Gay marriage: Much has changed in California in 32 years. Just ask Jerry Brown

How times change. Jerry Brown has won much praise for his legal attack on Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California. But as many have pointed out, it wasn't that long ago when backing gay marriage would be a lot more out of the mainstream. Today, the San Francisco Chronicle has a case in point, and it involves actions by Brown himself three decades ago:

When Brown was governor of California, he played a crucial role on the same issue -- he signed the landmark bill that changed the state's definition of marriage from a contract between two persons to one specifically between a man and a woman.

At the time, proponents of the bill praised it as one that would "outlaw marriages between homosexuals."

The author of that bill, former Republican Assemblyman Bruce Nestande of Orange County, told The Chronicle this week that he wrote AB607 to specifically limit marriage to being between a man and a woman. He won support from conservatives such as state Sen. John Briggs of Fullerton, who would later author the notorious but unsuccessful Briggs Initiative that attempted to ban gays from working in public schools. ...

Brown said Thursday that his decision to sign the bill, without comment, was largely technical -- and "totally appropriate" for the time.

--Shelby Grad

Photo credit: Rich Pedroncelli /Associated Press

Comments

[Jesus Christ]

I love Gerry Brown! We will restore marriage for everyone in California, in court! I love California too! Happy days are on the horizon!

[STEVE LEONG]

Someday soon, the majority of people will realize that Gays were created by God, for God's reason. They didn't choose to be that way. How we treat others born differently from ourselves is the true test of "Christianity". It doesn't matter what anyone says, bottom line: "What one sows, so shall they reap". Rejoice now, for taking away the rights from others born differently, do you really think God is smiling down on you?

Steve Leong

[Gregory McDaniel]

Yes Jerry, signing an antigay marriage bill was "totally appropriate" for that time. And slavery was totally appropriate before 1865.

[Rachel]

I can't believe Jerry Brown and other homophobes wish to waste their energy on laws that diminish human rights for their fellow citizens. The question I always want to ask these folks is: 'How does allowing gay couples the right to marry affect YOUR life?' Seriously -- what possible negative outcome could it have?

I am SO tired of hateful laws, hateful people, and hateful rhetoric that seeks to strip gays and lesbians of their fundamental rights as human beings. When/if Brown runs for reelection or seeks another office, he will not get my vote. Wake up, Jerry -- it's the 21st century and people have had enough of the narrow-minded. You may well find yourself out of a job someday soon.

[Steve]

Jerry Brown is a thuggish man who should no longer be in public office. He specifically and unfairly worded Proposition 8 to speak of how it 'eliminates the right' for gays to marry. Even the most conservative American would have to hesitate for a bit with wording like that. Yet nearly 53% of Californian voters (in an election where a whopping 61% of state voters elected the liberal Obama) ratified Prop 8. I have a feeling that had the measure been more fairly worded it would have passed with a healthier margin.

What's amazing is that in this day and age, even in left-leaning states like California, most still don't support gay marriage. If you go to more mainstream states like Florida, overwhelming majorities reject it.

[Philip Chandler]

I am an openly gay man, and I know for fact that I was born gay. I can no more change my sexual orientation than a black person can change his or her skin color, notwithstanding the angry reaction that this comparison has caused within the black community. Some black people take exception to this comparison, because gay people can hide their sexual orientation -- but in many ways, this makes the problem of cruel and thoughtless discrimination against gay people even worse, because those who insult and abuse gay people frequently do not know that they are insulting people who are near and dear to them. The closet is perhaps the most powerful tool used used by bigots to "keep the homos in their place," and I believe that every gay person should be open about his or her sexual orientation.

The California Supreme Court, in handing down in re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008), held as a matter of law that gay persons comprise a "suspect class" for the purposes of state constitutional analysis. This means that, in the eyes of the law, discrimination against gay persons is as pernicious and as illegal as discrimination against racial or religious minorities; measures that proceed along suspect lines are subjected to the most demanding standard of judicial review, known as "strict scrutiny." Suspect classes are defined in terms of a number of criteria, which include a history of purposeful and invidious discrimination based on a characteristic that is either "immutable" or changeable only at unacceptable personal cost to the members of the group in question and which does not bear on the ability of members of the class to contribute to society, a history of relative political powerlessness, and status as a "discrete and insular" minority. Not all of these characteristics have to be met in order for an identifiable group to be designated as a suspect class by the courts; religion is not immutable, yet classifications on the basis of religion are also considered to be suspect under federal constitutional jurisprudence (along with alienage, national origin, and race). In holding that gay persons comprise a suspect class, the state court mandated that any laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation must be subject to strict scrutiny; this means that they must promote a "compelling state interest" and must be "narrowly tailored" (absolutely necessary) for the promotion of the compelling state interest in question.

The court also held that marriage is a fundamental right under the state constitution. Proposition 8 therefore serves to withdraw from a suspect class a right considered by the courts to be fundamental. Proposition 8 is exactly analogous, from a legal perspective, to a measure that seeks to withdraw the right to marry from black people only, or from Catholics only. This is the state of the law in California, regardless of the personal emotions of the justices who dissented in in re Marriage Cases (supra). Proposition 8 is therefore violative of other, key provisions of the state constitution, and it is my sincere hope that the California Supreme Court will hold that this measure is either unconstitutional, or can only be enacted pursuant to the constitutional revision process (as opposed to the constitutional amendment process).

The naked cruelty of so-called "Christians" is evident in the amicus briefs and the lawsuit that the "Family Research Council" filed a few weeks ago. Not content with trying to prevent future gay marriages from taking place in California, this group filed suit seeking to annul the marriages of almost 20,000 couples who were married between the date that in re Marriage Cases was handed down, and the passage of Proposition 8.

Simply put, this group wishes to annul nearly 20,000 marriages and to turn the children of gay parents and the adoptive children of gay partners into bastards.

It is for this reason -- it is because of the savage ugliness and cruelty of these horrible people -- that I promised myself, several years ago, never to enter a house of organized religion again as long as I live.

Jerry Brown is to be commended for taking the unusual position of attacking this amendment to the state constitution. He has risked his personal and professional reputation, and I salute him for his integrity and his courage.

My grave concern is that Justice Joyce Kennard voted not to hear the case when papers were filed seeking to overturn Proposition 8. She was one of the justices who voted to legalize gay marriages. One interpretation of her vote not to review the constitutionality of Proposition 8 is that she considers this measure to be constitutional -- so much so that she does not believe that it even merits judicial review. However, Justice Kennard has a long history of supporting the rights of gay persons, and another interpretation is that she voted not to hear arguments pertaining to the constitutionality of Proposition 8 for procedural reasons; she may believe that the record should be developed in the lower courts, rather than seeking to invoke the original jurisdiction of the state high court. b Yet another interpretation of her vote is that she has extended a hidden invitation to the opponents of Proposition 8 to submit other, possibly better, arguments for immediate review. Separation of powers arguments are not easy to make, and she may have wished for the lower courts to create a record that would be ripe for appellate adjudication.

Those who believe that gay Californians are entitled to the equal protection of the laws can only hope that we will prevail. One thing I do know, with utter certitude, is this should we lose in court, we will be back in 2010 with another initiative to restore the right to marry to the State of California. Should we fail in 2010, we will try again in 2012. We will not give up. We will never accept anything less than full acceptance as equal and productive members of society.

PHILIP CHANDLER

[sam]

IF GOD has anything to do with Gays being Gay, It would be a test for you. The test is just like anyother text he gives us. We read his commandments and then overcome our "naturalman" tendancies. He doesnt want you be an alcholic, but you learn to overcome the problem. He doesnt want you to rape, he wants you to overcome the tendanies. He doesnt want you to cheat on your spouse, he wants you to overcome your temptations. It is black and white in the bible, IT IS AN ABOMINATION! He wouldnt give you an instruction manual (bible) and then make you Gay. He gave you the manual, so you can make the choice to overcome. He made lots of others, animals, insects, snakes etc, they are not Gay. Being Gay is a choice

[Ant]

Actually Sam, homosexual behavior has been observed in 1500 species of animals to date, from insects to dolphins.

Why would your god "test" someone by giving them the ability to feel love? Kind of a cruel jerk, if you ask me.

The Bible also says it's an abomination to eat shellfish and to wear two kinds of thread in the same fabric. Are you also in favor of taking away the rights of those who like shrimp or wear blended fabrics?

The Bible also very clearly says that a guy lived inside of a sea monster for awhile. Do you REALLY believe everything in the Bible is fact? Is there absolutely no way that any of the many writers of the Bible could have slipped their own opinions and prejudices into it?