California Attorney General Jerry Brown Urges Repeal Of Proposition 8

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

LISA LEFF | December 19, 2008 11:00 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
In this Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2008 file photo, Attorney General Jerry Brown speaks in Sacramento, Calif. 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. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

SAN FRANCISCO — 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.

In a dramatic reversal, Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a legal brief saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is itself unconstitutional because it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right. Earlier, Brown had said he would defend the ballot measure against legal challenges from gay marriage supporters.

But Brown said he reached a different conclusion "upon further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution.

"It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative," he said in an interview Friday night. "Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote."

Brown, who served as governor from 1975 to 1983, is considering seeking the office again in 2010. After California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, Brown said he personally voted against it but would fight to uphold it as the state's top lawyer.

He submitted his brief in one of the three legal challenges to Proposition 8 brought by same-sex marriage supporters. The measure, a constitutional amendment that passed with 52 percent of the vote, overruled the state Supreme Court decision last spring that briefly legalized gay marriage in the nation's most populous state.

Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the attorney general's change of strategy "a major development."

"The fact that after looking at this he shifted his position and is really bucking convention by not defending Prop. 8 signals very clearly that this proposition can not be defended," Minter said.

The sponsors of Proposition 8 argued for the first time Friday that the court should undo the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters banned gay marriage at the ballot box last month.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief telling the court that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions.

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and a former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.

Both Brown and gay rights groups maintain that the gay marriage ban may not be applied retroactively.

The state Supreme Court could hear arguments in the litigation in March. The measure's backers announced Friday that Starr had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases.

SAN FRANCISCO — 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. In a dramatic ...
SAN FRANCISCO — 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. In a dramatic ...
 
Comments
4024
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (44 pages total)

"Freedom of Religion" requires and guarantees equal civil marriage rights:

"Those [churches] seeking to permit same-sex marriage must have equal standing with those that do not. To forbid such marriages across the board infringes on the religious liberty of clergy and congregations whose faith requires them to perform this pastoral care. It is anti-democratic to impose one religious viewpoint on everyone else."

- from the California Council of Churches (part of the 4,557 churches in California suing to fight Prop 8)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:56 PM on 01/12/2009

any chance they can undo my marriage thanks in advance

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:58 PM on 12/22/2008
photo

They're trying. It may work, but it may also help the arguments being used to get it overturned.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:04 PM on 12/22/2008
- jtmoney I'm a Fan of jtmoney 11 fans permalink

I bet Prop 8 goes to the real Supreme Court.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:01 PM on 12/22/2008
- TheNuff I'm a Fan of TheNuff 6 fans permalink

Prop 08 will lose.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:36 PM on 12/22/2008
photo

It won't. The argument is that it didn't follow California's standards for being passed. The state court has the final say.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:39 PM on 12/22/2008
- shanefish I'm a Fan of shanefish 10 fans permalink
photo

I do not see the contorversy here. Marraige is not a political issue, isn't it a religious one? The courts have defined civil unions so that gay partners can get medical insurance and hospital visits, as they should. So why this marraige issue? If civil unions and marraiges are viewed by the state in the same light, then who the hell cares if it is called a marraige or not? How would two guys or girls getting "joined" in any way affect my marraige? That assertation is idiotic! As a married guy, I can assure you that there is no magical spell cast upon you once you're married...­it's really not any different than living with someone. Someone, please explain to me how the sanctity of marraige is destroyed when two people who love each other (who are the same sex) decide to tie the knot. Unless you're still in the closet and just jealous of the next guy, how does this effect you in any way shape or form?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:17 AM on 12/22/2008
- BCubedReg I'm a Fan of BCubedReg 6 fans permalink

You didn't read the article.

Brown said: "upon further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution. "It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative,"

If it is a constitutional issue.. it is a legal issue and subject to the courts for review and clarification via a decision.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:23 PM on 12/22/2008

How is marriage some fundamental right or civil rights issue? The government/people can decide what marriage. Similar to a driver's license, the government/people have the right NOT to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens--oh wait no one's illegal, isn't that the liberal mantra?

Similarly, the government/people can decide who can obtain a marriage license. This in no way compares to civil rights for African Americans. And I have seen comments that Civil Rights for African Americans had to be imposed on Southern States or else had there been a vote in the south it never would have passed. Ridiculous. There are a lot of African Americans in the south and plenty of reasonable White and other people in the south that would have voted to abolish segregation and for civil rights for African Americans.

Do you realize the first African American US Senator was from the state of Mississippi in the late 1800's. A Republican too.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:35 PM on 12/21/2008
- BCubedReg I'm a Fan of BCubedReg 6 fans permalink

Does anybody read the articles anymore before voicing their opinion, or are you just intellectually lazy. Read the article.

Brown said: "upon further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution. "It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative,"

It is a legal and constitutional issue and should be addressed by the courts difinitively. If one class of people has the right to marry, then all classes of people have "the right" to marry.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:27 PM on 12/22/2008

I do not support gay getting married at all! you should have all the same rights as marry couples have in civil unions. I know now civil unions don't have all the same rights so hopefully obama fixes it. but i still think u gays won't be happy because u want the word marriage, and the reason is because u want to be able to sue a churches if they wont marry u u will say it is discrimination.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:06 PM on 12/21/2008
- jacko88 I'm a Fan of jacko88 6 fans permalink

That's untrue. It must be terrible to spend your life thinking groups want things just to sue churches and other equally retarded conspiracies. But yes, "the gays" are just a homogenous group who want civil rights to sue churches, whatever floats your stupid boat.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:03 PM on 12/22/2008

Regarding any church claiming “marriage”:The church may have been keeping records of marriages for nearly 2000 years, but that was a favor to local gov'ts because most folks couldn't read or write and a select number of priest could; then, in 1565, they finally decided on keeping a record as a sacrament, which (ka-CHING!) would mean they could start charging fees for it(!)...An­d so continues the corruption of churches away from God to please man. Clearly, the oft-cited "2000 year old man/woman marriage" bit has been singularly exaggerated for effect, since in reality it’s been less than 500 years that The Church has high jacked the term for its own propaganda purposes. And let's face it: over the same oft-cited millennia, any and all protests for equal rights from same-sex couples, was met by vicious mob-ruled ostracizisms and/or majority-sanctioned execution (a practice still common among The Taliban) The fact that churches started charging as they discriminated is more likely evidence of true immorality in God’s name, than a reason to deny equal rights to everyone. Ultimately, it’s been a 500 yr old unholy business deal. That's your tradition of marriage in the church, Prop 8er’s. Not too heavenly…

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:30 PM on 12/31/2008

I don't understand y all you liberals are in an up roar over something so small but when bush( who never even acknowledge you) or even clinton did something that really affect you nobody was half as loud. Its like your little kids and you won't throw a fit when your dad is the house but when it is only you and your mom alone you would throw the biggest fit ever.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:01 PM on 12/21/2008
- jacko88 I'm a Fan of jacko88 6 fans permalink

I don't understand why you idiots are so hesitant to do something that you claim is unimportant. If you can't fathom why other people care about something, we are all best served by you getting out of the way.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:04 PM on 12/22/2008

Why do H8 folks invariably resort to calling gay people "whiners" as if there's some intellectual superiority to be gleaned from noticing that when you & the other bullies on the playground corner the most defenseless ones there, your innocent victim become agitated and upset? & as they do, you say "you're weak! You're crying, you Baby!" Then, you preen with pride in front of your ambulance chasing audience & push your innocent victim to the ground. Most Gays have seen this scenario before; even as the majority (read that: all the other kids standing around watching your latest bullying episode) knew you were being wrong-headed & immoral. As adults, we can understand quite clearly how you're being wrong headed, & acting morally bankrupt. Flash forward: the rest of us know we live in the real world with real values. People like you seem to think it's some kind of birthright to be stuck in that playground mentality. Playtime is over.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:30 PM on 12/31/2008

I've made this point in comments on other blogs regarding Rev. Warren and Prop 8: The gay community is fighting the wrong fight and it's one they can never win. Instead, fight to get government out of the marriage business altogether.

Their should be no legal advantage to marriage -- not through taxes, nor through laws regarding visitation, nor through estate laws, nor through parental rights. Marriage is a religious contract that should not have any civil force. All couples that want such rights should have to register in civil unions, with or without a religious marriage.

Once the government is out of the marriage business, it can't ban gay marriage, can it now?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:31 PM on 12/21/2008

Or they can just acknowledge marriage as a privacy matter - which it is - and provide that consenting adults have the right to marry regardless of gender. As for the church, they don't have to acknowledge same sex marriages as valid in their view. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but adults need to stay out of the interpersonal relationships of other adults unless there's some public health issue involved or something much more compelling and constitutional than "I don't believe it's right or it's not biblical.

If this has to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, Prop 8 will be ruled unconstitutional on equal protection grounds -- unless the court has absolutely no intellectual integrity.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:46 PM on 12/21/2008

Of course, you are right from a moral point of view. But as a pragmatic matter, it would be easier to get the state out of marriage completely than to get "gay marriage" recognized nationally.

The latter path leads to the Bible-Thumpers organizing the way they did on Prop. 8, trying to link gay marriage to the death of straight marriage.

You make the fight one of of non-marrieds (who outnumber marrieds) tired of tax incentives for marrieds; you make the fight one of children saying that dad's young trophy wife shouldn't automatically collect because he didn't bother to have a will; you make the fight about the separation of church and state, and freedom, and apple pie, and baseball. And then you win :-)

As long as the Right can paint it as a fight against families and as sodomy in a white dress, the Left can't win.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:30 PM on 12/21/2008
photo

Hello ' richchaplin '... I have a question..­?

I posted a message on another story earlier. Listed below.
(Does anybody know who is paying Starr)

Ken Starr appears to be nothing more than a High Paid Gunslinger asked to come into town and shoot someone down.

I called the State Attorney Generals office this morning to ask a few questions. With as bad as our state deficit is I was and the fact that the state would end up paying "HUGE" Legal Fees and resources to fight Starr in the Courts when we could use the money for 'legitimate' economic issues.
Starr just wants to fill his pockets at the expense of people of California­... and get his name in the headlines.

The Attorney Generals Office did not know and could not tell me who is Paying Starr. Who has the resources to find out.... and put it out here. (out of state funds from Utah again..? someone tell us)

So the BIG questions is...... Ken Starr :"WHO IS YOUR SUGAR DADDY?"

Lets ' Expose ' him for what he is

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:02 PM on 12/22/2008

Someone asked for the link to the brief filed on Friday - here it is: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1642_prop_8_brief.pdf

Interesting things:

1) He argues that it is *not* a "revision" (so this is actually bad for "no on 8"), but says instead that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right and amendments can't take away constitutionals rights w/out "a compelling justificat­ion."

2) then he goes on to argue that, if 8 is upheld, it should only be upheld prospectively (and not nullify the marriages that were done before it passed).

This puts a lot of weight on the question of whether prop 8 is discriminatory (as technically a gay guy has the same rights as a straight guy - i.e. to marry a female).

Isn't there someone that could be found who doesn't have a sex marked off on their birth certificate, but wants to get married? This to me would be a slam dunk to the case for discrimination - because this would be the only class of person who actually can not get married because of the restriction that marriage is only granted to someone of the opposite sex.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:15 PM on 12/21/2008
- BigBen I'm a Fan of BigBen 4 fans permalink

Marriage is not a gift from the state.peop­le will couple and copulate whether the state says so or not. And they have done so from time immemorial.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:56 AM on 12/22/2008
- JakeHanson I'm a Fan of JakeHanson 25 fans permalink
photo

I am one of the 18,000 married gay couples in California.

I can tell you that the world hasn't stopped spinning because I told the state of California that I want to live a monogamous, committed lifestyle to the person I fell in love with 5 years ago and made it official by getting married. If you are so worried about saving the word marriage, ban divorce and polygamy. No one "owns" the word to begin with.

I pay taxes, go to college, and contribute just as much as any straight person does to society. I deserve the same rights as everyone else does in this state and will fight endlessly until I obtain that freedom which our nation is supposedly know for.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:10 PM on 12/21/2008
- jacko88 I'm a Fan of jacko88 6 fans permalink

Hey man, really sorry my state decided to mess with you

hope it works out :)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:01 PM on 12/21/2008
- JakeHanson I'm a Fan of JakeHanson 25 fans permalink
photo

Hey thanks. I know not everyone subscribes to the statement "Ignorance is bliss." I really appreciate your support. :)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:21 PM on 12/21/2008

People say there's nothing in the Constitution anywhere about Gay Marriage, to which I say, there was nothing about marriage being between "one man and one woman" either, (otherwise, why would there have been a call to add the words on Nov 4. 2008?) Now, if Prop 8 truly is to be taken literally & enacted as Kenneth Starr claims he would have it, this very same "clear" amendment verbiage would not only unfairly nullify 18,000 legal gay marriages; it necessarily nullifies (with equal "clarity") the validity of any & all prior/future straight divorces, too (Prop 8 "clearly" stops short of explaining "one man & one woman 'at one time'".) Hence anyone's 2nd, 3rd, 4th...etc. marriages would likewise be voided by way of Prop 8's very same "simplicity": the wording of Prop 8 implies that one man/woman couple's 1st marriage supersedes, voiding recognition of any subsequent marriage(s) or divorce settlements. Straight or Gay, Prop 8 can't/won't be applied equally, thus it MUST be stricken.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:32 PM on 12/31/2008

Thank you AG Brown. Now go teach Ken Starr a thing or two.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:03 PM on 12/21/2008

It's important to point out that Gerry Brown isn’t "siding with Gay activists and/or The Liberals"; he's actually "siding" with the clear directives of The California Constitution and seems to understand that the Constitution has suffered a very dangerous assault by a majority which was admittedly manipulated by factions from within and without the State. Kudos to Mr. Brown on this one. There will certainly be mean-spirited and obstructionists elements who will try to oust him for this, but History will surely remember him as one of the "Good Guys" on this matter. (Whereas Pugno and Poor Kenneth Starr with their recently stated intent to forcibly divorce innocent people in love, will just as surely go the way of Benedict Arnold or worse...)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:32 PM on 12/31/2008
- LaHenche I'm a Fan of LaHenche 7 fans permalink

I'm all for Gay Marriage. Bottom line. Not my business.

However, this movement must break free from its need for association with the greater civil rights movement of the 1960s. Not the same thing. You alienate the people who WANT to support you by insisting that there is a connection. There is not and the continued demmand for this association is starting to sound shrill.

The GLBT community is deeply ensconced in the mainstream economics of the world: home ownership, private businesses, personal wealth, buying power, political power. The GLBT community are NOT a disenfranchised minority.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:11 PM on 12/21/2008
- Dave01 I'm a Fan of Dave01 9 fans permalink

"The GLBT community are NOT a disenfranchised minority."

I hope you think about that when you file your next JOINTLY filed MARRIED tax return. Because you and YOUR spouse will be getting anywhere from $4000-$8000 more BACK than my partner and I of 18 years.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:16 PM on 12/21/2008
- frenchie25 I'm a Fan of frenchie25 12 fans permalink

LaHenche
=========

is there a difference for you between Civil Rights and Human Rights?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 PM on 12/21/2008
- wdw505 I'm a Fan of wdw505 69 fans permalink

yes a big one

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:29 PM on 12/21/2008
- BCubedReg I'm a Fan of BCubedReg 6 fans permalink

Frenchie25

There is a difference between civil rights and human rights, however I will contend that they overlap extensively.

The right to marry is a civil right (a right that should be granted to all classes of people).

The right to life is a human right (all persons should be secure in their person from violence or the threat of violence) and is inalienable.

All human rights have been codified into law as civil rights. All civil rights are created through law.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:36 PM on 12/22/2008
- jacko88 I'm a Fan of jacko88 6 fans permalink

Yeah, there are lots of people who WANT to support gays, if they would just stop making comparisons!

Listen to yourself. That's ridiculous.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:32 PM on 12/21/2008

When my (black) parents saw that I was not dating the pretty, kind girls I hung around with in high school, they soon realized I wouldn’t ever be attracted to the opposite sex, much less marry one. So their answer when I hit age 16? I was kicked out onto the streets; I would surely be an embarrassment to the family. It was a hard lesson, certainly but now, 31 years later, my integrity for not high jacking another's life is something I know makes me a far better person, in spite of the hardships: my partner of 26 years & I have had our fair share of police harassment, strangers taunting & throwing things at us for "standing too close together"; they could see clearly, without even knowing us, that we loved each other more than anyone else on earth. Blacks say Gays do not share a similar struggle because black can’t be washed off; but neither can living & loving together for 27 years be washed off; lucky for us, the power of love has gotten us through, even as 2nd class citizens.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:33 PM on 12/31/2008
- LaHenche I'm a Fan of LaHenche 7 fans permalink

Can't beat the...

MOONBEAM

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:02 PM on 12/21/2008

so any prop 8 supporters want to help me out on this one
how are state mandated gender requirements on a marriage license any different than requiring, say a male signature, (as a co-sponsor) on a business or drivers license ?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:42 PM on 12/21/2008

Time for one of those things that those who practice that "Old Time Religion" would recognize.

Organize a "Shunning Party".

Many venues might be preparing to have inaguration parties.

Go ahead and Attend but when Warren takes the stage - and anyone attending in D.C. should do the same.

Stand and turn your back on him.

If you are so inclined - do the same when Obama is sworn in.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:36 PM on 12/21/2008
- TheNuff I'm a Fan of TheNuff 6 fans permalink

Lame. Just don't go.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:42 PM on 12/22/2008
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (44 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect