Jerry Brown's reverse on gay-marriage ban: Is it a game-changer?
Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown's reversal on Proposition 8 -- he now is asking the California Supreme Court to reject it -- is the talk of the blog world today. Of course, the pro-gay-marriage forces are happy. But there is a lot of debate about whether Brown's rejection of the voters' will on gay marriage can fly. Jonathan Turley writes:
Brown's position between the earlier and current litigation seems hopelessly conflicted. It would have been more consistent if he refused to defend either the earlier law or current law. Yet, there is the problem of lawyers defending a law that they consider to be unconstitutional. Brown can argue that, once the Court recognize the constitutional right of same-sex couples in the Constitution, it became a problem to have it set aside by popular vote. The earlier law was the result of legislative consensus while this is the product of popular vote. Yet, there status as "law" is the same for the purposes of the Attorney General's office.
Red County California sees a political motive in Brown's stance:
Jerry Brown, as the California State Attorney General, said that he would defend Proposition 8 if it passed. He is now asking those same black-robed dictators to declare Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Heck of a democratic state we live in, when an attorney general with an eye on the next gubernatorial race will pander to an activist voting bloc to thwart the democratic process dutifully followed by a majority of citizens to express their will multiple times and in multiple ways.
-- Shelby Grad