gender “identities” (such as bisexual and transsexual) are irrelevant in this
discussion.
3
“Make no mistake,” argued one blogger, “the quintessential issue underlying Prop 8 is
the separation of church and state … Prop 8 is an attempt to inject religious belief into
our legal system. It is steeped in biblical writings dating back to circa 1200 BCE”
(“Prop 8 and the Separation of Church and State,” [dated:] 31 October 2008,
Articlesbase, [visited:] 23 September 2009, articlesbase.com/politics-articles/prop-8-
and-the-separation-of-church-and-state).
4
This church’s official name is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “I know
that the LDS church offers a lot for its members,” wrote one blogger, “but what I don’t
understand is why they should have the right to use their resources to force the rest of us
to conform to their world view. It’s not only unfair and immoral, it’s unconstitutional”
(Deb, [Comments], [dated:] 7 November 2008, Global Spin, [visited:] 23 September
2009, globalspin.com/2008/11/prop-8-what-happened-to-separation-of-church-and-
state?
5
Randy Triezenberg, “Two Views of an Initiative to Overturn Court’s OK of Gay
Marriage,” Sacramento Bee, 26 October 2008: E-1.
6
Congregational churches became widely established in the Massachusetts Bay Colony,
later New England. The model of Congregational churches was carried by migrating
settlers from New England into New York and the Northwest: Ohio, Indiana, Michigan
and Illinois. With their insistence on the independence of local bodies, they became
important in many reform movements, including those for abolition of slavery, and
women’s suffrage. As of the early 21st century, Congregationalism in the U.S. had split
into three major bodies: the United Church of Christ, which most local Congregational
churches affiliated with, the National Association of Congregational Christian
Churches, a fellowship of churches and individuals formed to continue and foster
classic Congregationalism as the merger that created the UCC was being debated, and
the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference, an evangelical group.
21
7
For example, events at local churches seldom included only members of the church or
even of the denomination. Under “interreligious,” I have listed events that organizers
specifically called “ecumenical” or “interfaith.” Bishops and other denominational
leaders, moreover, seldom confined their activities to official business on
denominational councils or committees.
8
Sandi Dolbee, “A Battle over ‘God’s Will’: People of Faith Line up for and against a
Ban on Same-Sex Marriage,” San Diego Union-Tribune, 14 September 2008: A-1.
9
Sandi Dolbee, “Ministers Define Marriage at Forum,” San Diego Union-Tribune, 15
September 2008: B-4.
10
“Council of Churches Urges No on Proposition 8,” [undated:], Santa Clara County
Council of Churches [visited:] 14 September 2009, councilofchurches-
scc.org/article.php/aspeopleoffaith/print.
11
Michael T. Hall and Michael Stetz, “Religious Groups Gather on Both Sides of Prop.
8,” [dated:] 2 November 2008, Sign On San Diego, [visited:] 14 September 2009,
signonsandiego.com/news/metro/2008.
12
Meredith May, “Same-Sex Marriage Fans, Foes Await Court Ruling,” San Francisco
Chronicle, 26 May 2009: B-1.
13
[Mission statement], [dated:] 2005, California Faith for Equality, [visited:] 23
September 2009, cafaithforequality.org.
14
Task Force8.
15
Task Force 7.
16
Task Force 11.
17
Task Force 13.
18
On 4 July 2005, the United Church of Christ officially endorsed gay marriage:”
Whereas the Bible affirms and celebrates human expressions of love and partnership,
calling us to live out fully that gift of God in responsible, faithful, committed
relationships that recognize and respect the image of God in all people; and Whereas the
life and example of Jesus of Nazareth provides a model of radically inclusive love and
abundant welcome for all; and Whereas we proclaim ourselves to be listening to the
voice of a Still Speaking God at that at all times in human history there is always yet
more light and truth to break forth from God’s holy word … Therefore let it be resolved
22
that the Twenty-fifth General Synod of the United Church of Christ affirms equal
marriage rights for couples regardless of gender and declares that the government
should not interfere with couples regardless of gender who choose to marry and share
fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of legally recognized
marriage; and Let it be further resolved that the Twenty-fifth General Synod of the
United Church of Christ affirms equal access to the basic rights, institutional protections
and quality of life conferred by the recognition of marriage …” (“Marriage Equality,”
[undated], United Church of Christ, [visited:] 1 October 2009,
ucc.org/lgbt/issues/marriage-equality/).
19
In 1996, the Unitarian Universalist Association officially endorsed gay marriage:
“Because Unitarian Universalists affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every person;
and Because marriage is held in honor among the blessings of life … Therefore be it
resolved that the 1996 General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association
adopts a position in support of legal recognition for marriage between members of the
same sex …” (“Support of the right to Marry of Same-Sex Couples, [dated:] 28 March
2007, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, [visited:] 1 October 2009,
uua.org/socialjustice/socialjustice/statements/14251.shtml).
20
In March 1996, Reform rabbis officially endorsed gay marriage as a civil right: "Be it
resolved that that the Central Conference of American Rabbis support the right of gay
and lesbian couples to share fully and equally in the rights of civil marriage, and Be it
further resolved that the CCAR oppose governmental efforts to ban gay and lesbian
marriage. Be it further resolved that this is a matter of civil law, and is separate from the
question of rabbinic officiation at such marriages.” In March 2000, moreover, Reform
rabbis endorsed religious weddings for gay couples: “Whereas justice and human
dignity are cherished Jewish values … We do hereby resolve that the relationship of a
Jewish, same gender couple is worthy of affirmation through appropriate Jewish ritual,
and Further resolved that we recognize the diversity of opinions within our ranks on this
issue. We support the decision of those who choose to officiate at rituals of union for
same-gender couples, and we support the decision of those who do not … ” (“Judaism
and Homosexuality: Reform Judaism,” [dated:] 2000, Religious Tolerance, [visited:] 1
October 2009, religioustolerance.org/hom_jref.htm).
21
On 16 March 2004, the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association officially endorsed
gay marriage as a civil right: “… Whereas we deem it imperative that progressive
religious voices be raised in support of the equality that is currently denied to gay men
and lesbians, and in opposition to attempts to present religious traditions in general, and
Jewish tradition in particular, as being uniformly opposed to equality for gay men and
lesbians; and Whereas the Reconstructionist movement has a twenty-year history of
advocating the inclusion and equality of gay men and lesbians in Jewish life …
Therefore be it resolved that the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association endorses and
23
supports the right of same-sex couples to share fully and equally in the rights,
responsibilities and commitments of civil marriage” (“Resolution in Support of Civil
Marriage for Same-Sex Couples, [dated:] 16 March 2004, Reconstructionist Rabbinical
Association, [visited:] 1 October 2009, therra.org/resolution-Mar2004.htm).
22
Application for Leave to Join Brief of Amici Curiae California Council of Churches
et al. in Support of Petitioners, Strauss et al. v. Horton et al., Nos. S168047/S168066
/S168078 (Cal. 2009).
23
Some dioceses have suffragan, or assistant, bishops.
24
Hall and Stetz.
25
“[News from the] Marriage Equality Ministry Team,” [undated], First
Congregational Church of Berkeley, [visited:] 15 September 2009,
fccb.org/newspages/MarrigeEqualityNews.
26
Application 8.
27
This organization is for Presbyterian social-justice activists. Among the topics that it
has studied in connection with “diversity” are the ordination of gay people and gay
marriage. According to its website, members “seek to support the mission and unity of
the Presbyterian Church (USA) in a time of potentially divisive controversy. We intend
to articulate and act on the church's historic, progressive vision and to work for a fully
inclusive church … The Covenant Network works for needed change through active
programs of Informing, Networking, and Advocating. We are committed to helping the
church stay together in faithful ministry, even as we continue to study the Scriptures
and seek the mind of Christ on the question of ordination standards and other matters”
(“History and Purpose of the Covenant Network,” [undated], Covenant Network of
Presbyterians, [visited:] 21 September 2009,
covenantnetwork.org/about_history/aboutCN.htm.
28
“Two Presbyterian Witness Events for Marriage Equality and against the
Discriminatory California Proposition 8,” [dated:] 22 October 2008, More Light
Presbyterians, [visited:] 15 September 2009, mlp.org/article.
29
Marcos Breton, “Supporters of Reverend Seek Facts,” Sacramento Bee, 10 May
2009: B-1; Jennifer Garza, “Pastor Fears His Outspokenness May Cost Him Job,”
Sacramento Bee, 11 February 2009: B-3.
30
Conservative Judaism originated to occupy the middle ground between Orthodox
traditionalism and Reform liberalism. It allows liberal interpretations of Jewish
24
scripture and liberal rulings on matters of Jewish law, but it tries also to maintain the
authority of both. This strategy does not always satisfy those at either end of the
continuum between traditionalism and liberalism. As a result, Conservative Judaism
allows a great deal of latitude to suit the needs of individuals, whether ordained or lay,
and congregations.
31
B.A. Robinson, “The Roman Catholic Church and Homosexuality: Support Groups
for Catholic Homosexuals and Bisexuals,” [dated:] 20 January 2009, Religious
Tolerance, [visited:] 21 September 2009, religioustolerance.org/hom?rom1.htm. At the
Vatican’s request, American bishops asked Dignity chapters in their dioceses to sign
documents in which they agreed to uphold the church’s teachings on sexuality; when
Dignity chapters refused to sign, the bishops revoked their leases on church property
(such as campus Newman Centers).
32
Application 10.
33
“Soulforce Vision Statement,” [undated], Soulforce, [visited:] 23 September 2009,
soulforce.org.
34
“Soulforce Spring 2009 Catholic Action,” Soulforce.
35
Robinson.
36
“The View from Here,” [undated], Affirmation: Gay and Lesbian Mormons, [visited:]
23 September 2009, affirmation.org.
37
“About Us,” Affirmation.
38
“About the Evangelical Network,” [undated], The Evangelical Network, [visited:] 23
September 2009, t-e-n.org/In%20the%News/ENDA.htm.
39
Todd Ferrell, “The Evangelical Network Responds to Recent ENDA Bill
[Employment Non Discrimination Acts] Changes,” Network.
40
Todd Ferrell, “The Evangelical Network Speaks out on Gay Marriage,” [undated],
YouTube, [visited:] 23 September 2009, youtube.com/watch?v=jzqNAkUZUcA.
41
There is no single organization that represents Orthodox Jews, and some
organizations do not care one way or the other about matters that apply only to non-
Jews (or non-Orthodox Jews).
25
42
One example would be Steven Greenberg, a gay Orthodox rabbi who calls for
revisions to Jewish law. He does not call for the abandonment of legal rulings that he
considers unacceptable, which is a Reform or Reconstructionist method. Rather, he calls
for the use of traditional rabbinic methods to reach new rulings that he would find more
acceptable. See his Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish
Tradition (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2004).
43
Conservative rabbis have adopted a similarly pragmatic solution: supporting gay
marriage as a civil right but not necessarily supporting it for members of their own
congregations. Like all non-Orthodox denominations, in any case, no denominational
policy is binding; rabbis may officiate at gay weddings but do not have to do so.
Because the Conservative predicament is so widespread among religious communities,
it is worth quoting its most recent statement on gay marriage.
“Founded in 1927, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards is empowered to
deal with, and rule on, halakhic [Jewish legal] issues within the Conservative
movement. The role of the CJLS is to issue rulings shaping the practice of the
Conservative Jewish community. As such, it is an advisory, not a judiciary body.
Parameters set by the committee guide all of the rabbis, synagogues and institutions of
the Conservative movement, but within these bounds there are many variations of
practice recognized as both legitimate and essential to the richness of Jewish life. As a
result, there have been instances when two or more response [rabbinic opinions],
representing conflicting viewpoints, are validated by the committee. When that
happens, the local rabbi determines which of the responsa to follow. At the CJLS
meetings, five specific teshuvot [answers] were extensively discussed in a spirit of
collegiality and open-mindedness. Two teshuvot—one authored by Rabbi Joel Roth and
the other authored by Rabbis Elliot Dorff, Daniel Nevins and Avram Reisner—obtained
clear majority support. Rabbi Roth’s responsum ‘Homosexuality Revisited’ reaffirmed
the prior position, which denied ordination as clergy to active homosexuals and also
prohibited same sex commitment ceremonies or marriage. In contrast, Rabbis Dorff,
Nevins and Reisner, while retaining the Torah’s explicit prohibition, as understood by
the rabbis banning male homosexual intercourse, argued in ‘Homosexuality, Human
Dignity and Halakhah’ for the full normalization of the status of gay and lesbian Jews.
Under this ruling, gay and lesbian Jews may be ordained as clergy and their committed
relationships may be recognized, although not as sanctified marriage. A third teshuva
accepted by the CJLS, written by Rabbi Leonard Levy, which upheld the traditional
prohibitions, argued that homosexuality is not a unitary condition and urged the
development of educational programs within the community to achieve understanding,
compassion and dignity for gays and lesbians. There was also some support on the
committee for a more comprehensive repeal of the prior ban against homosexual
relationships. All authors of teshuvot shared a universal appreciation for the principle of
kvod habriot and the welfare of gays and lesbians in our community. During its
deliberations the CJLS did not discuss—nor do any of the papers reflect—any
26
determination regarding gay marriage. The meeting of the past two days on the issue of
homosexuality and halakhah reflects a wide diversity of ideas and opinions. These
distinct and divergent opinions may be used by rabbis, synagogues, institutions and
individual members of the Conservative movement as a guide in welcoming gays and
lesbians in our movement. The teshuvot may also serve to determine the extent to which
gays and lesbians may be admitted into our seminaries and guide the clergy of our
movement on the question of whether to initiate commitment ceremonies for gays and
lesbians. The CJLS is united in its concern for the unity of the Conservative movement
worldwide. The diversity of opinions issued today reflects an essential strength of the
Conservative movement—namely, its very pluralism. Indeed, a multiplicity of
approaches to halakhah has been a key feature of the Conservative movement since its
inception” (“Rabbinical Assembly Committee on Jewish Law and Standards Concludes
Meeting on Issue of Homosexuality and Halakha,” [dated:] 6 December 2006,
Rabbinical Assembly of America, [visited:] 1 October 2009,
rabbinicalassembly.org/.../CJLS%20Decisions%20on%20Homosexuality.doc).
This passage illustrates the complexity of deliberations. The rabbis were trying to
balance concern for the needs of gay Conservative Jews with concern for the continuity
of Jewish law (and therefore of the Jewish community). I see no reason whatsoever to
assume that what guided these deliberations was animus toward gay people.
44
Both Catholics and Mormons assume the relevance of their social policies (though
not necessarily their theological ones) to all people; consequently, they use secular
arguments to promote these policies in the public square. Not all Orthodox Jews, on the
other hand, make that initial assumption. Their social policies rely directly on Orthodox
interpretations of the Torah’s 613 commandments and are therefore relevant only to
Jews as a result of divine covenants with Abraham and Moses (the ancestors of Jews).
Gentiles, they believe, are bound by the seven Noahide laws due to an earlier divine
covenant with Noah and therefore with humans in general (including Jews). These
seven laws include the six that Adam received in the Garden of Eden along with the one
that Noah received after the Flood. But even among these seven Noahide laws,
according to the rabbis, one bans homosexual intercourse. Though by no means obvious
and therefore potentially debatable, that has been the rabbinic interpretation of Genesis
2:24: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his
wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
45
Kathleen Gilbert, “Episcopal Bishops in California Support Gay ‘Marriage,’” [dated:]
10 September 2008, Catholic Online [visited:] 15 September 2009, catholic.org.
46
In several of our books, Katherine Young and I discuss “selective cynicism”
(assuming the worst of all people except those like ourselves) as a defining feature of all
ideologies, whether on the left or the right. See, for example, Paul Nathanson and
27
Katherine K. Young, Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in

Popular Culture (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001): 206-207.
47
John Corvino, “Corvino: Friends with the Enemy,” [dated:] 12 December 2008,
365gay.com, [visited:] 21 September 2009, 365gay.com/opinioncorvino-friends-with-
the-enemy.
48
Craig Said, “Opinion,” [dated:] 12 December 2008, 365 Gay.Com, [visited:] 21
September 2009, 365gay.com/opinion/corvine-friends-with-the-enemy.
49
“Marriage Equality,” [undated], California Council of Churches, [visited:] 15
September 2009, calchurches.org/marriage.
50
“Marriage Equality.”
51
But both sides, religious liberals and religious conservatives, can play this game.
Some religious liberals accuse their conservative adversaries of using religious rhetoric
to oppose same-sex marriage and thus perpetuate obsolete and oppressive sexual
hierarchies. From this point of view, theological explanations for opposition to gay
marriage amount to nothing less than bad faith. They have nothing to do with religion.
The underlying motivation, in short, must be “homophobia.” (That word is politically
loaded, because it implies that anyone who disagrees with anything that gay people say
or do must by definition be either neurotic for fearing gay people or evil for hating
them.) Some religious conservatives, on the other hand, accuse their liberal adversaries
of using religious rhetoric to promote same-sex marriage and thus entrench notions of
the family that rely ultimately on some secular political ideology. From this point of
view, theological explanations for supporting gay marriage amount to nothing less than
lies, pretexts, or fronts for some repressive and oppressive “hidden agenda” that has
nothing to do with religion; the underlying motivation, in short, must be modernism
(and thus secularism) or “political correctness.”
Even though religious leaders as such seldom accuse each other of bad faith, at any
rate, there are exceptions. In 2001, Rabbis David Mivasair and Meir Hillel Goelman
submitted a document to Or Shalom, a Reconstructionist synagogue in Vancouver,
British Columbia. They argued that opposition to gay marriage relied on, apart from
anything else, the “fear of heterosexuals” (Rabbi David Mitvasair and Rabbi Yair Hillel
Goelman, “On Broadening Our Vision of Holy Relationship: A Proposal to the Or
Shalom Community,” [dated:] July 2001, Or Shalom, [visited:] 20 September 2009,
orshalom.ca/samesex). By “fear,” of course, they referred to “homophobia.” In other
words, they were disguising their neuroticism or hatred with religious language. But
some rabbis on the other side were no better. Even Rabbi Hersh, the Orthodox rabbi
who urges compassion for sinners but not for their sins, accused his opponents on 5
June 2006 of being “intellectually dishonest” (Weinreb). Nonetheless, most of these
28
accusations by far come from laypeople, not religious leaders. When an article in the
Los Angeles Times mentioned that a minority on the California Board of Rabbis
opposed an initiative to repeal Proposition 8, one blogger responded as follows: “Thank
you Board of Rabbis! … No matter how many lies one has to tell to justify
discrimination,” wrote Beetlebabee, “it’s still wrong … I’m sorry to see religious
leaders deny their faiths for the acclamation of those who would rather ridicule
inconvenient religious viewpoints that tolerate them” (Beetlebabee, “Comments,”
[dated:] 30 September 2008, Los Angeles Times: Local: L.A. Now, [visited:] 20
September 2009, latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/09/proposition-8-i.html.
This was a response to “Board of Rabbis Opposes California Anti-Gay-Marriage
Initiative,” Los Angeles Times, 26 September 2008). Another blogger at the same site,
however, accused the opposite side. “It’s sad to know, wrote Sally, “that Rabbi’s [sic]
will ignore the basic tenents [sic] of their faith in the name of political correctness”
(Sally, “Comments,” [dated:] 30 September 2008, Los Angeles Times: Local: L.A. Now,
[visited:] 20 September 2009, latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/09/proposition-8—
i.html).
52
A classic example in the context of Christianity would be the mentality of Henry
VIII. No one, not even his own supporters, believed that the motivation for his
ecclesiastical revolution was entirely theological; on the contrary, everyone understood
that his motivation was partly and perhaps mainly the political need to divorce (or kill)
one wife after another in order to produce an heir. Because he could not do so with
approval from the church in Rome, he established his own church in England. In short,
he tried to legitimate his behavior in religious terms. Because he had once written
brilliant defenses of Catholic theology against Protestant theology, and because his new
point of view coincided so closely with royal self-interest (producing an heir) and
personal self-interest (acquiring the wealth of English monasteries), many people found
it hard to believe that his motivations were solely or even primarily religious. But
Henry’s motivations were not necessarily synonymous with those of everyone who
approved of the break with Rome. Many of them sincerely believed in the need for
religious reform—that is, for a Protestant Reformation—and were prepared to die for
their beliefs (just as many Catholics were prepared to die for theirs). We have no reason
to doubt the sincerity of Thomas Cranmer, Henry’s Archbishop of Canterbury, who
died as a Protestant martyr under “Bloody Mary” (Elizabeth’s Catholic half-sister).
Ironically, in view of its nefarious political intrigues, this was an age of martyrdom.
And if martyrs do not act in good faith, it is hard to imagine who would.
In one significant context, moreover, some Jews accused other Jews of acting in
bad faith. The French Revolution emancipated French Jews, because failing to do so
would mean failing to take revolutionary thought to its logical conclusion (which is
what the American Revolution failed to do by allowing the continuation of slavery).
Napoleon emancipated the Jews of his empire, too, opening and then tearing down the
ghetto walls. But there was a price for emancipation. To become full citizens and
29
therefore worthy of emancipation, Jews would have to assimilate into the larger society.
This presented Jews with an unprecedented opportunity (the unimpeded quest for
personal fulfillment as the equals of all other citizens) and an equally unprecedented
danger (dissolving boundaries and therefore communal disintegration). Some Jews
chose the path of Samson Raphael Hirsch. He argued that Jews could be fully Jewish
but also fully German or French or whatever. They could study in universities and enter
the professions along with Christians, for instance, but without abandoning the sacred
law of Judaism. This movement led to the reorganization of Jewish communities
structurally along “modern” lines and gave rise to “Neo-Orthodoxy.” Other Jews chose
the path of Moses Mendelssohn. A few decades earlier, at the height of Enlightenment
rationalism, he had reinterpreted Judaism in a way that linked it directly and explicitly
with contemporary German philosophy. Whatever he could not reconcile with reason,
whatever he could not justify in connection with some moral principle, Mendelssohn
rejected as superstitious or unnecessary. In the mid-nineteenth century, Reform Judaism
adopted his principles. One result was intense conflict within the Jewish community.
Both traditional and Neo-Orthodox Jews accused Reform Jews, in one way or
another, of bad faith: claiming to be merely reforming or purifying Judaism but actually
abandoning it for political reasons. And there was some truth in this accusation. Reform
Jews consciously modeled their synagogues on Protestant churches, for instance, both
architecturally and liturgically. And their motivation was largely political. Reform Jews
argued that they were doing what Jews now had to do: legitimate their worthiness for
citizenship and eliminate all signs of the “otherness” that sustained anti-Semitism. On
the other hand, even Reform Jews did not argue that their way of life was as holy as that
of traditional Jews; on the contrary, they rejected not only most forms of Jewish piety
(and therefore the sacred law that governed them) but also much of Jewish theology
(except for the idea of “ethical monotheism”). Unlike the early Protestant reformers,
who wanted to return Christianity to its ancient purity, these Jewish reformers (and
those who founded the more recent Conservative and Reconstructionist movements)
wanted Judaism to embrace modernity. They wanted to be Jews, but they wanted also to
be modern. And to be modern, they had to change Judaism. But after considerably more
than 150 years, the charge of bad faith no longer means much in this context. Living in
the United States and other stable democracies, Jews have no need to legitimate
themselves as citizens or to dilute their “Jewishness” for fear of anti-Semitism.
Orthodox Jews, especially Hasidic ones, still deplore what they consider the errors of
non-Orthodox Jews but no longer accuse them of bad faith—that is, of being dishonest
or insincere.
53
Rebecca Voelkel, “A Time to Build up: Analysis of the No on Proposition 8
Campaign and Its Implications for Future Pro-LGBTQQIA Religious organizing,” [n.p.]
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 2009. LGBT means lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgendered.
30
54
This initialism, an even more inclusive extension of the first, stands for Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Transgendered, Queer, Questioning, Instersex, and Ally.
55
Task Force 1.
56
The task force’s acknowledgments list includes the following; Rev. Darlene Nipper
of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; Ann Craig of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance
Against Defamation (Religion, Faith & Values Program); Harry Knox and Dr. Sharon
Groves of the Human Rights Campaign (Religion and Faith Program); and Dr. Sylvia
Rhue of the National Black Justice Coalition (Religious Affairs Program).
57
Task Force 1.
58
Task Force8.
59
Task Force 19.
60
Task Force 2.
61
Task Force 6.
62
Task Force 5.
63
Task Force 12.
64
Task Force 11.
65
Task Force 7.
66
Task Force 6.
67
Task Force 6.
68
Task Force 10.
69
Task Force 8.
70
Task Force 9.
71
Task Force 9.
72
Task Force 20.
31
73
Task Force 20.
74
Task Force 20.
32
Paul Nathanson
Religious Studies, McGill University; 3520 University St, Montreal, QC, H3A 2A7; (514) 398-1511; paul.nathanson@mcgill.ca
EDUCATION:
PhD (McGill University, 1989: religious studies: religion and secularity, popular culture, gender);
MA (Concordia University, 1979: religious studies: Judaism); BTh (McGill, 1978: Christianity);
MLS (McGill, 1971: library studies); BA (McGill, 1968: art history)
WORK EXPERIENCE:
Academic: Researcher at Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University (2002--); Senior

Research Associate at The McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, McGill University (1988-
1993); Lecturer at Bishop's University (1984); Lecturer at Vancouver School of Theology (1982).):
Editing (freelance): academic manuscripts in the arts, the humanities and the social sciences;
Editing (in-house): editor of newsletters for Transport Canada (summer 1978) and The McGill
Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law (1991-1993); Other: chief librarian at The Vancouver School
of Theology (1979-1982); cataloguer at The National Gallery of Canada (1973-1974); cataloguer at
the Jewish Public Library, Montreal (1972-1973; 1974-1976)
PUBLICATIONS
Books: [with Katherine K. Young] Contra: The Case against Same-Sex Marriage [in progress];
[with Katherine K. Young] Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man
[forthcoming from McGill-Queen’s University Press]; [with Katherine K. Young] Legalizing
Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s
University Press, 2006); [with Katherine K. Young] Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of
Contempt for Men in Popular Culture (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001), 370
pages; Over the Rainbow: The Wizard of Oz as a Secular Myth of America (Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1991) 432 pages.
Articles or chapters: [with Katherine K. Young] “From Religion to Secularity: The Continuum of
Worldviews,” in What Is Religion? Religion in the Courts and the Academy, ed. Dan Cere and
Katherine K. Young [forthcoming]; “Don’t Blame All Muslims, But Don’t Blame All Men Either,”
Ottawa Citizen, 7 August 2009; “Fatherhood Can Be a Thankless Job,” Ottawa Citizen, 23 June
2009; “Pop Goes the Family: Marriage in Popular Culture,” in The Conjugal Bond:
Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Institution of Marriage (under review); [with Katherine K.
Young] “Redefining Marriage or Deconstructing Society: A Canadian Case Study, Journal of
Family Studies, 3.2 (November 2007): 133-178; “Men, Misogyny and Misandry,” Ottawa Citizen, 6
April 2007; “Between Time and Eternity: Theological Notes on Shadows and Fog,” in
Representing Religion in World Cinema: Filmmaking, Mythmaking, Culture Making, ed. Brent
Plate (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 89-106; [with Katherine K. Young]: “The Future of
an Experiment,” in Divorcing Marriage, ed. Douglas Farrow and Dan Cere (Montreal: McGill-
Queen's University Press, 2004); [with Katherine K. Young] "Non au mariage gai," La Presse, 9
July 2003: A-15; [with Katherine Young] "Comment: Keep It All in the Family," Globe and Mail, 2
May 2003: A-15; “I Feel, Therefore I Am: The Princess of Passion and the Implicit Religion of Our
Time,” in Implicit Religion, 2.2 (1999): 59-87 (reprinted in Centrepoints, 4.1 (Spring 2000): 809);
“Coming of Age in the Movies: Myth and Manhood in Rebel without a Cause,” in Gender in World
Religions 5-7 (1994-1997): 28-76; “You Can’t Go Home Again, or Can You? Reflections on the
Symbolism of TV Families at Christmastime,” in Journal of Popular Culture, 27. 2 (1993): 149-
162; [with Katherine K. Young] “Canada's Naked Public Square,” in Towards a Code of Etiquette:
Interfaith Dimensions of Canadian Multiculturalism, ed. Abdul Lodhi, Thom Parkhill, and Melynda
Jarratt (Fredericton: Atlantic Human Rights Centre, 1990): 89-118 (reprinted in Hikmat 3.5 (1991):
8-17 and in Ecumenism (September 1995): 5-13).
Review essays (movies): “The New ‘Deliverance,’” review of The Ticking Man, on IMDb: User
Comments, www://www.imdb.com/title/tt0380753/usercomments, 21 October 2003; “Making
Sense of The Cider House Rules,” in Catholic New Times, 6 February 2000: 17; “Transforming Life
in American Beauty,” in Catholic New Times, 14 November 1999: 14; “Charlie Chaplin Goes to
Hell,” review of Life is Beautiful, in Catholic New Times, 14 February 1999: 16; “Listening for
God’s Voice in the Whirlwind,” review of Titanic, in Catholic New Times, 12 April 1998: 16;
“Pleasantville: The Past Isn’t Black and White,” in Catholic New Times, 20 December 1998: 18; “A
Tale of Two Wars,” reviews of Saving Private Ryan and Regeneration, in Catholic New Times, 27
September 1998: 12; “Exploring the Paradoxical Nature of Human Existence,” review of Sling
Blade, in Catholic New Times, 15 June 1997: 16; “Experiencing a Cinematic Parable, review of
Breaking the Waves, in Catholic New Times, 20 April 1997: 16; “The Crying Game: A Gospel
Parable?” in Catholic New Times, 26 January 1997: 16-17 [2214 words]; “If Ingmar Bergman Had
Made a Western, This Would Have Been It,” review of Dead Man, in Catholic New Times, 6
October 1996: 16; “Opening the Windows of Heaven,” review of The Neon Bible, in Catholic New
Times, 9 June 1996: 15-16 [2700 words]; “In Defence of Sense and Sensibility,” in Catholic New
Times, 3 March 1996: 17 [1800 words]; “Sacrificial Love: The Missing Element in Powder,” in
Catholic New Times, 7 January 1996: 17 [1600 words]; “Through a Glass Darkly: A Study of After
Dark, My Sweet,” in Gender in World Religions, 4 (1993): 87-104; “In Search of St. Francis: The
Cinematic Quest for Manhood in Mass Appeal” in Grail, 7. 4 (1991): 91-111
Review essays (books):Myths America Lives By, by Richard T. Hughes and Something for
Nothing: Luck in America, by Jackson Lears, in Implicit Religion, 7.3 (November 2004); The End
of the World as We Know It: Faith, Fatalism, and Apocalypse in America, by Daniel Wojcik, in
Material History Review (Fall 2000): 89-91; Houses of God: Region, Religion, and Architecture in
the United States, by Peter W. Williams, in Material History Review (Fall 1999): 95-96; The
Landscape of Belief: Encountering the Holy Land in Nineteenth-Century American Art and Culture,
by John Davis, in Material History Review (Spring 1999): 82-83; Material Christianity: Religion
and Popular Culture in America, by Colleen McDannell, in Material History Review, 46 (Fall
1997): 93-98; Icons of American Protestantism; The Art of Warner Sallman, ed. David Morgan, in
Material History Review, 45 (Spring 1997): 69-76; Children of Peace, by John McIntyre, in
Material History Review, 43 (Spring 1996): 84-87; Make Room for TV: Television and the Postwar
Ideal in America, by Lynn Spigel, in Material History Review, 40 (Fall 1994): 88-89
LECTURES, CONFERENCES, HEARINGS
Marriage: “Fatherhood,” for panel discussion on the family, tenth annual conference of World
Alliance for Youth (New Haven, Yale University, 25-26 September 2009); [with Katherine K.
Young] “Gender Equality and Sex Differences: The Effects on Parents and Children,” lecture for
conference on Who Is Called a “Parent” and Why? An Interdisciplinary Investigation of Core
Questions at the Heart of Today’s Family Debates (Charlottesville, Virginia: 16-18 October
2008); “Pop Goes the Family: Marriage in Popular Culture,” lecture for Illuminating Marriage, a
conference organized by the Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law and Culture (Kananaskis,
Alberta: 18-20 May 2005); [with Katherine K. Young] “Gay Adults v. Children: Rights in
Conflict,” guest lecture for the Lord Reading Law Society (Montreal: 4 May 2005); “Gay
Marriage,” guest lecture for Dr. Martha Bernstein at Vanier College (Montreal: 10 January 2005;
“Marriage in Popular Culture,” lecture for The Great Canadian Marriage Debate, a symposium
held at Loyola High School (Montreal: 14 January 2004); [with Katherine K. Young] “Marriage
in Popular Culture,” lecture for Re-visioning Marriage in Postmodern Culture, a conference
sponsored by Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law, and Culture (Toronto: 10-12 December
2003); “Gay Marriage” lecture for Redefining Marriage: Mapping the Debate: A Symposium,
sponsored by the Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law, and Culture (Toronto: 4 October
2003); “Marriage-a-la-mode: Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage,” lecture for Sex, Marriage,
and the Family, a conference held at Emory University (Atlanta: 27-30 March 2003);
“Questioning Some of the Claims for Gay Marriage,” [with Katherine K. Young] presentation for
the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (Ottawa: 20 February
2003); “Misanthropy on the Soaps,” lecture for Wars of the Ring: Revisioning Marriage in
Postmodern Culture, a conference sponsored by McGill University’s Newman Centre (Montreal:
23 March 2002). Misandry: [with Katherine K. Young] “By Love Possessed: The Case for
Intersexual Dialogue,” lecture for a seminar on love (McGill Psychology Students Association, 11
February 2009); [with Katherine K. Young] “Coming of Age as a Villain: What Boys Need to
Know about Misandry,” lecture for the conference on Boys and the Boy Crisis (Washington, D.C.:
13-14 July 2007); [with Katherine K. Young] “The New Double Standard: Misandry and Public
Discourse,” lecture for the Toronto Writers’ Centre (Toronto: 31 May 2007); [with Katherine K.
Young] “Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against men,”
lecture for Dr. Miles Groth at Wagner College (New York: 28 September 2006); [with Katherine K.
Young] “Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture,” lecture for
Dr. Miles Groth at Wagner College (New York: Nov. 2003); “The Problem of Misandry and the
Possibility of Intersexual Dialogue,” lecture for Visions of Men’s Health, a conference sponsored
by Catholic Community Services and the Mankind Project (Montreal: 13 June 2002); Religion
and culture: “The Wizard of Oz as a Secular Myth of America,” lecture for Dr. Barbara Galli,
Religion 351 (Montreal, Concordia University, 2 October 2008); “From Healers to Heels:
Medicine on Commercial Television,” lecture for Dr. Katherine Young, Religious Studies 571
(Montreal, McGill University, 2 October 2008); "Old Age in Western Art," paper presented at the
17th International Congress on Palliative Care (Montreal, Palais des congrès, 23-26 September
2008); “Science Fiction: On the Frontier between Religion and Medicine,” lecture for the
American Academy of Religion: Eastern International Region (Montreal: 2 May 2008);
“Remaking Methuselah: Science Fiction and the Search for Longevity,” lecture for The World’s
Religions after September 11: A Global Congress (Montreal: 11-15 September 2006); “From
Babylon to Babylon-on-the-Hudson: Religion and Secularity in Modern America,” lecture for Dr.
Ted Trost at the University of Alabama: Judaic Studies-College of Arts and Sciences (Tuscaloosa:
14 November 1999); “Myth and Ritual in Popular Films,” lecture for the Thomas More Institute of
Canada (Montreal: 23 November 1996); “Cinema as Secular Myth and Secular Parable,” lecture for
a conference of the Learned Societies (Montreal: 2 June 1995); “Over the Rainbow,” lecture for the
St. James Literary Society (Montreal: 1 November 1994); “Religion and Film,” lecture for the
Ecumenical Jury at the World Film Festival (Montreal: 26 August 1994); “Over the Rainbow: The
Wizard of Oz as a Secular Myth of America,” lecture for The American Academy of Religion
(Kansas City: 25 November 1991); “Home for Christmas,” lecture for The Popular Culture
Association and The American Culture Association (Toronto: March 1991); “The Wizard of Oz:
Sacred Time in Secular America,” lecture for The Popular Culture Association and The American
Culture Association (Toronto: March 1987). Other: “Responding to Margaret Somerville’s ‘A
Poetry of Ethics: Creating a Language of the Ethical Imagination,’ second of Somerville’s five
Massey Lectures based on her book The Ethical Imagination. (Montreal: Newman Centre of McGill
University, 7 November 2006); “On Being Jewish in Canada,” lecture for the Canadian Studies
Center, Plymouth State College of the University System of New Hampshire (Plymouth: 1
November 1991).
INTERVIEWS
Same-sex marriage: Interviewed by Lorna Dueck, “A Child’s Rights: Revisiting Same-Sex

Marriage,”, on Listen Up TV, Global Quebec, Montreal, [date of taping] 29 November 2006;
Interviewed by Charles Adler, "Same-Sex Marriage," on Adler Online, CJOB, Winnipeg, Corus
[radio network], 31 January 2005; interviewed [with Katherine K. Young] by Diana Keough at
www.beliefnet.com, 13 August 2003; [with Margaret A. Somerville and Douglas Farrow]
interviewed by Sheila Coles, "The Case against Same-Sex Marriage," on Sounds Like Canada,
CBC Radio, 15 July 2003. Legalizing Misandry: interviewed [with Katherine K. Young] by Sean
Moncrief on The Moncrief Show, News Talk Radio, Dublin, Ireland, 3 August 2007; interviewed by
Dan Bell for “Dorks, Dweebs and Dummies,” Times [of London], 31 July 2007; nterviewed [with
Katherine K. Young] by Gregory Andresen for Dads on the Air, Australian Broadcasting
Corporation, 14 July 2007; interviewed [with Katherine K. Young] by Michael Seeber for CPR TV,
Minnesota Cable Network, Minneapolis (and www.mcn6.org,); interviewed [with Katherine K.
Young] by John McCulloch on The Mitch Albom Show, WJR Radio Detroit, Detroit, 28 May 2007;
interviewed [with Katherine K. Young] by Matthew Stuart for “Mommy Dearest,” which appeared
in the print version of the Western Standard (20 November 2006): 33 and also on its
westernstandard.ca/website/index.cfm?page=print.print_article&article_id=2128); interviewed
[with Katherine K. Young] by John Gormley on John Gormley Live, Rawlco [radio network],
CKOM, Saskatoon and CKME, Regina, 17 July 2006; interviewed with [Katherine K. Young] by
Garen Daly and Louise Reilly Sacco on The Frugal Yankee Radio Hour, WNTN, Boston, Mass., 25
June 2006; Spreading Misandry: interviewed by Kari Simpson and Terry O’Neill for
RoadkillRadio.com, 16 June 2009; interviewed [with Katherine K. Young] by Bernie Ahearn for
A Man’s World, www.healthylife.net, 28 July 2005; interviewed [with Katherine K. Young] by
Terry Schroell for “Two Wrongs Won’t Make a Right,” a documentary produced at the Toronto
Film School, 7 March 2005; interviewed [with Katherine K. Young] by Courtney Kane for an
article in the New York Times on men in advertising, 14 January 2005; interviewed [with
Katherine K. Young] by Dave Taylor on Afternoons with Dave Taylor," CHQR radio, Calgary,
25 March 2003; interviewed [with Katherine K. Young] by Tom Clark on The Tom Clark Show,
Wisconsin Public Radio, 13 March 2003; [with Katherine K. Young] interviewed by Tanya
Spreckley on SexTV (the series), CityTV, Toronto, 25 October 2002; interviewed [with Katherine
K. Young] by Matthew Walls for his class on “Broadcast Journalism,” Concordia University,
Montreal, 3 October 2002; interviewed [with Katherine K. Young] by Chantal Levigne on
Dimanche Magazine, CBC (Radio Canada), Montreal, 1 October 2002; interviewed [with
Katherine K. Young] by Joe Manthey on The Joe Manthey Show, MND Radio, Los Angeles,
California (available online at www.mensnewsdaily.com/radio/mantheyshow.htm), 22 July 2002;
interviewed [with Katherine K. Young] by Robert Sapienza and Howard Gontovnick on Mind
Excursions, CINQ-FM, Montreal, 20 and 27 April 2002; interviewed [with Katherine K. Young
and Susan Cole], by Daniel Richler on The Word This Week, Bravo! Toronto, 25 April 2002;
interviewed [with Katherine K. Young] by Vicki Gabereau on Vicki Gabereau, CTV, Vancouver,
18 February 2002; interviewed [with Katherine K. Young] on Canada Now, CBC, [January?]
2002; interviewed [with Katherine K. Young] on Book Television, Bravo! Toronto, 30 January
2002; interviewed [with Katherine K. Young] by Katherine Gombay on Art Talk, CBC, Montreal,
Quebec; interviewed [with Katherine K. Young, Michael Rowe, and Gwen Smith] by Michael
Coren on Michael Coren Live, CTS, Burlington, Ontario, 3 December 2001; interviewed [with
Katherine K. Young] by Tommy Schnurmacher on The Tommy Schnurmacher Show, CBC,
CJAD, Montreal, Quebec, 29 November 2001; interviewed [with Katherine K. Young] by David
and Diane Nicholson during a panel discussion at their salon, 21 November 2001; interviewed
[with Katherine K. Young] by John Gormley on John Gormley Live, Rawlko [radio network],
CKOM, Saskatoon and CJME, Regina, 21 November 2001; interviewed [with Katherine K.
Young] by Melanie Deveau on Guy’s Corner, CKLW, Windsor, Ont., 20 November 2001;
interviewed [with Katherine K. Young] by Peter Warren on Warren on the Weekend, CKVN,
Vancouver, BC., 18 November 2001; interviewed [with Katherine K. Young] by Dave Rutherford
on The Rutherford Show, Corus [radio network], CHQR, Calgary, Alb., 16 November, 2001;
interviewed [with Katherine K. Young] by Anne Legace Dawson on Home Run, CBC, CBFM,
Montreal, Que., 15 November 2001; interviewed [with Katherine K. Young] by Larry Fedoruk on
Drive Home, Telemedia, CKTB, St. Catherines, Ont., 15 November 2001; interviewed [with
Katherine K. Young] by Al Stafford on The Stafford Show, Corus [radio network], CHED,
Edmonton, Alberta, 15 November 2001; interviewed [with Katherine K. Young] by Roy Greene
on The Roy Greene Show, Corus [radio network], CHML, Hamilton, Ont., 14 November 2001;
interviewed [with Katherine K. Young] by Paul and Carol Mott on The Motts, CFRB, Toronto,
Ont., 14, 18 May 2001. Religion and culture: interviewed by Marguerite MacDonald on Open
House, CBC, 30 August 1992 and 18 January 1992; interviewed by Daniel Richler on Imprint, TV
Ontario, 10 February 1992; interviewed by Peter Gzowski on Morningside, CBC, 6 February 1992;
interviewed by Jeff Hanson on Clark and Company, Wisconsin Public Radio, 17 December 1991;
interviewed by Nancy Wood on Radio Noon, CBC, Montreal, Que., 13 May 2003.
HONOURS, AWARDS, GRANTS
Canada Research Fellowship: $120,000 for a project called “Beyond the Fall of Man: From
Ideology to Dialogue in the Conflict over Masculine Identity,” (1990-1993); Donner (Canadian)
Foundation: $180,000 for a project, with Katherine K. Young as principal investigator, called “The
Future of Nature: New Reproductive Technologies and the Symbolic Frontier” (1988-1990);
Dean’s Honour List, McGill University (1989); Ministère de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la
Science [du Québec]: $24,000 bursary (1984-1986); Challenge Grant, Employment and
Immigration Canada: $2,000 for student researcher (1989); McConnell Fellowship, McGill
University: $2,000 (1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986): University Scholarship, McGill University
(1968, 1977, and 1978); Birks Award, McGill University (1978); Lobley Prize, Montreal
Diocesan Theological College (1978); Ellegood Jubilee Scholarship, Montreal Diocesan
Theological College (1977); H.W. Wilson Scholarship, McGill University (1970); Sir William
MacDonald Scholarship, McGill University (1968).
OTHER
Grading papers, “Unit E: Introduction to World Religions,” for Montreal Diocesan Theological
College, 1987-
ASSOCIATIONS:
Academic: Popular Culture Association-American Culture Association; American Academy of

Religion; Film Studies Association of Canada. Other: Editors' Association of Canada.
REFERENCES:
Katherine Young: Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University (514-398-4124); Fred Bird:
Department of Religion, Concordia University (514-848-2070); Peter Ohlin: Department of
English, McGill University (514-398-6550).
2009.10.02
EXHIBIT D
Index of Material Considered
1. 2nd Annual Seven Straight Nights for Equal Rights Events, September 14-20
2. 2008 Diocesan Convention: Resolution – Support for Marriage Equality, Diocese of

California
3. A Brief Summary As to Why Promoting California’s Proposition 8 Was Contrary to Both

Scripture & Official LDS Doctrine, http://h1.ripway.com/lds4gaymarriage/prop8.htm
4. Acceptance at the Altar; The Episcopal Church’s Support for Gays and Lesbians Reaches
Far Beyond Religion to Touch Society, Los Angeles Times, Aug. 2, 2009
5. John H. Adams, Homosexual Minister who helped rile PCUSA takes issue to
Episcopalians, THE LAYMAN ONLINE, Sept. 17, 2009,
http://www.layman.org/News.aspx?article=17509.
6. Affirmation: Gay and Lesbian Mormons, 2009 Conference Theme Becomes Inspiring
Song, May 2009.
7. Affirmation: Gay and Lesbian Mormons, Welcome New Friend: About Us.
8. Adventists Against Proposition 8, The Petition, available at

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/sdanoonprop8/
9. Marta W. Aldrich, California United Methodists react to same-sex ruling, UNITED

METHODIST NEWS SERV., July 08, 2008,
http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=.
10. Alliance of Baptists, http://www.allianceofbaptists.org/ (Sept. 27, 2009).
11. All Saints Church: The Virtual Action Table of All Saints Church, http://www.allsaints-
pas.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ActionTable (last visited Sept. 22, 2009).
12. Rebecca Alpert, Same-Sex Marriage and the Law, THE SHALOM CTR.,
http://www.shalomctr.org/node/3 (last visited Sept. 15, 2009).
13. Marc Andrus & Steven Charleston, After Prop 8, Love Endures,
http://diocal.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=336&Itemid=215 (last
14. Marc Handley Andrus, The Rt. Rev. March Handley Andrus writes letter to the diocese
in response to Proposition 8 decision,
http://oasiscalifornia.org/2009%20andrus%20resonds%20prop%208%20decision.htm
1

15. Lavina Fielding Anderson, Against Proposition 8, BY COMMON CONSENT, July 2008.
16. Annual Meeting, Pacific Southwest District of the Unitarian Universalist Association and
Camp de Benneville Pines, May 1-3, 2009
17. Asian American & Pacific Islander Clergy Support the Right of Same-Sex Couples to
Marry, http://www.netrj.org/resources/library/api-clergy-support-marriage.htm (last
18. Application for File Amicus Brief and Proposed Brief of Amici Curiae Reverend Dr.
Frank M. Alton, et al., Strauss et al. v. Horton et al., Nos. S168047/S168066/S168078
(Cal. 2009)
19. Application for Leave to Join Brief of Amici Curiae California Council of Churches et al.
in Support of Petitioners, Strauss et al. v. Horton et al., Nos. S168047/S168066/S168078
(Cal. 2009)
20. Letter from Ed Bacon, Rector, All Saints Church, Pasadena, Cal., to members of All
Saints Church, available at http://www.allsaints-
pas.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ActionTable.
21. Christy Baker, The Civil Right to Civil Marriage, Unitarian Universalist Church of
Berkeley, Aug. 3, 2008
22. Mark Baldassare, Why the same-sex marriage ban passed, S.F. CHRON., Dec. 4, 2008, at
B7.
23. Stephen Baxter, The Rev. Carole Vincent of Almaden Hills United Methodist Church
plans to retire at the end of June, WILLCOX GLEN RESIDENT, Feb. 6, 2009.
24. The Bay Area CWC, CLGS, available at http://www.clgs.org/bay-area-cwc California

Faith for
25. Equality, available at http://cafaithforequality.org/
26. Thomas Berg, Taking exception: Gay marriage legislation, THE CHRISTIAN CENTURY,
June 30, 2009.
27. Linda Bloom, Gay marriage ruling won't directly affect churches, bishop says, UNITED
METHODIST NEWS SERV., Nov. 20, 2003,
http://archives.umc.org/umns/news_archive2003.asp?story={7741F2.
28. Marcos Breton, Supporters of reverend seek facts, Sacramento Bee, May 10, 2009.
29. Rabbi Jerry Brown, Protecting the Institution of Marriage, Yom Kippur, 2008
2

30. California Faith For Equality, Catholic Statement Supporting the Freedom to Marry in
California, http://www.thedatabank.com/dpg/239/personal2.asp?formid=cathsignup, (last
31. California Faith for Equality, Mission, 2005.
32. California Conference Ministers Support Episcopal Bishops, United Church of Christ,
Sept. 17, 2008
33. California Council of churches, available at http://www.calchurches.org/1-1.html
34. The California Nevada Conference of the United Methodist Church, California UM
Bishops on Record as ‘Prop 8’ Seems Headed for Courts,
http://www.cnumc.org/news_detail.asp?TableName=oNews_PJAYMY&PKValue=978
(Nov. 14, 2008).
35. The California Nevada Conference of the United Methodist Church, Cal-Nevada Ums
Join ‘No on 8’ Rallies, http://www.cnumc.org/news_detail.asp?PKValue=988 (Nov. 20,
2008).
36. California Proposition 8 (2008), Wikipedia, available at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Re
37. California’s Prop 8 Passage Prompts UCC ad, United Church of Christ, Nov. 8, 2008
38. Christ Chapel of Laguna Beach Orange County California Gay,

39. Church of the Foothills, Pastor/Staff, http://chotf.org/staff.html (last visited Sept. 27,
2009).
40. Church of the Good Shepherd, An Open Letter from the Episcopal Synod of America to
all faithful people in the Anglican Tradition, July 29, 1997.
41. Lee Michael Cohn, Activist Rev. Still Performing Gay Marriages, Santa Monica Mirror,
Sept. 24-30, 2009
42. David Cole, The Same-Sex Future, THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS Vol. 56, No. 11,
July 2, 2009.
43. Congregation Shomrei Torah, All in God’s Image,

44. Congregation Shomrei Torah, Opposing Prop. 8 Interfaith service will support gay
marriage, http://www.shomreitorah.org/inthenews.html (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
3

45. Congregation Shomrei Torah, Please let my moms be married,

46. Congregational Church of Belmont, http://www.uccbelmont.org/ (last visited Sept. 27,

2009).
47. David J. Cooper, Teshuva on Prop 8, KOL KEHILLA (Kehilla Cmty. Synagogue,
Piedmont, Cal.), Dec. 2008, at 1.
48. Alan Cooperman, Conservative Rabbis Allow Ordained Gays, Same-Sex Unions, THE
WASH. POST, Dec. 7, 2006.
49. John Corvino, Corvino: Friends with the Enemy, 365GAY, Dec. 12, 2008,
http://www.365gay.com/opinion/corvino-friends-with-the-enemy.
50. John Corvino, Corvino: Gay marriage and the bigot card, 365GAY, May 1, 2009,
http://www.365gay.com/opinion/corvino-gay-marriage-and-the-bigot-card/.
51. John Corvino, Corvino: Scared in California, 365GAY, Oct. 17, 2008,
http://www.365gay.com/opinion/corvino-scared-in-california.
52. Covenant Network of Presbyterians, History & Purpose of the Covenant Network.
53. Created in God’s Image, B’reishit 5769, October 24, 2008
54. Louie Crew, The Founding of Integrity, Mar. 17, 1986.
55. Shaila Dewan, United Church of Christ Backs Same Sex Marriage, N.Y. TIMES, July 5,
2005.
56. Day of Decision Rallies, Equality Action Project, May 22, 2009
57. Decision Day Rally & March, What to Bring, West Hollywood Presbyterian Church
58. Defendant-Intervenors’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment, and
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment,
Perry et al. v. Schwarzenegger et al., No. 09-2292 (N.D. Cal. filed May 22, 2009)
59. DIGNITY Los Angeles – Photos – Wedding of Jim and Raol 2008,
http://www.dignitylosangeles.org/photos-15-prop8-pg.htm (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
60. Email from Dignity Los Angeles to Dignity Los Angeles Members (Aug. 27, 2008, 6:39
PST).
61. DioCal, 2008 Diocesan Convention: Resolution - Support for Marriage Equality.
4

62. Diocese of California, Episcopal Church – California bishops denounce Proposition 8,

63. Sandi Dolbee, A Battle over ‘God’s Will’, Sept. 14, 2008, available at
http://signonsandiego.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=A+battle+over+
%27God%27s+will%27+|+The+San+Diego+Union-
Tribune&expire=&urlID=30991009&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.signonsandiego
.com%2Funiontrib%2F20080914%2Fnews_1n14prop8.html&partnerID=86541
64. Sandi Dolbee, Battle Lines Drawn on Proposition 8, Sept. 27, 2008, available at
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080927/news_1c27prop8.html
65. Sandi Dolbee, Ministers Define marriage at Forum, Sept. 15, 2008, available at
http://signonsandiego.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Ministers+define
+marriage+at+forum+|+The+San+Diego+Union-
.com%2Funiontrib%2F20080915%2Fnews_1m15forum.html&partnerID=86541
66. Elliot Dorff, Prop 8 Teaches Our Children That God Did Not Create Everyone Equal,
OPPOSINGVIEWS.COM.
67. Sarah Dreier, Expressing Faith Through Marriage Equality, Center for American
Progress, Mar. 3, 2009.
68. East Bay Church Votes to Oppose Prop 8, Plans ‘Mass’ Blessing of Weddings Between
Same-Sex Couples, REDORBIT NEWS, Oct. 9, 2008,
http://www.redorbit.com/modules/news/tools.php?tool=print&id=1583642
69. The Ecumenical Catholic Church, Church’s Formal Request to Invalidate Proposition 8,
Nov. 18, 2008
70. Editorial, Prop. 8’s Battle Lessons, L.A. TIMES, Nov. 11, 2008.
71. Lisa Edwards, From the Rabbi’s Study . . . Wedding Blues, G’VANIM (Beth Cayim
Chadashim, L.A., Cal.), Nov.-Dec. 2008, at 2.
72. Bob Egelko, Everyone Wants a Say on Prop. 8, San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 26, 2009
73. Crystal Eldridge, Friends learned to agree to disagree on same-sex marriage debate, THE
ASU HERALD, Mar. 13, 2008.
74. Election Forum, STILL SPEAKING . . . (Cmty. Church of Atascadero, Atascadero, Cal.),
Oct. 2008, at 1.
75. Michael Patrick Ellard, A Pastoral Letter regarding the November 4 Election,
Metropolitan Community Church of San Jose, Oct. 31, 2008.
5

76. David Ellenson, Editorial, Prop 8 goes against God’s love for every person, JTA, Nov. 3,
2008.
77. David Ellenson, Same-Sex Marriage, In The Jewish Tradition, THE JEWISH WEEK – NY,
http://huc.edu/newspubs/pressroom/2004/3/samesex.shtml, (last visited Sept. 16, 2009).
78. Episcopal Church, Final Resolutions concerning Liturgy,

http://gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=898&type=Final (last visited
Sept. 30, 2009).
79. Equality for All, Vote No on Prop 8: List of Faith Based Organizations that oppose Prop
8, http://equalityforall.articulatedman.com/about?id=0009 (last visited Sept. 30, 2009).
80. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, A Brief Summary of Actions: Eleventh

Churchwide Assembly, Aug. 17 – 23, 2009.
81. The Evangelical Network, General Information.
82. Joe Fanelli, et al., Day of Decision and the Day After, FIRST WORDS (First Unitarian
83. Faith Leaders from Across State to Speak Out Against Proposition 8, Media Advisory,
Oct. 8, 2008
84. Faith Whitmore Invocation, St. Marks. United Methodist Church
85. Posting of Father Geoff Farrow to Blogspot,

http://fathergeofffarrow.blogspot.com/2008/10/la-press-conference... (Oct. 14, 2008, 3:56
PM).
86. Julie G. Fax, Gay Marriage; Is it a fight for equal rights or the end of a moral society?,
THE JEWISH J., May 13, 2004.
87. FCCB Votes No on Prop. 8, FCCB THE CARILLON (First Congregational Church of
Berkeley, United Church of Christ, Berkeley, Cal.), Sept. 21, 2008, at 1.
88. Todd Ferrell, The Evangelical Network Responds to Recent ENDA Bill Changes,” The
Evangelical Network.
89. Bill Fentum, Retired pastors offer to perform gay weddings, THE UNITED METHODIST
PORTAL, July 15, 2008, http://www.umportal.org/print_article.asp?id=3809.
90. The Flaming Chalice, Newsletter of Starr King Unitarian Universalist Church, Sept. 2008
91. MacArthur H. Flournoy, An Open Letter to Our Beloved Community, The UCC Coalition
for LGBT Concerns, http://www.ucccoalition.org/news/archive/news/article/an-open-
letter-to.
6

92. Foes of Proposition 8 Hold Interfaith Service, The San Diego Union-Tribune, available
at
http://video.signonsandiego.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=2347697&item_index=1
&all=1&sort=NULL
93. For Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom: Hearing on L.D. 1020 Before the
Comm. On Judiciary, 124th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (2009) (statements of Rabbi Hillel Katzir
and Reverend Mark Worth).
94. Friday Flash, Newsletter of St. Aldan’s Episcopal Church, Oct. 10, 2008
97. Friends in Faith, Moving Towards Marriage Equality, Equality California, available at
http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/s/content.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4096757&ct=702183
5
98. From Our Co-Ministers, Unitarian Universalist Church of Berkeley, October, 2008
99. From Rabbi Klein, The Isaian, September, 2008
100. Leslie Fulbrght, et. al., Prop. 8 rivals seek support in black churches, SFGate.com (Oct.
22, 2008, 15:47 PDT).
101. Leslie Fullbright and Matthai Kuruvila, Prop. 8 Rivals Seek Support in Black Faithful;
Competing Rallies in S.F., Oakland, L.A. Attempt to Influence Critical Bloc of Voters
Whose Turnout at Polls is Expected to be High, San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 22, 2008
102. Paul Gackle, Christian Minister Fights for Gay Marriage, THE BERKELEY DAILY
PLANET, June 4, 2009.
103. Welton Gaddy, Interfaith Alliance, Same-Gender Marriage & Religious Freedom: A Call
to Quiet Conversations And Public Debates.
104. Jennifer Garaza, Faith Leaders make Final Appeal on Gay Marriage; They Urge Flocks to
do the Right Thing by Voting For or Against the Ban, Sacramento Bee, Nov. 3, 2008
105. Jennifer Garza, Pastor Fears his Outspokenness May Cost him Job, Sacramento Bee, Feb.
11, 2009
106. Jessica Garrison, Prop. 8 Opponents Rally Across California to Protest Gay-Marriage
Ban, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 16, 2008
107. Melissa Gasca, Santa Clarita to discuss gay marriage; An open forum for open minded
people, THE SIGNAL, Oct. 3, 2008.
7

108. Rev. Dr. Mary Susan Gast, Religious Voices Against Proposition 8, The United Church
of Christ
109. Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men who Have Sex with Men (MSM) Continue to Have
Highest Number of HIV Infections in the U.S., Called Out eNews – August 2008, United
Church of Christ
110. Rabbi Laura Geller, The Jigsaw Puzzle of Creation: A Jewish View Against Proposition
8, Oct. 24, 2008
111. THE GENERAL CONVENTION OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SUMMARY OF ACTIONS OF THE
76th GENERAL CONVENTION, Aug. 2009.
112. Beth M. Gilbert, Gays and Lesbians Under the Chupah, REFORM JUDAISM MAG.,
Summer 2006.
113. Kathleen Gilbert, “Episcopal Bishops in California Support Homosexual ‘Marriage,’

Sept. 10, 2008.
114. Kathy L. Gilbert, Benediction will be emotional, Lowery says, UNITED METHODIST NEWS
SERV., Jan. 14, 2009,
http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=.
115. Johanna Ginsberg, As New Jersey hears gay marriage case, rabbis split along movement
lines, N.J. JEWISH NEWS, Feb. 9, 2006.
116. George Gittleman, Rabbi, Congregation Shomrei Torah, Torah Teaches: Love the
Stranger, Oct. 2008, http://www.shomreitorah.org/rabbimsg.html (last visited Sept. 22,
2009).
117. God’s Extravagant Welcome, Forward this YouTube Link to ANYBODY who…, The
UCC Coalition for LGBT Concerns
118. God’s Extravagant Welcome, Ripples – May 2009, The UCC Coalition for LGBT
Concerns
119. God’s Extravagant Welcome, Ripples – October 2008, The UCC Coalition for LGBT
Concerns
120. The Good Book and Gay Marriage: A faith-based debate over what Scripture teaches
about same-sex marriage, NEWSWEEK, December 16, 2008,
http://www.newsweek.com/id/175223
121. Larry Gordon, Tough Debate on Gay Jews, L.A. TIMES,

http://www.glbtjews.org/article.php3?id_article=323. (last visited Sept. 29, 2009).
8

122. Steven Greenberg, Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition
(Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2004).
123. J. Bennett Guess, Religious bodies issue legal challenge to California’s Proposition 8,
United Church of Christ, Nov. 18, 2008.
124. Matthew T. Hall and Michael Stetz, Thousands at stadium; mayor speaks at vigil, SAN
DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE, Nov. 2, 2008.
125. Rev. Bill Hamilton-Holway, We can Make a Difference: Election 2008, Unitarian
Universalist Church of Berkeley, Oct. 12, 2008
126. Duke Helf, California’s top Episcopal bishops oppose gay marriage ban, L.A. TIMES,
Sept. 11, 2008.
127. Duke Helfand, Bishops in state oppose Prop. 8; Episcopal leaders go on the record
against the ballot measure which would bar same-sex marriage, L.A. TIMES, Sept. 11,
2008.
128. Duke Helfand, Board of rabbis opposes California anti-gay-marriage initiative, L.A.
TIMES, Sept. 26, 2008.
129. Duke Helfand, Clergy on Both Sides of Proposition 8 Speak Out (California), L.A.
TIMES, Oct. 26, 2008.
130. Duke Helfand, Episcopal leaders reopen divisive debate on same-sex marriage, L.A.
TIMES, July 11, 2009.
131. Duke Helfand, Gay Activists Leads Rabbis, Los Angeles Times, May 12, 2009
132. Seth Hemmelgarn, Black Faith, Community Leaders Urge Churchgoers to Oppose Prop
8, BAY AREA REP., Oct. 23, 2008.
133. Seth Hemmelgarn, Churches Play Key Role in Prop 8 Campaigns, Bay Area Reporter,
Sept. 18, 2008
134. Tim Herdt, Supreme Court decides Tuesday on Prop 8, VENTURA COUNTY STAR, May
22, 2009.
135. House of Danu – House of Danu Takes Stand on Proposition 8,

136. http://www.ids4gaymarriage.org/ (last visited Sept. 22, 2009).
137. HUC-JIR Weekly Digest, Rabbis on Anti-Gay Marriage Prop 8,

9

138. Human Rights Campaign, News: Equally Speaking – transcript of news webcast
concerning Prop. 8, Oct. 16, 2008, http://www.hrc.org/issues/religion/11422.html.
139. Human Rights Campaign, News: Equally Speaking – transcript of news webcast
concerning Prop. 8, Oct. 22, 2008, http://www.hrc.org/issues/religion/11474.html.
140. Identity-Based Ministries Report to the UUA Board of Trustees, December 2008
141. Inclusive Baptist Church, Welcoming & Affirming All, Readings for the Day: Matthew
2:1-12 and ‘The Journey of the Magi’ by T.S. Eliot,
http://www.baptistchurchsf.org/sermons/detail.php?month=Jan%202009&mId=67 (last
142. Inclusive Baptist Church, Welcoming & Affirming All, Their Story, Our Story,
http://www.baptistchurchsf.org/sermons/detail.php?month=Nov%202008&mId=65#168
(last visisted Sept. 27, 2009).
143. Inner Light Center, Communicate Prop 8,

http://www.innerlightministries.com/documents/communications-on-8.pdf (last visited
Sept. 27, 2009).
144. INTEGRITY INFOLETTER (Integrity, Rochester, N.Y.), Oct. 2008.
145. Elysse James, Anti-Prop 8 rally at church on Thursday, O.C. REG., Mar. 4, 2008.
146. JCRC, Statement on Same-Sex Civil Marriage, Feb. 14, 2006.
147. THE JEWISH GAILY FORWARD (Congregation Shaar Zabav, S.F., Cal.), Sept.-Oct. 2008.
148. Jewish Social Policy Action Network, Newsletter: Dec. 12, 2008
149. JEWS FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY, News (Updated Aug. 12, 2009),
http://www.jewsformarrigeequality.org/html/news.html.
150. Posting of Jim to Irregular Times blog,

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2009/04/22/maine-clergy-articulate-case-
for-same-sex-marriage-and-the-separation-of-church-and-state/ (Apr. 22, 2009)
151. Deborah L. Johnson, Gutting Equality Out of the Constitution,

152. Bronwen Jones, Vote No on Prop. 8: Three Months of UUCCSM Grassroots Activism,
Unitarian Universalist Community Church of Santa Monica Newsletter, Nov. 2008.
153. Bronwen Jones & Kris Langabeer, Marriage Equality Team Fights to Defeat Proposition
8, Unitarian Universalist Community Church of Santa Monica Newsletter, Sept. 2008.
10

154. Rabbi Jim Kaufman, Rosh Hashana Sermon, 2008
155. Janet Kawamoto, California bishops call for defeat of proposition that would ban same-
sex marriage, EPISCOPAL LIFE ONLINE, Sept. 10, 2008,
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_100556_ENG_HTM.htm.
156. Janet Kawamoto, Resolution to allow 'generous discretion' for same-sex blessings draws
passionate debate, EPISCOPAL LIFE ONLINE, July 8, 2009,
157. Kehilla Community Synagogue – Increase the Visibility of the “No on Proposition 8”
Campaign, Oct. 24, 2008,
http://www.kehillasynagogue.org/article.php/20081024174712292
158. Zelda Kennedy, et al., “Let No One Put Asunder” – Reflections on the Sanctity of
Marriage, SAINTS ALIVE (All Saints Episcopal Church, Pasadena, Cal.), Nov. 16, 2008, at
1.
159. KOL KEHILLA, Newsletter (Kehilla Cmty. Synagogue, Piedmont, Cal.), Nov. 2008.
160. Maria L. LaGanga, Loudly and colorfully, opposing sides debate Proposition 8, L.A.
TIMES, Mar. 6, 2009.
161. Dan Laget, Prop 8 and the Separation of Church and State, Oct. 31, 2008.
162. Jane Lampman, Luthrens and Presbyterians May Allow Local Congregations to Choose
People in Same-Sex Relationships as Pastors, Christian Science Monitor, available at
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0331/p02s04-ussc.htm?print=true1%20of
163. Kris Langabeer & Bronwen Jones, Help Make History! Help Defeat Prop. 8, Unitarian
Universalist Community Church of Santa Monica Newsletter, Oct. 2008.
164. Michael Lerner, The Only Winning Way to Fight the Ban on Gay Marriage, BALT.
CHRON., Jun. 6, 2006.
165. Letter from TEC General Convention to Archbishop Robert William Duncan
166. Posting of Becks to Living in the O, http://oaklandliving.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/join-

oaklanders-to-protest-the-supreme-court-ruling-on-prop-8/ (May 26, 2009).
167. Posting of Angelo Lopez to CrossLeft: Balancing the Christian Voice, Christians Against
Proposition 8, http://www.crossleft.org/node/6644 (Nov. 15, 2008, 11:45).
168. Posting of Angelo Lopez to CrossLeft blog, http://www.crossleft.org/node/6671/ (Nov.

28, 2008, 10:52 EST)
11

169. Los Angeles: All Saints, Pasadena, clergy opt out of civil marriages until gay couples
can legally wed,http://www.pinknews.co.uk/aroundtheworld/2009/06/los-angeles-all-
saints-pasadena-clergy-opt-out-of-civil-marriages-until-gay-couples-can-legally-wed/
(June 5, 2009).
170. Marriage Equality Task Force, MDUUC.
171. Seba Martinez, AP Story Features Mormon Supporter of Marriage Equality,

AFFIRMATION: GAY & LESBIAN MORMONS, Oct. 6, 2008,
http://www.affirmation.org/voices/robert_moore.shtml
172. Meredith May, March in the Castro on Eve of Prop. 8 Hearing, SFGate.com, March 5,
2009, available at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/05/BAR916986Q.DTL&type=printable
173. Meredith May, Same-Sex Marriage Fans, Foes Await Court Ruling, SFGate.com, May
26, 2009, available at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/26/BAJP17QORO.DTL&type=printable
174. Meredith May, Rally in Castro on eve Prop. 8 hearing, S.F. Chron., Mar. 5, 2009.
175. Judaism and Homosexuality: Reform Judaism, Religious Tolerance, available at

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_jref.htm
176. Rev. Barbara Meyers’ Ministry Quarterly Report to MPUUC Board of Trustees,
December 2008
177. MCC In the Valley: A Church Alive, Repeal Prop 8 Vigil,

http://www.mccinthevalley.com/0903NoProp8Vigil.htm, (last visited Sept. 30, 2009).
178. MCCLA, Love, Marriage and Voting NO on Proposition 8,

http://www.mccla.org/love_marriage_prop_8.html, (last visited Sept. 30, 2009).
179. MCCLA, Post Prop 8 Ministry Updates, May 2009,

http://www.mccla.org/prop_8_news_and_actions_May_2009.html.
180. MCC of San Jose, News: MCC San Jose creates two new “No on Eight” videos, Oct. 31,
2008.
181. MCC of San Jose, News: “No on 8” Rally at MCC on September 21, Sept. 17, 2008.
182. MCC of San Jose, News: Prop 8 Upheld – Rally announcement, May 24, 2009.
183. Dennis McMillan, Religious Leaders Speak Out Against Prop 8, S.F. BAY TIMES, Mar.
12, 2009.
184. Meeting of the Vestry of Saint Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church, Sept. 23, 2008
12

185. Members of Basileia participate in Rally to Overturn Prop. 8, WCNNEWSLETTER (The

Welcoming Community. Network, Independence, Mo.), Mar. 2009, at 2.
186. Mission Hills United Church of Christ, Prop 8 Update, PILGRIM CONGREGATIONALIST, at
1 (May 5, 2009).
187. David Mivasair and Yair Hillel Goelman, On Broadening Our Vision of Holy
Relationship: A Proposal to the Or Shalom Community, OR SHALOM, Sept. 6, 2001,
http://www.orshalom.ca/samesex.html.
188. Modesto area religious leaders respond to Proposition 8 ruling, THE MODESTO BEE, May
27, 2009.
189. More Light Presybterians: Two Presbyterian Witness Events for Marriage Equality and
against the discriminatory California Proposition 8,
http://www.mlp.org/article.php?story=20081022163840941&mode=print (Oct. 22, 2008,
04:38PM).
190. Mormons for Marriage, http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd3xpn44_0dpg5wrcb (Nov. 1,

2008, 21:09).
191. Most UM clergy back traditional marriage, THE UNITED METHODIST PORTAL, July 20,
2009, http://www.umportal.org/article.asp?id=5627.
192. Paul Nathanson & Katherine K. Young, Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt
for Men in Popular Culture 206-207 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001).
193. National Religious Leadership Roundtable, Multi-faith leaders urge support for the
freedom to marry, Oct. 20, 2008, http://www.welcomingresources.org/nrlr.htm.
194. NCJW, Los Angeles Section, A Growing Legacy: 100 Years in Action, 2007-2008
Annual Report.
195. Neighborhood Unitarian Universalist Church of Pasadena, Newsletter, Oct. 9, 2008.
197. Neighborhood Unitarian Universalist Church of Pasadena, Newsletter, Nov. 2, 2008.
198. Neighborhood Unitarian Universalist Church of Pasadena, Newsletter Vol 61, No. 7,
Nov. 20, 2008.
199. Neighborhood Unitarian Universalist Church of Pasadena, Newsletter, Mar. 1, 2009.
200. Jim Nelson, Sermon: Today and Tomorrow, June 14, 2009.
13

201. News From FCCB: Marriage Equality,

http://www.fccb.org/newspages/MarriageEqualityNews.htm (last visited Sept .27, 2009).
202. News from the Pacific Central District of the UUA, May 10, 2009
203. News from the Pacific Central District, PCD Currents, May 25, 2009
204. Newsletter of the Pacific Southwest District of the UUA, The PSWD NetwUUrk, Issue
124, Fall 2008.
205. NEWS – LUTHERANS LOVE!! Lutherans Concerned/Los Angeles,

206. News! News! – Hollywood Lutheran Church, Congregation Still Opposes Proposition 8!,
http://www.hollywoodlutheran.org/HLCNews.html (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
207. New Vision, The Newsletter for Noe Valley Ministry Presbyterian Church, March/April,
2009
208. No on Proposition 8: Debunking the myths used to promote the ban on same-sex
marriage, L.A. TIMES, Nov. 02, 2008.
209. No on Prop 8! Jewish Community Mobilization for Marriage Equality
210. No on Prop 8 Phone Bank, Oct. 26, 2008, Universalist Unitarian Church of Riverside
211. No on Prop 8 Phone Bank, Nov. 1, 2008, Universalist Unitarian Church of Riverside
212. NO on Proposition 8 Gains More Endorsements, Contra Costa Times, Oct. 27, 2008,
available at http://forums.contracostatimes.com/topic/no-on-proposition-8-gains-more-
endorsements
213. Northern California Nevada Conference, United Church of Christ, Letter of Oct. 11, 2008
214. Jan Nunley, Episcopal Church leaders urge restraint on marriage amendment,
EPISCOPAL NEWS SERV., Mar. 2, 2004,
215. Open and Affirming – The Journey Continues, CCC (Cmty. Congregational Church,
Tiburon, Cal.), Oct. 2008, at 2.
216. Oppose the Florida and California Marriage Protection Initiatives, Resolutions of the
2008 UUA General Assembly, Jul. 10, 2008.
217. Order, California Council of Churches et al. v. Horton et al., No. S168332 (Cal. 2008)
218. Pastor Susan Brecht Speaks out Against Prop 8, Pacific School of Religion,
http://www.psr.edu/alum-rev-susan-brecht-against-prop-8 (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
14

219. Pastoral Letter on the Supreme Court’s Prop 8 Ruling, http://www.uusf.org/Flame/nl-

090526-Prop8PastoralLetter.html (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
220. Michael Paulson, Jewish Group OK’s Same-Sex Marriage, THE BOSTON GLOBE, Jan. 16,
2004.
221. Petition for Writ of Mandate or Prohibition, California Council of Churches et al. v.
Horton et al., Nos. S168047, S168066, S168078, S168281 (Cal. 2008)
222. The Pilgrim, First Congregational Church of Long Beach, Oct. 19, 2008
223. Dan Pine, Jews Take to the Streets after Prop. 8 Ruling, JWEEKLY, May 28, 2009.
224. Frank Pizzoli, Breaking News: CA Prop. 8 Opponents Speak to Central Voice, CENTRAL
VOICE (Oct. 20, 2008).
225. PJA Sole Jewish Co-Signer of Proposition 8 Petition Filed in California Supreme Court,
PJA PROGRESSIVE JEWISH ALLIANCE,
http://www.pjalliance.org/article.aspx?ID=473&CID=9, (last visited Sept. 15, 2009).
226. Amber Powers, Judaism and Same-Sex Marriage, MYJEWISHLEARNING,

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Sex_and_Sexuality/Homosexuality/Same_Sex_M
arriage.shtml (last visited Sept. 29, 2009).
227. Press Release, Affirmation: Gay & Lesbian Mormons, Gay Mormons and Allies Coming
Together Against Proposition 8: October 11 Gathering in Los Angeles (Oct. 4, 2008).
228. Press Release, Cal. Council of Churches, Religious leaders, Faith Organizations File
Lawsuit to Invalidate Prop 8 (Nov. 17, 2008).
229. Press Release, Cal. Council of Churches, Religious Leaders, Faith Organizations to
230. Press Release, Cal.-Pac. Ann. Conf. of the United Methodist Church, Faith Leaders from
Across State to Speak Out Against Proposition 8 (Oct. 8, 2008).
231. Press Release, Congregation Kol Ami, Congregation Kol Ami Says Court Ruling to
Uphold Proposition-8 is a Set-Back for Civil Rights and Religious Rights for Everyone
(May 26, 2009).
232. Press Release, DIGNITY Los Angeles, Bishops Support of Marriage Amendment is
Wrong (Jul. 4, 2008).
233. Press Release, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, ELCA Churchwide Assembly to
meet in Minneapolis, Aug. 17-23 (May 26, 2009).
15

234. Press Release, Jewish Family Serv., Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles Opposes
California Proposition 8 (Oct. 17, 2008).
235. Press Release, MCC, Denomination of Metropolitan Community Churches Urges “No”
Vote on California’s Proposition 8 (Oct. 14, 2008).
236. Press Release, MCC, MCC Decries California Marriage Vote (Nov. 7, 2008).
237. Press Release, NRLR, 2008 NRLR press conference in California supporting the freedom
to marry (Oct. 20, 2008).
238. Press Release, NO on Prop 8, Faith Leaders Across State to Speak Out Against
239. Press Release, Recon Movement, Judaism’s Reconstructionist Movement Condemns

Bans on Same-Sex Marriage (Nov. 21, 2008).
240. Press Release, Rick Schlosser, Reverend, Cal. Council of Churches, Proposition 8 Amici
Brief Filing Press Conference (Jan. 14, 2009).
241. Protests Held in Calif. on Post Prop. 8 Sunday, ASSOC. PRESS, Nov. 9, 2008,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27634025/.
242. Prop 8 Results, Adventists Against Prop 8, Nov. 5, 2008, available at

http://adventistsagainstprop8.org/
243. Prop 8: What Happened to Separation of Church and State?, Global Spin, Nov. 7, 2008.
244. Proposition 8 Cases, Strauss v. Horton, California Courts: High Profile Cases, available
at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm
245. Proposition 8 Passes in California, PCD Currents, Nov. 10, 2008
246. The PSAs , GetToKnowUsFirst.org, available at

http://www.gettoknowmefirst.org/ThePSAs.html
247. PSR Faculty and Staff Arrested Following prop 8 Decision, Pacific School of Religion,
May 26, 2009
248. The PSWD NetwUUrk, Newsletter of the Pacific Southwest District of the UUA,
Summer 2009
249. Reform Backs Same-Sex Ban Challenge, JTA, Jan. 14, 2009,
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/01/14/1002230/reform-movement-backs-challenge-to-
calif-same-sex-marriage-ban.
16

250. Reform Jewish Movement Joins Amicus Brief Challenging Proposition 8, Religious
Action Center of Reform Judaism, available at
http://rac.org/PrintItem/index.cfm?id=3174&type=Articles
251. Religious Action Center: Fact Sheet on Proposition 8,

http://rac.org/printitem/index.cfm?id=1909&type=articles (last visited Sept. 15, 2009).
252. Religious Action Center: Reform Movement Perspective,

http://rac.org/printitem/index.cfm?id=3231&type=articles (last visited Sept. 15, 2009).
253. Religious Leaders Against Prop 8, Pacific School of Religion, Oct. 28, 2008
254. Resource Kit for Decision Day, California Faith for Equality
255. RFP GA 2009, PCD Currents, Sept. 29, 2008
256. Response to CA Supreme Court Decision on Prop. 8, FCCB THE CARILLON (First
Congregational Church of Berkeley, United Church of Christ, Berkeley, Cal.), May 31,
2009, at 1.
257. Robin Russell, Activists Prepare for Ecumenical Ordination, THE UNITED METHODIST
PORTAL, Oct. 10, 2008, http://www.umportal.org/print_article.asp?id=4231.
258. Robin Russell, ‘Silent witness’ protests church’s stance on homosexuality, THE UNITED
METHODIST PORTAL, May 2, 2008, http://www.umportal.org/article.asp?id=3462.
259. Harriet Ryan, Gay Bishop ‘a walking, talking Rorschach’, Los Angeles Times, Apr. 20,
2009
260. J.B. Sacks, Rabbi, Congregation Sha’ar Zahav, Abraham and Obama: Reflections on
Senator Obama’s Victory and the Passage of Proposition 8.
261. B.A. Robinson, The Roman Catholic Church and Homosexuality, Religious Tolerance,
Jan. 20 2009.
262. Hugo Salinas, Marching for Equality: A Conversation with Robert Moore,
http://www.affirmation.org/voices/robert_moore.shtml (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
263. Hugo Salinas, Affirmation Couples Get Married, AFFIRMATION: GAY & LESBIAN
MORMONS, June 2008, http://www.affirmation.org/voices/robert_moore.shtml (last
264. Santa Clara County Council of Churches, Council of Churches Urges NO on Proposition
8, http://www.councilofchurches-scc.org/article.php/aspeopleoffaith (last visited Sept. 27,
2009).
17

265. Santa Clara County Council of Churches – Court Ruling on Prop 8 Tuesday, May 26:
Pray Together!, http://www.councilofchurches-
scc.org/article.php?story=courtdecision&query=prop (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
266. Saturday NO ON 8 Faith Events Throughout California, Lavender Newswire, Nov. 1,

2008
267. The Rev. Dr. Rick Schlosser, California Council of Churches, Proposition Amici Brief
Filing Press Conference, January 14, 2009
268. Heather Sells, Friendliness Key to the Gay Marriage Debate? CBN NEWS, June 1, 2009,
269. Rabbi Shifra, 2008 Yom Kippur Sermon
270. The Shofar, Temple Beth El, June 2009
271. Sierra Foothills Unitarian Universalists, December Services
272. Sierra Foothills Unitarian Universalists, June Services
273. Sierra Foothills Unitarian Universalists, May Services
274. The SLO UU News, Newsletter of the Unitarian Fellowship of San Luis Obispo County,
California, July 2009
California, November 2008
California, September 2008
277. Sojourners’ History, Sojourners.
278. Soulforce, Soulforce Vision Statement, 2009.
279. Soulforce, Spring 2009 Catholic Action.
280. Michael Stetz, Evangelical Group Says Event is Not a Political Rally, Oct. 30, 2008,
available at http://signonsandiego.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Pre-
election+prayer+day+set+|+The+San+Diego+Union-
.com%2Funiontrib%2F20081030%2Fnews_1m30call.html&partnerID=86541
281. Tapestry, A Unitarian Universalist Congregation Annual committee Reports, FY July 1,

2007 – June 30, 2008
282. St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church, Letter of May 28, 2009
18

283. St. Francis Times, Weekly News from St. Francis Lutheran Church for May 31, 2009
284. St. Francis Times, Weekly News from St. Francis Lutheran Church for November 2,
2008
285. St. Francis Times, Weekly News from St. Francis Lutheran Church for October 26, 2008
286. St. Matthew’s Celebrates: Reformation 2008, St. Matthew’s Lutheran Church
287. Glenn Stanton and John Corvino, Same Sex Marriage - A Civil Debate, KIRKLAND
PROD.,http://www.kirklandproductions.com/ARTISTS/Same_Sex_Marriage_Debate-
bio.html, (last visited Sept. 29, 2009).
288. Greg Stewart, Minister’s Mailbox: Reduce, Reuse, Repeal!, FIRST NEWS (The First
Unitarian Universalist Soc’y of S.F., S.F., Cal.), Mar. 2009, at 3.
289. Arvid Straube, Arvid’s Arcana: Lies, Fears and Marriage Licenses, FIRST WORDS (First
Unitarian Universalist Church of San Diego, San Diego, Cal.), Apr. 2009, at 2.
290. Deborah Streeter, Congregations continue to respond to Prop. 8, UNITED CHURCH NEWS
– THE PAC., Feb.-Mar. 2009, at B7.
291. Posting of Geoffrey Stone, Democracy, Religion and Proposition 8, University of

Chicago Law School Faculty Blog,
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2008/11/democracy-relig.html (Nov. 16, 2008,
2:47AM).
292. Study examines why gay United Methodists stay with church, UNITED METHODIST NEWS
SERV., Nov. 06, 2002.
http://archives.umc.org/umns/news_synd.asp?mid=883&story=5AA979E.
293. Rebecca Spence, In Wake of Movement’s Shift, California Conservative Rabbis Rally
Behind Same-Sex Marriage Rights, FORWARD.COM, Mar. 4, 2008,
http://www.forward.com/articles/12828/.
294. Survey: PCUSA Pastors Becoming More Supportive of LGBT Issues, THE LAYMAN
ONLINE, Sept. 17, 2009, http://www.layman.org/News.aspx?article=26288.
295. Tapestry, A Unitarian Universalist Congregation Annual committee Reports, FY July 1,

2008 – June 5, 2009
296. Telescope, The Newsletter of Palomar Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, November

2008
297. Paul Tellstrom, Proper 19 A “Forgiveness,” http://www.iucc.org/Sermon/sermon-09-15-

19

298. Paul Tellstrom, Stewardship Sunday/Veterans Day “Joe,”

299. Text of the Reform Judaism Gay Marriage Resolution, BELIEF NET,
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2000/03/Text-Of-The-Reform-Judaism-Gay-Marriage-
Resolution.aspx, (last visited Sept. 29, 2009).
300. Three Questions for the Right Rev. Mark Andrus, SFGate.com, August 23, 2009,
available at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/23/BAEM18LRIJ.DTL&type=printable
301. Morris A. Thurston, Religious Organizations Should Not Rely on False or Misleading
Legal Arguments in their Zeal to Support California Proposition 8, AFFIRMATION: GAY
& LESBIAN MORMONS, Oct. 2, 2008,
http://www.affirmation.org/me/religious_organizations.shtml (last visited Sept. 27,
2009).
302. Kerana Todorov, Rally against Prop. 8, NAPA VALLEY REG., Nov. 16, 2008.
303. Gregory Tomlin, Split among American Baptists Over Homosexuality is Final, BAPTIST
PRESS, May 18, 2006.
304. Randy Triezenberg, Proposition 8: Two Views of an Initiative to Overturn Court’s OK of

Gay Marriage, Sacramento Bee, Oct. 26, 2008
305. Tom Tugend, Rabbis on anti-gay marriage Prop 8: Yes, no, maybe,
http://www.jewishjournal.com/elections/article/rabbis_on_anti_gay_marriage_prop_8_ye
s_no_maybe_20081009/.
306. UCC Church Takes a Stand Against California’s Proposition 8, Called Our eNews –
October 2008, United Church of Christ
307. The Unigram Newsletter, November 2008
308. Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Visalia, Calendar, August 2008
309. Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry, California, Current Programs – Marriage

Equality
310. Unitarian Universalist Society of Sacrament Online Calendar, Week of November 2,

2008
311. Unitarian Universalists Protest Proposition 8, June 3, 2009
312. United Church of Christ, News from the FCCB: Marriage Equality, May 24, 2009.
20

313. The United Methodist Church 2008 General Conference, Summary of afternoon session,
Apr. 30, 2008.
314. Update: Proposition 8, PCD Currents, Oct. 20, 2008
315. The UUCD qUUartely, Unitarian Universalist Church of Davis, Spring 2009
316. UU Update, Unitarian Universalist Congregation, Santa Rosa, August 2008
317. Rebecca Voelkel, A Time to Build up: Analysis of the No on Proposition 8 Campaign and
Its Implications for Future Pro-LGBTQQIA Religious organizing, NRLR Task Force,
2009
318. Vote No on Prop. 8, JWEEKLY, Oct. 24, 2008,

http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/36037/vote-no-on-proposition-8/.
319. David W. Virtue, California Episcopal Bishops Excoriate Passage of Proposition 8,

VIRTUEONLINE, Nov. 9, 2008,
http://virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9324 (last visited Sept.
27, 2009).
320. Gary Walker, Santa Monica: Proposition 8 Supporters, foes Plan Next Moves as Battle
over Same-Sex Marriage Continues, The Argonaut, June 3, 2009
321. Rev. Vail Walker, Unplug the Holiday Machine, Compass Rose, Nov. 2008-Jan. 2009
322. Wanderings, Redlands United Church of Christ, April 2009
323. Authur Waskow, Newsweek, Torah, And Same-Sex Marriage, THE SHALOM CTR.,
http://www.shalomctr.org/node/1470, (last visited Sept. 15, 2009).
324. Authur Waskow, Prop 8, the White House & Same-Sex Marriage, THE SHALOM CTR.,
http://www.shalomctr.org/node/1471, (last visited Sept. 15, 2009).
325. Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weireb, Orthodox Response to Same-Sex Marriage, Institute for
Public Affairs, June 5, 2006.
326. Welcome! To the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Tuolumne County, General

Announcements, http://www.mlodeuu.com/current_events.html (last visited Sept. 27,
2009).
327. What Is Integrity?, Integrity, 2008
328. Why Vote No on Prop 8?, Bay to Breakers – A San Francisco Treat,
http://baytobreakers2007.groups.vox.com/library/post/6a00fad6b851250, (last visited
Sept. 25, 2009).
21

329. Posting of Christine Wicker, The Pope vs. American Nuns, to Politics Daily,
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/23/the-pope-vs-american-nuns (Aug. 23, 2009).
330. Julie Wiener, Gay marriage debate sends Reform rabbis into a tizzy, JWEEKLY, Mar. 24,
2000,
331. John Wildermuth, Both sides make last-minute Prop. 8 push, S.F. CHRONICLE, Nov. 2,
2008.
332. Posting of Nancy Wilson to Moderatorscorner, Queer Theology As Change Agent,

http://www.moderatorscorner.mccchurch.org?p=234 (Mar. 3, 2009).
333. Melodie Woerman, Convention calls for collection of 'resources' for same-gender
blessing, EPISCOPAL LIFE ONLINE, July 17, 2009,
334. Greg Wolfe, Rabbi, Congregation Bet Haverim, Equality for All Rally-May 26, 2009,
http://www.bethaverim.org/equality.html (last visited Sept. 22, 2009).
335. Paul Woodrum, St. Aelred of Rievaulz, Patron of Integrity, 1992.
336. Eric Yoffie, Pres., Union for Reform Judaism, Address at Liberty University (Apr. 26,
2006).
337. Erin Yazgan, UC Santa Cruz Raises its Voice Against Prop. 8, Nov. 20, 2008, City on a
Hill Press
338. YouTube video: Members of SFUU protesting Prop. 8, Sept. 21, 2008,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owwBfh2u31A.
339. YouTube video: Parents No on 8, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opx-v_OhFnQ (last

340. YouTube video, The Evangelical Network Speaks out on Gay Marriage,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzqNAkUZUcA (last visited Sept. 23, 2009).
342. In Memoriam, Sermon, Dolores Street Baptist Church, November 11, 2008.
343. Rabbinical Assembly Committee on Jewish Law and Standards Concludes Meeting on
Homosexuality and Halakah, Press Release of Dec. 6, 2006, Rabbinical Assembly of America
344. Support of the Right to Marry for Same-Sex Couples, 1996 Resolution of Immediate of Witness,
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, available at
http://uua.org/socialjustice/socialjustice/statements/14251.shtml
22

345. Resolution in Support of Civil marriage for Same-Sex Couples, Reconstruction Rabbinical
Association, March 16, 2004, available at http://therra.org/resolution-Mar2004.htm
346. Marriage Equality, California Council of Churches
23

EXHIBIT E
Rebuttal Report
of
Kenneth P. Miller, PhD
PERRY, et al., v. SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.

INTRODUCTION
I, Kenneth P. Miller, declare:
1. I make this rebuttal report as an expert witness on behalf of the Defendant-

Intervenors in this matter, Dennis Hollingsworth, et al. The report is based upon
my personal knowledge and I am competent to testify to the contents herein.
2. This report addresses issues raised by the plaintiffs’ expert witness, Dr.
Gary M. Segura, by presenting evidence that gays and lesbians, and the broader
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights movement have achieved
significant political power in California and elsewhere in the United States, and
can effectively pursue their goals through democratic institutions.
3. I am an Associate Professor in the Department of Government at

Claremont McKenna College, and the Associate Director of the Rose Institute of
State and Local Government. My research focuses on state-level politics,
especially the relationship between direct democracy, courts, and representative
institutions in California and in other states. My training includes a B.A. in
government from Pomona College; a J.D. from Harvard Law School; a year as a
legislative assistant in the California State Senate; five years as an attorney with
the law firm of Morrison & Foerster (resident in Los Angeles and Sacramento);
and a Ph.D. in political science from U.C. Berkeley.
4. My research is interdisciplinary, drawing on the fields of law, history, and

political science to analyze developments in legal and political institutions. For
example, in my book Direct Democracy and the Courts (Cambridge University
Press 2009), I have analyzed the adoption and development of the initiative
process in California and other states, and showed how that lawmaking process
has often come in conflict with the courts, including in controversies over the
definition of rights. In my research for that book, I closely examined how the
national debate over legal recognition of same-sex marriage has been engaged in
various institutional venues, including state-level initiative campaigns, state
legislatures, state courts, and the Congress.
5. In another line of research, I have used the framework of political

geography to analyze the changing partisan composition of California. Political
geography is the study of geographic or spatial dimensions of politics, such as

urban vs. rural or other regional or sub-regional political divides. Working with a
group of other scholars, I examined developments in the state over the past
several decades to show how California has shifted from a north-south partisan
divide to a new east-west divide as its densely populated coastal regions have
become increasingly Democratic and the interior increasingly Republican. We
described how demographic, economic, and cultural trends have caused the
Democratic Party to become dominant in the state, then analyzed the
consequences for statewide elections, redistricting plans, the composition of the
Legislature, and the use of direct democracy. Our work was published as an
edited volume, titled The New Political Geography of California (Berkeley Public
Policy Press 2008).
6. For my work on this matter, I am being compensated at a rate of $200 per

hour.
POWER
7. “Power” is at the center of this case, but unfortunately the definition of

power is highly contested by social scientists.
8. Plaintiffs’ expert relies on political scientist Robert A. Dahl’s definition of

power, which states that “A has power over B when A is able to compel B to do
something that B would otherwise not do.” See Expert Report of Gary M. Segura
at 4. (“Segura Report”). This definition of power, while frequently cited, is not
universally accepted. Among other things, it is criticized for too narrowly
defining power as compulsion—to “compel B to do what B would otherwise not
do.” Certainly compulsion is a form of power, but there are other forms, as well.
Political theorist Hanna Pitkin notes that “[e]tymologically, [power] is related to
the French pouvoir, to be able, from the Latin potere, to be able. That suggests, in
turn, that power is a something—anything—which makes or renders somebody
able to do, capable of doing something. Power is capacity, potential, ability, or
wherewithal.” Hanna Fenichel Pitkin, Wittgenstein and Justice (1972) at 276-
277. This broader definition of power draws from the tradition of Thomas
Hobbes, who defined “power” as one’s “present means to obtain some future
apparent good.” Leviathan, Ch. X. Dahl’s student, the political scientist Nelson
W. Polsby, also broadened Dahl’s definition by defining power as “the capacity of
one actor to do something affecting another actor, which changes the probable
pattern of specified future events.” Nelson W. Polsby, Community Power and
Political Theory (1963) at 5. These broader definitions imply that “power” is
multifaceted and includes, among other things, the ability to persuade others by
one’s ideas, and the ability to form coalitions with sympathetic allies to achieve
one’s goals.
9. Plaintiffs’ expert suggests that that gays and lesbians “do not possess a
meaningful degree of political power, and are politically vulnerable” because they
2
cannot by themselves compel outcomes in the political process, but instead must
rely on unreliable allies to help them achieve or protect their interests. Segura
Report at 3. Again, this is an overly restrictive definition of “power.” In a
pluralistic society, all movements are forced to form coalitions and alliances if
they hope to achieve their goals—and the LGBT rights movement is no
exception.
10. This report presents evidence that, by any reasonable measure, gays and
lesbians are not politically powerless. In California and increasingly in other
states and at the national level, the LGBT rights movement has demonstrated an
impressive ability to attract the attention of the lawmakers, and, further, to win
substantive victories through the legislative process. The balance of this rebuttal
report presents evidence of this power.
THE LGBT RIGHTS MOVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Overview
11. Professor Segura analyzes political developments in California, including

ballot initiatives in the state. See Segura Report at 5-6, 12. My own review of the
political landscape in California leads me to the conclusion that gays and lesbians
have political power within the state of California.
12. The emergence of the LGBT rights movement has been one of the most
important political developments in California over the past generation. In the
not-so-distant past, California offered gays and lesbians few protections against
discrimination. But in recent decades, proponents of LGBT rights have made
sweeping gains in the state, securing legislation that prohibits discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation in employment, housing, child adoption, education,
insurance, state-funded programs and activities, among many other areas. In
addition, in 1999 the California Legislature adopted a landmark domestic
partnership statute and the state expanded the rights and benefits of domestic
partnerships in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. The Legislature
designed the California Registered Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities
Act of 2003 to provide to domestic partners “the full range of legal rights,
protections and benefits, as well as all of the responsibilities, obligations, and
duties to each other, to their children, to third parties and to the state, as the laws
of California extend to and impose upon spouses.” See 2003 Cal. Stat. 421. (Cal.
Family Code sec. 297.5.)
13. Many observers, including advocates of gay rights, have recognized the
magnitude of these gains. Ronald M. George, the Chief Justice of the California
Supreme Court, has noted: “There can be no question but that, in recent decades,
there has been a fundamental and dramatic transformation in this state’s
understanding and legal treatment of gay individuals and gay couples.” In re
3
Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757, 821 (2008). Associate Justice Carol Corrigan
similarly has observed: “The California Domestic Partner Rights and
Responsibilities Act of 2003 (DPA), and other recent legislative changes,
represent a dramatic and fundamental transformation of the rights of gay and
lesbian Californians. It is a remarkable achievement of the legislative process that
the law now expressly recognizes that domestic partners have the same
substantive rights and obligations as spouses.” Id. at 879. Equality California,
one of the state’s leading LGBT rights advocacy organizations, has celebrated the
fact that California has moved from “a state with extremely limited legal
protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals to a
state with some of the most comprehensive civil rights protections in the nation.”
http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4025479.
14. Notably, the movement for LGBT rights has secured almost all of
California’s protections against sexual orientation discrimination, as well as the
state’s landmark domestic partnership law, through the Legislature, rather than
through the courts. Indeed, the LGBT rights movement in California has been a
model of how to mobilize a powerful political coalition to achieve goals through
democratic processes. The coalition now includes the state’s leading labor
unions, many of its leading corporations, the California Democratic Party, the
state’s Republican Governor, other statewide elected officials including the
Attorney General, stable majorities in the legislature, many local elected officials,
the state’s largest media outlets, private foundations, bar associations, other
professional associations, and many churches, synagogues, and other faith-based
organizations. The strength of this coalition, and the legislative victories it has
won, provide convincing evidence that LGBT persons, and the broader LGBT
rights movement, have achieved significant political power in this state and can
rely on democratic institutions, rather than courts, to pursue their goals.
15. The California Legislature has banned discrimination on the basis of

sexual orientation in state-funded programs and activities (Cal. Govt. Code §
11135(a); in employment (Id. §§ 12920, 12921, 12940); in housing (Id. §§ 12921,
12955, 12955.8); in labor organizations (Id. § 12940(b)); in apprenticeships (Id. §
12940(c)); in licensing boards (Id. § 12944); in civil service (Id. § 18500(c)(5));
in juvenile detention (Cal. Welf. & Inst.§ 224.73); in access to elder services (Id.
§ 9103.1(a), (c), (d)); in foster care and adoption (Id., §§ 16001.9(a)(23), 16013);
in state-funded educational programs (Id., § 14504.1(c); Cal. Educ. Code § 220);
in public education (Cal. Educ. Code § 200); in secondary education (Id. §
66251); in post-secondary education (Id. § 66270); in health insurance (Cal.
Health & Safety Code § 1365.5); in adult day health care centers (Id. § 1586.7); in
community redevelopment projects (Id. § 33050(a)); in court-ordered HIV-status
disclosure of criminal defendants (Id. § 120292(a)(1)); in sexual health education
programs (Id. § 151002(a)(6)); in insurance (Cal. Ins. Code §§ 10140(a), (e),
10141)); in children’s public health insurance (Id. § 12693.28); in health care
organizations (Cal. Lab. Code § 4600.6(g)(3)); in public contracting (Cal. Pub.
Cont. Code § 6108(g)(9)); in businesses’ provision of services (Cal. Civil Code §
4
51(b), 51.5); and in the peremptory challenges of jurors (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §
231.5).
16. The California Legislature has enacted laws to: protect the right to
privacy in sexual orientation for teachers (Cal. Educ. Code § 49091.24); prohibit
schools from teaching anything that could “promote a discriminatory bias” based
on sexual orientation (Id. § 51500); charge public schools to combat bias on the
basis of sexual orientation (Id. § 32228(b)); require schools to provide sexual
orientation-sensitive sex education materials (Id. § 51933(b)(4)); protect
individuals against violence and intimidation by threat of violence based on
sexual orientation (Cal. Civ. Code § 51.7); require training for domestic abuse
evaluators regarding the relationship of sexual orientation to domestic violence
(Cal. Fam. Code § 1816(d)(5)(B)); require certain medical personnel to receive
training on how to prevent and eliminate sexual orientation discrimination (Cal.
Health & Safety Code § 1257.5); provide training for California foster parents and
group home and foster family agency licensing personnel on prevention of sexual
orientation discrimination (Id. §§ 1522.41(c)(1)(H), 1563(c)(5), Cal. Welf. & Inst.
Code § 16003(a)(1)); recognize the right of children in juvenile detention
facilities to be free from sexual orientation discrimination (Id. § 224.71(i)); charge
the state Commission on Disability Access with facilitating communication on
sexual orientation in disability communities (Cal. Govt. Code §
8299.01(b)(2)(F)); provide assistance in resolving disputes relating to
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (Id. § 12931); fund advisory and
conciliation councils to study sexual orientation discrimination generally and in
housing and employment (Id. § 12935(g)); issue publications to minimize housing
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (Id. § 12930(i)); require
California law enforcement officers to receive training about sensitivity to sexual
orientation (Id. § 13519.4); charge local commissions on human relations to study
and resolve discrimination and prejudice on the basis of sexual orientation (Id. §§
50264(c), 50265(a)); punish hate crimes committed on the basis of sexual
orientation (Cal. Penal Code §§ 422.55(a)(6), 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, 422.85,
422.865, 3053.4, Cal. Educ. Code §§ 66301(e), 67380, 94367(f), Cal. Welf. &
Inst. Code § 707(d)(2)(C)(iii)); prohibit harmful insurance premium adjustment
following hate crime-related claims (Cal. Ins. Code § 676.10); provide training to
law enforcement personnel regarding crimes committed on the basis of the sexual
orientation of the victim (Cal. Penal Code § 13519.6); recognize the right of
persons of any sexual orientation to be free from fear and harm by gangs (Cal.
Penal Code §§ 186.21, 11410); require that jury instructions prohibit bias on the
basis of sexual orientation (Id. § 1127h). As further noted below, none of these
acts of the Legislature protecting LGBT persons have faced repeal or preemption
through ballot initiatives or referendums.
Domestic Partnership and Same-Sex Marriage Legislation
17. In addition to these broad protections against sexual orientation

discrimination, the California Legislature in 1999 adopted a landmark domestic
partnership law and later expanded the law to give domestic partners virtually the
5
same state-level substantive rights and obligations as spouses. Notably, this

victory for the LGBT rights movement was secured without pressure from the
courts and, again, has not faced repeal or preemption through ballot initiatives or
referendums.
18. The domestic partnership achievement occurred in stages. In 1984, the

City of Berkeley adopted California’s first law extending employee benefits to
same-sex partners of city employees; in 1985, the City of West Hollywood
provided legal recognition to same-sex couples in the general public through a
domestic partnership ordinance. Over the next fifteen years, 18 local
governments in California established domestic partnership registries. See A.B.
849 (2005) Bill Analysis, p. 3.
19. In 1995, the California Legislature began consideration of a statewide

domestic partnership law. Assemblymember Richard Katz and principal co-
author Willie Brown introduced A.B. 627 (1995), a bill that would have
established a statutory scheme for the statewide registration of domestic partners.
The bill received support from 30 organizations and numerous individuals, but
died in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. In 1997, another bill to authorize
state recognition of domestic partners, A.B. 54, also died in the Assembly.
20. In 1999, Assemblymembers Carole Migden, Sheila Kuehl, and Antonio

Villaraigosa introduced A.B. 26, a new effort to establish a statewide domestic
partnership law in California. The coalition supporting the bill included 14 co-
authors and an expanded list of supporters, including eight of the state’s largest
and most influential unions. The bill won approval in both houses of the
Legislature and was signed by Governor Gray Davis in September 1999. See 1999
Cal. Stat. 588.
21. In March 2000, California voters adopted Proposition 22, a citizen-

initiated statute that added the following provision to the Family Code: “Only
marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Family Code sec. 308.5. While Proposition 22 reinforced state law regarding the
definition of marriage, it did not repeal the state’s existing laws recognizing same-
sex domestic partnerships. Voters approved the initiative by a vote of 4,618,673
to 2,909,370, or 61.4 percent to 38.6 percent.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2000_primary/measures.pdf.
22. California Constitution Art. II sec. 10(c) protects voter-approved

initiatives from subsequent legislative amendment or repeal. Under this rule, the
Legislature had no power to repeal or amend Proposition 22’s limitations on
marriage.
23. Instead, the Legislature decided to enhance the legal recognition of same-
sex domestic partners by granting them essentially the same state-level rights and
obligations as married persons. In 2003, Assemblymembers Jackie Goldberg,
6
Christine Kehoe, Paul Koretz, and John Laird, joined by 28 co-authors,

introduced A.B. 205. The bill declared that “registered domestic partners shall
have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from
statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common
law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to, and imposed
upon, spouses.” (See California Family Code 297.5.) The Legislature ensured
that same-sex partners would now be entitled to the same rights as spouses with
respect to, among other things, property, inheritance and intestacy, adoption,
insurance coverage, domestic violence, and alimony. (Later, the Legislature
would place domestic partners on the same footing as spouses with respect to
state taxation.) The authors of A.B. 205 gathered support letters from a broad
coalition of over 100 organizations and 916 individuals. Official supporters
included Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante, Secretary of State Kevin
Shelley, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn, the
City and County of San Francisco, and numerous civil rights organizations, labor
unions, and religious congregations. The bill was approved by five legislative
committees, and the membership of the Assembly and the Senate. Governor Gray
Davis signed A.B. 205 on September 19, 2003 and the new law became fully
operative on January 1, 2005. 2003 Cal. Stat. 421.
24. Opponents of the domestic partnership law challenged it in court, arguing

that it undermined Proposition 22 in violation of Cal. Const. Art. II sec. 10(c).
In Knight v. Superior Court, 128 Cal.App.4th 14 (2005), the California Court of
Appeal disagreed, holding that Proposition 22 “did not state an intent to repeal
existing domestic partnership laws or to limit the Legislature’s authority to
regulate such unions.” Knight v. Superior Court, 128 Cal.App.4th 14, 24 (2005).
The state’s broad domestic partnership law thus remains in force.
25. Having secured broad domestic partnership legislation, the LGBT rights
movement began to mobilize to advocate full marriage rights for same-sex
couples. In February 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the San
Francisco county clerk to issue marriage licenses without regard to gender or
sexual orientation. Over the next month, approximately 4,000 same-sex marriage
ceremonies were performed pursuant to licenses issued by San Francisco.
However, in Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, 33 Cal.4th 1055
(2004), the California Supreme Court declared the same-sex marriages ultra vires
and void. In its decision, the court reserved judgment on the state constitutional
validity of the state’s marriage laws.
26. During this period, the LGBT rights movement also turned to the
Legislature to seek to end the ban on same-sex marriage. Despite the prohibition
on legislative repeal of Proposition 22, legislators, led by Assemblymember Mark
Leno (D-San Francisco), forged ahead with a proposal to make the state’s
marriage laws gender-neutral. Leno’s first same-sex marriage bill, A.B. 1967
(2004), died in committee. But in 2005, the Legislature adopted Leno’s second
7
attempt (originally designated as A.B. 19 and later changed to A.B. 849). This
bill had 30 co-authors and received support letters from no fewer than 224
organizations, including a long and diverse roster of labor unions, civil rights
groups, local governments, professional associations, and religious organizations.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill, citing the prohibition on
legislative repeal of voter-approved initiatives. But in his veto message, the
Governor underscored his support for LGBT rights. “I am proud California is a
leader in recognizing and respecting domestic partnerships and the equal rights of
domestic partners. I believe that lesbian and gay couples are entitled to full
protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their
relationships. I support current domestic partnership rights and will continue to
vigorously defend and enforce these rights and as such will not support any
rollback.” http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_849&sess=0506&house=B&author=leno.
27. In 2007, Leno again introduced a bill (A.B. 43) to grant marriage rights to
same-sex couples. A large political coalition again mobilized in support of the
proposal. The bill had 42 authors or co-authors and support letters from a long
and diverse list of allies. The bill passed through both houses of the Legislature,
but Governor Schwarzenegger again vetoed it, for the same reasons as in 2005.
The Governor also noted that a state constitutional challenge to Proposition 22
was then pending before the California Supreme Court, and that “the appropriate
resolution to the issue is to allow the court to rule on Proposition 22.”
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_43&sess=PREV&house=B&author=leno.
28. The challenge to Proposition 22, consolidated actions titled In re Marriage

Cases, reached the California Supreme Court in December 2006. The LGBT
rights coalition mobilized in support of the litigation by filing amicus briefs
urging the court to declare a state constitutional right of same sex couples to
marry. The amici included many LGBT rights groups, as well as local
governments; sixteen state legislators; hundreds of local faith communities,
rabbis, and ministers; and numerous professional and other associations formed
by Asian-Pacific Islanders, South Asians, African Americans, Latinos, women,
psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, university professors, and lawyers.
29. On May 15, 2008, a narrowly-divided California Supreme Court issued its
decision in the case. By a 4-3 vote, the court struck down Proposition 22 and
other state marriage laws on state constitutional grounds. In re Marriage Cases,
43 Cal.4th 873 (2008). Proponents of same-sex marriage celebrated, but
opponents quickly organized an effort to reverse the decision through a citizen-
initiated constitutional amendment. As In re Marriage Cases was pending,
defenders of traditional marriage had been gathering signatures for a new
initiative with the same exact fourteen words as Proposition 22: “Only marriage
between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The new
8
measure was qualified as a state constitutional initiative and appeared on the

November 4, 2008 ballot as Proposition 8.
30. The pre-election fight over Proposition 8 was intense. One early skirmish
involved the wording of the ballot title—a factor that can greatly influence voter
attitudes toward a ballot measure. In 2000, Proposition 22 had appeared on the
ballot under the title: “Limit on Marriages: Initiative Statute.” But in 2008,
Attorney General Jerry Brown revised the title for Proposition 8 to read:
“Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.” Polls indicated that this
reframing of the issue in this way undermined support for the measure. See Mark
DiCamillo and Mervin Field, “55 percent of Voters Oppose Proposition 8, the
Initiative to Ban Same-Sex Marriages in California,” The Field Poll, Release
#2287, September 18, 2008.
31. In the weeks leading up to the election, both sides organized extensive
grassroots campaigns and flooded the airwaves with paid commercial
advertisements. The campaign for and against Proposition 8 was the most
expensive ever for a social issue. According to official reports maintained by the
California Secretary of State, the Yes-on-8 campaign raised approximately $40
million, while the No-on-8 campaign raised an even greater amount—more than
$43 million.
http://cal-
access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1302592&session=2007
; http://cal-
32. On Election Day, voters narrowly approved Proposition 8. The raw vote
was 7,001,084 Yes to 6,401,482 No—or, in percentage terms, 52.3% Yes to
47.7% No. Although proponents of same-sex marriage had lost for a second time
in the California initiative process, the movement had demonstrated remarkable
strength, and the margin had narrowed considerably in a period of 8 years.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008_general/ssov/10-ballot-measures-
statewide-summary-by-county.pdf.
33. Opponents of Proposition 8 responded to the vote with protests, legislative

resolutions, litigation, and plans for a return to the ballot. The lawsuit, Strauss v.
Horton, was filed in the California Supreme Court the day after the election. The
petitioners argued that by eliminating a state constitutional right, Proposition 8
made fundamental change or “revision” to the California constitution, and thus
fell outside the permissible scope of the state’s initiative process. Advocates of
LGBT rights submitted amicus briefs. The amici opposing Proposition 8
constituted a diverse and expanding coalition of several hundred organizations
and individuals, including 65 current and former members of the Legislature, 54
labor organizations representing approximately 2.5 million workers in the state,
major corporations, bar associations and other professional associations, religious
organizations, and local governments. In the Legislature, Assemblymember Tom
9
Ammiano sponsored an Assembly resolution, HR 5, proclaiming that the

Assembly opposed Proposition 8 and calling on the court to invalidate it. The
resolution had 39 Democratic co-authors and was approved by the Assembly on
March 2, 2009 by a 45-27 vote. In the other chamber, Mark Leno (who had
moved from the Assembly to the Senate), sponsored a similar resolution, SR 7.
On March 2, 2009, the Senate adopted this resolution by an 18-14 vote.
34. On May 26, 2009, by a 6-1 vote, the California Supreme Court upheld
Proposition 8 against the state constitutional challenge, while declaring valid the
same-sex marriages entered into in California between the judgment in Marriage
Cases and the adoption of Proposition 8. The court concluded: “Having
determined that none of the constitutional challenges to the adoption of
Proposition 8 have merit, we observe that if there is to be a change to the state
constitutional rule embodied in that measure, it must find its expression at the
ballot box.” Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364 (2009) (internal quotations and
citation omitted.)
35. While disappointed by the outcome of the Proposition 8 battle, many in

the LGBT rights movement were encouraged by the progress they had made in
mobilizing allies and persuading voters to support same-sex marriage. State
Senator Mark Leno, one of the movement’s leaders, said: “The last point I would
make on Prop. 8 is that for as many things that went wrong, keep in mind the
things went right. We picked up 18 points of support for marriage equality on
Nov. 4. (Proponents of Proposition 8) lost 18 points support. The identical 14
words that were on Prop. 8, were on the ballot in Prop. 22 in 2000. We lost by 22
points in 2000. So, in just eight years we've turned the dial so that we lost by just
four percentage points. Our success is in that 18 points and they're never getting
that back. It's only moving in the right direction . . . What an uncommon
phenomenon to be battling this war and to know without a doubt or debate that we
will win.” http://www.politicker.com/california/4350/qa-state-sen-elect-mark-
leno.
36. Proponents of same-sex marriage are currently mobilizing to change the

state constitutional rule through the ballot box. Many in the movement express
confidence that they will be able to repeal Proposition 8 by popular vote in the
near future. The main disagreement within the movement is whether to move
forward with a campaign to repeal Prop. 8 in 2010 or in 2012.
37. At the same time, the movement continues to work in the California
Legislature. In 2009, the Legislature adopted S.B. 54 (Leno), which requires the
state to recognize as valid any same-sex marriages solemnized in other states
before the passage of Proposition 8, and to grant full rights and benefits of
marriage to same-sex couples who are married in other states after the passage of
Proposition 8. Governor Schwarzenegger signed this bill in October 2009.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_54&sess=CUR&house=B&author=leno.
10
The Expanding LGBT Rights Coalition
38. Plaintiffs’ expert claims that gays and lesbians are politically vulnerable
because they “rely almost exclusively on allies who are regularly shown to be
insufficiently strong or reliable to achieve or protect their interests.” Segura
Report at 3. A closer look at the expanding coalition supporting LGBT rights
helps explain why the movement has been so successful in achieving legislative
victories in California over the past decade, and why it can continue to rely on
democratic institutions to pursue its goals.
Organized labor
39. Organized labor is powerful in California and its support is often essential
to achieving policy goals. In recent years, unions have worked hard to advance
the LGBT rights agenda. Two of the state’s most influential unions, the
California Teachers Association (CTA) and the Service Employees International
Union (SEIU), illustrate the point. CTA is California’s largest professional
employee union and one of the most powerful interest groups in the state. CTA
represents more than 340,000 public school teachers and other educational
personnel in more than 1,100 chapters and local associations. Over the past
decade, CTA has promoted legislation to establish and expand domestic
partnership laws and to authorize same-sex marriage, donated over $1.3 million to
the No-on-8 campaign, and filed an amicus brief asking the California Supreme
Court to invalidate Proposition 8. Similarly, the California State Council of
SEIU, which represents approximately 700,000 members, has solidly allied with
the LGBT rights movement. SEIU and its locals supported legislation to end the
ban on same-sex marriage, donated over $500,000 to the No-on-8 campaign, and
signed an amicus brief urging the California Supreme Court to invalidate
Proposition 8.
40. The roster of labor organizations that have publicly supported efforts to
secure same-sex marriage (through democratic institutions or the courts) is
extensive. These organizations include state or local units of the AFL-CIO; the
American Federation of Teachers; the Alameda Labor Council; the American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; the Association of Flight
Attendants; the California Faculty Association; the California Federation of
Labor; the California Federation of Teachers; the California Labor Federation; the
California Nurses Association; the California School Employees Association; the
California School Employees Association; the California Teachers Association;
the Communication Workers of America; the District Council of Ironworkers of
the State of California and Vicinity; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters;
the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor; the San Francisco Labor Council;
the Screen Actors Guild; the Service Employees International Union; the South
Bay Labor Council; Unite Here!; the United Educators of San Francisco; the
11
United Farm Workers of America; the United Food and Commercial Workers; the
United Steel Workers; the United Teachers Los Angeles; and the University
Professional and Technical Employees. Clearly, organized labor has become a
strong political ally of the LBGT rights movement.
Corporations
41. The LGBT rights movement has gained increasing support from the
corporate sector. The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, an organization that
advocates on behalf of LGBT persons, provides evidence of this trend through its
“Corporate Equality Index: A Report Card on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender Equality in Corporate America.” The 2010 Corporate Equality
Index (published in September 2009) is the eighth annual survey. The Index rated
590 of the nation’s largest businesses using a number of different criteria,
including non-discrimination policies related to sexual orientation and gender
identity or expression, diversity training, domestic partner benefits, support for
LGBT employee resource groups, appropriate and respectful advertising and
marketing, and sponsorship of LGBT community events or organizations. The
index also downgraded a corporation if it failed to exhibit responsible behavior to
the LGBT community or engaged in action that would undermine LGBT equality.
The survey showed that 305 businesses achieved a 100 percent rating, up from
260 businesses with a perfect rating the year before.
42. The report stated that “the Corporate Equality Index once again
demonstrates that businesses recognize the importance of working with and
providing for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers and consumers.”
Among its findings, the report indicated that “99% of CEI-rated employers
provide employment protections on the basis of sexual orientation” and that “94%
of CEI-rated employers provide partner health coverage to employees … up 3
percent from last year. Of these employers, 70% provide them to both same and
different-sex partners of employees, a three percentage point increase from last
year.” In addition, the report stated that “opposition from anti-LGBT
organizations did not stem the tide of fairness. Major employers stepped forward
in an unprecedented ways, including steadfast support for marriage equality in
California.” In the section titled “External Engagement,” the report further noted
that “[i]n 2008, many CEI-rated employers opposed Proposition 8 in
California…”
http://www.hrc.org/documents/HRC_Corporate_Equality_Index_2010.pdf.
43. In July 2008 PG&E, one of the state’s largest utility companies, donated
$250,000 in corporate funds to the No-on-8 campaign and co-founded an
organization of businesses seeking to defeat the initiative. PG&E Senior Vice
President of Public Affairs Nancy McFadden stated: “We are proud to join NO
on 8 and Equality California to protect the freedom to marry for all Californians.
For years, PG&E has advocated for equality and fairness in the workplace, and
across California. In that same spirit, PG&E is honored to be a founding member
12
of the Equality Business Advisory Council and urge our business colleagues to
join us as we work to guarantee the same rights and freedoms for every
Californian.”
http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=402619
7&ct=5738533.
44. On September 26, 2008, Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, the world’s
largest internet company, posted a message on the official Google blog stating
that the company urged a “No” vote on Proposition 8.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html.
45. In the following weeks, a large coalition of Silicon Valley leaders publicly
mobilized to defeat Proposition 8. On October 31, 2008, days before the election,
the coalition placed a full-page ad in the San Jose Mercury News, titled:
“SILICON VALLEY LEADERS URGE YOU TO STAND FOR EQUALITY.
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8.” The advertisement read as follows: “As
Silicon Valley leaders, we are committed to equality and fairness. We are opposed
to Proposition 8 because it would change our state constitution to take away rights
from one group of people. It would set our state, and our country, back in the fight
for fundamental fairness and equal rights. Please join us by reaching out to friends
and neighbors and asking them to stand for fairness: Vote No on Proposition 8 on
November 4th.”
46. The honorary co-chairs of “Silicon Valley Leaders Say NO on Proposition

8” included Google’s co-founder Sergey Brin and CEO Eric Schmidt; Yahoo! co-
founders Jerry Yang and David Filo; Bill Campbell, the Chairman of Intuit;
Chuck Geschke, the founder and Chairman of Adobe Systems; John Morgridge,
the former CEO and Chairman of Cisco Systems; Pierre Omidyar, the founder
and Chairman of eBay; and Sheryl Sandberg the COO of Facebook. The full-page
No-on-8 advertisement was signed by top executives of Google, Yahoo!, eBay,
Cisco, Adobe, Intuit, Facebook, Twitter, Palm, Handspring, Numenta, Pro-Tec
Data, Move, CustomerSat, Akeena Solar, Shopping.com, Reunion.com, Third
Millennium, Vantive Corp., AT&T California, Integrated Archive Systems, Alloy
Ventures, Telosa Software, and other Silicon Valley firms, as well as numerous
prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalists.
47. Many Silicon Valley leaders, including Apple Computers, Inc. ($100,000),
Google’s Sergey Brin ($100,000) and Larry Page ($40,000), made major
monetary contributions to the No-on-8 campaign. In addition, after the election,
Google signed an amicus brief in Strauss, urging the California Supreme Court to
invalidate Proposition 8.
48. California-based Levi Strauss & Co. donated $25,000 to the No-on-8
campaign and filed amicus briefs in both In re Marriage Cases and Strauss v.
Horton. Through the Levi Strauss Foundation, the Company has also provided
support for “organizations fighting discrimination based on sexual orientation
13
such as Lambda Legal, The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
(GLAAD), International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission
(IGLHRC), and Funders for Lesbian and Gay Issues.”
http://www.levistrauss.com/news/PressReleaseDetail.aspx?pid=891.
49. Many prominent corporations have also generously contributed to

organizations that promote LGBT rights. As an example, Equality California, a
leading LGBT rights organization, has listed on its website corporate sponsors
that have made donations ranging from $5,000 and above to $250,000 and above.
The list includes: AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Wells Fargo, AAA
Travel, MTV Networks, Shadowrock, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians,
BankAmerica, Coors Brewing Company, Edison International, Clear Channel,
AOL, E! Entertainment, WaMu, Chevron, Kaiser Permanente, Anthem, Point and
Ship Software, Sterling Bank, PG&E, Amgen, Genentech, and Southern
California Edison, as well as numerous other corporate, foundation, law firm, and
individual donors.
http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4026491.
50. California’s culturally and politically influential entertainment industry

has also mobilized to support LGBT rights and same-sex marriage.
MTV/Viacom, LucasFilms, Sid Sheinberg, David Geffen, Steven Spielberg, Kate
Capshaw, Brad Pitt, Ellen DeGeneres, Steven Bing, Michael King, and other
leaders of the entertainment industry made financial contributions to the No-on-8
campaign and have otherwise supported the movement for same-sex marriage. In
one notable example, Director Gus Van Sant’s film “Milk” about the life and
career of gay rights activist and San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk, premiered
in San Francisco the week before the November 2008 election and appeared in
theaters across the country in the election’s aftermath. The movie, which
advocated LGBT rights, won critical acclaim and Actor Sean Penn, who starred in
the title role, won the Academy Award for best actor in a leading role. At the
awards ceremony, Penn used his acceptance speech to denounce Proposition 8
and to shame the voters who had supported it.
http://oscars.com/oscarnight/winners/?pn=detail&nominee=Penn%20Sean%20-
%20Actor%20Leading%20Role%20Nominee.
Professional Associations
51. Many bar associations and associations of other professionals have joined
the movement for LGBT rights. These associations have typically passed
resolutions against sexual orientation discrimination and increasingly have
become engaged in the effort to secure legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
Newspapers
52. The LGBT rights movement has made strong inroads into the state’s
mainstream media. In 2008, 21 of the state’s 23 top-circulation metropolitan
14
daily newspapers wrote editorials opposing Proposition 8; the other two took no
position. No major metropolitan newspaper in the state endorsed Proposition 8.
The New York Times, which has a sizeable circulation in California, also urged
voters to reject the measure.
Newspaper City Circulation Position on

Prop. 8
Los Angeles Times Los Angeles 1,019,388 No

San Francisco Chronicle San Francisco 354,752 No
San Diego Union-Tribune San Diego 330,848 No
Orange County Register Santa Ana 300,273 No
Sacramento Bee Sacramento 262,650 No
San Jose Mercury News San Jose 244,661 No
Contra Costa Times Walnut Creek 194,445 No
Fresno Bee Fresno 165,723 No
Riverside Press Enterprise Riverside 147,339 No
Los Angeles Daily News Los Angeles 126,092 No
Oakland Tribune Oakland 96,530 No
La Opinion (Spanish) Los Angeles 92,289 No
Ventura County Star Ventura 86,485 No
Long Beach Press Telegram Long Beach 80,315 No
North County Times Escondido 79,067 N/P
Modesto Bee Modesto 77,728 N/P
Santa Rosa Press Democrat Santa Rosa 72,906 No
Bakersfield Californian Bakersfield 64,898 No
Torrance Daily Breeze Torrance 64,457 No
Stockton Record Stockton 57,325 No
San Bernardino County Sun San Bernardino 55,746 No
Palm Springs Desert Sun Palm Springs 55,080 No
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin Ontario 52,616 No
NP = no position. Circulation figures are for the Sunday editions for all newspapers except La
Opinión (Monday-Friday). Circulation information published by Audit Bureau of Circulations,
March, 31, 2009. http://abcas3.accessabc.com/ecirc/newstitlesearchus.asp.
Churches and other Faith-based Organizations
53. Professor Segura maintains that Proposition 8 was the result of concerted
activity by certain religious groups. See Segura Report at 12. Based on my own
review of the relevant materials, I conclude that religious groups both supported
and opposed Proposition 8.
54. According to surveys by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life,
California is one of the ten least religious states in the U.S., with over 20 percent
of the population claiming no religious affiliation and one third stating that they
seldom or never attend religious services. The San Francisco Bay Area has an
especially high concentration of people who say they have no religion. One-third
15
of the state’s residents say they attend church services at least once per week, and
one-third attend at least a few times a year. African Americans and Latinos are
the most religious groups in the state, as measured by their attendance at religious
services. Most Californians identify as Christian—either Roman Catholic,
Evangelical, or Mainline Protestant. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints (also known as the Mormons) constitute approximately 2
percent of the state’s population. Adherents of other religions, including Jews,
Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims, collectively account for less than 10 percent.
http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf.
55. It is notable that the religious community does not speak with one voice
on matters relating to same-sex marriage and homosexuality. The Catholic
Church and most Evangelical churches defend the historic Christian doctrine that
marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Even within these faiths,
adherents can differ on the issue of same-sex marriage. Moreover, many in
mainline denominations have come to believe that faith communities should be
welcoming and affirming to LGBT persons and to same-sex couples. California’s
mainline Protestant congregations and clergy have often staked out the liberal
position in these denominational controversies. Numerous Christian laypersons,
clergy, local congregations, and even entire denominations, have stood at the
forefront of the movement for LGBT rights and the effort to win legal recognition
for same-sex marriage. The following paragraphs summarize the diversity of
views within the religious community on these questions.
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=426.
56. The Roman Catholic Church has consistently defended church teaching
that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and has opposed efforts to
grant legal recognition to same-sex unions. In 2003, the Administrative
Committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement
declaring: “we strongly oppose any legislative and judicial attempts, both at state
and federal levels, to grant same-sex unions the equivalent status and rights of
marriage—by naming them marriage, civil unions or by other means.” The
Catholic Church actively supported Proposition 8.
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2003/03-179.shtml.
57. Evangelical churches are numerous, but loosely organized. The National
Association of Evangelicals (NAE) serves as an umbrella organization for 40
evangelical denominations, approximately 45,000 churches, and many other
evangelical organizations. In 2004 the NAE reaffirmed its view that the Bible
does not sanction homosexuality and its opposition to legal recognition of same-
sex relationships. Many individual evangelical churches and organizations were
active in the movement to adopt Proposition 8. http://www.nae.net/about-us
58. The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Protestant denomination in

the United States. In 2003, the Southern Baptist Convention reaffirmed its
support for the traditional definition of marriage and its opposition to legal
16
recognition of “same-sex marriage or other equivalent unions.”

http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1128.
59. The American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A. is considered a mainline

denomination. In 2005, the governing body of the American Baptist Churches in
the U.S.A. affirmed that “God's design for sexual intimacy places it within the
context of marriage between one man and one woman” and that “homosexuality
is incompatible with Biblical teaching.” However, the denomination has divided
over these views. Nearly two decades ago, a group calling itself the Association
of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists (AWAB) formed to support appointments
of openly gay ministers and acceptance of gay and lesbian relationships.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23275.
60. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) has approximately
6 million members in the U.S. and 700,000 in California. The church affirms that
marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God and it opposes legal
recognition of same-sex relationships.
http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html. The LDS Church
and many of its members actively supported the Yes-on-8 campaign.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-
marriage.
61. The United Methodist Church (UMC), the nation’s second-largest

Protestant denomination (11 million members), is deeply divided over questions
of homosexuality and same-sex unions. The General Conference of the UMC, the
denomination’s governing body, has affirmed that it “support[s] laws in civil
society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” However,
many Methodist congregations in California have been at the forefront of a
movement in the church to affirm same-sex unions. Numerous United Methodist
ministers in California have challenged denominational authorities by performing
weddings for same-sex couples. In June 2009, 82 retired UMC pastors in
Northern California signed a resolution offering to perform such ceremonies on
behalf of active ministers who feel constrained by church discipline. The two
United Methodist regional assemblies based in California declared their
opposition to Proposition 8. The (Southern) California-Pacific assembly called on
Methodists to “work with all their might for [Proposition 8’s] defeat” and many
UMC clergy and laypersons actively opposed the measure.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/17/local/me-methodist17.
62. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is another large mainline Protestant

denomination that is internally divided on questions of homosexuality and same-
sex unions. The General Assembly of PCUSA has not explicitly addressed the
issue of same-sex marriage. PCUSA has denied ordination to persons in gay and
lesbian relationships as a consequence of its rule that ministers must live in
“fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity
in singleness.” A strong faction in the denomination has challenged this rule.
17
The General Assembly has voted to remove this limitation, but this action has not
received the necessary ratification from local presbyteries.
http://www.pcusa.org/ga218/news/ga08131.htm.
63. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod supports the traditional definition of

marriage and urged its members to support Proposition 8.
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=15035.
64. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America defines marriage as a

“lifelong and committed relationship between a man and a woman.” However, in
August 2009, the denomination adopted (by a two-thirds vote) a social statement
titled Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust. Through this new policy, the ECLA
“commits itself to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to
recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable lifelong, monogamous, same-
gender relationships.”
http://www.iksynod.org/ChurchwideAssembly09/CWA09insert.pdf. Many
ELCA congregations identify as “reconciling” communities which openly
welcome LGBT persons and advocate for their rights. The pastor of one such
congregation, Hollywood Lutheran Church, has stated: “We are a ‘No on 8’
church. We didn’t support it; we voted to oppose it. We worked to stop it. And
we haven’t given up.”
65. The Episcopal Church (2.1 million members in the U.S.) has become
increasingly active in promoting LGBT rights. In 2003, the Church consecrated
its first openly gay bishop and the church supports the ordination of gay clergy, a
position which causes tension within the global Anglican Communion. In 2006,
the General Convention of the Episcopal Church stated its “support of gay and
lesbian persons and [opposition to] any state or federal constitutional amendment
prohibiting gay marriages or civil unions.” In September 2008, California’s six
most senior Episcopal bishops issued a joint statement urging voters to defeat
Proposition 8. The bishops argued that “the Christian values of monogamy,
commitment, love, mutual respect, and witness of monogamy are enhanced for all
by providing [the right to marry] to gay and straight alike.”
In October 2008, a national newsletter published by Integrity, a group within the
Episcopal Church that advocates LGBT rights, reported: “We are delighted by
the super work of our many ongoing groups in the Western Region—especially
the many members, groups, and parishes opposing California's Proposition 8 (the
anti-marriage amendment). We are very excited by the support of all the
California bishops for the Vote No On Prop 8 campaign and by the work of many
groups and parishes in hosting benefit parties, phone banks, and other anti-ballot
events.” http://www.integrityusa.org/newletters/InfoLetters/2008-10.pdf.
In 2009, the General Convention voted to give bishops the option to bless same-
sex unions.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/gc2009_8419_ENG_HTM.htm?menu=menu919
28.
18
66. In 2005, the Twenty-fifth General Synod of the United Church of Christ
(UCC) adopted a resolution urging congregations and individuals to “support
local, state and national legislation to grant equal marriage rights to couples
regardless of gender, and to work against legislation, including constitutional
amendments, which denies civil marriage rights to couples based on gender.”
Numerous UCC congregations in California have mobilized in support of same-
sex marriage, by opposing Proposition 8 and endorsing legislation to grant
marriage rights to same-sex couples. http://www.ucc.org/assets/pdfs/2005-
EQUAL-MARRIAGE-RIGHTS-FOR-ALL.pdf. After the Proposition 8 vote, the
national office of the UCC purchased advertisements in California’s three largest
LGBT newspapers. The advertisement stated: “Many members, clergy and
congregations of the 1.2 million member United Church of Christ—in California
and across the United States—participated in the unprecedented effort to affirm
marriage equality for all. People of faith, including many in the UCC, offered
significant leadership, dollars, and time. … We stood with you in saying no to
Proposition 8 and we will continue to stand with you, both in disappointment and
resolve, until full marriage equality is realized.”
http://www.ucc.org/news/pdf/Prop8-ad.pdf.
67. The Unitarian Universalist Association has adopted numerous resolutions

supporting equal rights for LGBT persons, including support for same-sex unions.
In 1996, the General Assembly of the UUA adopted a resolution reaffirming its
support for legal recognition for marriage between members of the same sex and
urged the organization to make its position known through the media and for local
member congregations to promote it in their home communities. Unitarian
Universalist congregations have actively pursued this goal.
http://www.uua.org/socialjustice/socialjustice/statements/14251.shtml.
The November 2008 newsletter of the Unitarian Universalist Society of
Sacramento stated: “Blessings on all of you who have given time, attention and
money to protect marriage equality by joining the No on Prop. 8 campaign! All
across the Golden State, UUs have led the religious progressive community in
working for fairness. There is still time to spend a few hours on a phone bank, put
up a yard sign, or talk to friends and coworkers.”
http://uuss.org/Unigram/Unigram2008-11.pdf. After the Proposition 8 election,
the senior minister of the First Unitarian Universalist Society of San Francisco
stated: “If we Unitarian Universalists want to build the world we dream about, it’s
time to get out of the house and onto the streets—again. … Those of us who have
supported marriage equality in the past need to redouble our efforts now.
Strategies to build support for equal rights—phone banks, big checks, rallies,
marches, vigils, civil disobedience, lobbying, advertising, truth telling, coalition
building, and targeted righteous anger—should be reused with greater
intentionality, even as we seek new and innovative ways to get our message
across. What did you do last year to support marriage equality that you could do
again?” http://www.uusf.org/Newsletters/UUSF_Newsletter_200903.pdf.
19
68. The California Council of Churches is a prominent advocate of LGBT

rights. This association represents 51 different mainline Protestant and Orthodox
denominations and groups with more than 1.5 million members. Its member
organizations include the denominations or local affiliates of the American
Baptist Churches, African Methodist Episcopal Church, African Methodist
Episcopal Zion Church, Armenian Church of America, Christian Church
(Disciples of Christ), Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, Church of the
Brethren, Church Women United, Community of Christ, Episcopal Church,
Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Greek
Orthodox Church, Moravian Church, National Baptist Convention, Orthodox
Clergy Council, Presbyterian Church (USA), Reformed Church in America,
Swedenborgian Church, United Church of Christ, the United Fellowship of
Metropolitan Community Churches, and the United Methodist Church.
69. The California Council of Churches states that it is devoted to “creat[ing]

a world that cares for all of its citizens regardless of economic class, ages, gender,
race and ethnicity, religious belief, or sexual orientation.” The CCC operates an
office in Sacramento to represent these member organizations on matters of
public policy, and advocates on behalf of LGBT rights, including the right of
same-sex couples to marry. It opposed Proposition 8, filed amicus briefs in
support of same-sex marriage in both In re Marriage Cases and Strauss v.
Horton, and through California Church IMPACT, endorsed A.B. 43 (Leno), the
legislative measure seeking to end the ban on same-sex marriage in California.
http://www.calchurches.org/1-who-we-are.html.
70. The leadership of Orthodox Judaism defines marriage as an institution

between a man and a woman and does not accept same-sex marriage. The
Conservative Jewish movement does not sanctify gay marriage, but grants
autonomy to individual rabbis to choose whether or not to recognize same-sex
unions. The Reform and Reconstructionist Jewish movements strongly support
LGBT rights, including the right of same-sex couples to marry. Numerous Jewish
congregations, organizations, and rabbis have mobilized in favor of same-sex
marriage and in opposition to Proposition 8.
http://www.ou.org/public_affairs/article/ou_restates_support_fed_marriage_amen
dment/
http://rac.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=3231&pge_prg_id=11176&pge_id=2413.
71. The foregoing survey indicates that, while the record is certainly mixed,
many religious laypersons, clergy, congregations, and denominations strongly
affirm same-sex relationships and have mobilized to advocate LGBT rights. In its
report, “Winning Back Marriage Equality in California: Analysis and Plan”
(2009), Equality California acknowledges this fact: “While our opponents
certainly invoke scripture and theology to justify their beliefs, there are many
clergy and denominations that feel equally passionate that their faiths call them to
stand up for marriage equality.” http://www.eqca.org/atf/cf/%7B34f258b3-8482-
20
4943-91cb-08c4b0246a88%7D/EQCA-
WINNING_BACK_MARRIAGE_EQUALITY.PDF.
72. In addition, Professor Segura’s analysis of the dynamics of Proposition 8

and the broader debate over same-sex marriage fails to take into account popular
reaction to intimidation, vandalism, and threats of violence directed against
churches and other organizations and individuals that supported the
measure. There were many such incidents both before and after the election. See
Thomas M. Messner, “The Price of Prop 8,”
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/upload/bg_2328-3.pdf. In the
American political system, intimidation and violence can be counterproductive,
engendering sympathy for the cause of the victims.
Political Parties
73. California is a solidly “blue” state. As of February 2009, Democrats

accounted for 44.5 percent of the state’s registered voters, compared to the
Republican share of 31.1 percent. Democrats maintain control of both houses of
the state Legislature. Currently, the state Assembly has 51 Democratic and 28
Republican members (one vacancy) and the Senate has 25 Democratic and 15
Republican members. Five of the eight state constitutional offices are held by
Democrats (one vacancy). Democrats hold 34 of the state’s 53 congressional seats
and both of California’s seats in the U.S. Senate. Democrats have won the state’s
electoral votes in each of the last five presidential elections. In 2008, Barack
Obama’s share of the presidential vote—60.95 percent—was the highest for any
candidate in the state since FDR’s landslide of 1936.
74. The leadership of the California Democratic Party steadfastly and reliably
supports expansion of LGBT rights. The 2008 California Democratic Party
Platform states: “We take pride in and celebrate our diversity and work to foster
the common values and commitments that unite all people regardless of their age,
cultural heritage, national origin, disability, socio-economic status, gender, race,
sexual orientation or views on religion.” The platform pledges that “[t]o fight for
all people to live with dignity and equality, California Democrats will . . . .
[s]upport nondiscrimination and equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgender people in all aspects of their lives. We support the LGBT
Community in its quest for the right to legal marriage.”
http://www.cadem.org/atf/cf/{BF9D7366-E5A7-41C3-8E3F-
E06FB835FCCE}/2008%20Platform%20Combined%20Final.pdf.
75. On April 26, 2009, the California Democratic Party adopted Resolution
Number SAC 09.20A, titled, “Support Same-Sex Couples in Their Right to Marry
by Repealing Proposition 8.” The resolution stated as follows:
“WHEREAS, the California Democratic Party, the California Senate and
Assembly, Democratic County Central Committees and Democratic Clubs
throughout California opposed Proposition 8, a ballot measure designed to
21
eliminate the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry, both before the
November election and subsequent to Proposition 8’s passage; and
WHEREAS, the 2008 California Democratic Party Platform states that the CDP
stands in “support of the LGBT Community in its quest for the right to legal
marriage;” with 2010 providing the most opportune time both to maintain the
momentum for marriage equality following the post-Proposition 8 public outcry
and to ensure that the top of the Democratic ticket is unified in its support for
marriage equality; … THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the California
Democratic Party stands in solidarity with same-sex couples and their fight to
retain the right to marry by joining with them in urging the voters of the State of
California to repeal Proposition 8 within the next two years, should it be upheld
by the Supreme Court.”
76. Democratic candidates in California compete to be seen as advocates of

LGBT rights. In the early competition for the 2010 Democratic gubernatorial
nomination, Attorney General Jerry Brown and San Francisco Mayor Gavin
Newsom were no exception. Although he has since withdrawn from the race,
Newsom became a serious contender for statewide office after he famously
ordered the San Francisco county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex
couples. Brown risked lagging behind on the marriage issue. In his official
capacity as Attorney General, he had defended Proposition 22 in In re Marriage
Cases and, after voters approved Proposition 8, said that he intended to defend it
in court, as well. But in December 2008, Brown switched his position and
declared he would ask the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8.
The Attorney General also now refuses to defend the measure against federal
constitutional challenge. Indeed, no prominent Democratic elected official or
current candidate for state office in California endorsed Proposition 8 or openly
opposes legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/12/attorney-genera.html.
77. The leadership of the California Republican Party is more divided than the
Democratic Party’s leaders on the issues of LGBT rights and same-sex marriage.
Republican state legislators and many party activists steadfastly defend the
traditional definition of marriage and often resist efforts to expand rights of LGBT
persons. The California Republican Party platform states: “The California
Republican Party affirms the family as the natural and indispensable institution
for human development. … We support the two-parent family as the best
environment for raising children, and therefore believe it is important to define
marriage as being between one man and one woman. We believe public policy
and education should not be exploited to present or teach homosexuality as an
acceptable ‘alternative’ lifestyle. We oppose same-sex partner benefits, child
custody, and adoption.”
http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/about_party_platform.htm.
78. However, the party does not speak with one voice on these matters. Other
California Republican leaders, including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and
22
Tom Campbell (a former five-term U.S. Congressman now running for governor),
have supported expansion of LGBT rights, including broad legal recognition of
same-sex relationships. Schwarzenegger, in particular, has become a leading
opponent of Proposition 8. Schwarzenegger and Campbell represent the socially
liberal wing of the California Republican Party, which includes groups such as
Log Cabin Republicans (a national organization of gay and lesbian Republicans
based in California.)
79. Several of the state’s minor parties, including the Libertarian Party, the
Green Party, and the Peace and Freedom Party, have endorsed LGBT rights,
including legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
80. The Green Party of California’s platform states: “In keeping with the
Green Key Values of Diversity, Social Justice and Equal Opportunity, and
Feminism, we support full legal and political equality for all persons, regardless
of sex, gender, or sexual orientation. We specifically advocate for the rights of
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, and Queer (LGBTIQ) people, as
follows:
• We support the freedom to marry, and all the rights, benefits, and
responsibilities thereof, without discrimination based on sex, gender, or sexual
orientation.
• We support state and federal legislation (including constitutional
amendments) to ban discrimination based on sex, gender, and sexual
orientation. We oppose measures that restrict rights or create unequal
treatment based on sex, gender, or sexual orientation.
• We support the right of children to be cared for in loving homes,
regardless of the sex, gender, sexual orientation, or marital status of the
parents. We support the right of all persons to consideration for adoption and
foster parenthood without regard to sex, gender, or sexual orientation.
• We support the right of LGBTIQ persons to receive education and care,
without discrimination, harassment, or violence based on sex, gender, or
sexual orientation.
• We support the right of all persons to self-determination with regard to
gender identity and sex. We therefore support the right of intersex and
transgender individuals to be free of coercion and involuntary assignment of
gender or sex. We oppose involuntary medical or surgical treatment—
including the involuntary treatment of children—to assign gender identity or
sex. We support access to medical and surgical treatment for assignment or
reassignment of gender or sex, based on informed consent.
• We oppose all forms of anti-LGBTIQ violence, and support legislation
against all forms of hate crimes, including those directed against LGBTIQ
people.
• We support the rights of artists and performers to free expression. We
welcome art and performance that provokes thought and discussion of sex,
gender, and sexual orientation.”
23
http://www.cagreens.org/platform/platform_justice.shtml#sogige.
81. The California Libertarian Party platform states: “We support the rights
of individuals to form private relationships as they see fit, either by contract or by
mutual agreement. We regard marriage as one such private relationship. The State
of California should not dictate, prohibit, control, or encourage any such private
relationship. To implement this principle, we advocate:
A. The repeal of all marriage and marriage dissolution laws and their
replacement by contracts where desired by the parties.
B. Property not specified as "community property" not being presumed as
such.
C. The repeal of all alimony laws.
D. The recognition in law of marriage contracts as an addition to, or
replacement for, marriage and marriage dissolution laws.
E. The right of all consenting adults to form marriage contracts without
regard to gender, sexual preference, degree of consanguinity, or number of
parties to said contracts.
F. Until such time as the state of California ends its involvement in marriage,
we call upon the state to issue marriage licenses to any adults without regard
to gender.” http://www.ca.lp.org/platform/Platform2006-2007.pdf.
82. The Peace and Freedom Party platform also supports LGBT rights.
Specifically, it advocates:
• Equal treatment and benefits under the law for all families.
• Guarantee equal child custody, adoption, visitation privileges, and
foster parenthood rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
• Equal treatment for all people in the military regardless of sexual
orientation.
• The right to gay marriage and partners' benefits.
• Accurate sex education courses in public schools. Truthful
information about sexuality in society and history.
http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/about-us/platform.
Elected Officials
83. In California, gays and lesbians have had success electing candidates of
their choice. The LGBT rights movement has effectively promoted the election
of openly LGBT candidates to local office and the Legislature and, further, is
allied with the dominant party in the state. While there is ideological diversity
within the LGBT community, LGBT voters overwhelmingly identify as liberal
and Democrat. Indeed, LGBT voters have contributed to California’s shift to a
solidly Democratic state and are represented by Democratic allies who share their
views on many issues.
24
84. After the last statewide election, for example, Equality California noted
that Californians “vot[ed] into the Legislature and top state offices 95 percent of
the candidates endorsed by Equality California's Political Action Committee
(EQCA PAC). The EQCA PAC … endorsed 62 candidates for the Legislature
and state offices. A total of 59 of those candidates prevailed in yesterday's
election, including newly-elected Lt. Governor John Garamendi, Secretary of
State Debra Bowen, Controller John Chiang, Treasurer Bill Lockyer and Attorney
General Jerry Brown. Out of the 23 pro-equality incumbents running for re-
election in the Legislature, each and every candidate who voted for the EQCA-
sponsored Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Act (AB 849) in 2005 won his
or her race. EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors observed that “nearly all of the
top state offices were won by candidates who strongly support LGBT rights. In
California, supporting LGBT rights is a winning formula, as candidates who
oppose equality are continually rejected by voters.”
5&ct=5196849.
Statewide Elected Officials
85. All of California’s statewide officials support LGBT rights, and most
support legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
• As noted above, Governor Schwarzenegger has allied with the

LGBT rights movement. He has signed LGBT rights legislation; opposed
the Federal Marriage Amendment; opposed Proposition 8; and refused to
defend Proposition 8 against federal constitutional challenge.
• Former Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi endorsed the

Legislature’s efforts to make California’s marriage laws gender-neutral
and opposed Proposition 8. When the California Supreme Court upheld
Proposition 8, Garamendi stated: “Today we lost an important battle, but
on this disappointing day, it’s worth remembering that the final outcome
of this struggle has already been determined. Time is on our side, and
Californians will one day soon repeal Proposition 8. Patti and I have been
married for 43 years, and we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the LGBT
community and their allies as they work to convince the electorate that all
Californians, regardless of sexual orientation, deserve access to marriage
and equality. While we will always face roadblocks, our society journeys
down a path of increased equality under the law.” (On November 3, 2009,
Garamendi was elected to Congress in a special election.)
http://www.ltg.ca.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=
511:52609-lieutenant-governor-john-garamendis-statement-on-the-
california-supreme-courts-ruling-on-proposition-8&catid=67:press-
releases&Itemid=347.
25
• Attorney General Jerry Brown, as noted above, is an ally of the

LGBT rights movement. He has sided with the movement by, among
other things, writing an unfavorable ballot title for Proposition 8 and by
challenging the measure in court after the election. In June 2009,
Equality California’s Executive Director Gregory Kors stated: “Equality
California is extremely appreciative of the Attorney General's continued
leadership in opposition to Proposition 8 and in support of ending
discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT)
Californians. … The time has come for all elected leaders to follow Jerry
Brown’s example and stand up for equality for all Americans, regardless
of sexual orientation or gender identity. Equality California will continue
our position of not endorsing or supporting any candidate for any level of
public office who does not completely and unequivocally support total
equality for our community.”
http://ca-ripple-effect.blogspot.com/2009/06/jerry-brown-supports-federal-
case.html.
• Secretary of State Debra Bowen is another strong supporter of

LGBT rights. In a 2007 letter recognizing LGBT Pride Month, Bowen
wrote: “I am proud to stand with you in the continued fight for equal
rights under the law as your Secretary of State, as I stood with you at
every turn during my 14-year tenure in the Legislature on civil rights
issues. Pride events give us a chance to look back and recognize the
phenomenal progress California has made toward acceptance, not just
tolerance, and toward equality. We must also look toward the future with
renewed confidence in achieving the goal of marriage equality in
California.” http://www.capride.org/proc/proc_ca_07bowen.pdf.
• Treasurer (and former Attorney General) Bill Lockyer endorsed

the landmark 2003 domestic partnership law, opposed Proposition 8, and
made monetary contributions to the No-on-8 campaign. In recognition of
his long-term support, Lockyer has won the endorsement of LGBT rights
organizations. For example, in the last election, EQCA’s Executive
Director Kors wrote: “Equality California proudly supports Bill Lockyer
for State Treasurer. The outcome of this year’s election will have a
significant impact on the LGBT landscape of issues, emphasizing the
importance of electing equality-minded candidates to office. Bill scored a
perfect 100% on our candidate questionnaire and we are confident he will
be a hard working advocate for civil rights and equality for all in the
Treasurer’s Office.”
See “Leading LGBT Groups Support Lockyer in Treasurer’s Race,”
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:ukijc5qhrJUJ:www.lockyer2
010.com/index2.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26do_pdf%3D1%26id
%3D138+%22bill+lockyer%22+lgbt&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNGB5Q
3cXShxBBzqAOvYrFG79rJ4dQ.
26
• Controller John Chiang is also considered a strong proponent of

LGBT rights. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force recently honored
Chiang for his contributions to the struggle for LGBT equality. According
to the Task Force, “Chiang has been a steadfast ally of LGBT people
throughout his career in public life. … An opponent of Prop. 8, he has
spoken out for marriage equality for committed same-sex couples during
Pride season and throughout the year.”
http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/pr_110609.
• Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell is another ally

of the LGBT rights movement. He opposed Proposition 8 and appeared in
No-on-8 advertisements.
• (Republican) Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner was the only

statewide elected official to support Proposition 8, but he also supports
domestic partnerships for same-sex couples.
The Legislature
86. As noted above, the California Legislature—in particular, the

Legislature’s majority Democratic Caucus—has strongly allied with the LGBT
rights movement.
87. In 2002, the California Legislature was the first in the country to recognize
an official caucus of openly-LGBT state legislators. Since its founding, the
LGBT Caucus has had eight members. It currently has four members, including
the current chair of the Assembly Democratic Caucus.
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/LGBT_Caucus/.
88. At the end of the 2009 legislative year, Equality California again
recognized the strong alliance between the California Legislature and the LGBT
rights movement. In a statement, the organization noted that “[b]y partnering
with the LGBT Legislative Caucus and allied lawmakers, EQCA helped secure
approval of five bills and six resolutions, many of which included bipartisan
support. Another six bills passed their first house or key committee and will move
again when the legislature reconvenes in January.” EQCA Executive Director
Geoff Kors stated: “Thanks to the steadfast leadership of the LGBT Legislative
Caucus and allied legislators, California has become one of the nation’s only
states with comprehensive rights and protections for LGBT community members.
For more than decade, Equality California has worked closely with state
lawmakers to ensure that LGBT Californians are treated equally under the law…”
1&ct=7492315.
27
89. The California Legislature has become a national leader in promoting

LGBT rights. In addition to establishing a wide range of legal protections for
gays and lesbians in the state, the Legislature has adopted resolutions urging
federal action to expand rights of gays and lesbians. These resolutions include
A.J.R. 60 (2004), endorsing the Federal Permanent Partners Immigration Act,
which would have allowed U.S. citizens and permanent residents to sponsor their
same-sex partners for immigration to the United States; A.J.R. 85 of 2004,
opposing any federal measure to limit rights and obligations of same-sex couples
and their families; and A.J.R. 19 of 2009, urging Congress and the President of
the United States to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (adopted
by the Assembly August 31, 2009). The Legislature has adopted two resolutions,
S.J.R. 11 (2005) and S.J.R. 6 (2007), urging Congress and the President to repeal
the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The state Senate adopted a similar
resolution, S.J.R. 9 (2009), on August 24, 2009; further action is still pending in
the Assembly.
Local Elected Officials
90. San Francisco Mayor Newsom is a nationally-recognized leader in

advancing the rights of gays and lesbians. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio
Villaraigosa is also a prominent supporter of LGBT rights. Villaraigosa publicly
opposed Proposition 8 and donated $25,000 to the No-on-8 campaign. Many of
the state’s other leading local elected officials have also supported the interests of
the LGBT community. Numerous local governments, including the City and
County of San Francisco, the cities of Berkeley, Cloverdale, Davis, Emeryville,
Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Palm Springs, Sacramento, San Diego, San
Jose, Santa Cruz, Santa Monica, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Signal Hill, and West
Hollywood, and the Counties of Humboldt, Marin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa
Cruz, and Sonoma, have endorsed legislation promoting domestic partner
benefits, same sex marriage, or both.
Federal representatives
91. Many of California’s federal representatives, including U.S. Senators

Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are
outspoken advocates of LGBT rights. Senator Boxer and twenty-four members of
California’s Congressional delegation received a perfect 100 rating on the Human
Rights Campaign’s “Congressional Scorecard: Measuring Support for Equality in
the 110th Congress.” http://www.hrc.org/documents/Congress_Scorecard-
110th.pdf. And Sen. Feinstein led the opposition to Proposition 8 by appearing in
television ads for the No-on-8 campaign.
The Initiative Process
92. Plaintiffs’ expert argues that gays and lesbians are vulnerable in the
context of direct democracy. See Segura Report at 5. It is true that the gay rights
28
movement has recently lost two ballot measure contests in California as the state
electorate voted to codify and, later, restore the traditional definition of marriage
through the initiative process (in 2000 and 2008). But California voters have not
used the state’s initiative process, nor the popular referendum, to repeal or limit
the legislature’s other broad expansions of LGBT rights (including the state’s
domestic partnership law), or to impose other disadvantages on persons based on
their sexual orientation.
93. In 1978, voters rejected Proposition 6, also known as the Briggs Initiative.
This high-profile measure would have allowed public schools to fire teachers,
teacher’s aides, school administrators, or counselors found to be “advocating,
imposing, encouraging or promoting” homosexual activity or “publicly and
indiscreetly engaging in said acts.” The gay community mobilized to oppose the
initiative, joined by a bipartisan coalition of allies that included former
Republican Governor Ronald Reagan. In the general election, California voters
defeated the initiative by a 58.4 – 41.6 percent vote. In the 1980s, voters rejected
three measures directed at persons with HIV/AIDS. Proposition 64 (1986) and
Proposition 69 (1988) sought to make persons with HIV/AIDS subject to
quarantine and isolation. California voters defeated these measures by respective
margins of 70.7 – 29.3 percent and 68 – 32 percent. In 1988, voters also rejected
Proposition 102, which would have required doctors, blood banks, and others to
report persons suspected of having the HIV/AIDS virus. Voters rejected this
measure by a 65.6 - 34.4 percent vote.
94. More recently, opponents of California’s Domestic Partnership laws have
failed to qualify ballot measures designed to repeal them. See, e.g.,
http://caag.state.ca.us/initiatives/pdf/SA2005RF0077_amdt_2_ns.pdf. Polls
indicate that the LGBT rights movement has won broad popular support for the
state’s domestic partnership laws. See, e.g., The Field Poll Release # 2087,
August 29, 2003.
95. Proponents of same-sex marriage have demonstrated increasing strength in

the state’s initiative process. In the recent campaign over Proposition 8, the
coalition that favored same-sex marriage (and thus opposed Proposition 8) formed
several committees that collectively raised and spent over $43 million to defeat
the initiative—figures that exceeded the contributions and expenditures by the
Yes-on-8 campaign. The No-on-8 campaign was able to make a strong case to
the electorate, and, indeed, was able to shift public opinion significantly on the
issue. Encouraged by these trends and by the close outcome of the election, many
advocates of same-sex marriage are eager to qualify an initiative to repeal
Proposition 8, either in 2010 or 2012, and thus establish a state constitutional right
to same-sex marriage through the initiative process.
96. On September 24, 2009, opponents of Proposition 8, led by an

organization called Love, Honor, Cherish, filed an initiative to repeal Proposition
8 with the Attorney General, the first step in the process for qualifying an
29
initiative for the California ballot. The measure’s repeal provision reads as
follows:
“Section 2. To provide for fairness in the government’s issuance of marriage
licenses, Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended
to read as follows: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid
or recognized in California. Marriage is between only two persons and shall not
be restricted on the basis of race, color, creed, ancestry, national origin, sex,
gender, sexual orientation, or religion.”
http://www.repeal-prop-8.org/.
97. Meanwhile, other LGBT rights organizations are mobilizing to win the
next election on the same-sex marriage question. Equality California has
produced a sophisticated campaign plan for the repeal of Proposition 8 that
includes: “field, messaging and media, coalition and leadership outreach,
activating our base, work in people of color communities, activating the faith
community, supporting the grassroots, campus organizing, voter registration and
coordination across the state. http://www.eqca.org/atf/cf/%7B34f258b3-8482-
4943-91cb-08c4b0246a88%7D/EQCA-
WINNING_BACK_MARRIAGE_EQUALITY.PDF. Similarly, the Courage
Campaign, a grassroots and netroots LGBT rights organization, has adopted the
Obama campaign as a model and has hired former Obama campaign operatives to
convince voters to overturn Proposition 8 through the initiative process. The
Courage Campaign states that “[f]rom our Camp Courage program that has
trained more than 1,000 activists in grassroots organizing, to our new intensive
Deputy Field Organizer program, to our 44 equality teams, we are building the
foundation for victory.”
https://secure.couragecampaign.org/page/contribute/Victory.
DEVELOPMENTS IN OTHER STATES
98. Professor Segura suggests that gays and lesbians lack political power
below the national level, in part because of their underrepresentation in state and
local office. See Segura Report at 7. This rebuttal report has already documented
the political power of gays and lesbians in California; the LGBT rights movement
has also achieved power in other states. This power is demonstrated by the
movement’s increasing success advancing its priorities in state legislatures and
electing openly gay and lesbian candidates to state and local office.
99. Many state legislatures have adopted statutes that expand the protections,
benefits, and rights of gays and lesbians. According to a report by the Human
Rights Campaign, 31 states and the District of Columbia have adopted laws
punishing hate crimes based on sexual orientation; 21 states and the District of
Columbia have adopted laws that prohibit employment discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation; 22 states and the District of Columbia provide state
employees with domestic partner benefits; 9 states (California, Hawaii, Maine,
30
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, and Wisconsin) and the District of
Columbia have adopted domestic partnership or civil union laws.
http://www.hrc.org/laws_and_elections/state.asp. Notably, in 2009, the
Washington State Legislature adopted a domestic partnership law dubbed
“Everything but Marriage.” Opponents qualified a state referendum to overturn
the law, but according to early returns, citizens of Washington voted to uphold the
domestic partnership law by a 53-47 percent margin.
http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/.
100. In addition, LGBT candidates have had increasing success winning

election to office. According to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, a national
organization that provides funding and other support for gay and lesbian
candidates for federal, state, and local office, more than 440 out gays and lesbians
are currently serving as elected officials—up from fewer than 50 when the
organization was formed in 1991. In 2008, the Victory Fund endorsed 111 openly
LGBT candidates, 80 of whom won their elections. In 2009, the organization
endorsed 79 candidates, a record for a non-election year. Of those, 49 won their
offices outright and six races are still unfinished. For example, Charles Pugh, an
openly gay African American candidate, came in first in among 18 candidates for
nine at-large seats in the Detroit City Council race and will become the City
Council President; Annise Parker, an openly lesbian candidate, finished first in
voting for Mayor of Houston and will now advance to a run-off; Mark
Kleinschmidt, an openly gay candidate, won election as Mayor of Chapel Hill,
North Carolina; and in Atlanta, 15 openly gay candidates ran for city council
seats, with four winning election and two making it to run-offs. According to
Chuck Wolfe, the president and CEO of the Victory Fund, “This has been the
most successful non-federal election year in the Victory Fund’s history. More
candidates were endorsed and more candidates won than ever before. But just as
important was where they won. Some of these are true breakthrough victories
that have the potential to change the political landscape in some communities.”
http://www.victoryfund.org/home.
DEVELOPMENTS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL
101. Plaintiffs’ expert argues that gays and lesbians are politically powerless at
the national level. See Segura Report at 5. But gays and lesbians have
successfully achieved significant political power nationally.
102. The 2008 National Democratic Party platform clearly aligns the party with
the LGBT rights movement. Specifically, the platform contains the following
provisions: “Democrats will fight to end discrimination based on race, sex,
ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity,
age, and disability in every corner of our country, because that’s the America we
believe in…We will also put national security above divisive politics. More than
12,500 service men and women have been discharged on the basis of sexual
31
orientation since the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy was implemented, at a cost of
over $360 million. Many of those forced out had special skills in high demand,
such as translators, engineers, and pilots. At a time when the military is having a
tough time recruiting and retaining troops, it is wrong to deny our country the
service of brave, qualified people. We support the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t
Tell’ and the implementation of policies to allow qualified men and women to
serve openly regardless of sexual orientation. . . We support the full inclusion of
all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support
equal responsibility, benefits, and protections. We will enact a comprehensive
bipartisan employment non-discrimination act. We oppose the Defense of
Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us.”
http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html, 51, 36, 52.
103. The LGBT rights movement is making important gains in Congress, with
expanding coalitions mobilizing to pass major LGBT rights legislation.
104. In October 2009, Congress adopted legislation that extends the protections
of federal hate crime laws to LGBT persons. Formerly, federal hate crime statutes
covered crimes motivated by the victim’s race, color, religion, or national origin,
but not sexual orientation. See 18 U.S.C. sec. 245(b)(2). But this year, after a
long effort, Congress approved legislation officially known as the Matthew
Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The new law expands
the definition of hate crimes to include crimes motivated by the victim’s actual or
perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. In April, 2009,
the House approved a version of the bill, H.R. 1913, by a decisive 249-175
margin. In July, the Senate made the proposal an amendment to the National
Defense Authorization Act, and secured final passage of the bill by a 68-29 vote
on October 22, 2009. President Obama signed the Act on October 28, 2009. At a
ceremony in the East Room, President Obama said: “To all the activists, all the
organizers, all the people that made this day happen, thank you for your years of
advocacy and activism, pushing and protesting that made this day possible. …
You know, as a nation, we have come far on the journey towards a more perfect
union. And today we have taken another step forward. This afternoon, I signed
into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
Time and again, the measure was defeated or delayed. Time and again we’ve
been reminded of the difficulty of building a nation in which we’re all free to live
and love as we see fit. But the cause endured and the struggle continued, waged
by the family of Matthew Shepard, by the family of James Byrd, by folks who
held vigils and led marches, by those who rallied and organized and refused to
give up, by the late Senator Ted Kennedy who fought so hard for this legislation
and all who toiled for years to reach this day. …[T]hrough this law, we will
strengthen the protections against crimes based on the color of your skin, the faith
in your heart, or the place of your birth. We will finally add federal protections
against crimes based on gender, disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
And prosecutors will have new tools to work with states in order to prosecute to
the fullest those who would perpetrate such crimes. Because no one in America
32
should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding the hands of the person they
love.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-reception-
commemorating-enactment-matthew-shepard-and-james-byrd-.
105. Support is growing in Congress to repeal the U.S. military’s “Don’t Ask,
Don’t Tell” policy through legislation known as the Military Readiness
Enhancement Act of 2009, or H.R. 1283, authored by then-Rep. (now Under
Secretary of State) Ellen Tauscher (D-CA). This bill would establish “a policy of
nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the armed forces.” As of
November 1, 2009, H.R. 1283 had 183 co-sponsors—34 more co-sponsors than a
similar bill introduced in the prior Congress—and was pending in the House
Armed Forces Committee’s Subcommittee on Military Personnel. According to
news reports, Congressional leaders plan to move the bill in early 2010.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/63511-congressional-leaders-signaling-move-
to-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell-
policy?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=.
106. Congress is also considering the Employment Non-Discrimination Act

(ENDA), legislation that would prevent discrimination against employees on the
basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. In June 2009,
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced a new version of the bill, H.R. 3017. As
of November 5, 2009, the bill had 189 co-sponsors. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) has
introduced a similar bill, S. 1584, in the Senate. As of November 5, 2009, that
bill had 41 co-sponsors.
107. Many Members of Congress are also seeking to repeal the federal Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was enacted in 1996 to define marriage for
purposes of federal law to be a union between a man and a woman and to allow
states not to recognize same-sex marriages solemnized in other states. Jerrold
Nadler (D-NY) has introduced the Respect for Marriage Act of 2009 (H.R. 3567).
The proposal would repeal DOMA and instead extend federal recognition to
same-sex marriages entered into in states or places where that marriage is legally
valid. As of November 5, 2009, the bill had 103 co-sponsors and was pending in
the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights,
and Civil Liberties. Former Representative Bob Barr, who was the original
sponsor of DOMA, and former President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA into
law, now support repeal of DOMA and passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.
108. Support is also growing in Congress to provide benefits to domestic

partners of federal employees. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) introduced the
House version of this proposal, H.R 2517, on March 20, 2009. H.R. 2517, also
known as “The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009,”
defines “domestic partner” as “an adult unmarried person living with another
adult unmarried person of the same sex in a committed, intimate relationship.”
The bill defines “benefits” to include: health insurance; enhanced dental and
vision benefits; family, medical, and emergency leave; federal group life
33
insurance; long term care insurance; compensation for work injuries; death and
disability benefits; travel, transportation, and related payments.” Sen. Joseph
Lieberman (I-CT) has introduced the Senate version of the bill, S. 1102. As of
November 5, 2009, H.R. 2517 had 126 co-sponsors, and S. 1102 had 24 co-
sponsors.
109. The President of the United States has repeatedly declared his support for
expanding LGBT rights. On June 4, 2009, President Obama issued a presidential
proclamation declaring June to be Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride
Month. In the proclamation, the President stated: “My Administration has
partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At
the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize
homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to
bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures
include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for
LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption
rights, and ending the ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ policy in a way that strengthens our
Armed Forces and our national security.” (Proclamation 8387, Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month, 2009, 74 Fed. Reg. 26,929, June 4, 2009).
110. On October 11, 2009, President Obama addressed a large gathering of the
Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights organization, in
Washington, D.C. In his address, the President underscored his commitment to
the gay rights movement. The President stated:
• “I can announce that after more than a decade, the [Matthew

Shepard] hate crimes bill is set to pass and I will sign it into law.”
• “We’re pushing hard to pass an inclusive employee non-

discrimination bill. For the first time ever, an administration official
testified in Congress in favor of this law. Nobody in America should be
fired because they’re gay, despite doing a great job and meeting their
responsibilities. It’s not fair. It’s not right. We’re going to put a stop to it.”
• “We are reinvigorating our response to HIV/AIDS here at home

and around the world. We’re working closely with the Congress to renew
the Ryan White program and I look forward to signing it into law in the
very near future. We are rescinding the discriminatory ban on entry to the
United States based on HIV status. The regulatory process to enact this
important change is already underway.”
• “We are moving ahead on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell…. I’m working
with the Pentagon, its leadership, and the members of the House and
Senate on ending this policy. Legislation has been introduced in the House
to make this happen. I will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That’s my
commitment to you.”
34
• “Can we embrace our differences and look to the hopes and

dreams that we share? Will we uphold the ideals on which this nation was
founded: that all of us are equal, that all of us deserve the same
opportunity to live our lives freely and pursue our chance at happiness? I
believe we can; I believe we will. And that is why—that’s why I support
ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and
responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country. I believe
strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws
that extend equal rights to gay couples. I’ve required all agencies in the
federal government to extend as many federal benefits as possible to
LGBT families as the current law allows. And I’ve called on Congress to
repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic
Partners Benefits and Obligations Act.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-
at-Human-Rights-Campaign-Dinner.
TRENDS IN PUBLIC OPINION
111. Plaintiffs’ expert claims that “[g]ay men and lesbians face severe hostility
from non-gay citizens in many parts of the country, and opinion data suggest that
they are held in considerably lower regard than many groups currently receiving
the protection of heightened scrutiny.” See Segura Report at 10. However, a
close reading of the evidence reveals a very different picture. While mobilizing to
win support from elected officials and other political elites, gays and lesbians and
the LGBT rights movement have also gained increasing acceptance and support
from the general public. See Gerald N. Rosenberg, The Hollow Hope: Can
Courts Bring About Social Change? Second Edition (2008). Polling data
indicate major shifts in public opinion, both in California and in the nation as a
whole.
112. In California, a March 2006 survey by the Field Research Corporation

reported that a large percentage (41 percent) of Californians said they were now
more accepting of “homosexual relations between adults” than they were when
they were 18 years old, while just 8 percent were less accepting. The survey also
found that clear majorities of Californians supported anti-discrimination policies
toward gays and lesbians. Sixty-seven percent supported allowing openly gay and
lesbian persons serve in the U.S. military; 59 percent supported laws prohibiting
employers from discriminating against gays and lesbians; and 55 percent favored
allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt children. A narrow majority (51
percent) continued to oppose allowing same-sex couples to marry, but nearly two-
thirds (64 percent) supported some form of legal recognition of same-sex
relationships, with opinion divided on whether that recognition should be in the
form of civil unions or marriage.
35
113. The 2006 Field survey of Californians also asked respondents to assess
their personal feelings toward gays and lesbians on a “feeling thermometer”—that
is, on a 0-100 scale similar to that used by the American National Election Studies
(ANES). More Californians (43 percent) described themselves as having “warm”
feelings toward gays and lesbians than those who reported having “cool” feelings
(25 percent). Another 22 percent reported that they were ambivalent (a 50 on the
scale.)
http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/samesexmarriage09/samesexmarri
age09.pdf.
114. Similarly, national surveys indicate that the American public is

increasingly accepting of gays and lesbians and supportive of rights for gay and
lesbian individuals and same-sex couples. The ANES surveys cited by plaintiffs’
expert demonstrate a strong positive trend in public attitudes toward gays and
lesbians. The ANES first asked respondents to rate gays and lesbians on a
“feeling thermometer” in 1984. In that year, the mean rating was 30 on a scale of
0-100. By 2008, the mean rating was 49.4—an increase of nearly 20 degrees.
115. Political scientists Patrick J. Egan and Kenneth Sherrill have reviewed
ANES and other survey data have concluded that, while many Americans
continue to have negative attitudes toward homosexuality and toward gays and
lesbians, “Americans of all ages are becoming more—not less—tolerant as they
grow older. And older, colder, Americans are being replaced by citizens who
express more warmth for gay people.” Importantly, they note that “[t]he public’s
changing views of gay people and homosexuality have been reflected in increased
support for gay-related policies over time.”
http://www.publicopinionpros.norc.org/features/2005/feb/sherrill_egan.asp.
116. A 2000 report by the Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian
Task Force Foundation analyzed the 2000 National Election Study data and found
that “[p]ublic attitudes toward three key gay and lesbian rights issues have
undergone a striking liberalization over the past decade. … Public support for
adoption rights, the right of gay men and lesbians to serve in the military, and
sexual orientation non-discrimination laws has increased substantially.”
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/2000NationalElectionsStu
dy.pdf.
117. More recently, an October 2009 survey by the Pew Research Center found
that 57 percent of Americans favors allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into
civil union arrangements that would give them many of the same rights as married
couples. The report concluded that this finding “appears to continue a significant
long-term trend since the question was first asked in Pew Research Center surveys
in 2003, when support for civil unions stood at 45 percent.” By contrast, a
majority of Americans (53 percent) opposed allowing same-sex couples to marry,
with 39 percent favoring same-sex marriage.
36
KENNETH P. MILLER
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT PHONE: 909-607-2811
CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE FAX: 909-621-8419
CLAREMONT, CA 91711 E-MAIL: kmiller@cmc.edu
ACADEMIC POSITIONS
Claremont McKenna College

Associate Professor, Department of Government, 2009-
Assistant Professor, Department of Government, 2003-2009
Associate Director, Rose Institute of State and Local Government, 2009-
University of San Francisco
Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Politics, 2002-2003
University of California, Berkeley
Lecturer, Department of Political Science, 2000-2001
EDUCATION
University of California, Berkeley—Ph.D. in Political Science 2002

Fields: American politics, public law, political theory
Harvard Law School—J.D. 1988
Pomona College—B.A. 1985
Major: Government
PUBLICATIONS
BOOKS
Miller, Kenneth P. (2009). Direct Democracy and the Courts. Cambridge University Press.
Douzet, Frédérick, Thad Kousser, and Kenneth P. Miller, eds. (2008). The New Political
Geography of California. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Public Policy Press.
BOOK CHAPTERS
Douzet, Frédérick and Kenneth P. Miller. (2008). “California’s East-West Divide” in The
New Political Geography of California, 9-43.
Miller, Kenneth P. and Justin Levitt. (2008). “San Joaquin Valley: Dimensions and Limits
of Republican Realignment” in The New Political Geography of California, 177-195.
Kenneth P. Miller - CV
Miller, Kenneth P. (2003). “Courts and the Initiative Process” in M. Dane Waters, ed.
The Initiative and Referendum Almanac: A Comprehensive Reference Guide to the
Initiative and Referendum Process, Raleigh Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic
Press, 459-467.
Cain, Bruce E. and Kenneth P. Miller. (2001). “The Populist Legacy: Initiatives and the
Undermining of Representative Government” in Larry J. Sabato, Howard R.
Ernst, and Bruce A. Larson, eds. Dangerous Democracy? The Battle Over Ballot
Initiatives in America. Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield, 33-62.
Cain, Bruce E. and Kenneth P. Miller. (1998). “Voting Rights Mismatch: The Challenge
of Applying the Voting Rights Act to ‘Other Minorities’” in Mark E. Rush, ed.,
Voting Rights and Redistricting in the United States. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press, 141-176.
ARTICLES
Miller, Kenneth P. “The Democratic Coalition’s Religious Divide: Why California

Voters Supported Obama but not Same-sex Marriage,” Revue française d’études
américaines (French Review of American Studies) 2009/1 No. 119 (2009).
Miller, Kenneth P. and Nicolas Heidorn. (2008). “Du ‘People’s Rule’ en Californie”
Politique Américaine, No. 9, 65-80.
Miller, Kenneth P. (2005). “The Davis Recall and the Courts” American Politics Research,
Vol. 33, No. 2, 135-162.
Miller, Kenneth P. (2001). “Constraining Populism: The Real Agenda of Initiative

Reform,” Santa Clara Law Review, Vol. 41, No. 4, 1037-1084.
Miller, Kenneth P. (2001). “Courts as Watchdogs of the Washington State Initiative

Process,” Seattle University Law Review, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1053-1085.
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
Miller, Kenneth P. (2005). Review of The Next Los Angeles: The Struggle for a Livable City,
by Robert Gottlieb, Mark Vallianatos, Regina M. Freer, and Peter Dreier, in
Southern California Quarterly, Vol. 87, No. 3, 328-331.
Miller, Kenneth P. (2005). “U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton,” in David Schultz, ed. The
Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court, New York: Facts on File, Inc., 478-479.
2
CURRENT RESEARCH
Development of Miller-Rose Institute Initiative Database, a searchable database that

summarizes voter-approved initiatives from all 24 initiative states and post-election
legal challenges to voter-approved initiatives. See www.initiatives.theroseinstitute.org/.
The Seven (book analyzing the institutional dynamics of the California Supreme Court).
CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS AND INVITED TALKS
“Is California Ungovernable?” Constitution Week Panel, California State University

Fullerton, September 17, 2009.
“Same-sex Marriage, Courts, Direct Democracy,” Roundtable, American Political Science

Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, September 2, 2009.
“Governing a Multi-Ethnic California: A Comparative Perspective,” Colloquium, U.C.

Berkeley, March 11-13, 2009.
“Federalism and Separation of Powers: Safeguards of Liberty,” Liberty Fund

Colloquium, New Orleans, LA, February 26-March 1, 2009.
Election Night Commentary, Marian Miner Cook Athenaeum, Claremont McKenna

College, Claremont, CA, November 4, 2008.
“The California Economy: What Can Be Done?” Claremont Institute Conference:

California Public Policy 2008, Newport Beach, CA, May 31, 2008.
“The New Political Geography of California” panel discussion, U.C. Berkeley, April 28,
2008.
Moderator: “Teaching the Constitution, the Constitution as Teacher: A Panel

Discussion in Honor of Leonard Levy,” Claremont Discourse Lecture Series, Claremont
CA, September 20, 2007.
“Direct Democracy and the Definition of Rights,” Western Political Science Association,
Las Vegas, NV, March 8, 2007.
“Dimensions of Republican Realignment in California’s Central Valley,” (with Justin

Levitt), Western Political Science Association, Las Vegas, NV, March 8, 2007.
“Election Review,” The California Club, Los Angeles, CA, November 7, 2006.
“Measuring California’s East-West Divide” (with Frédérick Douzet and Ariane

Zambiras), Borchard Foundation Conference: California: A Franco-American
Perspective, Missilac, France, July 2006.
3
Discussant, “Law, Diplomacy, and War,” Keck Center for International and Strategic
Studies, Claremont, CA, March 24, 2006.
“The California Special Election” debate with Dr. Lisa García-Bedolla, Pomona Student
Union, Pomona College, Claremont, CA, November 1, 2005.
“Anatomy of a Backlash: The Response to Goodridge v. Department of Public Health,”

American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., September 4, 2005.
“The Scholarship of William K. ‘Sandy’ Muir: What Political Science Needs to be

Now?” Western Political Science Association, Oakland, CA, March 18, 2005.
“Election Review,” The California Club, Los Angeles, CA, November 3, 2004.
Election Night Commentary, Marian Miner Cook Athenaeum, Claremont McKenna

College, Claremont, CA, November 2, 2004.
“The Future of Direct Democracy in California,” The Claremont Institute, Claremont,

CA, March 3, 2004.
“The Davis Recall and the Courts,” Western Political Science Association, Portland, OR,
March 12, 2004.
“Public Policy Formation by Citizen Initiative: Failed Initiatives—Missed

Opportunities?” Symposium, Rose Institute of State and Local Government, Claremont
McKenna College, Claremont, CA, October 23, 2003.
“Prospects for Initiative Reform,” The California Club, Los Angeles, CA, October 20,
2003.
“Recall Politics,” Symposium, Pomona College, Claremont, CA, September 30, 2003.
“California Politics: Losing Ground or Making Strides?” Panel, Marian Miner Cook
Athenaeum, Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, CA, September 29, 2003.
“Three Strikes and the Eighth Amendment,” American Political Science Association,
Philadelphia, PA August 2003.
“Teaching Law to Undergraduates,” Roundtable, Western Political Science Association,

Denver, CO, March 28, 2003.
“New Judicial Resistance to Direct Democracy,” American Political Science Association,

Boston, MA, August 31, 2002.
“The California Initiative: Fourth Branch of Government?” Symposium, Santa Clara

University Law School, Santa Clara, CA, March 23, 2001.
4
“The Populist Legacy: Initiatives and the Undermining of Representative Government,”

(co-presented with Bruce Cain) University of Virginia Center for Governmental Studies
National Direct Democracy Conference, Charlottesville, VA, June 8-10, 2000.
“Judging Initiatives: A Unique Role for Courts,” Western Political Science Association,
San Jose, CA, March 26, 2000.
“The Role of Courts in the Initiative Process: A Search for Standards,” American
Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA, September 1999.
“The Fragile Logic of Voting Rights” (with Bruce Cain), American Political Science
Association, Chicago, IL, August 1996.
RESEARCH GRANTS
CMC Summer Research Awards—2004-2009

University of California Humanities Research Institute Grant (Governing a multi-ethnic
California, with Thad Kousser, Frédérick Douzet)—2008
U.C. Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies Visiting Scholar—2007-2008
Albert and Elaine Borchard Foundation Grant (California political geography, with
Thad Kousser, Frédérick Douzet)—2006
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
California Politics, Claremont McKenna College

Constitutional Law (Rights and Liberties), Claremont McKenna College
Constitutional Law (National Powers), Claremont McKenna College
Supreme Court / Criminal Procedure, Claremont McKenna College
Interdisciplinary Introduction to Law, Claremont McKenna College
Government/International Relations Honors Thesis Seminar, Claremont McKenna
College
Introduction to American Politics, Claremont McKenna College
Public Policy (Poverty), University of San Francisco
Legislative Process, University of San Francisco
Introduction to Political Theory, University of San Francisco
Constitutional Law, U.C. Berkeley
COLLEGE COMMITTEES AND OTHER SERVICE
Associate Director, Rose Institute of State and Local Government 2009-

Fellow, Rose Institute of State and Local Government 2005-2009
Coordinator, CMC Government / International Relations Senior Honors Program, 2003-
Faculty Advisor, CMC Washington Program, 2004-
CMC Faculty Liaison, Luce Scholars Program, 2005-
CMC Faculty Advisor, California Capital Fellows Programs, 2006-
Member, CMC Truman Scholars Nomination Committee, 2004-
5
Advisor, CMC Political Education Fellowship, 2003-

Member, CMC Ad Hoc Committee on Pre-law Advising, 2003-2004
Member, Off-campus Study Committee, 2008-2009
Member, CMC Student Recruitment Committee, 2007-
Member, CMC Judicial Board, 2004-2008
Administrator, John Gardner Public Service Program (U.C. Berkeley-Stanford) 1997-1999
SERVICE TO THE PROFESSION
Member, Editorial Board, California Journal of Politics and Policy

Manuscript reviewer:
University of California Press
American Politics Research
State Politics and Policy Quarterly
State and Local Politics Review
Journal of the European Economic Association
MEDIA COMMENTARY
Political analysis and commentary in various media outlets, including television (KPIX,
KRON), radio (BBC, CBC, Wisconsin Public Radio, Minnesota Public Radio, KQED,
KPCC, KCRW, KNX) and print (Financial Times, Campaigns and Elections, Los Angeles
Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Orange County Register, Sacramento Bee)
MEMBERSHIPS
American Political Science Association Section memberships: Law and Courts, State
Politics and Policy, Politics and History
California Bar Association (Bar No. 139806; Administration of Justice Committee, 1991-
1994)
Phi Beta Kappa
OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Attorney, Morrison & Foerster, LLP

1989-1994: Associate in the firm, resident in Los Angeles and Sacramento offices
Specialized in civil litigation, administrative law, and legislative advocacy
Co-founded Sacramento office, 1991
1994-2002: Contract attorney
Specialized in election law
Legislative Assistant, California State Senator Rebecca Q. Morgan—1988-1989

California Senate Fellow
Congressional Intern, Rep. David Dreier, Washington, D.C.—Fall 1983/Summer 1984

Lyndon Baines Johnson and Margaret Martin Brock Internships
09/09
6
EXHIBIT F
Index of Materials Considered
1. Expert Report of Gary M. Segura
2. Deposition Transcript
3. 18 U.S.C. § 245
4. CAL. CONST., art. II, § 10.
5. CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 51 (2009)
6. CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 51.5 (2009)
7. CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 51.7 (2009)
8. CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 231.5 (2009)
9. CAL. EDUC. CODE § 200. (2009)
10. CAL. EDUC. CODE § 220 (2009)
11. CAL. EDUC. CODE § 32228 (2009)
12. CAL. EDUC. CODE § 49091.24 (2009)
13. CAL. EDUC. CODE § 51500 (2009)
14. CAL. EDUC. CODE § 51933 (2009)
15. CAL. EDUC. CODE § 66251 (2009)
16. CAL. EDUC. CODE § 66270 (2009)
17. CAL. EDUC. CODE § 66301 (2009)
18. CAL. EDUC. CODE § 67380 (2009)
19. CAL. EDUC. CODE § 94367 (2009)
20. CAL. FAM. CODE § 297.5 (2009)
21. CAL. FAM. CODE § 1816 (2009)
22. CAL. FAM. CODE § 9000 (2009)
1
23. CAL. GOV’T CODE § 8299.01 (2009)
24. CAL. GOV’T CODE § 11135 (2009)
25. CAL. GOV’T. CODE § 12920
26. CAL GOV’T CODE § 12921 (2009)
27. CAL. GOV’T CODE § 12930 (2009)
28. CAL. GOV’T CODE § 12931 (2009)
29. CAL. GOV’T CODE § 12940 (2009)
30. CAL. GOV’T CODE § 12944 (2009)
31. CAL. GOV’T CODE § 18500 (2009)
32. CAL. GOV’T CODE § 12955 (2009)
33. CAL. GOV’T CODE § 12955.8 (2009)
34. CAL. GOV’T CODE § 50264 (2009)
35. CAL. GOV’T CODE § 50265 (2009)
36. CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 1257.5 (2009)
39. CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 1563 (2009)
44. CAL. INS. CODE § 676.10 (2009)
45. CAL. INS. CODE § 10140 (2009)
2
46. CAL. INS. CODE § 10141 (2009)
47. CAL. INS. CODE § 12693.28 (2009)
48. CAL. LAB. CODE § 4600.6 (2009)
49. CAL. PENAL CODE § 186.21 (2009)
50. CAL. PENAL CODE § 422.55 (2009)
51. CAL. PENAL CODE § 422.6 (2009)
52. CAL. PENAL CODE § 422.7 (2009)
53. CAL. PENAL CODE § 422.75 (2009)
54. CAL. PENAL CODE § 422.85 (2009)
55. CAL. PENAL CODE § 422.865 (2009)
56. CAL. PENAL CODE § 1127 (2009)
57. CAL. PENAL CODE § 3053.4 (2009)
58. CAL. PENAL CODE § 11410 (2009)
59. CAL. PENAL CODE § 13519.4 (2009)
60. CAL. PENAL CODE § 13519.6 (2009)
61. CAL. PUB. CONT. CODE § 6108 (2009)
62. CAL. REV. & TAX CODE § 17024.5 (2009)
63. CAL. REV. & TAX CODE § 18521 (2009)
64. CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE § 224.71 (2009)
65. CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE § 224.73 (2009).
66. CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE § 707 (2009)
68. CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE 14504.1 (2009)
3
70. CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE § 16003 (2009)
71. CAL. WELF. & INST. § 16013 (2009)
72. 1999 Cal. Stat. 588
73. 2001 Cal. Stat. 893
74. 2002 Cal. Stat. 447
75. 2003 Cal. Stat. 421
76. 2004 Cal. Stat. 488
77. 2005 Cal. Stat. 416
78. 2006 Cal. Stat. 802
79. 2007 Cal. Stat. 567
80. California Council of Churches Amicus Brief in Strauss v. Horton, Nos. S168047/
S168066/S168078
81. Mark Dicamillo and Mervin Field, 55 Percent of Votes Oppose Proposition 8, The
Initiative to Ban Same-Sex Marriages in California, ON Magazine.
82. Defendant –Intervenors’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment, and
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment in
Perry et al. v. Schwarzenegger, et al., No. 09-CV-2292 in the Northern District of
California.
83. Dr. Frank M. Alton Amicus Brief in Strauss v. Horton, Nos. S168047/ S168066/S168078
84. In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal 4th. 757 (2008).
85. Knight v. Sup. Ct. of Sacramento County, 128 Cal. App. 4th 14 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).
86. Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., 33 Cal. 4th 1055 (2004)
87. Sharon S., v. Annette F., 31 Cal. 4th 417 (Cal. 2003).
88. Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal 4th 364 (2009)
89. 81st Annual Academy Awards – Winners, Actor in a Leading Roll, Oscar.com
4
90. About EQCA-Equality California, Building a State of Equality
91. A Brief Summary As to Why Promoting California’s Proposition 8 Was Contrary to Both
Scripture & Official LDS Doctrine, http://h1.ripway.com/lds4gaymarriage/prop8.htm
92. Alice Pride Breakfast Sponsor List,

http://www.alicebtoklas.org/component/content/article/1-latest-news/52-alice-pride-
breakf.
93. Alliance of Baptists, http://www.allianceofbaptists.org/ (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
94. Lavina Fielding Anderson, Against Proposition 8, BY COMMON CONSENT, July 2008.
95. Marc Andrus & Steven Charleston, After Prop 8, Love Endures,
96. Marc Handley Andrus, The Rt. Rev. Marc Handley Andrus writes letter to the diocese in
response to Proposition 8 Decision,
http://oasiscalifornia.org/2009%20andrus%20resonds%20prop%208%20decision.htm
97. Asian American & Pacific Islander Clergy Support the Right of Same-Sex Couples to
Marry, http://www.netrj.org/resources/library/api-clergy-support-marriage.htm (last
98. Assem. Comm. on Labor & Employ., Bill Analysis of AB849, Apr. 22, 2009.
99. Assem. Joint Res. 19, Cal. Leg., 2009-2010 Reg. Sess.
100. Assem. Joint Res. 60-Relative to immigration, Cal. Leg., Sept. 14, 2004.
101. Assem. Joint Res. 109, Cal. Leg., July 29, 2003.
102. Audit Bureau of Circulations, Circulation Averages for US Newspapers, Mar. 31, 2009.
103. Letter from Ed Bacon, Rector, All Saints Church, Pasadena, Cal., to members of All
Saints Church, available at http://www.allsaints-
pas.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ActionTable.
104. Christy Baker. The Civil Right to Civil Marriage. August 3, 2008 Unitarian Universalist
Church of Berkeley. http://www.uucb.org/sermons/2008080301
5
105. Ballot Recommendations. Long Beach Press-Telegram. November 4, 2008 All archives
are stored on a SAVE (tm) newspaper library system from MediaStream Inc., a Knight-
Ridder Inc. company
106. Stephen Baxter, The Rev. Carole Vincent of Almaden Hills United Methodist Church
plans to retire at the end of June, WILLCOX GLEN RESIDENT, Feb. 6, 2009.
107. Posting of Becks to Living in the O, http://oaklandliving.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/join-

oaklanders-to-protest-the-supreme-court-ruling-on-prop-8/ (May 26, 2009).
108. Paul Bedard, Suze Orman’s Coming Out at the Human Rights Campaign Dinner, U.S.
News & World Report, October 7, 2008.
109. Paster Susan Brecht Speaks out Against Prop 8: Pacific School of Religion,
http://www.psr.edu/alum-rev-susan-brecht-against-prop-8 (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
110. A Brief Summary of Actions, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, August 17-23,
2009.
111. Jerry Brown, Sermon, Protecting the Institution of Marriage…, Yom Kippur, 5769/2008
112. California Conference Ministers support Episcopal Bishops, September 17 2008.

http://www.ucc.org/news/california-conference.html?print=t.
113. California Council of Churches, The Mission of the Council & IMPACT
114. The California Democratic Party, Support Same-Sex Couples in Their Right to Marry by
Repealing Proposition 8, April 26, 2009.
115. California Legislative Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender (LGBT) Caucus,
Welcome!
116. The California Nevada Conference of the United Methodist Church, California UM
Bishops on Record as ‘Prop 8’ Seems Headed for Courts,
http://www.cnumc.org/news_detail.asp?TableName=oNews_PJAYMY&PKValue=978
(Nov. 14, 2008).
117. The California Nevada Conference of the United Methodist Church, Cal-Nevada Ums
Join ‘No on 8’ Rallies, http://www.cnumc.org/news_detail.asp?PKValue=988 (Nov. 20,
2008).
118. California Republican Party, Republican Party Platform, Feb. 24, 2008.
119. Campaign Finance: NO ON 8, EQUALITY FOR ALL. Contribution Totals
120. 1980 Democratic Political Party Platform
6
121. Christ Chapel of Laguna Beach Orange County California Gay,

122. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, California and Same-Sex Marriage, June 30,
2008.
123. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, The Family: A Proclamation to the World,
Sept. 23, 1995.
124. Church of the Foothills, Pastor/Staff, http://chotf.org/staff.html (last visited Sept. 27,
2009).
125. Congregational Church of Belmont, http://www.uccbelmont.org/ (last visited Sept. 27,

2009).
126. Congregation Shomrei Torah, All in God’s Image,

127. Congregation Shomrei Torah, Opposing Prop. 8 Interfaith service will support gay
marriage, http://www.shomreitorah.org/inthenews.html (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
128. Congregation Shomrei Torah, Please let my moms be married,

129. David J. Cooper, Teshuva on Prop 8, KOL KEHILLA (Kehilla Cmty. Synagogue,
Piedmont, Cal.), Dec. 2008, at 1.
130. Courage Campaign, Invest in victory: Contribute to the Courage Campaign and help us
repeal Prop 8.
131. Created in God’s Image, B’reishit 5769, October 24, 2008.
132. Ray Delgado, Transgender San Franciscan Makes History as Woman of the Year, SF
Gate, April 4, 2003.
133. DIGNITY Los Angeles – Photos – Wedding of Jim and Raol 2008,
http://www.dignitylosangeles.org/photos-15-prop8-pg.htm (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
134. Email from Dignity Los Angeles to Dignity Los Angeles Members (Aug. 27, 2008, 6:39
PST).
135. Diocese of California, 2008 Diocesan Convention: Resolution – Support For Marriage
Equality.
7
136. Democratic Party Platform of 1984. July 16, 1984. American Presidency Project.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29608
137. Democratic Party Platform of 1988. July 18, 1984. American Presidency Project.
138. Democratic Party Platform of 1992. July 13. 1992. American Presidency Project.
139. Democratic Party Platform of 1996. August 26, 1996. American Presidency Project.
140. Democratic Party Platform of 2000. August 14, 2000. American Presidency Project.
141. The Democratic National Platform of 2004. As approved by the 2004 Democratic
National Convention July 27, 2004.
142. DioCal – California bishops denounce Proposition 8,

143. The Ecumenical Catholic Church Letter to Attorney General of California and California
Department of Public Health, November 16, 2008.
144. Editorial OUR VIEW: Lists of editorial boards' recommended candidates, issues. North
County Times Endorsement. Sunday, November 2, 2008
145. Lisa Edwards, From the Rabbi’s Study . . . Wedding Blues, G’VANIM (Beth Cayim
Chadashim, L.A., Cal.), Nov.-Dec. 2008, at 2.
146. Election 2008: Where we stand on the election. The Desert Sun (Palm Springs,
California). November 2, 2008 Sunday. LexisNexis
147. Election Forum, STILL SPEAKING . . . (Cmty. Church of Atascadero, Atascadero, Cal.),
Oct. 2008, at 1.
148. David Ellenson, Editorial, Prop 8 goes against God’s love for every person, JTA, Nov. 3,
2008.
149. Episcopal Church, General Convention, Legislation, 2006.
150. Episcopal Church, General Convention, Legislation, 2009.
151. Equality Action Project, Day of Decision Rallies.
8
152. Equality California – Sponsors
153. CAL GOV’T CODE § 12935 (2009)
154. EQUAL MARRIAGE RIGHTS FOR ALL
155. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, ELCA ‘Draft Social Statement on Human
Sexuality’ Now Available, ELCA News Service, Mar. 13, 2008.
156. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Lutherans Prepare for Floods, ELCA News
Service, Apr. 7, 1997.
157. Joe Fanelli, et al., Day of Decision and the Day After, FIRST WORDS (First Unitarian
158. Geoff Farrow, LA Press Conference held on Tuesday 14 October 2008.
159. FCCB Votes No on Prop. 8, FCCB THE CARILLON (First Congregational Church of
Berkeley, United Church of Christ, Berkeley, Cal.), Sept. 21, 2008, at 1.
160. The Field Poll # 2292, October 31, 2008
161. The Flaming Chalice Newsletter, September 2008.
162. Form 990, Community United Against Violence, Inc, 2007.
163. Form 990, Gay & Lesbian Adolescent Social Services, Inc, 2007.
164. Form 990, Gay & Lesbian Community Services Center of Orange County, 2007.
165. Form 990, GLBT Historical Society of California, 2007.
166. Form 990, Harvey Milk Institute, 2003.
167. Form 990, Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Community, 2006
168. Form 990, One National Gay & Lesbian Archives Inc, 2007.
169. Form 990, Our Family Coalition, 2007.
170. Form 990, Pacific Pride Foundation, 2007.
171. Form 990, QCC – The Center for LGBT Arts & Culture, 2007.
172. Form 990, The San Diego LGBT Community Center, 2007.
9
173. Form 990, SF Lesbian/Gay/BI/Trans Parade Committee, 2006.
174. Form 990, Stepping Stone of San Diego, 2007.
175. Leslie Fulbright, Matthai Kuruvila, Prop 8 Rivals Seek Support in Black Churches, SF
Gate, October 22, 2008.
176. Gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) continue to have highest
number of HIV infections in the U.S. Called Out eNews-August 2008
http://www.ucc.org/newsletter/called-out/called-out-enews-august-2008.html
177. Rabbi Laura Geller. The Jigsaw Puzzle of Creation : A Jewish View Against Proposition
8. October 24, 2008.
178. George Gittleman, Rabbi, Congregation Shomrei Torah, Torah Teaches: Love the
Stranger, Oct. 2008.
179. Shelby Grad. Campaign to overturn Prop. 8 and legalize gaymarriage begins today with
ballot filing. LA Times. September 24, 2009
180. Green Party of California, Platform, Sept. 8, 2007.
181. Joshua Green, They Won’t Know What Hit Them. The Atlantic, March 2007.
182. Matthew Hall and Michael Stets, Religious Groups Gather on Both Sides of Prop. 8, San
Diego Union Tribune, November 2, 2008.
183. Rev. Bill Hamilton-Holway. We Can Make a Difference: Election 2008. October 12,
2008 Unitarian Universalist Church of Berkeley.
184. Duke Helfand, Board of rabbis opposes California anti-gay-marriage initiative. LA

Times. September 26, 2008 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/09/proposition-
8-i.html
185. Duke Helfand, Clergy on Both Sides of Proposition 8 Speak Out (California), LA Times,
Oct. 26, 2008.
186. Duke Helfand, Pastors Defy United Methodist Officials to Conduct Gay Weddings, LA
Times, July 17, 2008.
187. Seth Hemmelgarn, Black Faith, Community Leaders Urge Churchgoers to Oppose Prop
8, BAY AREA REP., Oct. 23, 2008.
188. Seth Hemmelgarn, Churches Play Key Role in Prop 8 Campaigns, The Bay Area
Reporter, September 18, 2008.
10
189. Duke Helf, California’s top Episcopal bishops oppose gay marriage ban, L.A. TIMES,
Sept. 11, 2008.
190. Tim Herdt, Supreme Court decides Tuesday on Prop 8, VENTURA COUNTY STAR, May
22, 2009.
191. House of Danu – House of Danu Takes Stand on Proposition 8,

192. H.R. 3685, Employee Nondiscrimination Act of 2007
193. HUC-JIR Weekly Digest, Rabbis on Anti-Gay Marriage Prop 8,

194. Human Rights Campaign, Congressional Scorecard Measuring Support for Equality in
the 110th Congress.
195. Human Rights Campaign Foundation, Corporate Equality Index (2010).
196. Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonest at HRC’s 11th National Dinner.
197. Identity-Based Ministries, Report to the UUA Board of Trustees, December 2008.
198. Inclusive Baptist Church, Welcoming & Affirming All, Readings for the Day: Matthew
2:1-12 and ‘The Journey of the Magi’ by T.S. Eliot,
http://www.baptistchurchsf.org/sermons/detail.php?month=Jan%202009&mId=67 (last
199. Inclusive Baptist Church, Welcoming & Affirming All, Their Story, Our Story,
http://www.baptistchurchsf.org/sermons/detail.php?month=Nov%202008&mId=65#168
(last visisted Sept. 27, 2009).
200. Inner Light Center, Communicate Prop 8,

http://www.innerlightministries.com/documents/communications-on-8.pdf (last visited
Sept. 27, 2009).
201. Institute for Public Affairs, OU Restates its Support for Federal Marriage Protection
Amendment, June 6, 2006
202. Integrity InfoLetter (Integrity, Rochester, N.Y.), Oct. 2008.
203. Issued by the Democratic Party of the United States Governor Howard Dean, Chairman.
DELEGATE SELECTION RULES FOR THE 2008 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
CONVENTION. August 19, 2006. www.democrats.org
11
204. Elysse James, Anti-Prop 8 rally at church on Thursday, O.C. REG., Mar. 4, 2008.
205. Jewish Community Mobilization for Marriage Equality, No on Prop 8!
206. Jewish Community Relations Council, Statement on Same-Sex Civil Marriage, February
14, 2006.
207. The Jewish Gaily Forward (Congregation Shaar Zabav, S.F., Cal.), Sept.-Oct. 2008.
208. Jewish Social Policy Network, USPAN Newsletter, December 12, 2008.
209. Deborah L. Johnson, Gutting Equality Out of the Constitution,

210. Bronwen Jones & Kris Langabeer, Marriage Equality Team Fights to Defeat Proposition
8, Unitarian Universalist Community Church of Santa Monica Newsletter, Sept. 2008.
211. Bronwen Jones, Vote No on Prop. 8: Three Months of UUCCSM Grassroots Activism,
Unitarian Universalist Community Church of Santa Monica Newsletter, Nov. 2008.
212. Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup Poll, Some Americans Reluctant to Vote for Mormon, 72-Year-
Old Presidential Candidates, February 20, 2007.
213. Rabbi Jim Kaufman. ROSH HASHANA SERMON, 2008.
214. Kehilla Community Synagogue – Increase the Visibility of the “No on Proposition 8”
Campaign, http://www.kehillasynagogue.org/article.php/20081024174712292 (last
visited on Sept. 27, 2009).
215. Keenan Kelsey, The State of Our Church, New Vision, March/April 2009.
216. Zelda Kennedy, et al., “Let No One Put Asunder” – Reflections on the Sanctity of
Marriage, SAINTS ALIVE (All Saints Episcopal Church, Pasadena, Cal.), Nov. 16, 2008, at
1.
217. KOL KEHILLA (Kehilla Cmty. Synagogue, Piedmont, Cal.), Nov. 2008.
218. Statement by Dr. Gerald B. Kieschnick on Same-Sex Marriage, October 23, 2008
219. Rabbi Klein, The Isain Newsletter, September, 2008.
220. Jessica Garrison Corina Knoll, Prop 8 Opponents Rally Across California to Protest
Gay-Marriage Ban, LA Times, November 16, 2008.
12
221. Maria L. LaGanga, Loudly and colorfully, opposing sides debate Proposition 8, L.A.
TIMES, Mar. 6, 2009.
222. Kris Langabeer & Bronwen Jones, Help Make History! Help Defeat Prop. 8, Unitarian
Universalist Community Church of Santa Monica Newsletter, Oct. 2008.
223. L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, 2008 Annual Report.
224. Lavender Youth Recreation and Information Center, Form 990 Return of Organization
Exempt from Income Tax, 2006.
225. Gregory B. Lewis, Why Did Californians Pass Proposition 8?
226. Posting of Angela Lopez to CrossLeft: Balancing the Christian Voice, Christians Against
Proposition 8, http://www.crossleft.org/node/6644 (Nov. 15, 2008, 11:45).
227. Los Angeles: All Saints, Pasadena, clergy opt out of civil marriages until gay couples
can legally wed, http://www.pinknews.co.uk/aroundtheworld/2009/06/los-angeles-all-
saints-pasadena-clergy-opt-out-of-civil-marriages-until-gay-couples-can-legally-wed/
(June 5, 2009).
228. Love, Marriage and Voting NO on Proposition 8,

http://www.mccla.org/love_marriage_prop_8.html#4.
229. Marriage Equality Ministry Team, FCCB News, May 24, 2009.
230. Marriage Equality Task Force Memo.
231. Seba Martinez, AP Story Features Mormon Supporter of Marriage Equality, October 6,
2008. http://www.affirmation.org/news/2008_057.shtml
232. Dennis McMillan, Religious Leaders Speak Out Against Prop 8, S.F. BAY TIMES, Mar.
12, 2009.
233. Members of Basileia participate in Rally to Overturn Prop. 8, WCNNEWSLETTER (The

Welcoming Cmty. Network, Independence, Mo.), Mar. 2009, at 2.
234. Metropolitan Community Church Los Angeles, Special Prop 8 Release.
235. The Metropolitan Community Church of San Jose, http://mccsj.org/?p=112.
236. The Metropolitan Community Church of San Jose, MCC Sane Jose Creates Two New
“No on Eight” Videos.
237. The Metropolitan Community Church of San Jose, “No on 8” Rally at MCC on
September 21.
13
238. The Metropolitan Community Church of San Jose, Prop 8 Upheld – Rally 5/26 and Taize
5/27.
239. Barbara Meyers, Quarterly Report to MPUCC Board of Trustees, Mission Peak Unitarian
Universalist Congregation, December 2008.
240. Lee Michael, Activist Rev. Still Performing Gay Marriages, Santa Monica Mirror,
http://www.smmirror.com/MainPages/DisplayArticleDetails.asp?eid=8761.
241. Jeff Mitchell, Q & A with state Sen.-elect Mark Leno, Politicker.com, November 30,
2008.
242. Modesto area religious leaders respond to Proposition 8 ruling, THE MODESTO BEE, May
27, 2009.
243. Modesto Faith Communities Call on Straight Californians to Make a Difference, Press
Release, September 9, 2008.
244. National Association of Evangelicals, About Us, 2009.
245. National Council of Jewish Women, 2007-2008 Annual Report.
246. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Percentage of U.S. Population Covered by a Sate,
County, and/or City Nondiscrimination Law and a Broad Family Recognition Law Over
Time, May 8, 2007.
247. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, The Task Force National Religious Leadership
Roundtable
248. National Religious Leadership Roundtable, Press release. December 22, 2006.
249. Neighborhood Unitarian Universalist Church of Pasedena Newsletter, October 26, 2008.
250. Neighborhood Unitarian Universalist Church of Pasedena Newsletter, November 2, 2008.
251. Neighborhood Unitarian Universalist Church of Pasedena Newsletter, October 19, 2008
252. Neighborhood Unitarian Universalist Church of Pasedena Newsletter, March 1, 2009.
253. Neighborhood Unitarian Universalist Church of Pasedena Newsletter, The Times They
Are A-Changin’, Neightborhood News, November 20, 2008.
254. Jim Nelson Sermon, Today and Tomorrow, June 14, 2009.
14
255. Erin Yazgan, UC Santa Cruz Raises Its Voice Against Prop 8, City on a Hill Press,
November 20, 2008.
256. NEWS – LUTHERANS LOVE!! Lutherans Concerned/Los Angeles,

257. News! News! – Hollywood Lutheran Church, Congregation Still Opposed Proposition 8!,
http://www.hollywoodlutheran.org/HLCNews.html (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
258. Official Google Blog, Our Postion on California’s No on 8 Campaign, September 26,
2008.
259. Open and Affirming – The Journey Continues, CCC (Cmty. Congregational Church,
Tiburon, Cal.), Oct. 2008, at 2.
260. Pacific School of Religion, PSR Faculty and Staff Arrested Following Prop 8 Decision,
May 26, 2009.
261. Pacific School of Religion, Religious Leaders Against Prop 8, October 28, 2008.
262. Pacific Southwest District of the Unitarian Universalist Association at Camp de

Benneville Pines, Annual Meeting, May 1-3, 2009.
263. Palomar Unitarian Universalist Fellowship Telescope Newsletter, November 2008.
264. Pastoral Letter on the Supreme Court’s Prop 8 Ruling, http://www.uusf.org/Flame/nl-

090526-Prop8PastoralLetter.html (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
265. PCD Currents, News from the Pacific Central District of the UUA, Sept 29, 2008
266. PCD Currents, News from the Pacific Central District of the UUA, May 10, 2009.
267. PCD Currents, News from the Pacific Central District of the UAA, May 25, 2009.
268. PCD Currents, Proposition 8 Passes in California, November 10, 2008.
269. PCD Currents, Update: Proposition 8, October 20, 2008.
270. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, February
2008.
271. Pilgrim Congregationalist, Prop 8 Update, May 5, 2009.
272. Dan Pine, Jews take to the streets after Prop. 8 ruling, JWEEKLY.COM, May 28, 2009.
15
273. Frank Pizzoli, Breaking News: CA Prop. 8 Opponents Speak to Central Voice, Press
Release, October 20, 2006.
274. Platform of the Libertarian Party of California, Feb. 2006
275. Platform of the Peace and Freedom Party
276. Ronald W. Powell, Gay Pride Hits its Stride, SignOnSanDiego.com, July 31, 2005.
277. Press Release, Affirmation: Gay & Lesbian Mormons, Gay Mormons and Allies Coming
Together Against Proposition 8: October 11 Gathering in Los Angeles (Oct. 4, 2008).
278. Press Release, Cal. Council of Churches, Religious Leaders, Faith Organizations to
279. Press Release, NO on Prop 8, Faith Leaders Across State to Speak Out Against
280. Press Release, Cal.-Pac. Ann. Conf. of the United Methodist Church (Oct. 30, 2008).
281. Press Release, Congregation Kol Ami, Congregation Kol Ami Says Court Ruling to
Uphold Proposition-8 is a Set-Back for Civil Rights and Religious Rights for Everyone
(May 26, 2009).
282. Press Release, Jewish Family Serv., Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles Opposes
California Proposition 8 (Oct. 17, 2008).
283. Press Release, Levi Strauss & Co., Levi Strauss Foundation Announces Two $25,000
Grants to Leading Equal Rights Organizations, May 27, 2009.
284. Press Release, Recon Movement, Judaism’s Reconstructionist Movement Condemns

Bans on Same-Sex Marriage (Nov. 21, 2008).
285. Press Release, Rick Schlosser, Reverend, Cal. Council of Churches, Proposition 8 Amici
Brief Filing Press Conference (Jan. 14, 2009).
286. Proclamation 8387 – Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month,
Administration of Barack H. Obama, June 1, 2009.
287. Protectmarriage.com – Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal, California Secretary

of State Debra Bowen
288. Protests held in Calif. on post-Prop.8 Sunday, Assoc. Press, Nov. 9, 2008,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27634025/ns/politics-decision_08/ (last visited Sept. 27,
2009).
16
289. The PSWD NetwUUrk Newsletter, Fall 2008.
290. The PSWD NetwUUrk Newsletter, Summer 2009.
291. Redlands United Church of Christ, Wanderings Newsletter, April 2009.
292. Adam P. Romero, Amanda K. Baumle, et al., Census Snapshot, The Williams Institute,
December 2007.
293. Religious Action Center, Reform Movement Perspective.
294. Repeal-prop-8.org, The Countdown to Equality Starts Now!
295. RENEWING AMERICA’S PROMISE. Platform Standing Committee Governor Deval

Patrick, Former Attorney General Patricia Madrid and Former Discovery
Communications, Inc. CEO Judith McHale,Committee Chairs. August 9, 2008.
296. Jim Rutenberg, New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers, The New York
Times, June 24, 2009.
297. Response to CA Supreme Court Decision on Prop. 8, FCCB THE CARILLON (First
Congregational Church of Berkeley, United Church of Christ, Berkeley, Cal.), May 31,
2009, at 1.
298. J.B. Sacks, Rabbi, Congregation Sha’ar Zahav, Abraham and Obama: Reflections on
Senator Obama’s Victory and the Passage of Proposition 8.
299. Saint Matthew’s Lutheran Church North Hollywood, Reformation 2008.
300. Hugo Salinas, Affirmation Couples Get Married, AFFIRMATION: GAY & LESBIAN
MORMONS, June 2008, http://www.affirmation.org/voices/robert_moore.shtml (last
301. Hugo Salinas, Marching for Equality: A Conversation with Robert Moore,
http://www.affirmation.org/voices/robert_moore.shtml (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
302. San Francisco LGBT Community Center, 2007/2008 Annual Report.
303. Santa Clara County Council of Churches – Council of Churches Urges NO on

Proposition 8, http://www.councilofchurches-scc.org/article.php/aspeopleoffaith (last
304. Santa Clara County Council of Churches – Court Ruling on Prop 8 Tuesday, May 26:
Pray Together!, http://www.councilofchurches-
scc.org/article.php?story=courtdecision&query=prop (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
17
305. SBC Resolution: ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
306. Senate Joint Resolution No. 6 – Relative to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy.
307. Senate Joint Resolution No. 9 – Relative to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy.
308. Senate Joint Resolution No. 11—Relative to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy.
309. SENATOR ART TORRES (RET.), CHAIRMAN. 2008 Platform. California Democratic
Party. March 30, 2008. www.cadem.org
310. Seventh-Day Adventist Kinship, Prop 8 Results, November 5, 2008.
311. Rabbi Shifra. 2008 Yom Kippur Sermon.
312. Sierra Foothills Unitarian Universalists, December Services, December 2008.
313. Sierra Foothills Unitarian Universalists, May Services, May 2009
314. Sierra Foothills Unitarian Universalists, June Services, June 2009.
315. The SLO UU News, September 2008.
316. The SLO UU News, November 2008
317. The SLO UU News, July 2009
318. SOME VIEWS ON BALLOT ITEMS TO CONSIDER. Modesto Bee. November 2,

2008 www.modbee.com/opinion
319. St. Andrews Episcopal Church, FridayFLASH Newsletter, October 10, 2008
320. St. Andrews Episcopal Church, FridayFLASH Newsletter, October 17, 2008.
321. St. Andrews Episcopal Church, FridayFLASH Newsletter, October 24, 2008
322. St. Aidan’s Episcopal Church Letter, May 28, 2009.
323. State Ballot Measures, Breakdown of Votes.
324. Greg Stewart, Minister’s Mailbox: Reduce, Reuse, Repeal!, FIRST NEWS (The First
Unitarian Universalist Soc’y of S.F., S.F., Cal.), Mar. 2009, at 3.
325. St. Francis Times, Festival of the Reformation, October 26, 2008.
18
326. St. Francis Times, All Saints Sunday, November 2, 2008.
327. St. Francis Times, Day of Pentecost, May 31, 2009.
328. Jerry Stinson, Sunday Celebration Notes, The Pilgrim, October 19, 2008
329. Arvid Straube, Arvid’s Arcana: Lies, Fears and Marriage Licenses, FIRST WORDS (First
Unitarian Universalist Church of San Diego, San Diego, Cal.), Apr. 2009, at 2.
330. Deborah Streeter, Congregations continue to respond to Prop. 8, UNITED CHURCH NEWS
– THE PAC., Feb.-Mar. 2009, at B7.
331. Olvera Street, No On Proposition 8 Vigil, MCC in the Valley.
332. Tapestry, A Unitarian Universalist Congregation, Annual Committee Reports, FY July 1,

2007-June 30, 2008
333. Tapestry, A Unitarian Universalist Congregation, Annual Committee Reports, FY July 1,

2008-June 5, 2009
334. Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller, Obama to Appoint John Berry to OPM, Making Him
Highest-Ranking Openly Gay Official, ABC News, January 14, 2009.
335. Paul Tellstrom, Proper 19 A “Forgiveness,” http://www.iucc.org/Sermon/sermon-09-15-

336. Paul Tellstrom, Stewardship Sunday/Veterans Day “Joe,”

337. Temple Beth El, The Shofar Newsletter, June 2009.
338. Morris A. Thurston, Religious Organizations Should Not Rely on False or Misleading
Legal Arguments in their Zeal to Support California Proposition 8, AFFIRMATION: GAY
& LESBIAN MORMONS, Oct. 2, 2008,
http://www.affirmation.org/me/religious_organizations.shtml (last visited Sept. 27,
2009).
339. Kerana Todorov, Rally against Prop. 8, NAPA VALLEY REG., Nov. 16, 2008.
340. Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, July 2008 Newsletter.
341. Gregory Tomlin, Split among American Baptists over homosexuality is final, Baptist
Press, May 18, 2006.
342. Transcript of “Equally Speaking”, The Human Rights Campaign, October 16, 2008.
19
343. Transcript of “Equally Speaking”, The Human Rights Campaign, October 22, 2008.
344. Tom Tugend, Rabbis on anti-gay marriage Prop 8: Yes, no, maybe,
http://www.jewishjournal.com/elections/article/rabbis_on_anti_gay_marriage_prop_8_yes_
no_maybe_20081009/ (last visited Sept. 27, 2009).
345. The Unigram. The Monthly Newsletter of the Unitarian Universalist Society of
Sacramento. Vol. 39, No. 5. November 2008. www.uuss.org
346. Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, Unitarian Universalists Protest

Proposition 8, June 3, 2009
347. Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Visalia, Calendar August 2008.

http://www.uuvisalia.org/newsletter/2008/uuvisalia_august_2008.html
348. Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry, Marriage Equality.

http://www.uulmca.org/programs/me.html
349. United Church of Christ, Called Out eNews – October 2008.
350. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Statement of the Administrative

Committee, September 9, 2003.
351. UUA, Support of the Right to Marry for Same-Sex Couples, 1996 Resolution of
Immediate of Witness.
352. UUCB, From Our Co-Ministers, October 2008.
353. The UUC qUUarterly, Unitarian Universalist Church of Davis, Spring 2009
354. UUSS Online Calendar Week of November 2, 2008. Unitarian Universalist Society of
Sacramento. www.uuss.org
355. UU Update, Unitarian Universalist Congregation, Santa Rose, August 2008.
356. Jerry L. Van Marter, Assembly Proposes Amendment to Delete G-6.0106b and Replace it
with a New Version, General Assembly News, June 27, 2008.
357. Cecilia Vega, Transgender Pioneer Rises to Powerful Spot, SF Gate, May 12, 2007.
358. Vestry of Saint Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church, Meeting Minutes, September 23,
2008.
359. Video Clip, “Foes of Proposition 8 hold interfaith Service,” San Diego Tribune,
November 2, 2008 available at
20
http://video.signonsandiego.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=2347697&item_index=2
5&genre_id=4676&sort=NULL
360. David W. Virtue, California Episcopal Bishops Excoriate Passage of Proposition 8,

VIRTUEONLINE, Nov. 9, 2008,
http://virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9324 (last visited Sept. 27,
2009).
361. Rev. Rebecca Voelkel. A Time To Build Up: ANALYSIS OF THE NO ON

PROPOSITION 8 CAMPAIGN AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE PRO-
LGBTQQIA RELIGIOUS ORGANIZING. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s
National Religious Leadership Roundtable. 2009.
362. Voter’ Right to Protect Marriage Initiative.
363. Gary Walker, Top Stories, The Argonaut, June 3, 2009.
364. Welcome! To the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Tuolumne County, General

Announcements, http://www.mlodeuu.com/current_events.html (last visited Sept. 27,
2009).
365. William Wan, Activists Protest Same-Sex Marriages, Los Angeles Times, February 14,
2004. http://articles.latimes.com/2004/feb/14/local/me-pledge14
366. The White House Office of the Press Secretary, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Pride Month, 2009, June 1, 2009.
367. The White House Office of the Press Secretary, Memorandum For the Heads of
Executive Departments and Agencies, June 17, 2009.
368. Rev. Faith Whitmore. Faith Whitmore Invocation. May 26, 2009.
http://www.stmarksumc.com/invocation
369. John Wildermuth, Both sides make last-minute Prop. 8 push, S.F. CHRONICLE, Nov. 2,
2008.
370. Public Statement of Nancy L. Wilson, MCC Moderator, November 7, 2008.
371. Public Statement of Nancy Wilson, Metropolitan Community Churches, October 14,
2008.
372. Nancy Wilson, Queer Theology as Change Agent, MCC Moderator, March 3, 2009.
373. Greg Wolfe, Equality for All Rally – May 26, 2009, Congregation Bet Haverim.
21
374. Supplement to the Statement of Vote – Statewide Summary by County for Sate Ballot
Measures.
375. EQCA 2008 Press Release, July 29, 2008.
376. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, Religious Groups’ Official Positions on
Same-Sex Marriage, July 9, 2009.
377. 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly, Aug. 17-23 – Minneapolis Convention Center
“God’s work, Our Hands”
378. Summary of Actions of the 76th General Convention
379. United Church of Christ Advertisement
380. Barbara Gardner, An Open Invitation from VIA, The Unigram, November 2008.
381. EQCA, Winning Back Marriage Equality in California, Analysis and Plan.
382. Jessica Garrison, Jerry Brown: Gay Marriage ban should be invalidated, LA Times,
December 19, 2008
383. Lieutenant governor John Garamendi’s Statement on the California Supreme Court’s
Ruling on Proposition 8, May 26, 2009.
384. Letter from Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State, recognizing LGBT Pride Month
385. The Field Poll # 2087, August 29, 2003.
386. Hanna Fenichel Pitkin, Wittgenstein and Justice, Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1972: 276-277.
387. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Ch. X
388. Nelson W. Polsby, “Community Power and Political Theory, New Haven, Yale
University Press: 1963.
389. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 445 (1985)
390. AB 849, available at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-

bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_849&sess=0506&house=B&author=leno
391. AB 43, available at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-

bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_43&sess=PREV&house=B&author=leno
392. In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 873 (2008).
22
393. Campaign Finance: Protectmarriage.com – Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal,

2007 through 2008 Historical Election Cycle, available at: http://cal-
394. Campaign Finance: No on 8, Equality for All, 1007 through 2008 Historical Election
Cycle, available at: http://cal-
395. Supplement to the Statement of Vote Statewide Summary by County for State Ballot
Measures, available at: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008_general/ssov/10-ballot-
measures-statewide-summary-by-county.pdf
396. SB 54, available at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-

bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_54&sess=CUR&house=B&author=leno
397. PG & E Announces $250,000 Contribution to Fight Prop 8, EQCA 2008 Press Releases,
July 29, 2008.
398. God’s work. Our Hands. 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly, Aug. 17-23, 2009,
available at: http://www.iksynod.org/ChurchwideAssembly09/CWA09insert.pdf
399. Onward & Upward. Integrity InfoLetter, October 2008, available at:
http://www.integrityusa.org/newletters/InfoLetters/2008-10.pdf
400. We unite in Solidarity. United Church of Christ, available at:

http://www.ucc.org/news/pdf/Prop8-ad.pdf
401. Firstnews. The First Unitarian Universalist Society of San Francisco, March 2009,
available at: http://www.uusf.org/Newsletters/UUSF_Newsletter_200903.pdf
402. Winning Back Marriage Equality in California: Analysis and Plan. EQCA, available at:
http://www.eqca.org/atf/cf/%7B34f258b3-8482-4943-91cb-08c4b0246a88%7D/EQCA-
WINNING_BACK_MARRIAGE_EQUALITY.PDF
403. Jerry Brown: Gay-marriage ban should be invalidated. Los Angeles Times, December
19, 2009, available at: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/12/attorney-
genera.html
404. Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi’s Statement on the California Supreme Court’s
Ruling on Proposition 8, available at:
http://www.ltg.ca.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=511:52609-
lieutenant-governor-john-garamendis-statement-on-the-california-supreme-courts-ruling-
on-proposition-8&catid=67:press-releases&Itemid=347
23
405. 2007 Pride Celebrations, Statement by Secretary of State Debra Bown of the State of
California, available at: http://www.capride.org/proc/proc_ca_07bowen.pdf
406. Invest in Victory: Contribute to the Courage Campaign and help us repeal Prop 8,
Courage Campaign Contribution Form, available at:
https://secure.couragecampaign.org/page/contribute/Victory
407. Proclamation 8387, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month, 2009, 74 Fed.
Reg. 26,929, June 4, 2009
408. Remarks by the President at Human Rights Campaign Dinner, October 10, 2009,
available at:http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-
Human-Rights-Campaign-Dinner
409. Remarks by the President at Reception Commemorating the Enactment of the Matthew
Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention act, October 29, 2009, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-reception-
commemorating-enactment-matthew-shepard-and-james-byrd
410. Zimmerman, Eric and Romm, Tony. Congressional Leaders signaling move to repeal
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The Hill, October 16, 2009, available at:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/63511-congressional-leaders-signaling-move-to-
repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell-policy?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=
411. H.R. 2517
412. Messner, Thomas. “The Price of Prop”, The Heritage Foundation.
413. The Field Poll # 2310
414. Sexual Orientation, Homosexuality and Bisexuality, APA Help Center.
415. H.R. 1283
416. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Most Still Oppose Same-Sex Marriage,
October 9, 2009
417. Pro-Equality Candidates Sweep Seats in the Legislature, Gain Ground in State Offices,
EQCA 2006 Press Releases, November 8, 2006, available at:
http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4025925&ct=5
196849
418. EQCA California Ripple Effect, Jerry Brown Supports Federal Case Against
Prop 8, June 12, 2009.
24
419. Leading LBT Groups Support Lockyer in Treasurer’s Race, available at:
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:ukijc5qhrJUJ:www.lockyer2010.co
m/index2.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26do_pdf%3D1%26id%3D138+%22
bill+lockyer%22+lgbt&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNGB5Q3cXShxBBzqAOvYrF
G79rJ4dQ
420. Task Force honors California statewide leaders for their contributions to LGBT
equality, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, November 6, 2009.
421. Record 11 Bills, Resolutions Sponsored by Equality California Pass Legislature, EQCA
2009 Press Release, September 14, 2009.
422. http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/
423. http://www.victoryfund.org/home
424. Gerald N. Rosenberg, The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?
Second Edition (2008).
425. Egan, Patrick and Sherrill, Kenneth. Neither an In-Law Nor An Out-law Be: Trends in
Americans’ Attitudes Toward Gay People, Public Opinion Pros.
426. The 2000 Nation Elections Study and Gay and Lesbian Rights: Support for Equality
Grows, Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation.
427. Renewing America’s Promise, The 2008 Democratic National Platform.
25

3:09-cv-02292 #280

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3:09-cv-02292 #280

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document280 Filed12/07/09 Page1 of 35

1 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 TO THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

15 materials in the stricken paragraphs.

4 Clausen v. M/V New Carissa,

9 Jarritos, Inc. v. Los Jarritos,

14 Lindner v. Meadow Gold Dairies, Inc.,

16 Scientific Components Corp. v. Sirenza Micro., Inc.,

21 Yeti By Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp.,

25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)(ii).......................................................................................................2, 4, 6, 7

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

21 Goldman Decl. Ex. F.

22 The Miller Report Does Not Rebut the Segura Report

18 exclude any opinions or testimony regarding those sections at trial.

19 The Miller Report Duplicates The Nathanson Report

23 religious communities both supported and opposed Proposition 8:

24 Several religious communities—such as the (Mormon) Church of Jesus Christ of

25 Latter-day Saints, the Southern Baptists, and Orthodox Judaism—do support

27 organizations. Moreover, other religious communities—such as the Episcopal Church,

2 Judaism—vigorously oppose Proposition 8.

8 similarities are the following:

13 Conference support Proposition 8. So does a Catholic fraternal organization, the Knights

16 Nathanson Report, ¶ 16.

18 “[n]umerous Christian laypersons, clergy, local congregations, and even entire

23 then named several such religious leaders. Nathanson Report, ¶ 18.

25 Church of Christ of a resolution urging congregations and individuals to support

28 endorsed gay marriage.” Nathanson Report, fn. 18.

3 same. ¶¶ 31, 38, fn. 30.

16 offer in support of their own case.

8 I. THE MILLER REPORT DOES NOT REBUT THE SEGURA REPORT

15 Plaintiff has limited his experts to rebuttal testimony.”).

1 Dr. Miller’s opinions in paragraphs 53 to 72 of his report consist of a survey of positions

2 taken by religious denominations related to Proposition 8:

5 Evangelical churches for Proposition 8. Miller Report, ¶¶ 55-57.

8 Baptist organization. Miller Report, ¶¶ 58-59.

10 Church-Missouri Synod on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Miller Report, ¶¶ 61-

13 Miller Report, ¶ 55.

16 urging recognition of same-sex marriage. Miller Report, ¶¶ 65-68.

17 • the positions of Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist Jewish

18 movements regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Miller Report, ¶ 70.

2 well thread an elephant through the eye of a needle.” Id. at *15.

8 expert as part of Proponents’ case-in-chief.

9 II. THE MILLER REPORT DUPLICATES THE NATHANSON REPORT

15 4 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2008).

16 In Scientific Components, which centered on the merchantability of amplifiers, the plaintiff

3 that was a significant supporter of Proposition 8, the Mormon Church.

6 experience some dissent among their adherents on the issue.

7 • Each examines the positions on homosexuality or same-sex marriage by other

8 denominations – in fact, they often cite the same denominations.

12 Reconstructionist branches of Judaism.

2 trial to exclude any testimony regarding those subjects.

6 or testimony on the subject matters expressed therein.

27 Attorneys for Plaintiffs KRISTIN M. PERRY,

1 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Religious Action Center for Reform

limitation, but this action has not

events.” . . . In 2009, the General

their home communities. Unitarian 19

on same-sex marriage in California. ¶ 69 Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists,

[Religious denominations opposing

Fn. 22: Application for Leave to Join Brief

The Reform and Reconstructionist Jewish Several Jewish denominations explicitly

Miller Description Nathanson