California Attorney General Jerry Brown asks court to overturn Proposition 8

December 20, 2008

(ChattahBox) — State Attorney General Jerry Brown, asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to overturn Proposition 8,in a surprise turnabout,saying the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage violates basic rights guaranteed in the state Constitution.

The court ruled 4-3 on May 15 that California’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partner of their choice and discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. But Prop. 8 amended the state Constitution to overturn the ruling and declare that only marriage between a man and a woman is “valid or recognized in California.”

Brown, whose job it is to defend state laws and who earlier said he would support the amendment, argued yesterday that the framers of the state constitution never intended “to put a group’s right to enjoy liberty to a popular vote.” Brown said in a statement:

“Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification.”

He said the estimated 18,000 gay marriages that took place between June 16 and Nov. 4 are valid regardless of whether Proposition 8 is upheld.

The Yes on 8 forces’ brief was filed by Kenneth Starr, the former Whitewater special prosecutor who led the investigation into former President Clinton, and now dean of Pepperdine University law school. He argued that the court should preserve the people’s lawmaking powers by upholding the initiative and invalidating 18,000 same-sex weddings performed before the election.

The court is expected to hear the case in March.


Comments

4 Responses to “California Attorney General Jerry Brown asks court to overturn Proposition 8”

  1. johnny on December 20th, 2008 11:43 am

    WELCOME TO THE NEW SOVIET UNION!

    IF BROWN DOESN’T AGREE WITH THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, WHEN THE MAJORITY OF THE CALIFORNIANS VOTED FOR PROP 8, WHY DOES HE DEFEND A MAJORITY OF 4 TO 3 OF A JURY OF 7 INDIVIDUALS?
    DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!

    SPEAKING ABOUT EQUAL RIGHTS, IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE CONSTITUTION SAYING AN EDUCATED VOTE SHOULD OUTLAW AN UNEDUCATED VOTE?

    THEY WANT TO IMPOSE THIS (AND OTHERS, TO COME) ON US LIKE IN THE OLD SOVIET UNION.

  2. BART SIMPSON on December 20th, 2008 11:45 am

    THE DAMAGE BROWN AND THE 4 JUDGES WHO OPPOSE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE CAN INFLICT ON CALIFORNIA AND ULTIMATELY ON THE ENTIRE WORLD IS BEYOND IMAGINATION. IF YOU DON’T BELEIVE, JUST THINK THE ECONOMIC DAMAGE INFLICTED RECENTLY ON US BY THE GREEDY INDIVIDUALS ON WALL STREET IS TINY COMPARED TO THE SOCIAL DAMAGE (AMONG THE CONSEQUENCES YOU CAN COUNT CIVIL WAR…) CAUSED BY THIS ONE.

  3. Remo on December 20th, 2008 1:23 pm

    It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that a mob should not be allowed to enact a racist or bigoted religiously motivated public policy, which is exactly what happened here.

    Remember, you don’t live in a Democracy where every decision is decided by popular vote (Thank God), you live in a Republic where we elect educated representatives to make decisions and laws, especially the laws that are too important to allow a large group of religious fanatics to enshrine bigotry into a state constitution by a popular vote.

    Go look at popular votes for racist segregation back in the 50’s and 60’s which were eventually overturned which are seen today as embarrassing to any politician who supported them. You’ll see the same thing here in 20 years and Jerry Brown has obviously had his eyes opened to that fact.

  4. Web Smith on December 20th, 2008 4:11 pm

    It’s strange to be agreeing with Brown on anything.

    We no longer teach the benefits of a Republic in our schools. Fascism, communism, and socialism were established in countries by majorities. A Republic protects the rights of individuals and the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Being free means letting others do things that you don’t approve of.

    While it’s hard to refer to this kleptocracy as either a Democracy or a Republic, it clearly wasn’t intended to be a democracy.

    http://ewebsmith.com/gov/NotDemocracy.html

Got something to say? **Please Note** - Comments may be edited for clarity or obscenity, and all comments are published at the discretion of ChattahBox.com - Comments are the opinions of the individuals leaving them, and not of ChattahBox.com or its partners. - Please do not spam or submit comments that use copyright materials, hearsay or are based on reports where the supposed fact or quote is not a matter of public knowledge are also not permitted.