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rights secured under the state Constitution's safeguard of liberty as an 'inalienable' right may intentionally be withdrawn from a class of persons by an initiative amendment."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

[Linda]

So for thousands of years, people have had an incorrect understanding of what the word marriage means? Is that essentially what the pro same sex marriage lobby says? Marriage may be a right/responsibility in this country, but what IS marriage? All Prop 8 did was clarify the definition (which until recently was not questioned) of the word marriage. It did not take away rights. We all have the exact same rights and limitations as they pertain to marriage. Marriage has never been any two people who love each other. It is the joining of a man and a woman which will quite possibly bring forth children (not possible for a M/M or F/F relationship without unnatural intervention).

I do not hate or fear homosexuals, but I do believe homosexual behavior is sexual sin. I suspect that if you disagree with me, you likely consider my judgement against homosexual behavior sinful or wrong. I do not take it personally that you think I am wrong so try to extend me the same courtesy. Will I, and others who understand that homosexual behavior is sinful, be allowed the constitutional right to freedom of religion or will our churches be pressured to change their theology or be guilty of hate speech and discrimination when they proclaim Biblical truth? Can anybody put that fear to rest?

[Randy]

The last time a corrupt California Supreme Court over-ruled the will of the people on Constitutional grounds was when the people of the great State of California brought back the Death Penalty.

When all was said and done three California Supreme Court Justices were removed from the bench by the people and the Death Penalty was reinstated as directed by the people.

The right to life is an expressed right guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and you people think the right to Marry - which is not expressed - outweighs the right to life?

"... So that government of the PEOPLE by the PEOPLE and for the PEOPLE shall not perish from this earth." Abraham Lincoln

Homosexuality is a choice made by less then 3 percent of the population and in California .1 percent of the population has demanded that the other 99.9% of the population bow to their will. For those of you siding with .1% of the population in their efforts to deny the right of the people to govern themselves; I will see you on the front lines - it will be a very short war.

[Theo, (from literate) San Francisco CA]

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.

[John]

This just shows me that Jerry Brown is Gay and being who he is, Gov Moonbeam and another arm of the left wing nut jobs.

[CTI]

First, its a highly dangerous ascertion on the part of the CA Supreme Court to claim that they are the sole authority of the Law; above and beyond the electorate and legislative branch of government. This mindset is at the least "tyranny."

For those of you who want to win your cause at any cost, the price to be paid is much higher then the victory over the Majority. For by sacrificing the lawful right to debate and desent in an orderly manner set down by the Law, and then adhering to the descisions of a lawful vote; sacraficing that right to a few judges whom seem to believe they are answerable to no one but themselves, then you willingly place yourself under the will of a even more extreme minority.

However, the Law does provide provisions to impeach judges who abuse their powers. A lengthy process, but I suggest that an impeachment of judges who consistently overturn the will of the electorate should be a serious consideration here. In fact after their last ruling against the electorate, I am surprised this was not a consideration.

As for those of you who consistently wish to keep bringing up the Founding Fathers, and blah blah blah, about Civil Rights and etc. Never in their wildest dreams would they have ever believed it possible that there would even be such a debate. Jeffersons powdered wig would have been spinning atop of his head if there had ever been a debate about same-sex-marriage. Get a grip on reaility, homosexuals never were in the history of this nation guaranteed or afforded the right to marry a person of the same exact sex as themselves. It was considered, at the least, an unnatural thing.

[YouKnow]

dont call it getting married if its a gay thing call it somthing else just keep Gods name out of ya's mouth b/c God dont like it so call it somthing else and dont read the bible while getting married thats just wrong and the church dont like it and God dont ether God completely messed up a town called sadom and gamora ( if thats spelled right) b/c of that type of stuff so come on man this anit even a talk about thing just keep Gods name out ya mouths and call it somthing else so we can all be happy ...... now read that

[Derrick]

Someone wrote in here with a comment involving how desegregating schools would not have recieved a majority vote during the days of "Brown vs Board of Education." They are correct, but are missing the point. Proposition Eight is a constitutional amendment. If the courts have the power to overturn the Constitution then there is nothing they can not do. A court could restore segregation or even slavery simply by overturning the thirteenth amendment. It could impose a theocracy by declaring the first amendment "unconstitutional." I realize that what is going on in California involves the state Constitution and is somewhat different than issues involving the Constitution of the United States but the principle is the same and precedent is precedent. There has to be a point where the courts jurisdiction ends, and that point is the Constitution. If not then there is no point in having a constitution or a legislature or governor because we would be, in fact if not name, a dictatorship ruled by the courts and we would have no rights at all.

[Steve Nesich]

How high a percentage of the vote would the desegregation of public schools received in the year of Brown vs. Board of Education? How high a percentage of the vote would the Civil Rights Act of 1964 received?

Under our constitution, is the majority allowed to vote on what rights should be "given" to the minority?

Kudos to Jerry Brown for this courageous yet very sensible course. And if this makes some of the ultra right-wing go crazy with rage, that only reaffirms that this is the correct thing to do under our Constitution.

[srla]

It seems that everyone I have heard that supports Prop 8 is incapable of understanding the very nature of our Constitutional system. To brush off an assault on Equal Protection as the "voice of the majority" is to undermine the very protections that were so brilliantly woven into the Constitutional framework and later reaffirmed by Amendments to the Federal Constitution.

The very notion of majority rule was intentionally reigned in by Constitutional protections from the very start. A politically and religiously diverse group the Founders realized that the Tyranny of the Majority was the biggest single threat to the survival of the new Republic. Therefore, they purposely made it very difficult to limit or eliminate the rights of any one group of citizens.

The California Supreme Court ruling in March made it very clear that their decision to allow gay marriage was based on the principle of equal rights, a principal that once was applied only to white males yet which has subsequently been broadened to include every segment of the population. Never before has the reach of equal rights been expanded then subsequently contracted. And clearly that such an unprecedented elimination of current rights be achieved through a mere majority vote makes it all the more abhorrent and breathtakingly un-American. This is precisely the type of majority bullying that the State and Federal Constitutions exist to prevent.

To all you citizens who have so little appreciation of our nation's history and Constitutional traditions as to proclaim that "the people have spoken" and to thus expect that the issue should be laid to rest, you really should be ashamed of yourselves. If you are going to be so bold as to support the abrogation of minority rights, then at least take the time to learn how our state and our nation's Constitutional frameworks function before doing so.

[Walter Mason]

Marriage is a privilege, not a right. Even some of your Hollywood gay producers apparently think so. Reference: Queer as Folk, Season 2, Episode 1, wedding scene, starting at the 0:24:14 mark, Lindsay (Thea Gill) says "To stand in front of your family and friends, and to declare your love and commitment in the eyes of God and the law is a privilege not to be taken lightly."

Marriage is a social construct that helps further the well being of society. Society licenses this activity so as to ensure the well being of its members and itself, just as it licenses other activities that it believes need to be controlled if they are to benefit or not harm the same, such as alcohol sales, hunting and fishing, the operation of business, or the practice of medicine or law.

Alcohol sold without any societal control has the potential to harm society, so those who wish to sell alcohol must apply and be approved for a license, and then operate with the restraints of it.

Over-fishing or over-hunting of wild animals has the potential to harm society by denying it the benefit of nature's gifts. Business operators left to their own devices could operate in ways that would endanger members of the society. The same is true of practitioners of medicine and law.

Unrestrained marriage could similarly pose a danger to the well being of society. Incestuous marriages produce weakened human offspring, which clearly harms society and thus is not allowed.

At this time in our society, the majority of people have expressed that they feel that allowing same-sex couples to "marry", in the same social and legal sense as most (but not all, it should not be forgotten) heterosexual couples are eligible to does not promote the well being of our society. They do not wish to grant license to this behavior at this time.

I suggest efforts should be put toward persuading the people of this society that "same sex marriage" furthers the well being of the group, or at least does not harm it, - - not toward forcing this upon the people through legal maneuvers that leaves them feeling ill will toward the gay community. Offensive riots in response to the expressed will of the people in a vote does little to further gays full acceptance into society. Upstanding living would have far better, actual acceptance.

[CJ]

What a joke to our democracy. So twice the people of California have spoken in the past decade and twice their voices have been silenced by liberals and an activist judicial system? Wow, this country is being run by a minority willing to force its agenda onto the majority. A civil war is brewing in this country and more stupid decisions by elected leaders, like Brown, only fuel the fire even more.

The majority have spoke -- AGAIN. Let democracy run its Consitutional course! This nation's founding fathers are spinning in their graves.

[Dorothy]

I can see no logic in elevating persons who vote with their genitalia as "superior" to those who valule the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman. A choice as to how they are going to "scratch the itch" does not justify the harmful license of redefining the sacrament of marriage. Mr Moonbeam can toss his fairy dust wide and far; it doesn't change the biological facts.

[RD]

The idea that there is a constitutional right to sodomite marriage is foolishness created out of whole cloth by a judiciary bent on fabricating pretended rights rather than interpreting laws. Sodomy is a particularly destructive form of wickedness that no sane society should tolerate. Though sodomites whine and simper about their rights the truth is sodomy is a destroyer of inalienable rights. Wherever sodomite depravity comes to power, freedom of speech, religion, association, and conscience are crushed under the weight of pro-sodomite laws. Liberty under law cannot and will not survive acceptance of sodomy and lesbianism. This is an incontrovertible lesson of history. The citizens of California have made this clear time and time that they understand the dangers and threat posed by acceptance of sodomy and lesbianism. It is clear that the sodomite advocacy will not rest until they have amassed for themselves massive undeserved privileges and outlawed all dissent against the insanity of their peculiar species of depravity.

[WTF]

Two key points/issues/questions: 1) Has Brown violated his obligation to carry out the duties of the AG? Article V (Section 13) of the California State Constitution lays down the duties and responsibilities of the California Attorney General. The premier responsibility of California's Attorney General is to ensure the uniform and proper implementation and execution of state laws. When a law passed through the popular vote involves the amount of controversy, debate, and polarization we've seen with Proposition 8, this calls into question the extent of the law's scope and its uniformity with adjuncts, case law and the Constitution itself. Its impact in terms of the voice of the minority, separation of church and state, and allowable forums/issues to be decided solely by popular vote calls into question when it is appropriate for the Legislature and/or SC to intervene or override [see 1894's (Livermore v. Waite, 102 Cal.113]. Clearly Brown's acumen has determined that the issues here are substantive and broad enough in scope to warrant consideration by entities more erudite and otherwise able than the lowest common denominator. That is his right as AG when the enacted amendments are in need of reconsideration as inherently contradictory or potentially paradoxical. Does this lend itself to meritocracy? Absolutely, and I say more power to those who know what the **** they're talking about and are qualified to carry out reason in its best sense accordingly.
2) Why was Proposition 8 ever in existence? At issue is whether marriage should even be remotely within the governmental domain. Its religious relevance spilled over into codification. Send it out of secularity and afford the right of unions in its wake to anyone who can demonstrate the presence of mind and means to enter civilly. Unit of measure? That, alas, is another issue altogether.

[Peter - San Diego]

Opposition to gay marriage is based on religion; their god doesn't approve. Since we are supposed to have separation of church and state, it should be invalidated.

[Timothy G.]

Please stop whining all you opponents of Prop 8. Your rights were not stripped away! Get a grip. This is America, and you have the same rights I do (I'm a straight, white male). You are ridiculous, carrying on this way. Thank God the people of California who voted to change the constitution and send you away for good have the best interest of society at heart - unlike the gay "marriage" crowd, who are unbelievably selfish and think only of themselves.

[Banjo1]

A very heavy gay presence here for a group that constitutes just 3 per cent of the population. Without the Times acting as a cheerleader. I doubt we'd be hearing so much from them. A homosexual "right" to marriage was unknown before it was discovered by an activist judiciary, many of whose members were spawned by earlier careers in the grievance industry.

[Bob]

I think a lot of folks are missing the real issue here. In Jerry Brown's current position it is his duty to uphold and defend the laws of California. If he wants to work to overturn them, then he needs to get a new job. Just in the same way, if the president orders the military to do something, a general cannot disobey that order. It's his duty to carry it out. Perhaps Jerry could have mounted an incompetent or half-hearted defense of the law, but to actively work for it's overturn sets a worrisome precedent.

[hector]

Brown is a bad person. He doesn't care about rights, he just wants to position himself to run for governor. His father must be turning in his grave.
He ran Oakland futher into the ground, and he will do the same to California.

[Amy]

So why bother to vote!!

[Ken]

The only right the homosexual agitators (as opposed to the civilized homosexual individuals) are interested in is their self perceived right to bastardize the English language by the redefinition of terms (in this case marriage) and force the overwhelming majority to accept that bastardization. They are not "gay". nor are heterosexuals "straight" (most have a slight upward curve). Who gave them the right to hurl that epithet at heterosexuals any way.
The argument that they are not allowed to serve in the military is in no way affected by the definition of the term marriage. Nor are any of the real inequalities that are cited.
It is well known that Jerry Brown was called "moonbeam" because of the, apparently correct, assesment that there was something wrong with his mind. His father, Pat Brown, expressed that opinion to myself and my wife in Burbank airport after she saved his life by performing a Heimlich maneuver on him many years back. Nothing has changed. Jerry is still unstable and appears to have a dysfunctional reality testing capability.

[Steven]

SINCE amendments to THE U.S. Constitution has to be 3 / 4 (0.75) percent % OF THE SEVERAL STATES, I THINK AMENDMENTS TO STATE CONSTITUTIONS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 66% OF ALL ELIGIBLE STATE VOTERS, NOT JUST THOSE WHO VOTE.

NON amendment questions should be passed by AT LEAST 51% NOT 50.001% AND THE UPPER NUMBER REQUIREMENT IS NOT BE GREATER THAN 66% OF VOTERS WHO VOTE although more than that can vote for the question.

[Guri R]

Mr. Brown's interpretation of Inalienable Civil Rights is logical and consistent with earlier law interpretation. It is also in tune with legal thinking about the theme internationally. Without much ado the supreme court in South Africa decided a few years ago that gay marriage is such a right and must be given to the actual minority. It cannot be voted away by the majority. Such voting that may result in depriving a minority group of rights other people have, is mock democracy. It should not be tolerated in the 21. century. Religion must be private. Civil rights and duties must be public and the same for all.

If the majority had been allowed to perpetuate their prejudices through voting on every civil right issue, the US would probably still have slavery as an institution and South Africa would still have the Apartheid system.

[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.

[Bruce]

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

[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.

[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.

[Gary]

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

[Craig McGrath]

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

[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.

[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...

[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.

[David Om]

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

There is No Constutional Gay Rights Clause

[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!!!

[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?

[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.

[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?

[Jim]

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

[californiascreaming]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Lynn]

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

[Tom]

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

[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?

[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.

[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!!!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[G]

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

[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.

[Rex Boone]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[David Meagher]

Thank you Jerry Brown!

[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.

[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!

[Steve M]

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

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[jtoo]

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

[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.......

[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!

[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.

[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?

[Dan R]

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

[Jennifer]

Thank goodness!

[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.

[Todd]

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

[barnieca]

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

[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.

[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.

[Mark]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Jim Gorsline]

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

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!!!!!

[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.

[Duane]

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

[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.

[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.

[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!!:)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.