Posted on 12/21/2008 9:11:48 AM PST by kaehurowing
California’s Rush To Judgment on Same Sex Marriage
December 20th, 2008
By JERRY REMMERS
Only in California can the bizarre become the norm. In a spate of a few hours Friday afternoon, briefs were filed with the state Supreme Court challenging, supporting and extending a ban on same sex marriages. Backers of Proposition 8, the initiative that bans same sex marriage, petitioned to nullify the 18,000 marriages conducted after the high court voted 4-3 approving such nuptials.
State Attorney General Jerry Brown countered with a brief indicating he could not support the proposition because “the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification.”
Brown’s argument represents a curious legal theory as well as a reversal when he announced after the Nov. 4 election he would defend the law. Prop. 8 passed by a 52-48 margin.
But in his filing, Brown, who personally supports same-sex marriage, said the California Constitution protects certain rights as “inalienable.” Those include a right to liberty and to privacy, which the courts have said includes a person’s right to marry.
The issue “is whether rights secured under the state Constitution’s safeguard of liberty as an ‘inalienable’ right may intentionally be withdrawn from a class of persons by an initiative amendment.”
To take away an “inalienable” right would establish a “tyranny of the majority,” which the Constitution was designed, in part, to prevent, he wrote.
Opponents of gay marriage offered a sharply differing view of the case.
The brief, filed by the Protect Marriage coalition, told the justices the law “commands judges — as servants of the people — to bow to the will of those whom they serve — even if the substantive result of what the people have wrought in constitution-amending is deemed unenlightened.”
The two briefs also disagreed about the fate of the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages performed before the election.
Brown argued that Proposition 8 was not written to be retroactive and that the marriages should remain valid. Protect Marriage argued that no same-sex marriages should any longer be recognized.
The Supreme Court justices have indicated they will hear arguments in the case as early as March.
In a landmark ruling in May, the court ruled that the guarantee of equal protection in the state Constitution required that same-sex marriage be treated the same as heterosexual marriage.
Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, an expert on the state high court, said Brown’s argument “turns constitutional law on its head.” Uelmen said he was unaware of any case law that supported Brown’s theory.
Goodwin Liu, associate dean and professor of law at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law, said it was “extraordinary for the chief law enforcement officer of the state to decline to enforce a law — even on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.”
“The chief law enforcement officer of the state is charged with enforcing laws, even laws with which he disagrees,” Liu said.
Brown, who served two terms as governor in the 1970s, is exploring running for the office in 2010. His sometimes quirky view of the state earned him the nickname of Gov. Moonbeam.
With the passage of Proposition 8, appears people are trying to take back their state from the hands that have ruined it. More power to them.
Actually, what is po’ing a lot of Californians is that we’ve vote down homosexual marriage twice and we’re getting tired of having this argument.
Jerry Brown should be impeached for dereliction of duty.
They better be dug in for a long fight. Losing an election, a court decision, whatever, does not signal loss to liberals, because they don't really believe in the rule of law or even democracy. They lost on Prop 8, but here they are, just changing tack. They relentlessly go and scream and whine and pout until they get their way. It's high time we start screaming back.
MM (in TX)
when opponents want something the strategy is to keep pushing it in the nose of the general public to wear them down. In this area, certain people wanted a new arena built with taxpayer funds. the initiative came before the voters at least 6 times in various ways (ex. splitting the proposal into two parts) until the people finally got tired and voted for the new arena. another time, certain people wanted a town incorporated. after using scare tactics, and again at least 6 times the proposal went to the voters, the final time a special election was held where the supermajority (60%) rule didn’t apply. It passed. Out of a county with over 300,000 registered voters, a little over 9,000 voted against and just a little bit more over 9,000 voted for it. It was a shame!
Fourty years ago, marriage was declared unnecessary. Living together was ok as long as you were sincere. The marriage license was just a piece of paper. The shack up became normal.
Today, marriage is the most important thing you can do, but only if you are gay!
Will proposition 8 be canceled, declared null and void, revoked, etc? California is backward when considering the will of the people. Watch this vote go away.
What a pant load, there is no "right" to get married, it's something a man and a woman do.
Not really, they've refused to fight for Prop. 187 as well.
Gays DO have the right to marry, Jerry. Just like everyone else. A man can marry a woman, a woman can marry a man. Because Jerry, that is what marriage IS.
And this is something we on the right must be ready for and resolved to keep fighting for, even after we have a win. we have to keep fighting to KEEP the win. That’s where we have historically been weak, not being vigilant enough and thinking the fight is over.
They’re not giving up, we can’t ever give up either.
Article 16
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
And, as any good Democrat can tell you, we can't go against the UN, now can we?
First, let me say I understand your point of the libs not going against the UN.
However, let’s not lean on what the heck the UN says about anything, as most of the time we oppose it ‘cuz we know what the UN is about and what the vast majority of them are.
Second, any good ACLU attorney will pick that paragraph apart for pro-gay marriage. They have the right to marry- it doesn’t explicitly say “each other”. Gays are men and women. Gays can have families, they can adopt. Two gay men and two gay women can be considered family in some places. It says gays are entitled to equal rights to marry.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
“Forty years ago, marriage was declared unnecessary. “Living together was ok as long as you were sincere. The marriage license was just a piece of paper. The shack up became normal.
Today, marriage is the most important thing you can do, but only if you are gay!”
This comment is a classic! Pass it on!
Yes. He is suppose to uphold state law. I’m calling the aholes office tomorrow. I’m sure that will fix it.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
We need to start a conservative revolution to take back our country. I feel very lonely in this because I started a meet-up group called “Counter Protest Prop 8.”
http://www.meetup.com/counter-protest-prop-8
So far there is one member... me!
I think the churches have gone back to sleep on this issue. Many churches defend morality when push comes to shove, but then they worry about their membership numbers.
The time to take back our country is now; our children’s children will be vastly affected by what we do or don’t do now.
Fortunately, I have been in contact with the National Organization for Marriage or NOM. They are getting things going; so hopefully I will not be required to do the organization myself. Contact www.nationformarriage.org and let anyone who is reading this compare notes on activism on these issues.
“Today, marriage is the most important thing you can do, but only if you are gay!”
That’s so true.
“there is no “right” to get married”
The only right they are talking about is the right of the left to remake society in the godless mold.
According to the church of the godless, we will be free when traditional values are meaningless.
The bondage that results will then be that of the phallus or the fist, or both.
“we have to keep fighting to KEEP the win”
Dear Secret Agent,
What specifically do we do, except write in these forums?
Thanks.
“Brown is violating his oath of office. And no one gives a damn. “
The left does care, and they want him to act in violation of the public trust as long as it brings about the godless “liberation” which they seek.
“Why are gays so invested in marriage? Its the dying remnant of the heterosexual patriarchy. Why they would want to join it is beyond me.”
It’s part of the progress of their multi-point plan to undermine the pillars of religion and Western society. The joke, though, is also on them.
Too bad Brown is AG
I think conservatives "protest" in other ways, mostly invisible to those on the streets, or right in their faces but unrecognizable by the blind leftists. People protest (I'm talking about street protests with disruptive crowds and noise, obnoxious signs, and general bad behavior) because they lost an argument and that is the juvenile reaction that results. Evokes scenes of a toddler denied a second dessert and he kicks and screams to get his way. Most conservatives won't condescend to this level of behavior.
But I understand what you're saying. The hateful left must be firmly confronted. But I believe there are other ways besides throwing our own version of a tantrum.
I agree that the way they’ve been doing it has hurt their cause with the general public, but the elites like the CA Supreme Court are part of that infantile crowd which believes that the protests show how powerful the militant movement is. This is how they protested when they were going to school in the 1960s and 1970s. Like their cohorts on the street, they think that the louder a group becomes, the more right they have to have their voices heard. And in the absence of our own protests, the left-wing media invents all kinds of reasons for why they don’t see us on the street, like saying that we are ashamed of our “homophobic” vote for Prop 8.
In any case the CA Supreme Court is looking for an excuse to overturn the will of the people... AGAIN! I say let’s protest on the CA Capitol Building and let the Court know that we have a very well-considered reason for our votes, and we are watching them when they come around to voting again on the gay-marriage issue. We don’t have to protest in an uncivil manner like the other side. We can be very loud, though. This kind of civil protest has helped to depose authoritarian regimes around the world. I was part of a HUGE pro-Prop 8 protest in Cupertino, and it was far from infantile or chaotic.
In the absence of these protests, how do you think that the CA Supreme Court will hear our strong voice? Only our fellow conservatives are reading this site.
Mostly, conservatives protest before the CA supreme court with a well prepared case and friends-of-the-court briefs. I believe and trust that the Yes-on-8 campaign is on their game and is putting their best and brightest talent to work to present the most compelling case possible. What the legal team can present makes any arguments that protesters spew out seem like juvenile drivel. I continue to donate to Yes-on-8 for its legal defense as I have before the election - this a crucial issue that affects everyone in this nation. I also recommend writing to your elected representatives at all levels of government as well as letters to the editor in your local paper in defense of traditional marriage, which means speaking out AGAINST marriage-like arrangements such as civil unions and domestic partnerships.
I agree that a good legal argument is absolutely crucial, and I’m glad to be reminded by you that the conservative movement is doing this. Please send me the URLs that refer to this. I don’t know of any protests for N. Texas, but I haven’t gathered any information about ANY protests, even in populated places like here in the SF Bay Area, where there are plenty of conservatives, despite what many in the US may think. Where can I go to donate to the legal defense of Prop 8? Again, I’ve scoured the Internet and haven’t found much. The legal presentation and the street protests can go hand in hand. The infantile Court justices are influenced by street protests, and as I’ve mentioned they don’t have to be uncivil. After months of searching and writing, I received a call from National Organization for Marriage Director Brian Brown. He is currently gathering information to counter the protests. In the meantime, stand with me by joining,
http://www.meetup.com/counter-protest-prop-8
This, hopefully, will be a Northern California group so we can travel to Sacramento regularly. The Court will make a decision as early as March. In the meantime, we need to gather all the people we can to discuss best practices. In other words, if you join you can just chime in on what you think would work. We will take to the streets. Even though this seems “junior varsity,” we will hold signs like,
Majority Rule
Minority Protection
The People Have
Spoken - Twice !!
Morality is
Non-Negotiable
Don’t Teach My
Children Your
Morality
Down with
Judicial Tyranny
Marriage is a Gift
from God, not Judges
Read the Law: 297.5a
You have the same rights
Tolerate this:
Marriage won
These are bumper-sticker arguments, but when people see them they will identify with them. The media will try to ignore us, but there are new-media alternatives. O’Reilly is also the type to air this side of the debate.
We need to start the revolution now. They took prayer out of school and we didn’t fight it. Now look where we are. It never ends with them. Their liberation will be the moral downfall of the United States. We need to take our country back, and no one will do it for us, but God will be with us.
I’ll look up your resource, thanks. Meanwhile, if you want to contribute to the legal defense of Prop 8, try this website: http://www.protectmarriage.com/
“I cannot join with an organization that is willing to throw the homo-activists a bone in the form of “civil unions””
I agree that we shouldn’t budge an inch on this issue. We do want to stop the current tide, though. Then we go on the offensive. If we join with no one, we will be splintered. Also, the organizations that would allow certain unions might merely be trying to focus on the hot spot in the battle.
If an enemy is about to break through on a certain front, you beef up there. Otherwise, the barbarians will be in your schools and homes with their “liberation” message.
This is the enemy’s plan. Force Californians to legalize gay marriage; if it’s legal, what’s stopping you from teaching the kids it’s ok? Then they have the next generation and will move onto all manner of beastly “freedoms.”
After we defeat the CA Supreme Court in their upcoming attempt to defeat Prop 8, then WE have the ammo to go after teachers who sneak this this on our kids, etc. Once we have the momentum, we switch to the offensive. By then, we won’t need the squishy “conservatives.” Let’s band together.
I think McCain lost because he was not conservative. He didn’t lose because he had “moderate” allies.
Thanks for the URL. For the longest time, I didn’t see their site being updated; so I thought they had stopped what they were doing right after the vote. Thanks.
I believe that “Civil Unions” are already law, and that law has not changed even after the election. What was wanted was “Marriage” with even more rights plus the word “marriage” itself.
Right. In California?? He is actually DOING his duty, as he and most of the people who voted for him see it.
To give it a mercy killing?
True. He wasn’t called “Governor Moonbeam” for nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.