Jerry Brown: Gay-marriage ban should be invalidated

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."

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rights secured under the state Constitution's safeguard of liberty as an 'inalienable' right may intentionally be withdrawn from a class of persons by an initiative amendment."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."

The briefs filed Friday were in response to a spate of legal challenges filed by gay rights advocates, including the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Last month, the California Supreme Court announced that it would hear arguments in the case, perhaps as soon as March. A revision of the state Constitution can go before voters only after a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a constitutional convention. Proposition 8 was put on the ballot after a signature drive. Brown's brief also said he believes that the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages performed from June to November should remain valid.

Because it did not trust Brown to mount a staunch defense of the proposition, the group Protect Marriage intervened in the case and filed its own brief. It argued that Proposition 8 should remain legal and that the same-sex marriages performed from June to November should no longer be recognized.

--Jessica Garrison

Photo: Los Angeles Times

Updated and edited at 6:50 p.m.

Comments

[ILoveLA]

Good For Jerry Brown, It's the duty of an Attorney General to do what is right. I hope the Supreme Court is listening...

[Brian Kerns]

Thank you Jerry Brown for defending the thousands of Californians who had their rights stripped from them by a slim majority vote. Thank you for not bowing down to the out-of-state special interest groups who have been fighting diligently to enshrine bigotry into our state Constitution. It takes courage and a strong back-bone to defend the rights, even if unpopular. I strongly believe that history will show Jerry Brown to be a historical figure who helped bring about equality in our great country.

[Dan Dormann]

I think it would be extremely problematic for any constitutional court to allow a simple majority to eliminate constitutional rights of a protected group (a suspect class). The very essence of a constitutional court is to protect and uphold the constitution. A revision of the California Constitution cannot be put to voters without first securing a supermajority in the legislative. Prop 8 was never put to the legislative. If Prop 8 was allowed to stand, this would set a precedent for the elimination of other constitutional rights. California has one of the most respected state constitutional courts. I believe this court will protect the constitution and the rule of law. In 50 years, we will all look back and wonder anyone could have ever disagreed that discrimination is not only wrong but also unconstitutional.

[Marcel White]

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
- Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and one of the most influential Founding Fathers

[Casey]

GOOD. I just wonder if these "will of the people" people would be shouting the will of the people if THEIR rights were stripped away?

[Hans]

I opposed Proposition 8, but Brown's argument is truly stupid and would endanger lots of middle-of-the-road provisions added to the California Constitution by past ballot initiatives.

The ballot initiatives that limited forced busing also limited what the California courts (misguidedly) claimed was a fundamental right of minorities.

The ballot initiative reinstating the death penalty in the 1970s overturned a California Supreme Court ruling that claimed falsely that the death penalty infringed a fundamental right.

If Brown's argument is accepted, democracy itself will be at risk, since nothing important will be able to be decided by voters.

Opponents of Prop. 8 should push for its future repeal by ballot initiative, not endorse loopy legal challenges that could backfire and undermine democracy.

[Bob]

The justices of the California Supreme Court does not make law - although they may try.

There is no right for any two people to marry other than a man and a wife (femaile) . That is a fact.

If the powers that be want to change the Constitution they need to go through the process whereby the people vote on it and either change it or they don't. (remember We the People?).

What we the people of the State of California did recently was not to change the Constitution but merely to reiterate and slap the faces of the Supremem Court justices and many of our ELECTED representatives in their faces as well.

If Jerry Brown is red faced it's because the State of California, the people slapped him in the face politically. They embarrassed this weasel and pawn. It's funny.

What the Cal. Supreme Court did was ILLEGAL and the justices should be fired for that. The sooner the better.

We can always find other people to do the job.

[jim Richardson]

Brown should be removed from office for violatiing his oath. When does his recall begin?

[Kathleen]

As Attorney General, Brown's job is to uphold the law in this state. That includes the propositions voted in by the PEOPLE. Prop 8 was passed by a majority of voters in this state. Regardless of his personal feelings, it is his job to uphold the law. Never mind the fact that marriage has been between a man and a woman throughout history. The idea of a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman is ludicrous. 50 years from now, people will look back on this and laugh that our society would even consider such a thing.

[Dawn]

You think Jerry Brown is doing the the right thing when PROP 8 won by the people. Jerry Brown as Attorney General has to UP HOLD THE LAW if he likes the law or not. I guess millions of voters (WE THE PEOPLE) will be disenfranchised by their vote being taken away. The California Supreme court the first time should have never overthrown the voters in the first place. Since you poeple do not know the law and/or Consitution, there is separation of powers and it is NOT WE THE JUDGE, OR WE THE POLICTIANS, it is WE THE PEOPLE. Just because you do not like the outcome doesn't mean it should be invalid. The only way you can win is using corrupted judges, lawyers who undermine the laws of our country. I guess it is O.K. that Barack Hussein Obama citizenship is questioned that you feel it is o.k. not to check, because you agree with his win by guess what (WE THE PEOPLE). It seem Democrats who break laws always get away with it, but if it was a Republican then all of the Dems say put them away for breaking the law. The California Supreme court has no right to invalidate the voters of PROP 8, because it is a Constitutional admendment and it should take effect. Otherwise why vote, you might as well have a the JUDGES pass laws and leave the people out of it. Just because California has been taken over by Democrats who have no respect for the law and who themselves are corrupted by arrogance and who they have paid off the judges of the Supreme court. We are a country of LAWS, if you only believe in some laws that favor you and not the others, then you do not have any principals and/or character because you the people who want to destroy our LAWS including Jerry Brown, Arnold, etc are nothing more then crminals and low-life themselves are nothing more than brining back the old Soviet here in California. California as far as I am concerned is a Marxist state of crimnals and corrupted politicans who believe they are themselves GODS.

[Tookson]

King George of the California Supreme Court not only disavowed centuries of American tradition, but also Milennia of Western Civlization, when he arogantly decided that all of a sudden the California Constitution was such an evil document that it required the promotion of same-sex marriage.
Christians have had their rights stripped away nearly on an annual basis. Don't tell me about having actual rights stripped away. There has never been any culture that has condoned same-sex marriage. Why should we set new trends from immorality? Haven't we heard of Sodom and Gommorah?

[Dave]

The people have spoken and the term "marriage" is a contract between a man and a woman. I do not mind civil unions for my gay friends, and I encourage love and togetherness. You don't need to change anything. I am surprised that someone is paying attention to Jerry Brown again!

[Reckless Kelly]

When was marriage determined to be a "right"? Because 4 unelected, unaccountable partisan liberals on a court say it is? If it's a "right", why do you have to apply to the state for a license? I guess my sister and I have the same "right" to get married to each other. After all, incest is best...

[Ted]

Great, buy why both having votes on such issues anymore if the results will only be accepted if they go the "right" way. What if the results would have gone the other way ? Would the losing side have been expected to just shut up and accept the results ? Obviously the people against prop 8 thought they would win and it would be over, but now that they lost they don't want to accept the result. They should have contested the whole vote in the first place and used the constitutional argument before....rather than later when they lost.

Keep in mind i support gay rights....but I have to be honest with you, at this point the whole gay marrige issue is troublesome for me personally. I just think they are pushing to hard to fast....society will change if you keep "leaning on it"....but if you go to fast you may lose it all.

[Robert]

What a blow to morality. This is disgusting.

[Percy]

The people voted and Brown must resign as AG. He is sworn to defend the state. He is a nut and a political slimeball. Brown will cause a revolutin and a civil war. The people are tired of left wing hacks stealing their vote. Judges are not above the law or will of the people.

[Jon Dough]

The logic of Jerry Brown is amazing . Its unbelievable what drugs can due to increase the clarity of the mind and elinlighten people to things hidden from mere mortals. By his thinking we can take his logic to the next step and allow marriage between 3 men and 2 women or 5 women and 1 man. We can allow a woman and an infant or a man and a 10 year old to marry. Why discriminate against them? Lets bring it up a level and go inter-species. men and sheep, women and horses. Oh!! The possibilites are endless. Why even have marriage at all it is too confining and restrictive. Lets just do away with it. Hey we have just achieved the ultimate solution and guess what, Gay and Lesbians are already there. They were so far ahead of us and we did't even notice. Thank goodness for them dragging us through this convuluted thought process to help us reach this ultimate goal. Do away with marriage and do who ever or what ever you want. Whow totally enlightening.

[native american]

all people, all races, all sexes may marry-there is no discrimination at all. what is not liked is that marriage must be to the opposite sex.

[PirateRo]

My marriage doesn't need protection.

Certainly not from a group that has a religious agenda that insists legislating articles of a faith that I do not accept. This is just a ploy to establish control of the political process - it is unacceptable, not wanted and something that needs to be highlighted as a hate crime.

How something like this makes it to a vote is astonishing to me. Can there really be that many stupid, spiteful people?

[Laffing at the Left]

Jerry Brown,a stupid prez. candidate and an even dumber AG!!
Guess what people over 52% said NO to gay marriage no matter how much you stomp your foot or have a hissy fit
You don't have "right" to marry, Mary......You only have a right to Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness. Got that? If not too bad.....

[Michael Ejercito]

Does Jerry Brown really think the gay vote amounts to anything more than a hill of beans? I mean, there is no right to same-sex "marriage".

[Ryan]

This isn't an issue of rights. It is ridiculous that argument has been so embraced and drilled. No ones existing right to marry a consenting adult family member of the opposite sex has been taken away. This is all about the definition of a word. What do you call the highest union a man and woman can form, not only as companions with each other but also to create and raise children - marriage. What do you call something similar for two men or two women? Don't know, but come up with the term.

[Rick DeL:ano]

Absolutely outrageous.

If the will of the people can be cynically ignored and flouted by an elitist class of political activists and their sympathizers, then we no longer have a sovereign electorate in California, and a dictatorship of cultural revoutionaries has seized control of this State.

This is truly shocking news.

It may well be time for the voters of California to begin to prepare a public answer to the evil usurpation of our sovereignty by disgraceful betrayers of the public trust such as Jerry Brown.

7 million Californians voted for Prop 8.

I suspect the time is approaching when we are going to have to recognize that this matter has become a direct threat to the sovereignty and freedom of every California voter.

If we the people are going to sit back and allow an elected Attorney General to argue AGAINST US on OUR DIME, then democracy and representative government are dead in California.

Jerry Brown must be removed from office, regardless of the outcome of the Prop 8 challenges.

It is time for the victorious majority, which has remained silent and trusted in the democratic process, to recognize that process is being disgracefully hijacked and perverted by our very own elected public servants.

[Kevin A.]

I am so tired of this. I am tired of hearing the same old invalid, illogical, irrational argument over and over and over, that same sex marriage is a "right".

I am curious - who established this "inalienable, fundamental right"? Where did it come from that it is now being imposed against the will of the people?

Let me state it once and for all:

Homosexuals have the EXACT same rights as everyone else.

That's right - the same rights as you and me. The same right to free speech, the same right to marriage, the same right to everything.

"But they can't MARRY who they love!!"

So what? Neither can I. I love my son, my mother, my Macbook Pro, but I can't marry them. Big deal, neither can anyone else - why? - because we all have the SAME rights. So please, don't talk to me about someone's inalienable rights unless you can tell me where it came from and on who's authority.

Oh - and by the way, this also has absolutely nothing to do with equality (like I just said, we are already all equal - see above) or discrimination (a meaningless term that is somehow intended to make the "discriminator" feel guilty). This is about one thing - acceptance. That's in. A segment of the homosexual community is throwing a temper tantrum because not everyone agrees with their lifestyle. So they use improperly use words like homophobic, bigot, or even racist (ha!) to pressure those who disagree with them into accepting their behavior.

Here's the problem: it's my RIGHT to disagree with your actions. It's my RIGHT to think what you do is immoral. And it is my lawful, fundamental, God-given, inalienable right to VOTE AGAINST IT! And if you don't like it, then how about we do what our founding fathers did - have logical, intellectual discourse in effort to bring about resolution. If that doesn't work, then we each vote our conscience and go our separate ways.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." - John Quincy Adams

And please, for the love of all that's holy, spare me the "religious bigot" nonsense unless you are capable of making at least a *marginally* logical argument, otherwise you will prove nothing except your failure to answer on rational grounds.

[Paul]

IMPEACH BROWN!!!! Brown has failed the live up to his Oath of Office that REQUIRES him to ENFORCE the laws of the State of California.

[Derrick]

I fully believe that gay couples should have the right to marry, and that Prop 8 is a hurtful and unneeded amendment. Unfortunately I can not support the court challenges or Jerry Browns actions.
It is a betrayal of democratic principal for a state supreme court to claim the right to rule the state constitution, unconstitutional. It is the courts duty to defend the constitution not rewrite it. For better or worse. Worse in my opinion. Prop 8 is now part of the California Constitution and only the US supreme court has the legal authority to rule on its constitutionality, and by current legal precedent it is not unconstitutional at that level. The only honest way to reverse Proposition Eight is through another amendment either through the legislature or the initiative process. I fully expect that the California supreme court will rule against proposition 8, but by doing so they will be betraying their oaths of office and making a mockery of the rule of law in this country. The ruling may restore fairness for gay couples, but it will destroy freedom for everyone. The ends do not justify the means when the very structure of our government is at stake.

[Walter Lane]

Jerry Brown is doing exactly the same thing that he has always done: he is interpreting the law in a way that fits his skewed vision of the world. Prop 8 does NOT deprive people of the right to marry: they are perfectly free to marry...the opposite sex. As it has always been. Jerry Brown is an abomination.

[Shelly]

Excellent!! Way to go, Jerry Brown!! And, all the excellently written comments here! Exactly! How can anyone take away the basic rights of a few?? Just because you may not agree w/pple morally or religiously or whatever, doesn't give you the right to take away their rights! And, Thomas Jefferson said it perfectly! It's reprehensible to me that this ever came up for a vote! I loved one picketer's sign: 'When do I get to vote on your marriage??' Exactly! Shame on those too narrow-minded to think outside the box and see what they're really doing!! Rock on Freedom and Liberty for All!! And, Adios Bush!! Too bad the shoe didn't make contact!!-mighta knocked some sense into that pea brain!!:)

[Le]

Gays already had the same right to marry as everyone else, and they still do - the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

[Jim Richards]

So, this guy first tried to affect the outcome of the election by changing the wording on the ballot to refelct his personal opinion. Now, he tries to influence the California SC's review of the matter. My question is, how do we get him recalled? How do we remove him from office? I don't care WHAT the subject matter is, Jerry Brown is NOT fit for office. He NEEDS TO GO. NOW.

[Duane]

The arguments may or may not have merit, but remember, Moonbeam is running for Governor.

[Dee Jay]

Now, we need the pedophiles to start screaming about their constitutional rights. And lets not forget the people who prefer to have sex with animals and any other perverted group that is out there. You have just opened the flood gates where any thing goes. I hope you can sleep at night and look at yourself in the mirror the next morning.

Speaking of the constitution in CA; I thought it was changed by the Supreme Court in favor of the homosexuals? Isn't that the way it was? Originally, there was nothing in the constitution about homosexuals. Then there was Prop 8 to get it back to one man/one woman marriage. I do believe I have voted my last vote, not that I voted on this one anyway, as it seems, our votes do not count.

Just like the school levy; they keep running it until it comes out the way they want it to.

[Don Feliz]

Should we expect anything less from washed-up ultra-liberal Jerry Brown, aka Governor Moonbeam?

The 4-time loser (3 times for the democrat nominee for president, one time for U.S. senator) in the national political realm looks at this as his last great chance to make a name for himself. He's hyperventilating at the thought of having the national media pointed in his direction one last time.

One last shot at greatnes from a poor narcissistic little man. Go get 'em Jerry!!! All eyes are on YOU!!!!!

[kristin]

Jerry Brown tried to torpedo Prop 8 by changing the ballot description just before it went to the printers. Now, he is not doing his duty in defending the law. I don't particularly like Prop 8, but I hate officials who abuse their power of office. It sets a bad precedent that the Attorney General enforces whatever laws he/she likes regardless of the Constitutional duties of the office.

[dominic Smith]

Jerry Brown, you are a fine man. Thank you for letting your conscience lead you to this action. I'm not from California, I'm not gay, but I can see the wrongness of Prop 8 from many miles away.

[Josh G]

Horrible. This is another act that signals the breakdown of our Republic. An attorney general is supposed to defend the laws of the State irregardless of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the law to be defended. What's next? Electing a President who is not a natural-born citizen of the Republic? Or, Sheriffs deciding on their own to not enforce laws that they do not like?

Say goodbye to the USA as we've known it.

[Dennis]

I cannot believe the arrogance of Brown or those pushing to overturn the clear will of the people! The people of California have spoken on this issue, not once, but TWICE, and still the far-left fringe continues to silence the majority of people. If you allow "marriage" of gays then why not allow men to marry two, or three wives? Marriage is not something to be lightly changed and this is why a clear majority of Americans and people in California oppose "gay marriage". Opponents of Prop 8...you've lost, now get a life!

[Jim Gorsline]

Why do we even bother voting on anything????

[Erin]

I am dismayed, but not surprised, at Attorney General Brown's actions.

I believe things would have been quite different if the Prop 8 vote had been 52% no, 48% yes. There would have been no ugly protests, no violence trying to silence others, no marching on places of worship. Those who voted in favor of Prop 8 would not have targeted individuals who voted against it. They would have shaken their heads in wonder and accepted the will of the people.

Does the vote of a gay man count more than the vote of a straight man? Does the vote of an LDS woman count less than the vote of an atheist woman? How about a Latino vote compared to a black vote? All votes carry equal weight and the votes were cast and counted. I believe that people voted thoughtfully on Prop 8 with good intentions on both sides.

I have been encouraged by recent op-ed pieces in the Times with moderate voices, speaking out against the extremists from the No on 8 side who drove people out of jobs and are hurting more moderate people who also voted No on 8.

We must realize that the people on both sides of this issue are real people. We must get beyond name calling, stereotypes, and blame. We must try to understand perspectives from both sides of the vote and consider the longterm effects of the vote and have some actual discussions, rather than hatefests.

[Craig]

The State and its citizens have limited what defines a "lawful marriage". The State currently prohibits marriages between members of the same family. And it has established a minimum "age of consent". Only marriages between a male human being and a female human being -- who are not otherwise unqualified -- are sanctioned.

If same-sex marriages are a constitutional right" -- because "love" "constitutionally implies the right to marry and the State has no right to limit marriages -- then people should also be able to marry their pets, their siblings, their children, or their parents. And those who marry a pet that they love more than any human should be entitled to file their income taxes as "married" and take an additional exemption credit too.

It may be politically correct to santion gay marriages. But anyone who assumes that gay marriage is a "constitution right" hasn't read the document. And they haven't taken into account the "undesirable consequences" that occur when the constituition is "broadly" interpreted.

[GEAH]

Mr. Brown wants to take away our right to vote.

Part of the voting process means that the majority doesn't always go your way.

I support gay marriage, but I support the ballot box more strongly.

[jeff]

We the People spoke for a second time to say NO to Gay marriage. Jerry Brown is not the law, and either he should resign or let the will of the people remain. I am tired of the select few running this state into the ground. In this economic crisis I cannot believe that we are spending millions of dollars fighting this issue, especially when the people have spoke not once but twice on it. Perhaps if our state legislature would spend its time passing a balanced budget we could afford to visit this issue.

[Natalie Russell]

The processes of law to amend and revise laws and the constitution itself is established and for good reason. Imagine what would happen if a simple majority could determine all the laws: mob rule.

It seems to me that Brown is correct when it comes down to the lawfulness of the process used: "the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification."

The initiative process was abused by Prop 8 supporters.

[michael]

What a civilized decision for Mr Brown to make. California is not the social equivalent of the Flat Earth Society. Let's be grown-up about facing the variations among individuals and not demonizing all normal variations.

[Mark]

It's the beginning of the end for Prop. 8. :)

[Mark]

Jerry Brown, I also don't like the results of Props 2, 3, 5, 9, and 11. Please invalidate these also. I'm sure you can find some constitutional technicality for each of these. Please tell me how to vote correctly next time so that you don't have to waste all that time and money getting the results corrected.

[Kate]

Thank you, Attorney General Brown, for speaking up as a voice of integrity and justice. That the basic human rights of any group should be put to a popular vote is wholly undemocratic. Thank goodness we never put interracial marriage or school desegregation or women's right to vote on the popular ballot--all changes decried by the religious right on the basis of a skewed reading of the bible and a call to maintain "tradition." I trust that the Supreme Court will recognize that any measure to amend the Constitution must follow the appropriate path through the structures and institutions of deliberative democracy.

[barnieca]

Gays - sue to get equal rights under the law - but NOT marriage and you will win every time.

[Todd]

This only adds to the convincing argument to overturn proposition 8.

[colleen]

To KevinA:

Actually, gays and lesbians DON'T have EXACTLY the same rights as straight Americans do. I'm not sure where you got that, but it's incorrect. Homosexuals are not allowed to be in the military, and they're not allowed to adopt children in most states. They're also called "disgusting," "immoral," "wrong," told they're "going to hell," and so on. Being told they're not only not allowed to have the same rights, but they're also going to end up in hell I think is a pretty mean and heartless thing to tell someone.

Get your facts straight (no pun intended) and stop spreading hate out of your own annoyance or fear.

[Jennifer]

Thank goodness!

[Dan R]

Mr. Brown, your courage to stand up for what you know is right will be remembered in history. Thank you.

[Bill]

I'm a fundamentalist Mormon and want to have a legal plural marriage. Based on Brown's argument, you can't stop me. Don't I, as a fundamentalist Mormon, have "inalienable rights?" Don't I have a right to "privacy?" The ban on polygamy is clearly discrimination based on my religion and is a violation of my fundamental rights. Legal gay marriage HAS to mean no restrictions on marriage at all; the arguments, both legal and social/political also prevent the state from restricting plural marriage. Am I, as a fundamentalist Mormon, less equal than gays? Are three gay men who all want to marry each other less equal than 2 gay men? Aren't I part of the "all" in the anti-prop 8 crowd's "equality for all" slogan?

[Richard Ivey]

In conflict with the federal Establishment Clause, California government is impermissibly making marriage a religious act and not simply a registration of two marriage partners. By retroactively annuling the existing gay and lesbian marriages, the Prop 8 backers affirm that marriage is a religious act.

[John]

Jerry Brown should be impeached!!!!! It is his duty as CA Attorney General to enforce the laws and Propositions passed by the voters, not enter his personal feelings about the matter. He swore an oath to uphold the laws of the State of California. He is no better than the Crooks in the Legislature trying to pass illegal taxes by calling them "Fees". Time to impeach them all! Prop 8 does not take rights away from gays and I am tired of this sick argument. Gays have the full rights of a civil union, which is still legal in California and I suspect no Prop 8 supporter has a problem with.
YES ON 8 - the people have spoken!

[Chad]

Things are made for a purpose. It's easy to see how the plumbing is intended to work, even if you do not believe in God. (Which you will at some point...) One doesn't use a hammer to turn a screw or a screwdriver to drive a nail, etc.......

[jtoo]

Yeah, no surprise here. The people get their way, but only as long as it conforms with what radical liberals want.

[TD]

hooray for Jerry B!

i'm old enough to remember when he was governor. we had a budget surplus back then, and California was truly the golden state. now, not so much.

Jerry Brown for governor!

[Zolly B]

I agree with Jerry B that everyone has a right to privacy. However I disagree in repealing Prop 8. Marriage was first a religious term before it was a legal one, and changing its definition crosses the line of state making doctrine.

A more appropriate response would be to invalidate state marriage for everyone, replacing it with civil unions. No discrimination by the state. No change to religious doctrine. Both sides are happy.

[John Galt]

"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.'"

This argument, as well as the claims of the Gays and Lesbians, would be a lot more credible (and intellectually honest) if they were also arguing for the right of polygamy, polyandry, and other forms of plural marriage.

[Todd]

Firstly, a revision is a significant change to the entire constitution, and it requires a two-thirds vote in the legislature. An amendment is a change to a provision, and it can be enacted by a simple ballot vote. Obviously, Prop. 8 is an amendment -- not a wholesale revision.

Secondly, the people of California can decide which marriages will be recognized as a legal marriage by the state. It is not a "right" to have your union recognized as a legal marriage.

Jerry Brown is not fulfilling his duty. He is charged with defending the laws of The State of California. If the Supreme Court of California were to overturn Prop 8 it will constitute an act of judicial tyranny.

[Bill]

I'm not surprised about Jerry personally. But I'm very surprised he let this personal kind of feeling jump in the way of his job. It gives him a great excuse to remove himself from all the legal debates that go on from now on. As AG he is supposed to defend the public acts and laws of California, and now he is obviously disqualified.

And by the way, it puts him a better political position to run for Governor (again) later. A lot better than if he had to defend Prop 8 and then go ask gays to vote for him later. I bet Jerry knows that too. Cynical manuvering much?

[Sane In SC]

We in SC never cease to be entertained by the fine folks in California. It still seems surreal that anyone could argue that "non-existant" rights have been "taken away" from anybody. This is clearly a case of the "tyranny of the minority" trying to over-rule the will of the majority. If the homosexual lobby is successful in overturning Pro 8, no California law or constitutional provision can ever be safe in the future. All that is needed is for ~2-10% of the people to say that their rights are being infringed upon by some law and the courts (to be consistent) will have to invalidate that part of the law or constitution. Before long, there will be no law to follow (hmmm, perhaps that is the goal, ...do you think?). If the majority cannot pass any valid laws, why bother at all? Oops.. did I say that out loud?

[Steve M]

Thank you Jerry.
If they start with this they won't stop, and taking away peoples rights is illegal and morally wrong.

[A.M.]

I agree with Casey, and think that as a group we should try and get other completely ignorant things put onto the next election just to show how scary it is to have the majority strip minority groups of rights. Great example :

Prop4: If your name starts with the letter C you are unable to hold any assets in California, all property will be confiscated and sold with the profits going to repair interstates.

Sorry Casey, if my prop4 actually grows legs you'll loose your home. But that would be a neat spotlight on the issue don't you think?

I also applaud Jerry Brown. Thank you for your courage!

[DSiess]

What a sorry thing this moonbeam has done.

If gays want marriage, argue the merits of it to the voters.

The prop is an amendment. You can't make an amendment unconstitutional by the definition of an amendment. It's amending the constitution itself.

[David Meagher]

Thank you Jerry Brown!

[Pablo]

The tyranny of the majority never prevails in the long run. It's been happening with every discriminated group: women, African Americans, Latinos, Asians, etc. The time is coming. Next step, to fight for equality in every state.

[Jimmy Athrius]

Unfortunately, it was not the position Attorney General Brown is mandated by law to take. It's truly unfortunate that this has now become political posturing by all sides and it will now only serve to fan the flames of this debate without truly letting the courts hear the arguments from both sides without political posturing by those involved. In the end, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will decide this on the merits of the Constitution and the law. It serves no purpose for people like Attorney General Brown to take this position except for his second run at the governorship. It's legally silly.

[janet]

Sounds like a clear election ploy on Brown's part. He put his finger into the wind and figures that the people in California who supported 8 aren't likely to vote for him anyway, so he might as well solidify his gay support.

Taking the issue away from that total fool Newsome -- who ironically is backing away from the issue because it's the only one he's been identified with. That and helping juvenile illegal immigrant gangmembers evade the law by putting them into a halfway house in San Bernardino at San Fran taxpayer expense -- without telling the officials in San Bernardino, until these gangbangers calmly just walked out and back into the streets. Just who we need to keep California safe. Hypocrite or not, even Brown is better than that.

[Rex Boone]

Thank you Attorney General Brown for taking a stand to restore my rights as a citizen of California.

[BeefMasterX]

The reporter is a comedian for sure. "In a surprise move"? Give us a break- there is no one more disconnected than Jerry Brown. If I were in favor of gay marriage, I certainly wouldn't want Moonbeam on my team.

[G]

Good for him. It's about time someone stood up against this disgusting proposition.

[Bobster1985]

Jerry Brown may help save the Proposition 8 supporters from looking very foolish down the road. Just as the State Supreme Court once invalidated the law against interracial marriage, it should strike down this embarrassing attempt to ban same-sex marriage. In a few years, the Proposition 8 supporters will be ashamed that they ever voted for this outrageous law. They'll be thanking Jerry Brown someday.

[Johhny Reb]

Jerry Brown hasn't changed his stripes - once a leftist loser, always a leftist loser. Given that Brown isn't fulfilling his duties as AG, he should be recalled from office. But it doesn't matter, regardless of what the Kali Kourt ultimately rules, my business will never accomodate gay marriage. Don't like it, don't apply.

[rickwla]

Finally, an attorney general that defends our constitution. I always hoped that the AG's job was to defend our constitution, even if that means that the will of the people may be wrong.

[Liam]

I don't know that he was the among the best governors California ever had, but he's doing a great job as Attorney General. Way to go A.G. Brown!!!

[John Galt]

"But after studying the matter, Brown concluded..."

Brown concluded that in his run for governor, the campaign contributions of Hollywood and the gay community, plus the approval of the LA Times and other anti-8 news media make it worth while going against the will of the majority of voters. And he's probably right.

In any event, Starr, who clerked under Chief Justice Warren Burger, is by far the better attorney than Brown, who needed two attempts to pass the state bar exam.

[Harvey]

This is not a matter for the court. Gay marriage as a right is something that is developing. It will probably come in time, but if it were a constitutional level right, how did everyone miss that for a century?

[Tom]

Someone needs to convince why I should ever bother voting again...

[Lynn]

"...with liberty and justice for all." Thank you Jerry Brown for keeping the pledge alive.

[Gene Venable]

There are two aspects to marriage: the legal agreement, and the sanctification of a relationship. The state has no business sanctifying a relationship -- that is basically a religious act. Therefore, the state should not be involved in the act of sanctification. That is something a church or religious person should do. The legal agreement -- that is the state's business. Marriage should not be a state function. Legal agreements should be a state function.

[therockofages]

Obviously, Jerry does not have any idea how a Democracy functions. The voters vote, the majority wins and that's the end of it. I am not at all happy Obama won the election, but there is little I can do about it, the majority of voters allegedly elected him. There is no place in a democracy for an elected public servant to try and sway or manipulate to change the results of a legal election at the state, country, or Federal level. This is the second time in 6 months that this proposition has passed with the majority of voters. The first time, the Supreme Court, miraculously overturned the first result. It was not and is not their place to do so. This country is REALLY going down the wrong path now. The Bush Administration is starting to look attractive again.

[JoeBob]

Brown has betrayed his duty as lawyer for the state to score cheap political points. His argument is absurd. A "right" that never existed or was recognized is suddenly "discovered" in the constituion by a one judge 4-3 majority, and the people are told they are powerless to amend their own constitution merely to return things to where they were six months ago. That's tyranny.

I don't want judges to become wholly political creatures or to substitute their personal beliefs for the role of the legislature. If gay marriage is to be legally recognized (it already is by some religious bodies, and it is already possible to be married in a religious ceremony), it should happen through the political process, not because a judge decides he/she knows what's "right." For those who think oterwise, consider how you would like having "rights" dictated by the whims of judges appointed by a series of conservative Republicans.

[californiascreaming]

This week in Sacramento has finally done it. We will have to mobilize recalls and referendums. .

[Jim]

I'm glad Jerry Brown remembered that he's sworn to uphold the Constitution, not the will of the mob.

[kenternst]

Jerry Brown was a looney, ineffective Governor and was a horrible choose for Attorney General. He is not the least bit impartial or moderate and shows how he intends to abuse his position. Nobody is taking away anyone's rights. Prop 8 was done to stop the loss of the majority's right to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and that civil unions are between same sex couples. Both have the same legal rights. Gays are trying to take away our rights of these beliefs by trying to force their opinions down our throats. Who is abusing who?

[Kevin A.]

To Colleen:

I will address the statements of fact that you made first:

Regarding the military - There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces, thus no right of an individual is being infringed upon if they are not permitted to serve. Because you have been misled on this issue, I would encourage you to review the law concerning this:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000654----000-.html

Regarding adoption: Homosexual individuals are permitted in all 50 states (with perhaps a few unclear decisions) to adopt children. What is up for debate is whether or not unmarried couples are permitted to adopt children. While it is true that homosexual couples are not permitted to adopt in certain states, it is also true that nonmarried straight couples are not permitted to adopt in those same states - thus the rights are the same.

Regarding me "spreading hate": This is nothing more than leftist rhetoric, exactly the same as using words like "homophobic" and "bigot". They almost carry no meaning anymore because they are consistently used incorrectly. The only purpose they serve is to demonstrate that the person using them has been brainwashed into letting others do their own thinking because they themselves can't mount an intellectual argument. Should you disagree, by all means, please demonstrate to me where in my previous post I was "hateful". Because I am much more intimately familiar with my motives and emotions than you are (and know full well that I don't hate anyone), it will be amusing to read and delightful to respond to.

So please - get your facts straight.

Finally, regarding your other comments, you said they are labeled "disgusting, immoral, wrong", and are "going to hell". Again, I would reply "So what?". They have the EXACT same right to use those adjectives of others as others do of them. That is nothing more than freedom of speech. What you are really trying to say is that "it hurts their feelings". So what if their feelings are hurt of they are offended. I am offended by the actions of others every day, but I deal with it, because I respect the freedoms afforded by our Constitution to those who offend me.

[lindsey]

Here's a question: Why should an entire class of people-- those under the age of 16, or whatever the legal marrying age is, be denied the right to marry? Why should marriage be limited to two people? Why not three or four or ten? Why shouldn't I be able to marry my pet dog? Or goat?

[David in Malibu]

We moved here from Atlanta three years ago, in part, because we wanted to live in a place where all people are treated equally by their government. We are almost there. Thank you, Jerry Brown!!!

[David Om]

Jerry Brown is just looking to get re-elected. Anything for votes.

There is No Constutional Gay Rights Clause

[san]

Good news for some and bad news for others. However, I encourage everyone to think about the consequence of voting people's rights away. The Onion wrote a funny article (satire) on Proposition 8 had a typo and it actually said marriage was between a Man and Wolfman, all marriage were than immediately nullified. Straight couple were angry that they can no long marry the person they love as well. Even though it was obviously a joke but think about it, what if the law told YOU that you can't marry the person you love.

[texmln]

Our rights are stripped away every day, but I don't hear you crying about any of them but this one. Did you hit the streets to protest the loss of smoker's rights to smoke in their own business establishment and to let their customers do the same? Did you protest every tax increase to ensure that nobody had their right to keep the fruit of their own labor diminished. Did you battle every gun ban to protect an individuals right to bear arms, as not only written in the U.S. Constitution but also recently affirmed by U.S. Supreme Court? I bet you didn't because you don't really care about constitutional protects at all. It's simply a front for the pursuit of your agenda...

[Jonathan Del Arco]

In a week where the guy we fought so hard to get elected to the presidency turned his back on us and spat on our faces it's encouraging to see there are some in public office willing to stand up for what is fair and just. Jerry Brown is one of those leaders Obama is not. Thank you Mr. Brown for having a conscience.

[Craig McGrath]

Thank god sanity has prevailed. To think that the issue was allowed to be voted on in the first place beggars belief.

[Gary]

This right did not exist before judicial fiat, Pout until you get what you want, that's how the little kids do it.

[john Smart]

Three Cheers for Jerry! The idea that the state constitution can be changed by a mere majority vote is appalling. Brown is doing the right thing legally and morally.

[merryjoe]

Let me quote from the California Supreme Court's own decision earlier this year declaring the ban on gay marriage unconstitutional: "Absent a compelling
justification, our state government may not deny a right as fundamental as
marriage to any segment of society. Whether an unconstitutional denial of a
fundamental right has occurred is not a matter to be decided by the executive or
legislative branch, or by popular vote, but is instead an issue of constitutional law
for resolution by the judicial branch of state government. Indeed, this court’s
decision in Lockyer made it clear that the courts alone must decide whether
excluding individuals from marriage because of sexual orientation can be
reconciled with our state Constitution’s equal protection guarantee."

I don't see how the same body can possibly now squirm away from that statement. An unconstitutional denial of a fundamental right is not a matter to be decided by popular vote. Period.

[Bruce]

So much for Brown fulfilling his duties. Once again personal preference overtakes doing the right thing.

[Gabe]

What a joke. Apparently alternative "sexual preference" trumps everything. Why keep putting it up for vote if the anti-American Supreme Court and other officials are going to ignore the "majority" rule of Californians? Keep making a joke out of democracy, the courts and elected officials.