Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Jerry Brown Reverses Course on Gay Marriage

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
canis_lupus Donating Member (213 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-24-08 03:49 PM
Original message
Jerry Brown Reverses Course on Gay Marriage
From Time magazine:

Attorneys-General of California are usually expected to defend successful statewide propositions against those who would challenge their legality in court. But Proposition 8, which ended gay marriage in the state, passed while the Attorney-General's office happens to be occupied by Jerry Brown, the celebrity activist, former two-term governor and mayor of Oakland, a man for whom political second a cts are second-nature. Early on, Brown had indicated he would fulfill his duties as A.G. and use the powers of his office to defend Prop 8. Indeed, Brown had sided with opponents of gay marriage earlier this year when the state Supreme Court ruled on whether a previous ballot initiative banning gay marriage was legal. As foot soldiers and generals alike on both sides of the war over gay marriage prepared to battle in court, Brown told TIME an evolving understanding of what was at stake prompted him to turn things around.

With an 111-page legal brief that has surprised legal scholars, Brown reversed course and repudiated his previous statements indicating he'd likely support the legality of Prop 8. Instead, on Friday, he urged the state's Supreme Court to overturn the vote, a move that would infuriate conservatives who are still white-hot mad over the court's historic 4-3 decision that earlier this year prohibited all forms of discrimination against gays, and mandated the state issue marriage licenses to gay couples. In a wide-ranging interview, Brown told TIME that his view of the legal merits of the case had evolved over the past several weeks, and explained why he now thinks the right to gay marriage in California is as fundamental as such bedrock principles as the right to property and to liberty itself.

"Right from the beginning, it looked like the only question was whether the vote was an amendment to the state constitution or something more, a revision," Brown told TIME, explaining his original stance in favor of Prop 8's legality. "But the precedents for saying that the vote was a revision were very few. Based on that, I didn't think we could call it a revision, and therefore Prop 8 looked valid."

But as his staff of more than 30 lawyers began researching the case, Brown said a few urged him to look at the question from a much broader perspective. "Some of the staff said 'wait a minute, there is another way of looking at this.' The idea was that gay marriage involves a basic liberty interest, rights that formed a foundation for our Constitution, that we enjoyed even before California became a state. That was a new way to look at this." Rights like that, he came to believe, can't be taken away, at least not by something as simple as constitutional amendment by popular vote. Instead, those rights he said, are "inalienable" in the same sense that the Declaration of Independence speaks of inalienable rights.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1868504,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-24-08 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. Holy hell...
This may be one of the most powerful phrasings of this so far.

Maybe there ARE snowballs in hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xfundy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-24-08 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. Your concern is duly noted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-24-08 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. What brought THAT on?
The post is pointing out that AG Jerry Brown has turned around to OPPOSE Proposition 8.

I consider the post to be one of a "this is a good thing" nature.

Care to explain why the snark?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KitchenWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-24-08 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. And so is yours.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-24-08 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. And your point would be...? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clintonista2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-26-08 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #2
17. Go away troll
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-24-08 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. I'm glad Brown took this stance
I was rather surprised when I first read that he was going to defend Prop 8 in court, but put it down to the fact he was AG and maybe had to. Glad to know he doesn't have to and glad to know he's putting things this way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hvn_nbr_2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-24-08 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
6. One cautionary note
If Brown and the state supreme court rely on reasoning based on the U.S. Constitution, rights "enjoyed even before California became a state," and inalienable rights as specified in the Declaration of Independence, that makes it a federal issue which can be appealed to the U.S. supreme court. You know, the Bush v. Gore court, the ideological heirs of Roger Taney. It would not be a good idea to introduce arguments that enable such an appeal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-24-08 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. The SCOTUS is still only packed with four regressive ideologues.
Still likely, with precise litigation, that any prohibition of SS marriage will be ruled unconstitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-25-08 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. The argument is based on Article I of the California Constitution.
The references to other important rights-declaring documents--the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, J.S. Mill's On Liberty was mentioned, too--are just to provide a basis for Brown's reading of Article I as implying inalienable, unamendable rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-24-08 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
7. OMG.
Instant evolution. A man transcends the trappings of a narrow world.

Lightning strikes.

This is breathtaking, and wonderful.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merlot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-25-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Brown has always trancened the trapping of a narrow world
He's a very smart guy. Never bought into the trappings of being Govenor of California. I'm not sure , but he maybe didn't even live in the gov's manson.

He studied to be a jesuit priest for a while before politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faux pas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-25-08 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. He didn't live in the mansion. He rented a small apartment
across the street from the capital. I've always l-o-v-e-d Jerry Brown, I always thought he'd make a great president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RetiredTrotskyite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-24-08 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
9. WOW....
just wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-24-08 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
10. "...those rights he said, are "inalienable"..."
That's what I want to hear.

I think Jerry is going to make it right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-24-08 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
12. I love me some Governor (now Attorney General) Moonbeam!
:woohoo:

You go, brother!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftHander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-26-08 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
16. Big time wow...
This is awesome...it so breaks down the issue to it's root.


I almost cried reading the article. The argument is so clear when viewed from the perspective of putting marriage into the inalienable rights of life, liberty and privacy.

Very powerful and profound, yet simple and elegant. It really is the core of all issues swirling around civil rights, social equality and cultural equality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC