California AG reverses course, decides to challenge Prop 8
posted at 2:55 pm on December 20, 2008 by Allahpundit
Made possible only because Prop 8 passed so narrowly, of course. Otherwise Moonbeam, who’s angling to replace Schwarzenegger in 2010, wouldn’t have dared.
In a brief filed with the high court, the state top’s lawyer argues for the first time that Proposition 8 should be invalidated, saying it is “inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty safeguarded” by the California Constitution. Brown had not taken a position on the measure until now.
“There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights,” Brown said in an interview. “If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it’s not a fundamental liberty.”…
The Supreme Court’s ruling in May held that the state constitution provides a right to marry that cannot be denied to same-sex couples. The brief filed by the attorney general on Friday argues that in order invalidate such a fundamental right, the court must determine that there is a compelling justification to do so, such as the protection of public health or safety.
His point ultimately is that Prop 8 shouldn’t be considered an “amendment” to the California constitution but a “revision.” What’s the difference? Hard to say from state case law, but essentially an amendment is a minor change to the document and a revision is a major one, based on both “quantitative and qualitative” factors. Follow the link and read Dale Carpenter’s post at Volokh for an excellent treatment. The more you add to or subtract from the constitution, the more likely it is that you’re making a revision; hence the “quantitative” component, which should bode well for a narrow alteration like Prop 8. On the other hand, imagine a ballot initiative to amend the state’s free exercise clause by making it illegal to, say, build synagogues in California. Per the “qualitative” component, is that a minor change or a major one? Arguably it’s the latter since religious freedom is a fundamental right — just like marriage is, which is precisely Brown’s point. The reason the distinction’s important is because while an “amendment” can pass by majority vote in a ballot initiative, a “revision” requires the approval of two-thirds of both houses of the state legislature, which, needless to say, Prop 8 will never get. So if the court agrees with Brown that it’s inane to make constitutional rights subject to simple majority whim, what we have here is a revision and the result would be tossed out.
Or would it? Evidently constitutional rights in California have been changed by simple amendment before, and like Patterico says, a right that was expanded just six months ago by court decision ain’t quite as “fundamental” as free exercise. My hunch is that Prop 8 supporters have more to fear from the U.S. Supreme Court, which has been trending towards expanding rights for gays for years and may seize this as its opportunity to make them a bona fide “suspect class” for equal protection purposes. Gabe Malor at Ace’s site is skeptical, but there’s no question the four liberals on the Court would vote that way; the X factor, as he always is, is Kennedy, and he’s already written two landmark gay rights opinions, one in 1996 and another in 2003. He’s about due for another. Exit question: Here’s a snippet from his opinion in Lawrence v. Texas. Notwithstanding the aside about “formal recognition” of relationships, per the boldfaced part, how does Prop 8 survive?
The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Is there no one who can put a stop to this sort of legal and moral chicanery?
Captain Moonbeam here is an absolute disgrace to Californians and the American people. “OK, I’ve got an idea. I’ll allow a vote on this Constitutional AMENDMENT, but first I’ll re-word it so that it portrays everyone who votes for it hateful bigots. That way, there’s no way it can pass. See how smart I am? I know, I know, I’m a bloody genius!! What?? It passed??? Why, that’s UNFAIR and UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!! Screw the will of the people.
Well, SCREW YOU CAPTAIN MOONBEAM!
Fuzzlenutter on December 20, 2008 at 3:03 PM
So the Constitution cannot be “revised” by a vote of the people, but it can be revised by hissy fit?
schmuck281 on December 20, 2008 at 3:08 PM
So that means the people who voted for it are what…. chopped liver?
mindhacker on December 20, 2008 at 3:09 PM
I wouldn’t live in California if I had Bill Gates money.
L
letget on December 20, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Yeah, right. It could have passed 60-40 and this guy would have flip-flopped. There has never been a time in history when government officials didn’t try to circumvent the will of the people.
jimmy the notable on December 20, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Well, it IS California, after all. Not like anything coming out of there is going to have even a hint of common sense.
n0doz on December 20, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Regardless of when the right was recognized, or how long it had been recognized, the California Supreme Court made it a fundamental right. Or is there some kind of judicial five-second rule?
RightOFLeft on December 20, 2008 at 3:13 PM
When did the ability to get a marriage license from the state start ranking up there with freedom of expression?
Rainsford on December 20, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Prop 8 doesn’t take away anyone’s liberty, or rights. Marriage is not a right! If this challenge stands and 8 is overturned, then what stops a polygamist to argue for their right to marry in groups? What about beastiality? Pedophiles? The world is truly going crazy.
Ordinary1 on December 20, 2008 at 3:16 PM
The problem is, by insisting that both homosexual and heterosexual marriages are “marriage”, the state strips away religions right to choose whom they want to marry. By keeping it at civil unions and marriage, churches don’t risk lawsuits or anything by performing marriages and not civil unions because they’re separate.
By insisting that gays being joined together and heterosexual couples being joined together must be treated as the same thing and both are marriages and equal, the state is taking away our freedom of religion because it is all or nothing; perform marriage for everyone, or don’t perform marriages at all. So which is worse? One way, a majority group’s rights are taken away, and the other way, nobody’s rights are taken away, as long as civil unions give gays the same rights as married heterosexual couples.
This is very upsetting to me, but I don’t know what we can do to combat it.
Christina D on December 20, 2008 at 3:18 PM
This is exactly why a state that does not want gay marriage must not pass a civil union law. Once the civil union law is in place judges have the judicial levers to make gay marriage law.
Should the gay marraige lobby succeed and force it’s agenda count on enormous pressure to be applied to Obama on
SCOTUS appointments. Anything that even smells like a liberal would wind up costing Democrats in the next election cycle.
Theworldisnotenough on December 20, 2008 at 3:21 PM
When’s he gonna start arresting illegals and suing the companies that enable them? *crickets*
SouthernGent on December 20, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Because it doesn’t make anything illegal. It does not restrict any individual rights. All Prop 8 restricts is the power of the government.
Count to 10 on December 20, 2008 at 3:22 PM
I hear you on the polygamist argument.
You cannot say that it is alright for homosexual unions to be called marriage and on the other hand still persecute the polygamists and not allow them to marry all of their wives… which you’ll go to jail for if it does occur, might I add. I don’t agree with polygamy, but if homosexuals can marry, then why not them? What about their “minority fundamental rights”?
Christina D on December 20, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Click on the Moonbeam link above, then scroll down to references and click on the link for the official portrait of Governor Moonbeam.
If you’ve never seen it, it’s worth the time to check out.
Absolutely laughable.
Disturb the Universe on December 20, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Proposition 8 reads:
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Valid or recognized.
This means that gay marriage is not valid or not recognized in California. But it’s not, pace Carpenter, banned.
Banned as in prohibited.
SteveMG on December 20, 2008 at 3:28 PM
In re the argument that Prop 8 “passed so narrowly”, the proposition was passed by 52 to 48 percent, or exactly the margin of victory enjoyed by 0bama.
warbaby on December 20, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Actually, it is. The state cannot prevent a church from marrying a man and woman.
But that doesn’t mean that the state must recognize that marriage and extend benefits or privileges (tax deductions, hospital visitation rights, et cetera) to that couple.
In other words, people have a right to marry. To use Berlin’s distinction, it’s a negative freedom.
But the state is not oligated to recognize that marriage and extend benefits to it. The state may take away those benefits at any time.
SteveMG on December 20, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Maybe I’ll be able to get married to both my parents. That way, there will be no estate taxes when they pass on.
Then I’ll get married to my children.
Josiah on December 20, 2008 at 3:35 PM
@ Fuzzlenutter on December 20, 2008 at 3:03 PM
What are your thoughts on the electoral college?
muyoso on December 20, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Between Teh Gheys in the north and the illegal aliens in the south……………
………….. I’ll take the illegals any day.
If I fly the California flag upside down as a sign of distress…………… will anyone come to assist?
Seven Percent Solution on December 20, 2008 at 3:36 PM
The majority in the South in the 60′s would have voted to keep Jim Crow too, that wouldn’t have made it constitutional. This hateful amendment deserves to be thrown out, religious bigotry should have no place in determining our laws.
Noneya on December 20, 2008 at 3:36 PM
I’m assuming these quotes are equally applicable to 2nd Amendment issues? Or only as needed on a case by case basis?
a capella on December 20, 2008 at 3:38 PM
assist in keeping old racist and homophobic attitudes? i’d hope not.
Noneya on December 20, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Are you in favor of affirmative action legislation?
a capella on December 20, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Just wait until 2011 when Bush’s tax cuts expire and then GAYS will never get married because then they have to pay the penalty like the rest of us straight people in 2011 called the marriage tax. Bush eleminate the marriage tax people used to have to pay every year.
In 2011 this will all be a moot point cause gays will be in a civil union.
BroncosRock on December 20, 2008 at 3:40 PM
The reason why gays should not get married is because pastor who believe the bible is true will never ever marry two men or two women and then they would be fined or worse be thrown into jail for believing what they believe.
BroncosRock on December 20, 2008 at 3:44 PM
How is this religious bigotry?
Two people of the same sex – gay or straight or bisexual or asexual – who get married won’t have that marriage recognized by the state of California.
The very definition of marriage throughout history – in non-Christian nations, in officially atheistic nations – has been a union between a man and a woman.
You think the officially atheistic states of the Soviet Union or China recognized same sex marriages?
For what it’s worth, I’d vote in favor of extending the benefits to same sex couples. But not because it’s a right or because opponents are bigots.
SteveMG on December 20, 2008 at 3:47 PM
The homosexual establishment will bring society down to ruins, using any foolish instrument at hand, simply to prevail. This isn’t about justice…it’s about power.
Perverse in their private lives, they will not stop until they’ve perverted all around them.
They’ll say anything, styling their wishes as having come down to them from both the Founding Fathers and the angels, not caring in the least for the wishes of those who oppose them. Such people, in their eyes, are bigots, and their opinions — even those expressed at the ballot box — are worthless.
…with this presented as an example.
Puritan1648 on December 20, 2008 at 3:48 PM
In re the argument that Prop 8 “passed so narrowly”, the proposition was passed by 52 to 48 percent, or exactly the margin of victory enjoyed by 0bama.
warbaby on December 20, 2008 at 3:29 PM
+1
Beat me to it
Seven percent
No SNAFU BTW I fly regularly Joly Roger and #1 Stars and Bars. In Pasadena heh heh
Any state stupid enough to elect Moonbeam deserves him.
Flying 30 Stars and Stripes
Caststeel on December 20, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Brown is an idiot! Going against the PEOPLES VOTE for less then 1% of the population?
Good luck with that.
christene on December 20, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Worry not. Brown is a just a lazy, left-wing turd trying to augment his taxpayer-funded retirement. California has now changed from blue to purple, on its’ way back to red. The Democrats got spanked badly here in the November election, so now they are hysterical in trying to change everything they can before they are voted out.
Just watch – change is definitely a-coming.
savvydude on December 20, 2008 at 3:53 PM
How does keeping the definition of marriage the same it’s always been “demean their existence”? There are lots of people who aren’t included in the current definition of marriage, are they being demeaned? As for controlling their destiny, the state does that all the time. Simple laws like making jaywalking illegal is controlling their destiny.
clearbluesky on December 20, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Won’t matter for much longer. CA is past broke. Tax gay marriage. heh Tax illegals. Presto >> surplus
Flying Gadsden
Caststeel on December 20, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Noneya on December 20, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Let me turn the tables on you. If we were back in the 60s, and the court were anti-jim crow and the state attorney representing the people, decided to take the people to court over their passing Jim Crow via ballot initiative ( a measure that he help write ), where would you be?
Take the emotional hot button out of it ( the gay marriage ) and then hopefully you can see more clear. As our lawyer he is to represent us, ever hear a lawyer take his own client to court?
Conservative Voice on December 20, 2008 at 3:55 PM
…and another thing…can we put the whole “religious bigotry” thing to rest?
What was the penalty for engaging in homosexuality in the atheistic East Bloc countries of the Soviet era?
…in a word: death.
…so, religious people have no corner on the “we don’t approve of homosexuality” department. In fact, and especially recently, religious people have been amazingly patient with the bile being spat their way by our homosexual activist neighbors…bigotry, your name is “gay”….
Puritan1648 on December 20, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Just when you think you’ve read it all here….
Noneya on December 20, 2008 at 3:56 PM
No, we can’t. If you want to live like the Soviets or the Taliban (you are the christian equivalent) you are in the wrong country for that…
Noneya on December 20, 2008 at 3:58 PM
So, forcing people to recognize gay marriage as a legal institution isn’t controlling those people’s destinies?
The only people using the state to impose their views are those who support recognizing same sex marriage as a legally valid marriage.
And I said above, I’m one of them.
But government coerces people to do things all the time. They’re called laws.
SteveMG on December 20, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Noneya on December 20, 2008 at 3:36 PM
“Jim Crow” ???
“There you go again.”
Flying Gadsden
Caststeel on December 20, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Not at all true. Churches would still retain the discretion to marry whomever they choose.
JetBoy on December 20, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Brown is still pissed that he was dumped by Linda Ronstadt.
He’s got a stone pony in his shorts and is taking it out on his fellow Californians.
profitsbeard on December 20, 2008 at 4:01 PM
The great State of California is broke, in more ways then one. Jerry Brown is just another commie pretending to be a socialist. The folks in California elected the SOB so the folks in California deserve him. No tears here.
Limerick on December 20, 2008 at 4:02 PM
You’re missing the point.
The point is that historically marriage has been defined legally as a marriage between a man and a woman.
That includes in both religiously-founded nations and secularly-based nations. US, Soviet Union, China, East Germany….
You think opposition to same sex marriage is entirely religiously based. It’s not.
History shows it’s not.
SteveMG on December 20, 2008 at 4:02 PM
If it was so easy to throw the clergy in jail then Cardinal Law and others would be incarcerated for conspiracy in protecting their pedophile priests, don’t kid yourself…
Noneya on December 20, 2008 at 4:03 PM
…didn’t understand the point made at all, did you? Just want your way, calling names if you don’t get it…as does every child, until they grow up….
…anyway, I wouldn’t want to live under any totalitarian regime, be it that of the Sov’s, the Taliban…or self-righteous, electorate-neutralizing, extra-legal homosexuals…nope…not me….
Puritan1648 on December 20, 2008 at 4:05 PM
What would their argument be against a grandfather and grandson getting married if the grandson is 18? Or a grandmother and granddaughter who is 18? They obviously couldn’t use any argument like “majority of society doesn’t approve” because overturning the voice of the majority is what their purpose is here. They couldn’t use a “tradionally disapproved by society” because they same could be argued of all homosexuals.
I don’t see how those examples are exempted from the Scalia rule.
Buddahpundit on December 20, 2008 at 4:06 PM
What does that prove, exactly? Marriage has evolved from the beginning, from being a simple property exchange to being arranged by families to including multiple wives etc. Since 2000, when the Dutch made gay marriage legal, same-sex couples have been expanded to have that right, so we aren’t the first, again what is your point?
Noneya on December 20, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Man, you’re not doing your (our) cause any good.
One of the problems for proponents of recognizing legally gay marriage is that too many people want the recognition simply to stick it to Christians or religious people.
You’re not really interested in the recognition; you just want to shove it down their throats.
Don’t be surprised if you lose the great middle of voters using this tactic.
SteveMG on December 20, 2008 at 4:08 PM
It proves that despite your protestations, the opposition isn’t entirely religiously based.
A large part of the opposition is tradition based and a concern (fear, if you must) that a critical institution is being dangerously (as they see it) changed.
If you’d address those concerns instead of just ridiculing their religion, you’d might make some ground.
Granted, some aren’t playing “nice” with you either.
SteveMG on December 20, 2008 at 4:12 PM
I hear Mexico wants to make a bargain on CA.
Secede? Or FOR SALE?
ProudPalinFan on December 20, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Why is the State granting special rights based on a particular groups behavior? What other than behavior makes a gay person a special minority group?
If we are going to throw marriage out, we need to throw out all laws governing relationships. Why should government close the door after the Homosexuals are granted their special rights?
Kjeil on December 20, 2008 at 4:44 PM
How does the US Supreme Court have jurisdiction over a State constitution and/or appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of a State supreme court?
KSgop on December 20, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Well, if you’re married (opposite sex) and you behave correctly (marriage stays together) you get special privileges.
All kinds of behavior gets special privileges from the state. E.g., having children, et cetera.
The government’s been in the business of rewarding some behavior and punishing others for a long, long time.
SteveMG on December 20, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Well, nevermind, I guess they have done that before. I think our death penalty statute issue went from the state supreme court to the US Supreme Court on appeal.
KSgop on December 20, 2008 at 4:50 PM
The idea of our Founding Fathers was that the Joe and Jane Does of America had the right to vote in or out any law they so desired, with the understanding that they lived with the consequences. Except for a very few limitations We The People were supposed to be able to make our own laws without a handful of robed goons deciding they knew better.
Were Jim Crow laws right – or even morally defensible? Of course not.
Did the South have the right to pass most of them? Darn straight.
Dark-Star on December 20, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Geez,
The next step in the new social frontier will be the the recognition of the right to a civil union between two consenting adult mammals regardless of species.
Schmo on December 20, 2008 at 5:03 PM
How about live blogging the wedding night weirdness? I’ll give you 55% of the gate for an exclusive.
snaggletoothie on December 20, 2008 at 5:07 PM
A suspect class, based on what? What do they need protection from?… How about making the little old ladies with crosses a suspect class, so the next time a lunatic gay mob takes to the street for some “justice” with a little old lady in their cross hairs, maybe the police will step in an protect her from the special behavior group.
Kjeil on December 20, 2008 at 5:16 PM
California yet again proves itself a disgrace and unworthy of inclusion in these United States.
Viper1 on December 20, 2008 at 5:28 PM
It is interesting to note that Andrew Sullivan was essentially read out of the gay movement in the eighties and nineties for his support for gay marriage (using that as shorthand).
The argument then, as I understand it, by the gay movement (generalizing) was that marriage was a patriarchal institution of control, something distinctly at odds with the sexual liberation and freedom that was celebrated by the cause.
It is passing strange watching the radical gay left demand recognition for an institution that, let’s face it, they’ve historically loathed.
But not really since their real goal is not about equal rights, is it?
SteveMG on December 20, 2008 at 5:38 PM
I’ve lived in CA for just about two years. It’s the weirdest place. We seem to be voting on everything, yet somehow the politicians manage to ignore the citizens’ wishes and do whatever they want anyway.
Jerry did his best in the ballot guide wording to get the results he wanted, but he lost anyway. Now what’s his position? Is he saying he’s so incompetent as AG that the court should ignore the ballot provision that his office put forward this fall? Fine. Let’s kick him out of office.
Y-not on December 20, 2008 at 5:41 PM
Jerry did his best in the ballot guide wording to get the results he wanted, but he lost anyway. Now what’s his position? Is he saying he’s so incompetent as AG that the court should ignore the ballot provision that his office put forward this fall? Fine. Let’s kick him out of office.
Y-not on December 20, 2008 at 5:41 PM
Learned of this last night. I too am a Californian. With common sense! You too Y-not. Monday, I will be calling a ton of people. I will be flooding with mails and faxes. Am encouraging my friends to do the same. He needs to get out! He was worthless as a Governor. And he is worthless as a AG. He did word that ballot strange. Some thought no meant yes. And some thought yes meant yes. Stupid way he wrote it. Then he claims he voted Yes. I don’t believe him. Or, did he get a huge amount of payment pending from someone? Or a Group? Something is not right. How dare these Lizards shed their skin! I am with you. Kick him out!
sheebe on December 20, 2008 at 6:03 PM
There. Fixed it for you.
Ordinary1 on December 20, 2008 at 6:06 PM
The sooner Californians purge the state of liberal fools like AG Jerry Brown, and few judges, the better off they’ll be. Jerry Brown has had his straw in the public trough long enough. Recall the swine, or vote him out.
byteshredder on December 20, 2008 at 6:14 PM
Really looking forward to Harry Reid and the other Dims trying to rationalize this piece of crap as a U.S. Senator. They cluelessly don’t get that Franken demeans the whole enterprise.
He needs to be the face of the Dems.
Minnesota: Gave us Fritz and Titz and now Franken Beans.
EMD on December 20, 2008 at 6:46 PM
“You won’t give me a pony because you hate me.” That’s about the level of logic used in their arguments.
Here’s a novel idea: Instead of arrogating to yourselves through fiat and intimidation the respectability of an aeons-old social institution that doesn’t apply to you, why don’t you try earning it through your own community’s actions? When gays living monogamous and mutually-supporting lives that enhance the health and welfare of society becomes the norm, they won’t have to fight for marriage, it will be given to them. And there’s nothing hateful or bigoted about society withholding it until then.
Socratease on December 20, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Proposition 8 became part of the constitution when it passed.
How does one argue that one part of the constitution is unconstitutional? The Liberal mind going where no mind has dared to go.
The Federal Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment was unconstitional where the treason clause requires it. The compromise was that capital punishment applied only to the crime of treason.
The 21st amendment took precedence over the 18th amendment showing that later amendments superceed earlier amendments or previously passed portions of the constitution.
Proposition 8 superceeds all earlier passed portions of the California State consitition.
Liberals gleefully looked forward to passing the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) as it would force religions to stop descriminating on the basis of sex (and sex don’t just mean gender). They wanted to prevent religions from excuminating people for adultery, fornication and homosexual behavior. They were looking forward to the ERA overriding our first amendment guarantee to freedom of religion.
The US constitution guarantees the American people the right to the ‘Republican’ form of government.
If the California courts invalidate prop. 8 they will have transformed the form of government in Calif. from a republic to an oligarchy (government of the few) where a few men (and women) in black dresses make all decisions.
Now that would be an excellent use of capitol punishment.
The Rock on December 20, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Noneya:
What religion is homosexuality? Religious bigotry? Why would you say that someone against gay marriage is a bigot? Isn’t religious bigotry being bigoted against religion?
Vince on December 20, 2008 at 7:50 PM
Soon, the tumbrel.
Mason on December 20, 2008 at 8:41 PM
They are bigots. It seems strange to have this fight now. We just have to wait five year for the old bigots to die and gay marriage will have majority support anyway. I say let’s win this by a vote, not by the Supreme Court.
thuja on December 20, 2008 at 9:41 PM
Well, it sounds like the courts stripped away this fundamental right from the constitution, unless you want to assume that the state constitution is a living document, and that when it was formed, that gay rights were not a consideration, as they were not when the Constitution of this republic was written. Therefore have not the courts redefined “fundamental Liberty”. So if the courts are going to redefine fundamental liberty, the constitutions of the Republic and the PRCalif, are moot as the courts define the laws to suit their interpretation, not to uphold as they were defined and as is their jobs. This voids the right of the citizenry to amend the constitution by a majority vote.
Resistance is Futile!
N4646W on December 21, 2008 at 2:26 AM
Weak. Very weak. Marriage is now magically evolving.
Just another way of saying, “It’s different now.”
theregoestheneighborhood on December 21, 2008 at 3:32 AM
Jerry Brown = Gray Davis with a lobotomy.
hillbillyjim on December 21, 2008 at 9:03 AM
To all of you who think, “well it IS California”, and “I wouldn’t live there….”:
Yes, this is California, and if you bothered to study legal history in this country you would realize that what happens here ALWAYS spreads across the country eventually. We stand and fight and sometimes lose, but when we lose, so do YOU.
We do not ask you to do much, but don’t spend your time maligning us for what we do. Many times there are more of us that share the conservative ideology, but have little to no access through the media and must rely on the more fundamental grassroots approach to political action. There is a lot of money spent trying to staunch the flow of the liberal agenda here. They spend even more. The schools, and I am a public school teacher so I know, teach liberalism as the default position on everything so the kids don’t have a chance. The media is wholly owned and operated by liberals. The state legislature is bought and paid for, and therefore run by the teachers union, which couldn’t be more liberal! In the face of all of this, we still fight the fight.
So, either help out by contributing to the Prop 8 legal fund, of offering pro bono legal support, or man a phone bank and help raise funds, or any other thing you can do, but please stop putting down those of us in California who are trying to stop this wave from washing over you.
InTheBellyoftheBeast on December 21, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Why even wait that long? Since “religious bigots” are behind this, perhaps the AG should go after these “religious bigots” for violating anti-descrimination laws already on the books and by revoking their tax-exempt status. If these “religious bigots” refuse to alter their “bigoted” beliefs to conform to the laws of the State, they should face the consequences, or leave the state. Mission accomplished.
Spiny Norman on December 21, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Mobs rule.
JellyToast on December 21, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Coming to a neighborhood near you.
BallisticBob on December 21, 2008 at 1:55 PM
I would love nothing more than to poke fun at Kullyfornis pols but living in Minnesnowta…..well……glass houses.
oakpack on December 21, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Same sex marriage has been, is, and will always be an oxymoron.
ALWAYS between men AND women you moron. Dowries, polygamy, arranged marriges etc. All of these are aspects of a relationship between a MAN and a WOMAN. THAT part has ALWAYS been a constant.
…Besides, excluding women from male/male unions or guys from female/female unions would be, by your “logic”, discriminatory. Cannot say that about a marriage! We got 50% male and 50% female in every marriage!! Equality!! The femminazis should be happy about marriage – there is equity in it! It’s the homosexuals who should be sued for discrimination here!
Look, the gays want their lifestyle choice to be placed on the same level as a normal heterosexual lifestyle. What better way than to REDEFINE marriage. Throughout history that has not occurred and it never will. The hissy fit they are having in California proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt; trying to force acceptance.
And a for Jerry Brown, He should be fired for not doing his job.
Seems the Governator has muscles but no berries………
Bubba Redneck on December 21, 2008 at 3:50 PM
For a court to even HEAR this case would violate the State’s Constitution, the only way to legally amend the State’s Constitution would be to pass another Amendment. Moonbeam Brown and the rest of the far-left lunatics don’t care that suing to overturn a Constitutional Amendment violates that Constitution as did the California Supreme Court overturning a constitutionally mandated vote of the people, which puts the very existence of that Supreme Court in a paradox.
The folks need to realize exactly how serious this is!
For a court to even hear this case puts ever State’s Constitution and the U.S. Constitution at risk. Will we see leftists suing to abolish the First and Second Amendments next?
ANY judge that would actually hear an unconstitutional case such as this should be impeached IMMEDIATELY as that judge would be in contempt of his oath of office to protect and defend that Constitution and would be in contempt of the Constitution itself.
Imagine the paradox the Courts would put themselves in because a suit, ruling that a Constitutional Amendment is in itself unconstitutional, would violate that very Constitution, which would in fact render the decision of the court unconstitutional rendering the court in itself unconstitutional, rendering the power of the court unconstitutional. A Paradox like going back in time and killing your father, before he had fathered you, rendering you unmade.
Also, this suit would set precedent for the other 49 states to sue California for endangering THEIR Constitutions.
For ANYONE in California to legally overturn Prop 8, which is now a valid part of the State’s Constitution, Prop 8 would have to be Constitutionally Amended, any other attempt to invalidate the Amendment would be illegal.
nelsonknows on December 21, 2008 at 6:04 PM
The best thing to do with idiots like Moonbeam Brown, Arnie Schwartzenkennedy and Gavin Newscum is to tie them to surfboards and leave them off the coast of Commiefornia for the Great White’s to snack on.
nelsonknows on December 21, 2008 at 6:11 PM
WTF is wrong with the people.
I think we need a good revolution if this continues.
ColdWarrior57 on December 21, 2008 at 8:31 PM
What a strange round of arguments, as a gay man that has already had to deal with the simple fact that being gay wasn’t a ‘CHOICE’ despite being raised to believe that. After that revelation I had to decide if I wanted to stay in the closet or try to live a life in the open. I found out the hard way that living a life in the closet actually alienates more friends than being open, PLUS I got the mental issues of suppressing my real life from everyone, that was a fun nervous breakdown. Than after all that I decided that I didn’t want to be one of those gays that ran around and didn’t give two shits if i lived or died because no one else did either. I wanted to be a good citizen and a good son. Only to be told that I was unwanted unless I was willing to lie about myself yet again and go back in the closet. So over time i moved from being a gay that never thought I’d get married, to being a gay that wanted to be married and have a stable home life. (marriage stability is great for that isn’t it). Than I was told by the same people that once told me that they hated gays because they slept around and spread disease that gays could never be trusted to settle down and therefore one shouldn’t endanger marriage by bringing in new factors and that marriage was to old an institution to mess with. These are the same people who ignore or encourage their children to get divorced over any little issue, driving divorce rates in my state to almost 70%.
These same people try to tell me that marriage is sacred, some sort of holy institute, not a social construct, like history teaches and shows. well based on the numbers and my own experiences, i don’t think gays can fuck it up much more than straights and I have to wonder if they don’t fight for an ideal rather than the reality. If gays, the same children they produced and nurtured, seek to strive for the same ideals and dreams that they espouse,than ask for marriage, can they so ignorantly oppose the same aspirations and dreams that they fight for? I don’t know, but what i do know is that I think that if society had a place and a goal for gays than many of their children that choose suicide might just possibly choose marriage over the slow death of loneliness that is the current option.
Zekecorlain on December 22, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Zekecorlain, if you live in California and are gay, you can enjoin in a Domestic Partnership with all of the same rights that the State can guarantee to any married couple, a Domestic Partnership that heterosexual couples cannot enjoin until age 63.
States have the right to deny a marriage license to ANYONE the State feels should be denied. Marriage licenses are NOT a MUST ISSUE license but are a MAY ISSUE license, a privilege. Each State, according to the Tenth Amendment, have the discretionary right to make laws pertaining to marriage and the right not to recognize marriages in their Constitutions. Furthermore, California is a NO FAULT divorce State which makes the State the final conservator of that marriage. If you try to fight a divorce in California, you will LOSE and the State will divorce you anyway. The State has the right to grant you a license and dissolve that license.
My Advice to gays is to enjoin in Domestic Partnerships and leave heterosexuals alone because, in using the words of some gay marriage supporters, “It’s only a word”.
nelsonknows on December 22, 2008 at 12:45 AM
Prop 8 doesn’t bring back the sodomy laws, therefore this argument is specious and should be tossed out immediately.
BKennedy on December 22, 2008 at 3:31 AM
At least until they got sued over it.
You know it will happen JetBoy, I mention it time and time again, but I also know you don’t care.
Religious bigotry is the last acceptable bigotry. No one who argues separation of church and state even bothers to fight actual state intrusions of churches, but will quickly fling into battle at even an imagined intrusion of church into state.
BKennedy on December 22, 2008 at 3:37 AM
And all the money that was spent. The libs can save a bit next time. Just let it pass and use our tax dollars to litigate it to death.
hawkdriver on December 22, 2008 at 7:58 AM
Look the reason I am outraged is the basic premise that the proponents of Prop 8 can retroactively apply ANY law, a premise which is not only unconstitutional, but morally repugnant as well. Also the premise of majority control of rights was specifically addressed by Jefferson himself, as well as other Founders, and is unsupportable by any clear thinking federalist. No majority however strong should be capable of stripping any minority of rights simply on a whim. The basic foundations of the bill of rights was specifically written to counter that possible threat and for the manics to try and over throw that basic tenant is an affront to the Republic and the Constitution.
Zekecorlain on December 22, 2008 at 9:49 AM
What would one expect from a bunch of radical GAY Left tards and their political whipping boys?
worlok on December 22, 2008 at 10:36 AM
@worlok Uh you do know that at least 30% of gays vote republican don’t you?
Zekecorlain on December 22, 2008 at 10:38 AM
No minority is being stripped on any legitimate rights. The right to marry anyone you want is not a right. Clearly the prohibition on incestuous marriages means that even if marriage is a right, it is not unlimited.
Furthermore, a true federalist would be more concerned with the power of four justices on a seven seat judiciary overriding the right of the people to govern not once, but twice in a row.
Declaring the amendment of a constitution unconstitutional is a logical paradox. It turns the judiciary into a Star Chamber like Canada’s. If I recall correctlty, it was the federalists who dispised the outcome of Marbury v. Madison.
BKennedy on December 22, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Narcissists can marry anyone who’ll have them, it just has to be someone from the opposite sex.
Akzed on December 22, 2008 at 2:08 PM
@Bkennedy “No minority is being stripped on any legitimate rights. ” how amazing that you can decide on what is legitimate, I suppose if the population strips you of your right to bear arms than it’s okay because obviously it wasn’t a legitimate right? The right to name one’s own family, the right to pass on property, the right to raise children. This is what Prop 8 is stropping and I find your caviler attitude towards majority oppression hilarious, since I’m sure should a majority decision overturn one of your rights you would be all over the tyranny of the majority.
The court has it’s authority for a reason, these same arguments were made over miscongenation. If the masses were expected to be able to govern themselves the founding fathers wouldn’t have put so many restrictions on their abilities. But the history of democracy shows that republics evolved because the masses COULD NOT govern themselves responsibly.
Zekecorlain on December 22, 2008 at 2:48 PM
The right to bear arms is in the explicit text of The Constition. The right to marry whomever you deign appropriate is not. Try again.
Prop 8 does not even touch upon any of those rights. Want to write someone into your will to inherit your property, someone who just happens to be your sexual partner and of the same gender? You can do that.
Want to raise a child? Hey, nothing stops you from doing that either. If you mean gay adoption, then sorry, robbing a child of a mother or father to stroke your own ego and give yourself the status of “family” isn’t a proper reason to start a family.
Give it a rest, like all gay marriage supporters, you pretend to talk about rights and federalism, when really it is all about public acceptance of your particular fetish.
I live in Massachusetts. Our right to determine what the definition of marriage was overturned by a majority of four. It’s called judicial fiat, and the only reason you’re happy with it is it happens to agree with your policy preference. Federalist? Don’t blow smoke up my butt, sir.
BKennedy on December 22, 2008 at 3:09 PM
robbing a child of a mother and father, yeah I bet all those foster kids just left their parents? Orphans? please you try again, the system is over flowing with children whose hetero parents dumped them. If you want to rob them of a family unit and leave them in foster care, don’t be surprised when they mug you one night.
I live in oklahoma, we have no gay marriage, divorce rates of 70% and 4500 children in the OKC metro foster program right now. My cousin was put up for adoption by her birth mother she was a single mom, who never even wanted to see her baby. My gay aunt adopted her and raised her, she now has two kids and a husband in the army. Tell me exactly how it messes up a child.
Particular fetish? A fetish is an attraction to materials and objects not conventionally viewed as being sexual in nature. Excuse me if I’m wrong but men are quite conventional and sexual.
How exactly does gay marriage affect your rights to determine anything? You don’t have to accept it, you don’t even have to perform them but because you dislike it you attempt to use the law to banish it. It already exists, we just want the legal protections that state sanction provide so that situations like this don’t happen over and over again. We’ve tried wills, we’ve tried contracts, and we still get screwed. We pay a shit load in taxes and we want something to show for it.
Zekecorlain on December 22, 2008 at 5:47 PM