AG: Keep Proposition 8 in effect for review

Sacramento Bee ^ | 11/17/8 | Aurelio Rojas

[SmithL]

State Attorney General Jerry Brown today urged the California Supreme Court to review legal challenges to Proposition 8, but steered clear of taking a position on the gay marriage ban measure approved by voters.

In a written responses to three lawsuits seeking to overturn the initiative, Brown's office said the state's highest court should allow the measure to remain in effect during the review period because of the confusion that a stay of the measure would cause.

"Due to the potential uncertainty that may be caused in important legal relationships by a temporary stay, the public interest would be better served by allowing Proposition 8 to remain in effect while expediting briefing," the Attorney General's Office said in its response.

Brown, whose office is supposed to defend the initiative, was asked by the Supreme Court last week to respond to the lawsuits that seek to overturn the voter-approved amendment to the state constitution.

Opponents of measure contend the initiative process was improperly used because only the Legislature can place a measure before voters that radically revises the state constitution.

They also maintain that Proposition 8 would undo the constitution's commitment to equality for everyone.

The court may act on the lawsuits as early Wednesday, when the justices hold their weekly conferences.

[arrogantsob]

Hmmm, Jerry’s punting it seems.

[pointsal]

Recall Jerry....just for fun...

[jeffc]

Opponents of measure contend the initiative process was improperly used because only the Legislature can place a measure before voters that radically revises the state constitution.

Then why bother allowing the people the right to put up Propositions? Why wasn't this brought up before the Prop was allowed on the ballot? How does this "radically revise" the state Constitution? Who decides that? Since marriage has always meant the union of one man and one woman, how does that radically revise anything?

They also maintain that Proposition 8 would undo the constitution's commitment to equality for everyone.

They have equality. They can get married. They cannot arbritarily change the meaning of a word.

[longtermmemmory]

The AG is punting because:

-wants to win re-election.

-thinks measure was passed fair and square.

-if he thought measure would fall he would have asked for a stay ranther than NOT asking for a stay.

curious,

In order for Proposition 8 to fall the California SC must look at the 1996 DMA which says states INDIVIDUALLY decide the marriage definition.

HOWEVER if it ignores DMA, then they have to look at the other states which will refuse to allow homosexual marriage and argue california has a right to impose homosexual marriage on the other states.

What groups are filing amicus briefs to SUPPORT prop 8?

[longtermmemmory]

CNN had some lawyer form a homosexual lawyers group (lamda?) and she was of the opinion that the court allows the issues to go to the ballot to see if they pass first and THEN deal with the issue.

That seems an absurd waste of time (judicial ecconomy) since a bad procudured measure would be tossed and save millions in expenses.

The issue the homosexuals are arguing is that it was ALWAYS fundamental and not a recent discovery.

[calcowgirl]

...the public interest would be better served by allowing Proposition 8 to remain in effect while expediting briefing," the Attorney General's Office said in its response.

Too bad the Supreme Court didn't have that much sense when they rushed to put their bogus ruling into effect before the election.