Jerry Brown: Void Prop 8
By Susie Madrak Saturday Dec 20, 2008 4:30pmLet's see where this goes now. I really hate the California proposition process in the first place (it's decimated the public school system there, for one thing) but to put minority rights up for a vote? That's why we have a Bill of Rights in the first place - to protect minorities against mob rule:
SAN FRANCISCO — In a sharp rebuke to supporters of a contested state ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage, the California attorney general said Friday that the measure was constitutionally indefensible and should be overturned.
The attorney general, Jerry Brown, had previously hinted of his opposition to the measure, Proposition 8, but made his legal opinion concrete on Friday in a brief to the California Supreme Court, which is reviewing the measure. “Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification,” Mr. Brown said in a statement.
Opponents have argued that the proposition fundamentally altered the state Constitution by taking away the right to marry from same-sex couples, who had been free to do so since May, when the California Supreme Court legalized such marriages. Proposition 8 overturned that decision by defining marriage in California as between only men and women.
Supporters of Proposition 8 asked the court in a separate legal brief filed Friday to invalidate the approximately 18,000 same-sex weddings performed before the ban was passed.
Login or Register to post comments.
Was he the one boinking Linda Ronstadt back when she was a Major Babe?
She was a private, but he promoted her for giving him the proper lip service.
Ronstadt was the #1 selling female vocalist in the 1970s, when she dated Governor Jerry Brown of California.
They were a favorite target of jokes by the Tonight Show's long time host - Johnny Carson.
Jerry Brown has is correct to stop this measure from going any further. Prop 8 being on the ballot was obscene to begin with and should not even have been aloud to be voted on.
It frankly doesn't matter a hill of beans if people think that gay marriage is not moral or because the so-called bible tells you its wrong. People's morals or 'feelings' on the subject is irrelevant. Equal Protection Under the Law MEANS something; if we ever hope to being a civilized society, we had better understand that more than some 2 thousand year old text.
The Bible. Hmph. I have friends who believe that book is "the word of God" and that means every word in it is true and should be followed.
But when I point out that in Leviticus (the same "no gays" Leviticus) one is told not to eat things that creep on the seabed (ground, etc.) they are unwilling to give up their steamed crabs and shrimp (I hail from Maryland.) Their heads then explode when I say that since they can ignore God's sacred word about seafood, then others can ignore His word regarding gays.
And that's before I even start in on how man should not share a bed with a woman who's menstruating......
when you confront them on this, they always come up with "jesus came to free us from the old testament laws"
but that doesnt explain blue laws or a bunch of other things that they keep that arent mentioned in the new testament
christianity isnt the religion of jesus....its the religion of paul, who saw that he could not convert jews...but could get to romans and other pagans by making judaism less stringent and more palatable
ergo....the kosher laws are gone as are all the jewish holidays like passover...and the sabbath laws are done with too
Oh, Good! If Jesus came to free us from the Old Testament laws, then we should love our neighbor and accept homosexuality (and steamed crabs are no longer a sin!) That would mean including all the laws protecting civil rights.
So how come those who believe so ardently in Jesus don't actually follow his teachings?
to explain:
It is difficult, Sinclair wrote, for a man to criticize that upon which the ignorance of which his paycheck depends.
Similarly, for the "saved," it is difficult to require of the faithful that they recognize as their own equals those upon which their own sense of moral superiority depends.
The biggest thing Paul did was get rid of the circumcision requirement. Jews didn't originate this practice; they probably got it from the Egyptian. But considering the probability of infection it was a dangerous practice.
So one of the first "heresies" the Church had to face was the Circumcisors of the 1st Century, probably later followers of St James, the head of the church in Jerusalem, supposed brother of Jesus, who saw themselves as essentially Jewish.
They don't really beieve in Jesus, they just want a reason to hate. I can't wait until the court's put these sick assholes in their place.
They should put a measure on the next ballot that makes it illegal for mormon's and evangelical's to marry and procreate, because, well because they are ignorant bigots and serve no useful purpose!
See how they like that!
the teachings of Jesus, are you really a Christian or are you just a fundamentalist?
The very same. And he was the first person I voted for for President in 1980. (I turned 18 just after the Carter/Ford elections.) I proudly had a "Brown for President" sticker on my, ahem, Pinto.
Glad to see he's still standing up for basic civil rights.
The lawyers who helped the Mormons get Prop 8 written and passed now want the CA Supreme Court to nullify the 18,000+ gay marriage performed before Prop 8 passed.
I wonder How President-elect Obama feels about this?
We know how his BFF, Rick Warren feels.
he does not support gay marriage, but does not believe that laws should be passed discriminating against gays
and christ....we here in cali are in a fucked up economic situation
gay marriage would bring in alot of money
fuck these christians who think their morality is more important than people eating
...took a family trip to Disneyland, stayed several days, spent bunches of money, and got married. They can't do that in their home state, but are hoping that it goes through the court there as well someday.
Case in point. Good thing they didn't wait a couple more weeks.
do not call those people Christians. They do not live by the teachings of Jesus.
Amen!
Much as Clinton caved on the issue of gays serving openly in the military, Obama undermined his flacid support of LGBT rights with his clear statement that "marriage is between a man and a woman". Obama's self-contradictory formal opposition to Proposition 8 didn't discourage the Yes on 8 campaign. They proudly pictured Obama along with McCain on their advertisements, the two candidates united in support of traditional marriage.
Of course, Obama's lack of conviction on same-sex marriage has been no worse than his running mate's, or for that matter, the Democratic Party's cowardice. But Obama has become the undisputed leader of his Party and an inspiration to all Americans who hope to see the nation make a change for the better. If Obama himself won't muster up the courage to confront discrimination against LGBT folks, how can anyone expect any more support from Democrats as a whole? Is it not clear that it's an issue that Obama has declared "off the table"?
Moreover, Obama has become a powerful role-model for oppressed minorities in America. He has set an example for African Americans in particular, whom exit poles indicated as voting over 70% in favor of Proposition 8, on how to vote homophobically while maintaining a clear conscience. In Obama's America, ethnic minorities have finally won acceptance into the highest reaches of mainstream society, but LGBT people remain firmly shut out.
As many have pointed out, the core source of anti-gay bigotry lies at the heart of the Christian and Mormon church, and its hateful message cuts a wide resonant swath across American ethnic communities. Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics have all bought into Christian propaganda and share responsibility for its virulent homophobia.
However, as a prominent Christian, it is Obama who now leads the way for those who seek to block the acceptance of LGBT people in mainstream society. He has shown them how and where to draw the line that keeps us shut out, while betraying absolutely no animosity or prejudice against us personally. It is exactly the balance of benign neglect that homophobic Christian America can unite around.
This is truly Obama's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" issue, and it is he who has the opportunity to break the stalemate. But until Obama does some genuine soul-searching on his commitment to social justice, nothing that he says is going to make any difference at all.
i thought that there was a provision that all ballot measures had to go through the ag's office to determine whether the language is constitutional
and why the fuck is it so ez to change our cali constitution in the first place
to raise taxes we have to have a much higher vote differential...its retarded
and what ever happened to the law that we passed that all propositions had to be written in plain english and no had to mean no and yes had to mean yes
i know that concerning 8, many thought that voting yes meant no and visa versa
im confused
Sat, 12/20/2008 - 17:02 — Uncle Joe Mccarthy
i thought that there was a provision that all ballot measures had to go through the ag's office to determine whether the language is constitutional
and why the fuck is it so ez to change our cali constitution in the first place
California was one of the "populist' states in the late 19th century in which 'reformers,' who were trying to empower the "people" against the "interests," got the legislature and the people to accept 'populist' reforms. Initiative and Recall are the two prime examples. Calif, iirc, took it a few steps futher. OF course, they were naifs, because they couldn't foresee the ways that the powerful would employ their money to purchase desired outcomes through the 'simplified' process...
gov. hiram johnson: initiative, referendum and recall. [re; is it so ez to change our cali constitution in the first place]
fwiw-also, mostly californians don't use the term 'cali' just like frisco, it irks.
Because raising taxes affects the top 1% disprapotionately, and that's not fair?
The slim majority it passed by is hardly "mob rule." Gays did not lose their right to civil unions either.
It's easy to blame the bigots for voting for it, but they're really in the minority. The swing voters are not as anti-gay as the bigots, but the bigots won the language war so that's that.
Maybe next time gays will put some smarter commercials up that doesn't dodge the issue of children...
gays can still adopt and be foster parents here
what....people are afraid that kids would be taught about gay marriage?
the other side of the coin is gay children wanting to grow up one day and get married. I've heard that point made zero times.
Maybe next time the asshats that support Prop 8 should have their collective asses handed back to them for the lies and deceptions they used in their ads. That and the illegal support of religious groups.
Educate yourself and read the actual California and federal statues, in particular the federal tax code!
IN no way, shape or form are the two "equivalent."
But if you think they are, then we should ELIMINATE marriage and make everyone equal in California by only having civil unions. This is what I want. NO marriage, so the religious wingnuts have nothing to complain about.
Of course if there is no marriage in CA, only civil union, then every couple in CA (straight and gay) would lose all federal protection and tax rights because the republicans passed a law that said other states and the federal government do not recognize civil unions.
Oops, suddenly everyone in CA would have a much higher federal tax bill, sorry. It would serve the religious wingnuts right.
This is not an attack on marriage but rather an attack on the way the law is written with regards to the federal tax code. Marriage is seen as sacred to many people, and I respect the institution.
Leave it up to the churches in determining what kind of marriage they wish to acknowledge. Religion should have no basis on our federal tax codes.
This might be the first time he's showed any stones since Linda left him.
While he does that, is he going to be able to void the tax exemption status of the Mormon church and any church that gave money to this initiative?
Prop 8 was maybe the most dishonest and unconstitutional ballot initiative I have seen in my lifetime...which hasn't been long. I would get livid watching the tv when those damn Prop 8 commercials were on. The one that always pissed me off the most was the one about kids.
I wonder if the righties will try to overturn the court ruling on interracial marriage in the 60's and invalidate my marriage?
I heard just a few minutes ago that Ken Starr is the asswipe behind this new thrust to strip gays of their civil rights. The man has a nose for anything slightly sexual, like cum which he can scent like the best trained bird dog. Somebody please get that man a boyfriend. He has time on his hands. There are better things to do with your hands, Ken, get a grip.
From The Consortium
"...Whether intentional or not, Starr's subpoenas against the National Enquirer coincided with the tabloid's publication of an unflattering Starr profile in its March 10, 1998, issue. The article quoted Starr's 90-year-old mother as saying that her son's favorite hobby was polishing shoes and that his bad temper caused him to get "a lot of spankings."
The tabloid also published a photo of a young Ken Starr dressed as a girl in a school skit. Several years later, Starr avoided the Vietnam War -- which he avidly supported -- by failing his draft physical "thanks to the heartbreak of psoriasis," the article said. The Enquirer then quoted Starr's college roommate, Lou Butterfield, as saying, "I never knew he [Starr] had psoriasis..."
No wonder the creep is so ultra hung up about sex. His mom went on about how her son spent hours in his room, door closed,
turning Japanesepolishing his shoes. He's a total perv. Plus, another draft dodging war supporting Thug.to me, being a draft dodger is not necessarily a bad thing. It's those who WERE dodgers who now are sending young people to war-- that's what I have a serious ethical problem with.
... but you're not Ken Starr. You aren't a prosecutor affecting millions of people's lives by supposedly standing up for conservative values & the 'right thing'. Destroying lives in the name of ethics. He is. He is both coward & hypocrite.
He's a fucking draft dodging HAWK. and an arsehole to boot.
California is almost bankrupt. The globe is in a monstrous recession/depression, and this is what is considered important matters to California legislators? Don't wish to offend anybody's right to get married, but holy crap. Priorities are right wacked.
Jerry wants to be governor. Again.
Say what you will about the guy, he is probably the most intelligent pol in California.
An opportunist of the first water, but not stupid.
I'll vote for him.
By government only adknowledging civil unions, gender will be taken out of the equation. Let the churches decide on whether or not they want to acknowldge marriages since marriage has a religious basis.
With civil unions being acknowleged, both gay couples and heterosexual couples are granted the same rights under the law without the feeling that gay marriage is undermining the sanctity of marriage.
Take religion out of the debate all together.
Our current system allows just one earmarked group the privilege to take home a few extra grand every year.
All couples joined in a civil union should get the same tax advantages -- anything less is inequitable and unamerican. This is why Melissa Etheridge says she's not paying her California state income taxes anymore. I think "taxation without representation" also means getting taxed without fair and equitable representation by The Law.
How about HRC and other gay-friendly groups start campaigning for tax equality for all Americans?
Eliminating tax breaks you get when you're a "special rights" group would mean increased federal and state tax revenue, which might make a dent in those huge deficits fed & state governments have accumulated.
The fact is, Marriage is not for the raising of children. Easy enough to prove -- we permit infertile women and men to marry. As simple an argument as that is to make, I never once heard one of the anti-Prop 8 talking heads make it. Should we deny the right to marry to those who are incapable of producing children? Of course not.
Furthermore, the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution should be enough to invalidate this very close popular vote in California. It takes more than a mere majority vote to nullify a US Constitutional Amendment. That bar is set high for a reason.
And lastly, Marriage is not only a religious act. We all know of civil marriages, and marriages aboard ships by ship captains. Those are recognized by law, and are not the least bit religious. Yet, again, never once heard that argument made by the anti-Prop 8 talking heads.
Quite frankly, the gay community was ill-prepared for this fight. And the outcome, close as it was, didn't have to be what it was.
Well said. I would add that the all the outrage and angry words are not helping the cause of equality. Not in a 'quiet down' kind of way, but in a 'Do you really want people to take you seriously?' kind of way. How much credence do you afford someone in the midst of a temper tantrum?
Can we all calm down, read the 14th amendment and get a constitutional lawyer all over this?
14th amendment section 1:
'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'
Login or Register to post comments.