Kenneth Starr to defend gay marriage ban before state Supreme Court

Kenneth W. Starr, the former U.S. Solicitor General who led the inquiry into President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica L. Lewinsky, will argue the case in favor of upholding a ban on gay marriage before the California Supreme Court.

Starr was today named lead counsel for the official proponents of Proposition 8. This afternoon, the group filed court briefs defending the legality of the proposition, which was approved by 52% of California voters last month throwing into question thousands of marriages performed during the five months the practice was legal in the state.

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

Opponents of the proposition argued that it amounted to a constitutional revision instead of a more limited amendment.

A revision of the state constitution can only go before voters after a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a constitutional convention. Proposition 8 was put on the ballot after a signature drive. The case poses a series of provocative legal challenges.

The first among them is that California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who opposed Proposition 8 but is legally bound to defend the state’s laws, must now weigh in on the challenge. Brown has in recent days been called upon to declare it a revision. In the past, he has said he plans to “defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California.”

But he has also said he believes that the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages performed between June and 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 It argues that the same-sex marriages are no longer valid. Brown’s briefs are due later today.

The court could hear oral arguments as soon as March.

-- Jessica Garrison

Photo: Don Kelsen / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Regats]

The religious right has it all backwards.

Christ was hated by the Jewish Fundamentalists worse than a murderer because he preached against the rigid doctrines of the Torah; Instead of "an eye for an eye, a life for a life" he said, "love thy enemy" and "turn the other cheek". Instead of "Homosexuals are an abomination and must be stoned to death" he preached "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Now that science has shown that homosexual behavior is a genetic trait woven into the DNA of about 10% of the population, it's time to understand that it is no more abnormal than blue eyes or left-handedness, and the inclusion of gays in the institution of marriage is a decent, Christian thing to do and will not destroy the institution of marriage but expand it to include all those who chose to live and love in a committed relationship.

[JJ]

One must wonder how much Pepperdine university is behind the yes on pro 8. First a prominant professor is the major spokes person and now Ken Star is lead counsel........makes one go HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM......Ken Star is supposed to be running a law school.... one must wonder why he is now lead counsel.......and wonder what pepperdines involvement is......

[Joe Jericho]

Many of you, unfortunately, are missing the biggest point in all of this.

California is heading for a consitutional crisis (anarchy). First, the Democratic-controlled Legislature makes an end-run around the State's Constitution (Prop 13) requirment that all revenue-raising laws enacted by that body must be done so by a 2/3s majority. Essentially the Dems cut out the Republicans and a significant portion of the state's population in passing a $9.3B tax increase.

Next comes Moonbeam Jerry Brown deciding to fight Prop 8 in front of the CA Supreme Court. The Attorney General's office has the duty to defend the laws of the state against those who are challenging it. In this case, there are several gay/lesbian groups challenging the validity of Prop 8. Fine. Brown is supposed to defend against that suit on behalf of the people of California who have spoken on the matter and passed the initiative. Instead, he has reversed course. He initially stated that his office would defend against the suit, but will now work with the other side to overturn the Proposition. Makes you wonder if there are truly two sides to this suit? The defendant has now become the prosecutor. The new defendant, essentially, is a private interest group that now is put in the position of defending the will of the voters. That's an untenable situation. Brown should defend the suit even if he didn't agree with the results of the election. That is his responsibility as a public servant to the state - defend it's laws. He has a duty to put forth his best argument in support of Prop 8 and how it doesn't violate the State's constitution. If he loses, he loses. So be it. But h is reversal amounts to a form of near-anarchy and continues to put CA on the path of a major constitutional crisis. Disgusting.

Some will say that he is upholding the Constitution by not supporting Prop 8. I disagree. If he were in the situation of his everyday job, maybe that would be correct. But in this particular case, it is not his job to adjudicate the merits of the case. The CA S. Ct. will be doing that. So his role is clear: defend the law of the State of CA. The S. Ct. will decide whether this law is Constitutional or not, not Jerry Brown.

[Walter Lane]

"Gay marriage" is an oxymoron. The last dictionary I looked at defined marriage as a union of two people of the opposite sex. You can try to re-write the law, re-write the Bible, re-write peoples morals, but when you mess with Websters Dictionary you're asking for trouble. (while the last is "tongue in cheek", I DO believe that gay marriage is absolutely silly. Will we legalize marriage between species next? Or pedophile marriage? And, yes, I am including gay, lesbian, bi and trans as sexual perversions). If the "thought police" need to find me, I'm in Florida.

[GoGo]

To Rex Boone: It would be a treat to see you disassociate yourself and all you cronies from the civic system. Go at it!
And I seriously doubt your are anywhere 10%, try less than 1%, if that much. You are dreaming you numbers are so prominent -- your cause will die out by the next generation.

To everyone else: most of your points are irrelevent to the case. Marriage is not an individual inalienable right. It is a social contract, a social right. Think, before you go spouting your dribble.

[jca]

Christ always loves the sinner, He dines with them, hang around with them and as always made sure they are His personal concerns. But nowhere in the Bible do we read about Jesus Christ tolerating sin when he is with sinners. Christ always insist that people changes from there wicked ways. The adulterous woman whom the religious leaders condemn as having commited sin has also been acknowledge by Christ to have committed the sin of adultery and yet have her go her way with the exhortation of "Go and Sin no more". Christ never tolerated sin to continue unrebuked. What the people who do not like Christians are saying above is that in the name of love allow sin for that is the way of Christ is baseless. They have caricatured Christ and his love to tolerating all sort of sinful acts that would make sodom and gomorrah pale in comparrison. Remember it is the same Christ that said that in the last days it will be worst than Sodom and Gomorrah!. Society is helpless in making this truth a reality. The blindness of people in sin is really a reality. May God have mercy on our society today.

[blinded]

My rights as a citizen have been denied me by the citizens of California for a long time. It is illegal to deny a right to me, a member of a minority group- the California State Constitution says so. I am blind and I want to drive a car. I am being discriminated against because I am not allowed to drive. The definition of "driver" needs to be redefined to include those who are sight impaired.

Thank you Jerry Brown. Your argumentation will finally get me where I want to be- in the drivers seat of a car.

[Dee Jay]

There is a verse in the Bible that does say that it is a sin to lay with the same sex, child, animal. I am ashamed to say, I do not know my Bible well enough to tell you the book, chapter and verse but I know it's there because I read it.

There is nothing in the constitution about homosexuals rights. What the constitution covers is for ALL people.

[SP]

Gay marriage was never a civil right to start with. And there was never a scientific proven fact of anyone was born gay. People are basing their arguments of rights and discrimination on far fetched assumptions.

[Yes on 8]

Now look who's doing the harassing!. We'd all be better off if gays stayed in the closet.

[Garick]

Listen, my best friend is a lesbian and I love her to death. Having said that, I think I am unbiased as to the argument whether or not same sex marriage should be law. Here's my sticking points though: If marriage is both a religious and historical term between a man and a woman, why does any group have the right to change it? Also, if it were changed...would it not be long before one man and two women would be asking to be married together, or a father marrying his daugher, ect...? Listen those may seem like extreme cases, but there are people out there who would argue just that.

If your gay, how could you say "no" to their rights? There has to be a line drawn somewhere. I am not against two people of the same sex being in an exclusive, loving relationship and having the same rights as everyone else. But why not just come up with a different term instead of the word "marriage?" I would like someone who is for same sex marriage to respond as I am interested in their viewpoint. I am very open minded, am I missing something here?

[Amazed]

The amount of false assumptions held by those who are trying to force their view of same-sex marriage on everyone else is just plain amazing.

I would advise that those who are opposing prop 8 go study a bit on the concepts of: rights, separation of church/state, morality, how to create an argument for your position, etc.

It would help your case, seriously. Just calling people names (e.g. the labels you drop on Ken Starr) and emoting doesn't do it. In order to convince reasonable people, you need to offer a reasonable argument.

I am game. Give me a good argument why the traditional view of marriage should be abolished and a new one should be held. And, if you can, please give me an argument that doesn't also justify any old relationship (e.g. bigamy, etc.) to also qualify as "marriage." And let me also suggest that you show why the new definition of marriage is superior and how it actually produces a better society.

Thank you. I am looking forward to seeing your clear arguments.

[cowgirl]

JohnDoe:
Please show me where in the Constitution, Bill of RIghts, or any founding document that the principle of "The Separation of Church and State" exists.

By the way- good luck.

[Mike in Studio City (CA)]

Time for the Mormons to do some more fundraising. Too bad they don't spend that money on Christ-like acts, but choose to line Ken Starr's pockets with it instead. But that's their right, I guess. Even hate is protected by the Constitution (although crimes based on hate, thankfully, are not).

[Rosario]

It is news to me Ken Starr is licensed to practice law in California. What is the California state bar thinking when they issued him that license?

[Tax Dollar]

This has been a issue for a very long time, and still is a issue. Maybe if we didnt waste so much of our tax dollars hearing these defeated cases from the gay community maybe we can put those tax dollars to good use. Like balancing the budget deficit!!!

[Third time?]

Maybe we should take a third vote just incase it was wrong the first two times?

[John Galt]

"Marriage is between a man and a woman." - Barack Obama

[DJ]

GO KEN!! Stop the misfits....the 1/10th of 1% who think they should rule the country. Gay marriage will never be recognized in this country......NEVER.

[NO on Ken Starr]

jim said:

"Thats why marriage needs to be defined between a man and a women."

So bigamy is OK, but gay marriage isn't?

But...bigamy is illegal here. Help us understand why a marriage between "a man and a women" is ok. You're not the first in this conversation to say that. And don't blame it on a typo, the A and E keys are far enough apart.

[Christopher Jones]

I am embarrassed that I went to Pepperdine. While apprehensive at the appointment of Kenneth Starr as the Dean of the Pepperdine University School of Law in 2004 due to his known ultra-conservative views and questionable reputation for vehemently and aggressively attacking President Clinton (who I recognize likely did commit perjury, obstruction of justice and abused his power in the Monica Lewinsky scandal), I was impressed with the initial positive impact Starr had on Pepperdine, bringing media attention and increased donations/giving to the school. After all, Starr was a Solicitor General of the United States and a well-known public figure. Mr. Starr also expressed regret for the Lewinsky investigation, stating publicly that he wished that he had not led the investigation that resulted in the impeachment of President Clinton, sentiment that I personally witnessed. Then, I was shocked that Pepperdine professor of law Richard M. Peterson appeared in television commercials in support of Proposition 8, playing on the fears of the general population with lies that gay marriage would result in gay marriage being taught in schools while Churches would be threatened with a loss of their tax exempt status, both unsupported and ignorant “scare tactic” statements. Now, this is the final straw for me. Mr. Starr, the face of the Pepperdine University School of Law, will be the face of Proposition 8, the face of hatred and the face of discrimination. How can anyone actually argue that discrimination should be constitutionalized in light of the equal protection and liberty so fundamental to our Constitution? This is no different than if Mr. Starr and Pepperdine supported a ban on interracial marriages, a ban on Jewish marriages, or even a ban on women from voting. To be clear, I am from a conservative family, maintain a strong moral code and am politically moderate, which is why I chose to attend Pepperdine, a choice I now regret and a choice I now discourage others from making due to the hatred, discrimination and ignorance promoted by this supposed institution of higher education.

[lucy2008]

Bringing Starr on board is ultimate hypocracy or perhaps just more of the same. The religious right are certainly passionate about their intolerance. I wish they were passionate about doing good in our society. Instead of spending $20M to get propostion 8 passed, why couldn't they have spent that money on giving food to the poor or donating it to AIDs prevention in Africa. Good works for the poor, the sick, the least of us is the "red letter" way of their religion. However, they prefer to stand by their man-made self-described uber- morality of their own writing. It is mean-spirited, hateful, and devisive. It is without love. The amazing thing is that homosexuals who do marry LOVE each other and want to be there for each other. A little more love in the world like that is a wonderous thing. A little more love in the world does not threaten families. These people are shallow thinkers and mean fools. In the future, these people will be dust and their ideas and actions shown as cases of the stupidity of the 20th century. Our children tolerate all of this so much more and we should listen to them.

[Kate O'Hanlan, MD]

I sure hope they overturn Prop 8. Marriage is as important and good for gays as it is for straights. Marriage is the bulwark of our society. The American Psychiatric Association has confirmed that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, and has no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work, or to contribute to society. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychiatric Association have all endorsed civil marriage for same sex couples because marriage strengthens the mental and physical health and the longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents, and seniors. When Americas premier child and mental health associations and their expert panels endorse marriage equality, there is thus no ethical reason to discriminate against gay people and their children.

[Tom]

The language of Prop 8 is clear: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Consequently, all of those 18,000 illegal, so-called "marriages" performed after the lawless California Supreme Court invented a so-called "right" to same sex "marriage" are void. V - O - I - D. Move on, people. Thank you.

[Vega Girl]

For all of you that think you're being cheated out of your vote, I beg you, please educate yourselves. You CAN NOT vote to take away fundamental rights. Let me rephrase that, you can try to vote away people's rights, but it will ALWAYS go back to the courts. Vote on it 10 times, it will still be "UNCONSTITUTIONAL." So who here is really wasting tax money? Just because a slim majority (52%-48%) voted prejudicially doesn't mean they won.....wake up. If that was the case, interracial couples would still not be allowed to wed. In fact, we would still be able to own a slave or two....LMAO. Educate yourself before you start thinking on your own people. Whether you like it or not Gay Marriage will be here someday....so go ahead and keep stalling it, I guess you like paying high taxes, our money has to go somewhere. Oh and by the way, when this is overturned, WILL YOU GET OVER IT?! Will you then stop your silly biblical arguments. Not to mention the ridiculous (just stupid) comparisons of gay relationships with incestrual relations & polygamist.