From the L. A. Times:
In a surprise move, state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to invalidate Proposition 8. He said the November ballot measure that banned gay marriage "deprives people of the right to marry, an aspect of liberty that the Supreme Court has concluded is guaranteed by the California Constitution."
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."
Read the entire article. Sounds about right to me.
Thanks to Susan S.
Also the yes on H8 people revealed their brief asking for my marriage to be eliminated.
ReplyDeleteCan someone make me numb now? I can't take much more.
IT
I think the statement by the State Attorney is simply sound.
ReplyDeleteI think we must compare with Prop 8 with the issue of race. We are back in 1948 and the California Supreme Court desicion in Perez v. Sharp.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court, however, will tarry untill at least 2027…
It will be most interesting to compare the comments made 20 years hence regarding Rick Warren’s presence at the Obama inaguration…
Common sense prevails.
ReplyDelete((((IT))))
ReplyDeleteFor me this move by Jerry Brown is not a surprise. As Atty. General, his job is to enforce the laws of California, but this is a man with brains and he knows when something is not right!
ReplyDeleteI voted for Jerry Brown to be my governor in 1974 and 1978! I lived in California for the vast majority of my life and was a huge supporter of Jerry Brown. He was a advocate for environmental issues, passing a tax incentive for homeowners who installed solar panels while he was governor and vowed to increase federal funding in solar power when he ran for President in 1980 (oh, if we only knew then what we know now!) Jerry was for universal health care and against "Big Oil", but was considered too much of a radical to receive the nomination. I could go on and on, but you catch my drift—this is a man with foresight and integrity and with this "surprise move" we could very well see the repeal of Prop 8. Go, Jerry!
Rhonda, I'm old enough to remember "radical" Jerry, too. Too bad he didn't get the nomination. I'm with you. Go, Jerry!
ReplyDeleteThanks Mimi, I was twenty-three when Jerry became my governor, he was very influential in my political "upbringing". He was real a man of the people, he refused to live in the Governor's Mansion and wouldn't use the limos, instead he was driven around in a Plymouth. I remember one time when he came to a local country-western bar called The Palomino and I got to dance with my then former governor! ;-)
ReplyDeleteWow! What a thrill, Rhonda.
ReplyDeleteHooray for former "Governor Moonbeam." Of course, he was my governor too back then. Always a bit too far out there for most folks but also a man ahead of his time.
ReplyDeleteI forget which post I read that spoke of "jus cogens" fundamental principles of law that undergird other laws and must prevail. Equality of citizens before the law falls in that category.
Paul, LOL. I had forgotten "Governor Moonbeam". "Inalienable rights" is what AG Moonbeam says. Good thing he didn't fade into the sunset.
ReplyDeleteI think he studied at a Catholic Seminary for a while...I know he is into Buddhism. I believe that is originally why they called him Governor Moonbeam.
ReplyDeleteOf course I was wrong about the Moonbeam moniker. It was because he proposed a communications satellite for California.
ReplyDeleteSusan, he was in seminary for a while. Jesuit, of course.
ReplyDeleteA communication satellite? How ridiculous!
Finally, some happy news.
ReplyDeleteI was glad to read this today. I'm too young to remember much about Jerry Brown -- and it makes me feel happy to say that -- but he sounds like our kind of guy.
To continue my rant above, I read this morning on Beliefnet:
ReplyDelete“An 1867 state law, passed as Virginia congregations separated over slavery, allows a parish to disaffiliate from a denomination where a division has occurred while maintaining legal control over parish property.”
A shameful law, brought about by a shameful Socio Political move(opppsition to the abolishion of Slavery) and shamefully claimed for an other Socio Political move, the full inclusion in the People of God of GLBT.
It's Cultural, not Theologic.
Lindy, his action surprised the legal experts, but it really did not surprise me.
ReplyDeleteGöran, as the article says:
Voters are allowed to amend other parts of the Constitution by majority vote, but 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 (Brown) wrote.