Steely Dan Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Proof that thinking works. Also Ken Starr, the unethical lawyer, rears his ugly mug. Linkage Calif. AG urges court to void gay marriage ban By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer. SAN FRANCISCO – The California attorney general has changed his position on the state's new same-sex marriage ban and is now urging the state Supreme Court to void Proposition 8. In a dramatic reversal, Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a legal brief saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is itself unconstitutional because it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right. Earlier, Brown had said he would defend the ballot measure against legal challenges from gay marriage supporters. But Brown said he reached a different conclusion "upon further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution. "It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative," he said in an interview Friday night. "Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote." Brown, who served as governor from 1975 to 1983, is considering seeking the office again in 2010. After California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, Brown said he personally voted against it but would fight to uphold it as the state's top lawyer. He submitted his brief in one of the three legal challenges to Proposition 8 brought by same-sex marriage supporters. The measure, a constitutional amendment that passed with 52 percent of the vote, overruled the state Supreme Court decision last spring that briefly legalized gay marriage in the nation's most populous state. Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the attorney general's change of strategy "a major development." "The fact that after looking at this he shifted his position and is really bucking convention by not defending Prop. 8 signals very clearly that this proposition can not be defended," Minter said. The sponsors of Proposition 8 argued for the first time Friday that the court should undo the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters banned gay marriage at the ballot box last month. The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief telling the court that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions. "Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and a former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton. Both Brown and gay rights groups maintain that the gay marriage ban may not be applied retroactively. The state Supreme Court could hear arguments in the litigation in March. The measure's backers announced Friday that Starr had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Only in California could the AG asks the courts to find the constitution unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted December 20, 2008 Author Share Posted December 20, 2008 Only in California could the AG asks the courts to find the constitution unconstitutional. It's not the constitution it's the initiative added to the constitution. If a majority of people in this country voted that Mexicans should have their own rooms in the back of restaurants and can't use the same water fountains it would be an unconstitutional amendment and therefore would need to be removed. I believe you must be kidding about that comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Only in California could the AG asks the courts to find the constitution unconstitutional. Only in Cailifornia could Gov. moonbeam be around 40 years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted December 20, 2008 Author Share Posted December 20, 2008 Only in Cailifornia could Gov. moonbeam be around 40 years later. Says the guy from a state that voted a vacuous beauty queen as Governor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Says the guy from a state that voted a vacuous beauty queen as Governor. Your opinion of Palin is something I have no interest in. How ever I do know unlike California, New york, and Illinois we know when to take out the trash-Browns a nut, pure and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted December 20, 2008 Author Share Posted December 20, 2008 Your opinion of Palin is something I have no interest in. How ever I do know unlike California, New york, and Illinois we know when to take out the trash-Browns a nut, pure and simple. Exactly, why should anyone care about your opinion of Brown? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Exactly, why should anyone care about your opinion of Brown? Because I have been aware of Gov. moonbeam for 40 years. Your knowledge of Palin started-wait, I have to check what time it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted December 20, 2008 Author Share Posted December 20, 2008 Because I have been aware of Gov. moonbeam for 40 years. Your knowledge of Palin started-wait, I have to check what time it is. Oh, right. I forgot that 4 months in the national spotlight isn't long enough to make a fair judgment about someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Oh, right. I forgot that 4 months in the national spotlight isn't long enough to make a fair judgment about someone. If I saw you on TV for 4 months[off and on] would you think I knew what you were all about? I guess you didnt get the 40 year part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted December 20, 2008 Author Share Posted December 20, 2008 If I saw you on TV for 4 months[off and on] would you think I knew what you were all about? I guess you didnt get the 40 year part. No, but if you saw me speaking on TV and read in depth articles about me in several national magazines and heard talking heads on both sides of the aisle discuss me then I think you'd have a very good idea of who I was. Nice try only using the TV thing to make a point but adding the other stuff wouldn't fit your point so I guess it's a good idea to leave it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 No, but if you saw me speaking on TV and read in depth articles about me in several national magazines and heard talking heads on both sides of the aisle discuss me then I think you'd have a very good idea of who I was. Nice try only using the TV thing to make a point but adding the other stuff wouldn't fit your point so I guess it's a good idea to leave it out. I recall this started with a remark on Gov. moonbeam .If I was Jim in Cali. I would be passed over as a deep thinker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted December 20, 2008 Author Share Posted December 20, 2008 I recall this started with a remark on Gov. moonbeam .If I was Jim in Cali. I would be passed over as a deep thinker. Nice change of topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Only in Cailifornia could Gov. moonbeam be around 40 years later. My first post. I suggest you look at your post to drag Palin into this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Exactly, why should anyone care about your opinion of Brown? Conversely, why should anyone care about your opinion of Sarah Palin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 I recall this started with a remark on Gov. moonbeam .If I was Jim in Cali. I would be passed over as a deep thinker. No, you could still be an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 This bit at the bottom of that link is actually more striking, in that the bigoted pigs that supported the Yes on Hate proposition are filing to nullify the 18,000 existing, legal marriages that had already taken place. These people are scum, and anyone that supports these POS are supporting bigotry, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with morals, and it has nothing to do with your bullsh!t religious superstitions. It has everything to do with hate. The sponsors of Proposition 8 argued for the first time Friday that the court should undo the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters banned gay marriage at the ballot box last month. The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief telling the court that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions. "Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and a former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton. Both Brown and gay rights groups maintain that the gay marriage ban may not be applied retroactively. The state Supreme Court could hear arguments in the litigation in March. The measure's backers announced Friday that Starr had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases. And, no, I don't have to tolerate your fugging bigotry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 This bit at the bottom of that link is actually more striking, in that the bigoted pigs that supported the Yes on Hate proposition are filing to nullify the 18,000 existing, legal marriages that had already taken place. These people are scum, and anyone that supports these POS are supporting bigotry, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with morals, and it has nothing to do with your bullsh!t religious superstitions. It has everything to do with hate. And, no, I don't have to tolerate your fugging bigotry. I dont support bugery. I just hate queers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 It's not the constitution it's the initiative added to the constitution. If a majority of people in this country voted that Mexicans should have their own rooms in the back of restaurants and can't use the same water fountains it would be an unconstitutional amendment and therefore would need to be removed. I believe you must be kidding about that comment. It's an amendment to the Constitution. Hence the Constitution. Hence the legal argument is, in fact, whether or not the constitution is unconstitutional. Now admittedly, there's nothing that precludes the state constitution being federally unconstitutional (which I believe it is)...but that's not the argument I read. I read "according to our constitution, our constitution violates our constitution." Which is a truly brilliant piece of legal bull sh--. That's not a comment on Prop 8 either way (my comment on Prop 8 is: nonsense.) Just a comment on the legal argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Why is prop 8 unconstitutional? It is an amendment to the state constitution. To repeal it requires another amendment. I guess that the amendment to the constitution that freed the slaves is unconstitutional then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts