Attorney General Moonbeam flip-flops on Prop. 8
California AG Jerry Brown promised to uphold the will of the people.
Then the anti-Prop. 8 mob reared its ugly head.
So, now he’s changed his mind.
Feel the power of the rainbow-colored fist:
The California attorney general has changed his position on the state’s new same-sex marriage ban and is now urging the state Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.
Jerry Brown filed a brief Friday saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is unconstitutional. He says it deprives gay couples of a fundamental right.
After California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, Brown said he would fight to uphold the initiative in his role as attorney general, even though he personally voted against it.
He submitted his brief in one of the three legal challenges to Proposition 8 brought by same-sex marriage supporters.
More on his brief from LAT:
It is the attorney general’s duty to defend the state’s laws, and after gay rights activists filed legal challenges to Proposition 8, which amended the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, Brown said he planned to defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California.
But after studying the matter, Brown concluded that “Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification.”
Backers of Proposition 8 expressed anger at Brown’s decision not to honor the will of voters, who approved the measure in November. “It’s outrageous,”said Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Proposition 8.
Proposition 8 foes, however, were elated. “Atty. Gen. Brown’s position that Proposition 8 should be invalidated demonstrates that he is a leader of courage and conviction,” said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California.
In his brief to the high court, Brown noted that the California Constitution says that “all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights,” which include a right to “privacy.”
The courts have previously said the right of a person to marry is protected as one of those inalienable rights, Brown wrote. The question at the center of the gay marriage cases, he told the justices, “is whether rights secured under the state Constitution’s safeguard of liberty as an ‘inalienable’ right may intentionally be withdrawn from a class of persons by an initiative amendment.” That, he concluded, should not be allowed.
Although voters are allowed to amend other parts of the Constitution by majority vote, to use the ballot box to take away an “inalienable” right would establish a “tyranny of the majority,” which the Constitution was designed, in part, to prevent, he wrote. “For we are talking, necessarily, about rights of individuals or groups against the larger community, and against the majority — even an overwhelming majority — of the society as a whole.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Document drop: Lib 9th circuit panel rules Proposition 8 unconstitutional
February 7, 2012 01:09 PM by Michelle Malkin
152 CommentsStop the hate campaign against law-abiding American businesses
February 2, 2011 04:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
244 CommentsCalif. judge overturns voter-approved Prop. 8 gay marriage ban
August 4, 2010 04:51 PM by Michelle Malkin
955 Comments
Dear Cindy & Meghan: Let’s talk about who’s really being silenced over Prop. 8
January 25, 2010 11:36 AM by Michelle Malkin
126 Comments
Supreme Court blocks Prop. 8 show trial plan
January 11, 2010 11:31 AM by Michelle Malkin
34 Comments
Climate of hate: More threats from the gay marriage mob
November 10, 2009 05:24 PM by Michelle Malkin
49 Comments
Left-wing thug of the day
November 5, 2009 01:18 PM by Michelle Malkin
78 CommentsMaine votes down gay marriage
November 4, 2009 01:25 AM by Michelle Malkin
759 Comments
Categories: Proposition 8
Patterico
» Rick Santorum and the two playbooksRiehl World View
» Romney's Blood Is Blue, Not ConservativePundit & Pundette
» King Barack vs. the NonconformistsJustOneMinute
» Cat Blogging In A Harsh New LightGateway Pundit
» Top Leftist Blog: Obama Must Quash Religious Freedom to Save Earth From Global Warming
If the purpose to an amendment to the constitution is to change or clarify the constitution, how can it be unconstitutional?
You are a board troll so I’ll stop feeding you.
The former Governor “Moonbeam” hasn’t been the same since Linda Ronstadt scared him gay…The Stone Ponies…um, yeah! More like The Stoned Phonies! Do you remember the lines from her hit song…”You and I, dance to the beat of a different drum…” Boy, you can say that again.
And blacks weren’t banned from getting married. Just from marrying whites.
As for the marriage being a privilege and not a right talk, that’s a fine opinion, but it’s moot for this discussion since SCOTUS has ruled otherwise.
I doubt these efforts to block Prop 8 will be fruitful. The best way to go about this is to put a repeal on the ballot and go from there. The courts can (correctly) deal with it in states that don’t have these hateful and bigoted amendments.
Come on…
Don’t give up!
I’m hungry!
TheHeartofitAll – Please let us know which “hateful and bigoted amendments” you are talking about.
The Proposition 8 amendment is to keep the left from changing the definition of a word that has had a common usage in the civilized world for at least 6000 years.
Emotion – not logic – now rules this country.
What country is there for those who believe in rule by the people, not the elites?
Give the correct answer, and crowds will be lining up at the embassy to get visas on Monday.
Prop 9 will be to stop pedophiles from marrying children. Keep in mind that it was legal at one point to marry the young.
Prop 10 will be to ban people from marrying animals.
Both will be found unconstitutional.
Again… exactly where in the Constitution is the “right” to marry at all???
#104 TheHeartofitAll said:
That was an entirely, entirely different circumstance. Regardless of the wrong-ness of it, back in the day, it was still man + woman = marriage. And in case you haven’t noticed, that was corrected years ago, and that correction did nothing to change the fundamental basis of the term “marriage,” which is, by definition, the joining of two non-alike entities (man and woman) into one union, marriage.
/The Duh Dictionary 101
It was a person being banned from marrying the person they love because of a bigoted majority with no legitimate state interest. It’s the same.
People were being prevented from marrying those that they loved without a legitimate state interest other than the bigotry of the majority. It’s the same thing.
It is a shame that so few understand the true nature of this fight.
The idea of homosexual wedlock is a direct attack on the fundementals of Christian Marriage. Christianity unequivocally defines “marriage” as a bond between a Man and a Woman and as such is blessed by our God.
The social and legal giving of this name to the homosexual bond defiles the very meaning of “marriage”. This is precisely the goal of those who want same gender “marriage”.
This is primarily a cultural problem. In most states legal options exist for homosexuals to enjoy all the rights of “bonded” couples.
This is an attack on our christian foundations.
PC is Thought Control
LEE
Actually, why do we apply law with such moral selectivity anyway? We should accept all behavior because it is the right and freedom of all individuals to chose. Let’s get uniform, rather than agenda-oriented with the law & remove all penalties for moral infringements. When we do, things like murder, robbery, arson, rape, etc. will all become a thing of the past.
its already long gone.
read ‘a day in the life of Ivan Denisovich’ by Solzhenitsyn…it ain’t gonna be pretty..
Wow, where do I start to comment on this thread…
A couple thoughts:
- Jerry Brown and the Governor Moonbeam moniker.From Wikipedia: “As Governor, Brown proposed the establishment of a state space academy and the purchasing of a satellite that would be launched into orbit to provide emergency communications for the state—a proposal similar to one that would indeed eventually be adopted by the state. In 1978, Mike Royko, at the time a Chicago Sun-Times columnist, nicknamed Brown “Governor Moonbeam” because of the latter idea. The nickname quickly became associated with his quirky politics, which were considered eccentric by some in California and the rest of the nation. In 1992, almost 15 years later, Royko would disavow the nickname, proclaiming Brown to be “just as serious” as any other politician.”
I disagree with much of the politics of Jerry Brown, but I wouldn’t underestimate him, intellectually.
- California as the “land of fruits and nuts”: California is a state of immigrants, many of them people who didn’t “fit in” elsewhere. In other words, we take care of your garbage, many of them sitting in state prison at the expense of state taxpayers. In addition, many prisoners are illegal immigrants, allowed to come here freely and wreak havoc while Clinton AND Bush failed to secure the borders.
- Governor Schwarzenegger (Republican) has just vetoed the democrats crazy scheme to raise taxes by re-labelling them as fees, trying to illegaly circumvent the state constitution. He is now proposing cutting state workers hours and faces a lawsuit from labor unions, including the Service Employees International Union (SEIU, this union needs to be watched closely). At the same time, George Bush is busy caving in to the UAW.
- Proposition 8. The way the opponents have challenged this VOTER APPROVED measure, I see it going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, with a decision being decide 5-4, one way or the other.
Californians also voted to change the re-destricting law, removing it from the hands of the politicians, giving the task to an independent panel (pretty radical, huh?). The 52% percent of Californians that passed Proposition 8 is about what I would estimate the percentage of California voters to be socially centrist to right of center.
- The economy. The past eight years, Republican policy has been controlled by the Bush cronies that represent the cleptocrat wing of the Republican party. Before that, it was eight years of the cleptocrat wing of the Democratic party. 16 years of Clinton and Bush has nearly ruined the U.S. economy. Last I checked, Clinton and Bush were from Arkansas and Texas, respectively.
Southpaw,
I actually don’t see this fight making it to the US Supreme Court. The outcome of the suit is going to hinge on a question of interpreting the state constitution, which the SCOTUS will not want to get into.
Yu may be right, hard to see which way the state supreme court is going to go on this. However, from the approach they are taking, I see the pro gay rights crowd trying to set their argument up as an issue that will make its way somehow to the U.S. Supreme Court, thus setting it up as the law of the land for the entire nation. That is what they ultimately want because they are constantly being defeated in the states. Typical liberal tactic, pull an end run until you find someone that agrees with you.
If the case does make it to the Supreme Court, it will be the “Roe vs. Wade” decision of the 21st century.
No it wasn’t. It dealt with people not being able to marry their loved ones not because of a legitimate state interest but because the bigotry of the majority.
Regarding SCOTUS, this probably won’t get to the Supreme Court. But gay marriage will and, down the line, just as with sodomy laws and interracial marriage, the court will do the right thing and liberate gays from their home states’ discriminatory constitutions. The precedents have been set with marriage being deemed a human right and with homosexuality being protected by the Equal Protection Act. It’s inevitable.
As many would expect, Jerry Brown as atty general of California thinks his job is not to enforce the law, but rather to make it.
Just another example of someone completely lost in their personal desire for the power to rule over all people.
At some point, there will be no laws in California.
Justice Scalia supports gay marriage. He married Denny and Alan.
The reason he changed his mind is because the supporters of Prop 8 asked him to enforce the law and void the previous marriages. Well of course he would never do that so now he is fighting it.
Mookie – I have been out and I want to address your answer to my question in comment #24. I’m not being facetious, but I’ve never heard that tax law argument for gay marriage. It’s news to me. Are tax exemptions different fo civil unions and marriages in California?
To gay marriage adovcates: how can you not see this as an assault on religious values? If you dont think so, then answer the question I posed in #23 – If all your legal rights are addressed in civil unions, why are you trying to change the definition of marriage?
I think he meant that federal tax law does not recognize civil unions as of yet, as it does marriage.
Your side goes from claiming that marriage is a religious institution (and thus gay marriage being an assualt)when it is conveninent to your argument, to arguing that it is a creature of the state when THAT is better to support your side. Which is it, please?
Also, please explain how a different definition of marriage assaults religion when the very concept of marriage predates Chrisianity, Judaeism or any other religion you want to cite. Why do you think modern religions get patent rights to the concept?
She.
Gay couples pay higher federal taxes because they can’t file jointly. Also, their health benefits are taxed as additional income.
My apologies. You always mess me up because I automatically think of Mookie Wilson, the most beloved of all the Mets.
And most hated Met of Sox fans.
The discrimination parallel of a one man- one woman marriage law to anti inter-racial marriage is NOT one of race and sexual preference…. the parallel is race and GENDER.
It is unconstitutional to distinguish a person’s race in the application of law.
But thanks be to the God that the ERA never passed, it IS still legal to distinguish a person’s gender in the application of law.
The interracial marriage ban also did NOT discriminate against only black people either – it discriminated against everybody. It didn’t matter what race you were – it only mattered that the other person was the same race.
Therefore it was equal opportunity racial discrimination requiring that the race of each person be known in order to know if both were the same. If a white person and a black person were denied marriage – was not the injury of denial inflicted on BOTH of them? The white person was denied as much as the black person so how did that then make it a black civil rights issue? I never understood that..??
A one man – one women marriage law is BLIND to the sexual preference of the two people; it is NOT blind to their gender.
In liberalspeak, hateful and bigoted is synonymous with “I don’t agree with.” It’s okay for them to tell us not to smoke, not to drive SUVs, not to eat trans fats, etc., but when we tell them we don’t care if they’re gay, but we’re morally opposed to endorsing their sodomite lifestyle by allowing marriages, we’re hateful and bigoted.
It’s all about denigrating the person making the argument to diminish his point because they can’t argue based on facts.
Southpaw:
No way that gay rights supporters go to the US Supreme Court with the current makeup of the Court. That’s the reason the initial CA lawsuit (and the lawsuits filed by gay marriage supporters in other states) claim violations of the state constitution, not the US Constitution. The fear is that the current conservative makeup of the Court will rule against gay marriage, thus leaving that as a precedent for the future.
This is getting to freaking unreal, this amendment did not stop gays from getting married. If they had half a freaking brain cell they would legislate their own definition of a civil union, they just can’t call it marriage. That definition is reserved for the civil union of a man and a woman. These people, gays, A.G. Brown, lawyer types, are so smart they’re stupid. Couldn’t see common sense if it was handed to them.
Chap – Sorry I’ve been away. I’m not trying to dodge your two questions in answer to my question.
Yes, the tax argument is an interesting one. I have not heard it before but it makes sense. (Thank you Chap and Mookie.) Lawmakers should address the inequity.
As for my general question about civil unions vs. marriage: “My side” may go from one argument of convenince to another, but I cannot read other people’s minds so I cannot explain their reasoning to you. Is that really important to the discussion? I sincerely wanted to know the necessity of marriage if civil unions offer the same legal rights.
I am not claiming marriage as only a religious institution but the change in definition has religious implications. I am not aware of “the very concept” of marriage predating religion, but OK if you say so. I’m not sure how that matters, but I’m guessing you are ready to tell me.
Sorry – very tired, sick child. I’ll pick this up in the AM if that’s OK.
From the gay radical perspective, this is not really about law, this is about being accepted as normal. In the minds of homosexuals, the words sick, perverted and deviant must be removed from our association with their “life style”. In the early seventies the American Psychological Association was bullied by the radical gays, into removing their condition from their list of disorders. Ever since then, the drum beat has been for social acceptance. If they would only realize that their extreme radical activities , are only creating resistance from normal people. Please don’t come back with the lame civil rights comparisons. This resistance is a normal biological, natural abhorrence and not a bigoted reaction to conditioning..
Because Natural Law has created a normal revulsion to such things as rotting meat, so it is with the reaction by normal people to same sex coupling. Biological responses are inborn and homosexual practices must be learned. Forty years of research has not found any biological connection. Twins who are raised separately, genome cross comparison and other non social influenced investigation have come up with nothing.
It’s time for the gay community to move on.
Because homosexuality seems to be a choice, any attempt to normalize the activity in civil law, destroys the necessary barrier to endless socially destructive activities. The only hope the gay community has for civil rights protection is to prove their compulsion is inborn.
Insert any of the following:
pedophile
arsonist
anorexic
obese
smoking
drunk driving
drug addict
abusive husband
……………… just pick your excuse.
Good morning, my sick child is still sick, and I’m still tired. I’m waiting for a call back from the doctor. She awoke with a very stiff neck and that could be a problem so I may have to jump off quickly.
I just wanted to say that I have nothing against gays, have several gay friends and wish them happiness. The only reason I join these dicussions is that I have an interest in preserving my religious freedom. I am concerned that if LGBTs can legally marry then churches and church supported institutions, will be legally forced to go against their convictions or be sued out of business.
Familyman – I believe you are correct claiming that scientific research does not support a direct genetic link to homosexuality. However, millions of gays claim to be born that way and that has some validity. In research, that is called face validity and because of that even Focus on the Family has acknowledged some form of inherited capacity.
Putting aside that argument for the moment and with all due respect to Familyman because I like him, we all need to be careful here. LGBTs are human beings and as such deserve all the same legal rights as other human beings. Civil unions (assuming some tax revisions) should take care of this. But my question is still on the table for anyone who cares to answer. If civil unions give all the same legal rights, why the radical push to change marriage?
Sorry Familyman, I am so tired. I did not want to give the impression that I ignored your answers. I was hoping that chap or others arguing for the anti-prop 8 side would respond. Thank You for your answers, they were interesting.
I have the feeling that the radical push to change marriage is driven by the desire to eliminate all mention or evidence of the presence of the supreme deity of God. They choose to bow to the will of their own perverted pleasures than to bow to the will of God and His wonderful plan for their lives. They put their fingers in their ears and cover their eyes refusing to acknowledge the beautiful creation of the Creator, exchanging the Truth for a lie. And because they do not want to believe the truth does not change the fact that it is the truth.
The hardest part of this for all people is found in the Bible in the book of Romans 1:29-32. It says that if we agree with or approve of the actions of the perversion described, we are just as guilty and will be looked upon by God as guilty. My uncle was a homosexual, I loved my uncle but did not approve of his lifestyle.
I too would like to know why the gay want to take something away that does not belong to them.
FamilyWoman has had mysterious stiff neck for two weeks. The diagnoses by doctors was unsuccessful. It’s getting better but very slowly.
Much peace to your family and Merry Christmas.
I think your question deserves a response. I don’t have time to address it now, but will try to tonight.
Not to be rude happy, but that is the same as saying there are flying saucers because many people say they’ve seen them. Repeatable, high confidence level data, is what is need to become a valid science fact.
The right of a man to marry a woman and that of a woman to marry a man may not be taken away by any law. If Prop 8 is discriminating against any group of people regarding these inalienable rights, it must be struck down.
Oh, it doesn’t do that? Nevermind.
FM – My daughter and I thank you and FW for the co-miseration. Dr. says it’s probably a pinched nerve and to see her Monday.
I know you are not being rude and I agree to an extent. But millions of LGBTs truly believe they were born that way. I don’t necessarily believe the same, but I assume that LGBTs know themselves better than I, so for now I will take their word for it.
As for face validity, it is only research term. I don’t mean to oversimplify, it just means that on its face the question seems valid enough to go forward with research. It is one of the basic things researchers ask themselves up front before they design a study. Millions of people making such a claim gets researchers attention, as well it should.
Whether or not I/we believe their claims, LGBT’s are not going away. Their legal rights issues should be dealt with. It is also in society’s best interest for people to make long term committed relationships rather than multiple “hook ups.” Civil unions should help with that. And yes Oh-no, I too believe the Bible when it says there are eternal consequences for those who practice such behavior. However, not everybody believes the Bible and for those who don’t there must be some civil process.
I simply do no think there is any good reason to redefine marriage if civil unions give the same legal rights. I am suspcicious that this is a campaign to disallow some aspects of religious freedom. As always, I look forward to your take on things as well as Chap’s.
I AGREE. Research should continue on the cause of homosexuality. It is too divisive a problem to be allowed to fester. I consider the choice of same sex coupling the same as a person who has crippled themselves. My hope is that research will lead to a cure.
Only with legitimate state interest. That doesn’t exist here.
except for evolution.
This concept of “trolls’ is repulsive and very much a part of the left wing sites. Let’s not sink to their level. I welcome any rational arguments or opinions.
As a Psych major I have been hoping that would be a genetic connection to homosexuality and that it can be quantitavely (sp?) measured like trisomy-21 (Downs Syndrome).
Then in this case, a mother-to-be can decide whether to keep the child or exercise her right to an abortion. It would make for an interesting scenerio though…Either this fetus would be aborted or the abortion industry would be forbidden to carry out abortions against fetuses carrying the “gay gene”.
The ironic thing is that there would be the biggest group of pro-lifers since the religious right in the ’80s.
GSP
“This is Sparta!”
fyi, jerry brown was a seminarian -studying to be a priest in the roman catholic church. His rejection of his ag responsibilities and doctrines of catholicism expose a very aggressive agenda to gain any political advantage.
Soul and God mean nothing to him. It’s me Jerry Brown that is all and end all.
I’m curious if they will roll back domestic partner benefits once they decree gay marriage. After all, it’s about equal rights, correct? Only gays have access to domestic partner benefits.
Let’s be clear, folks and call a spade a spade. It’s never about rights, it’s about getting a bigger piece of the pie.
I’m sure it has all been said before, but allow me to say…
How could anybody with half a brain be surprised with this outcome?
If the purpose of this initiative was to bait the California AG and Supreme Court into thumbing their collective nose at the people, then I say well played.
If the purposed of this initiative was to actually outlaw gay marriage, then people were spinning their wheels from the git-go.
I was stirring in my hibernation this winter, figured i’d come back…this thread caught my attention.
I guess the “no duh” factor is that this is a complicated issue…one that isnt solved in the courts or at the dinner table, and most likely will never be solved to anyone’s satisfaction. Prop 8 is upheld…gay rights will lose. Prop 8 is overturned, and the will of the majority will be overturned. So who’s right?
Well…that depends on who you ask.
Personally, I dislike the fact we have to legislate morality, but, it also has its place. I personally don’t care what two people do in their bedroom, as long as they’re doing it in the privacy of their home and aren’t hurting anyone else in the process. I also personally disagree with homosexuality. As i’ve said in other threads on this topic, its the same reason i hate asparagus and the Ice Capades…there’s just things people naturally dislike, no matter how many times you try to convince them otherwise.
But for folks who are religious, is there no compromise? For those who support gay rights, is there no middle ground where everyone can sit at the table, and agree to disagree? Is there no way where someone can get some of what they want, instead of having to ram their ideology down the others throat? Why are civil unions a bad idea? The “institution” of marriage is not just a christian philosophy, and they’ve never had the corner market on morality. If all gay couples are looking for are tax breaks and better health benefits (which seems to have come up on this thread, and topic, multiple times), why could those things not individually be addressed? Could insurance companies issue policies based on this change, without having some law forcing them to do so? To me, that seems like something the free market itself could tackle, without having some proposition to mandate action (or inaction, perhaps, depending on the case).
I know there’s more to it that this, and i can promise someone is going to take issue with how i see this, but thats fine. I just think each side is trying to push an agenda. Maybe we should figure out how to find common, middle ground and stop trying to force the other side to do something it finds blatently abhorant.
just my 2 cents, and i’m going back to sleep.
Hey, hey, hey! You don’t know where that fist has been.
The talk this morning on SF Area AM Radio is to impeach Gerry Brown. I have been wondering why he swore an oath to uphold the Calif. Constitution and came out and said he couldn’t. This should prompt a Jesuit with HONOR to step down.
Obviously, the man has no honor. I will work to make sure this man does not become Governor after Arnold and I’ll sign a petition to have him impeached and kicked out on his keester. He needs to be on the ashheap of history, as the after thought he is.
This is very much so an attack on religion and here is why. Specifically, the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status given to thousands of churches, nursing homes, schools, ministries, universities and radio stations may be at risk if an organization “discriminates” against a legally protected status, such as same-sex marriage.
What does this mean? If gay marriage is legalized, then any church or religious organization that doesn’t agree with same-sex marriage will likely come under intense pressure to either change their views or go silent. Tax-exempt status for faith-based organizations that fail to agree with same-sex marriage will be at risk.
#157 – I think so too and I keep asking for someone to disagree and give me their reasoning, but I haven’t gotten it. At least not today. Perhaps another time as this issue is not going away.
I just don’t see how this follows. Gay marriage has been in Mass. for several years now. Have you heard of any church that has been forced to perform a ceremony? Or take a more likely example. A law that prevented the marriage of two divorcees (or one divorcee to someone never married) would never pass judicial scrutiny. However the Catholic Church can and does refuse to perform such ceremonies (absent an annullment). I have never heard of the church’s tax exempt status being threatened for such a stance, nor of any real controversy with respect to it. I do not see how gay marriage would be any different.
However, I would support specific language in any marriage law granting absolute protection to any church that refuses to perform them.
Happy, as to your question as to why a civil union law would not be as good as equal marriage rights, the reason I have not responded is actually because I have been thinking long and hard about the question and am having a difficult time coming up with an answer that doesn’t devolve into “touchy feely” stuff. I do want to read what others have said about it, including the Cal. Supreme Court opinion, because it is a very legitamite question.
Read what Larry Sinclair has to say…