Jerry Brown Files Legal Brief Saying Proposition 8 Is Unconstitutional
Via Xrlq we learn that California Attorney General Jerry Brown has filed a brief arguing that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
In a dramatic reversal, 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.
“The amendment-initiative process does not encompass a power to abrogate fundamental constitutional rights without a compelling justification,” he wrote. “Proposition 8 lacks such a justification.”
While I haven’t reviewed the legal arguments, it’s hard for me to imagine that a right announced just this year is so fundamental that it can’t be changed in the same manner that we generally change the state constitution.
But then, a right first announced just 35 years ago is generally treated as the most fundamental and immutable right of them all. So maybe I shouldn’t be surprised.
Exit question, as the man says: what does this do to Gov. Moonbeam’s 2010 gubernatorial aspirations?
He’s going to piss off a lot of people, especially in the Black and Hispanic communities.
Another Drew (efe318) — 12/19/2008 @ 7:57 pmBut then, they never vote for Democrats, do they?
This is the most ridiculous example of circular argument known to constitutional law.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:09 pmIs this going to be argued before or after Brown explores the universe?
The amendment-initiative process does not encompass a power to abrogate fundamental constitutional rights without a compelling justification –
Apogee (366e8b) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:10 pmIf the will of the people to assert something that has historically been a ‘given’ isn’t ‘compelling justification’, then the initiative process possesses no power at all, and any intitiatives are fair game. Prop 8 dealt with the question of the constitutional definition of marriage. No one is physically affected. There is no ‘right’ to a definition that has no physical effect. The lives of homosexuals will not change at all, no matter how this is decided.
Constitution…
Another Drew (efe318) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:12 pmOh, you mean that silly piece of paper written by a bunch of old, dead, white guys?
What could constitutional principles ever have to do with the conduct of modern, multi-ethnic, compassionate, and caring societies.
If the right is “constitutional” then it is not organic — it flows out of the document.
If the document is amended, then the right no longer exists.
How can amending the document be in violation of the document?
wls shipwrecked (1be406) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:24 pmWLS, I wonder the same thing…
But then, I am possessed of a modicum of logic…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/19/2008 @ 9:08 pmBrown is pandering to the voters he must. The minorities will back him against any Republican. This is a huge boost to his fundraising hopes. Huge.
A no-brainer, politically speaking.
Ed (f063fd) — 12/19/2008 @ 9:19 pmThe WILL OF THE PEOPLE only matters when it conforms to what a small minority of Liberal/Socialist Lawyer Elitists and their followers say so.
This is why I consider the practice of law TODAY nothing more than prostitution with legal protection. It is filled with individuals with no moral or ethical base — only silly agendas.
A great and noble calling has been ruined by pimps and whores looking to advance themselves at the expense of others.
Da'Shiznit (089453) — 12/19/2008 @ 9:19 pmTHE CONSTUTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL YOU SILLY WINGNUTS !!!!!!!
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/19/2008 @ 9:21 pmNow THE LAW is used by the likes of Moonbeam and Obama to force entire societies to accept norms and practices which are both against the principles of that society and create negative externalities which they never accept responsibility for.
Da'Shiznit (089453) — 12/19/2008 @ 9:23 pmJD pretty much summarized it.
Da'Shiznit (089453) — 12/19/2008 @ 9:23 pm… and worse yet you will have a legion of lawyers who will push heaven and earth to dispute this point.
Jerry Brown is declaring the CONSTITUTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Not a law is unconstitutional but the actual constitution.
I hate lawyers.
Da'Shiznit (089453) — 12/19/2008 @ 9:24 pmHow can a right that doesn’t even predate the qualification of the initiative possess stare decisis? You really have to want to believe.
As I pointed out on TJTB, this can be considered a stalking horse for invalidating MANY prior initiatives, including 1978’s Prop 13.
If these few words are a revision, what chance has Prop 13, which has proved over time to completely and utterly change the way the state’s finances are managed. Including the very inconvenient 2/3rds rule for new taxes.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 12/19/2008 @ 10:24 pmYou realize of course, that any attempt to recall the justices will be met by threats against anyone who signs the petitions. Nothing outright, you understand — just subtle innuendo (like folks with cameras snapping pictures as the petitions are circulated).
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 12/19/2008 @ 10:33 pmHe’s saying that the new amendment is inconsistent with the previous content of the constitution.
But if it were not inconsistent with it, it would be moot. The entire point of amendments is to change the constitution.
And in case of disagreements, the latest change wins. It overrides what came before. That’s what it means to “amend the constitution”.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 12/19/2008 @ 11:21 pmHow dare that pesky Thirteenth Amendment deprive people of their property without Due Process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment? Up is down, down is up. Governor Moonbeam, indeed. I believe my neighbor, Mike Royko, gave him that sobriquet.
nk (20403f) — 12/19/2008 @ 11:28 pm[…] Patterico on Brown’s picking on choosing of what kind of inalienable rights he likes better. […]
Jules Crittenden » California Über Alles (98837e) — 12/20/2008 @ 6:30 amWe are dealing here with the Con Law issue that where fundamental rights and suspect classes are involved, “strict scrutiny” analysis is appropriate, i.e., there must be a compelling state interest to discriminate against a group of people.
A link to the AG’s statement and brief is below.
As I read the brief, it argues the fundamental right involved here is marriage. Since fundamental rights are “inalienable rights” of the people that cannot be altered by the Legislature without a “compelling interest,” then an initiative amendment should have no greater power. It asks the court to determine whether the amendment meets the compelling interest test, noting that “[m]ere majority support alone for the measure does not suffice,” and quoting a US Supreme Court case stating,”[W]e are talking, necessarily, about rights of individuals or groups against the larger community, and against the majority – even an overwhelming majority – of the society as a whole.” The brief concludes that Prop 8 should be invalidated because it does not meet the compelling interest test just as the Family Code section struck down earlier did not.
AG’s Statement and Brief
Peccator Dubius (a3cc42) — 12/20/2008 @ 6:49 amHard to believe that Jerry Brown was a seminarian in a Jesuit Novitiate in Los Gatos back in his youth, before he became a certifiable degenerate!
daveinboca (d0db99) — 12/20/2008 @ 6:57 amPeccator Dubius, you seem to be forgetting a key distinction: Family Code Section 308.5 wasn’t part of the Constitution. Proposition 8 is. To argue that the Constitution is unconstitutional is beyond insanity.
Then again, so too is claiming a right is so damned “fundamental” under the pre-Prop 8 Constitution that only a bare majority of Supreme Court Justices could even find it there, while not one could find it under the substantially identical Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to that other Constitution.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/20/2008 @ 7:10 amXrlq: “To argue that the constitution is unconstitutional is beyond insanity.”
Well, that’ not correct. It’s possible for an amendment to the state constitution to be inconsistent with other prior provisions. If that’s the case, they must be reconciled. In this case, the AG is arguing that Prop 8 conflicts with Art I, the fundamental right of liberty guaranteed to the people. In order to change that, the AG argues, you must have a compelling interest to do so, and it doesn’t matter whether the change is made by statute or by initiative to amend the constitution.
-“claiming a right is so damned “fundamental.” The right to marry is the fundamental right involved here, that is not the argument. The issue is whether the state or a popular majority can discriminate against a particular group – when a fundamental right is involved, they can only do so when a compelling interest is involved. This is the basic protection we have for minority rights in both the state and federal constitutions.
-“only a bare majority of Supreme Court Justices” We live under a system of laws.
Peccator Dubius (53886b) — 12/20/2008 @ 7:21 am“Brown is pandering to the voters he must. The minorities will back him against any Republican. This is a huge boost to his fundraising hopes. Huge.
A no-brainer, politically speaking.”
Nice Lay-Down-And-Die posture there, Ed. Gov. Moonbeam thanks you for not putting up much of a fight. Meg Whitman (and behind the scenes, Mitt Romney) curses you for finding any reason you can to sit on your rear end on 11/2/2010.
And folks like you wonder why no Republican will put up a fight for things like Prop 8.
Brad S (b5b919) — 12/20/2008 @ 7:46 amIt’s possible for an amendment to the state constitution to be inconsistent with other prior provisions.
Err, that’s what makes it an amendment?
If that’s the case, they must be reconciled.
Says who? And if you are using “reconcile” loosely, you give effect to the amendment which is the new law.
In order to change that, the AG argues, you must have a compelling interest to do so, and it doesn’t matter whether the change is made by statute or by initiative to amend the constitution.
So the Constitution cannot be amended, in a manner which reverses prior constructions by the California Supreme Court, unless the California Supreme Court finds that the people of the State of California had a compelling interest for doing so? Is that in Article Lebenteen of the Constitution?
nk (20403f) — 12/20/2008 @ 7:50 amJerry Brown needs to be disbarred like Nifong.
Roy Mustang (ad5f36) — 12/20/2008 @ 7:56 amPD, the whole point of an amendment is to “amend,” i.e., change, that which is amended. Constitutional amendments aren’t supposed to be consistent with the Constitution that existed before. They are supposed to change it. That’s what Prop 8 does. To the extent that Article I’s newest section conflicts with the older sections, the new provision wins. That AG Moonbeam argues otherwise does not make the argument valid; it just reminds us why we’ve been calling him “Moonbeam” all these years.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/20/2008 @ 8:03 amnk: “So the Constitution cannot be amended, in a manner which reverses prior constructions by the California Supreme Court, unless the California Supreme Court finds that the people of the State of California had a compelling interest for doing so? Is that in Article Lebenteen of the Constitution?”
No, the Constitution cannot be amended by a popular vote to change a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution without a compelling interest. The AG is saying it’s like the situation 50 years ago, when the people of the State of California passed an initiative to allow discrimination in real estate based on race. That initiative was conflicted with fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and was struck down.
Got to catch a plane. Go read the brief.
Peccator Dubius (53886b) — 12/20/2008 @ 8:05 amFundamental rights guaranteed by the US Constitution? If so ,that’s a federal supremacy issue. If it is right enumerated by the state Constitution, you’re damn right they can take away that right with a state constitutional amendment. The compelling interest is the rule of law and the Constitution itself which explicitly states how it can be amended. Jerry Brown and any disgusting lawyer/judge who would argue that a Constitutional amendment is unconstitutional needs to be disbarred.
Roy Mustang (ad5f36) — 12/20/2008 @ 8:11 amOk, you’re arguing Romer v. Evans which is a federal issue. It’s a better argument but I don’t think either the California Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court will even address it.
nk (20403f) — 12/20/2008 @ 8:21 amPeccator,
The AG is saying it’s like the situation 50 years ago, when the people of the State of California passed an initiative to allow discrimination in real estate based on race.
The big problem with AG Moonbeam’s brief is that Prop. 8 and the real estate initiative are decidedly NOT “like” each other. Gay marriage was not “guaranteed” by the CA Constitution–it was “guaranteed” by a majority of the CASC using logic so twisted and tortured I’m surprised Amnesty International hasn’t tried to have it banned.
MarkJ (7fa185) — 12/20/2008 @ 8:21 amHow is it that a state official can even take the position that an amendment to the state constitution must be declared invalid? Doesn’t Mr Brown have a duty to back the state?
From the California state Oath of Office:
If Attorney General Brown takes this action, has he not violated his own Oath of Office?
The snarky Dana (556f76) — 12/20/2008 @ 8:34 ambecause it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right.
Next Jerry Brown will say driving is a “right” instead of a privilege.
Now is changing the marriage licenses to read not bride and groom being that same-sex marriage can not have a bride and groom, but party “A” and party “B”, does that not deny straight couples the fundamental right of being bride and groom a right that has existed long before any same-sex marriage rights?
Can different licenses be issued or would that be discrimination of the separate but equal type?
ML (14488c) — 12/20/2008 @ 9:11 amSo what you’re saying, MarkJ, is that the California State Supreme Court ruling that same-sex marriage was constitutionally sound is unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, enter Ken Starr (carrying a bag of garbage as usual) methinks his efforts to declare the same-sex marriages made prior to Prop 8 illegal is overreaching.
What say you, Patterico?
David Ehrenstein (65f9fc) — 12/20/2008 @ 9:14 amA “fundamental right” that does not actually exist. There is no fundamental right to same sex marriage. It is as I said, a circular argument.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/20/2008 @ 9:22 amIt’s no wonder that this country is so screwed up when it seems logical to some that a constitution cannot be amended if the amendment changes the constitution.
Some of you geniuses might try actually reading some of the amendments to the US constitution. You will find {{{{shock}}} that some of the amendments actually rendered moot portions of the actual original document, completely altering their plain meaning.
Take a deep breath and repeat after me – an amendment amends, i.e. changes, the nature of the document and renders it different than it was before.
Any judge who rules in opposition to the amendment should be summarily removed from the bench for mental incapacity. Hell, if the CA Supreme Court even takes the case they should all be removed for the inability to understand their job function.
Antimedia (b9c916) — 12/20/2008 @ 9:30 amIiiiiiiiiiiiiiin which case the new part wins. That’s how amendments work.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/20/2008 @ 9:31 amMerely the ongoing dumbing down — and the ongoing pushiness of its promoters and adherents — of modern society.
An LA Times columnist a few weeks ago noted that people no longer are shocked (much less irked) when, as in the case of the example she used, a Congresswoman from California was recently in the news for being both single and pregnant.
And the use of narcotics by politicians, certainly by people like LA’s mayor or the guy who’s going to have a swearing-in ceremony in DC in January? Nowadays, its perceived by many as no BFD.
Unbelievable hijinks in the Oval Office? No BFD. A former president infamous — no less shameless than ever before and, at the same time (and not coincidentally), still admired and touted by many — for bringing such behavior into the public spotlight? No BFD.
All I know is when marriage — both legally and symbolically — is extended to the pairing of two guys or two women, the desensitization of society will move one step closer to the ultimate level of “no BFD.” Or the imposition on everyone throughout the country of the flaky, half-assed, meaning-of-is-is mindset and culture of Hollywood.
Sort of the flip side or opposite extreme of fundamentalist Islamic societies, and no less screwball and neurotic (Islam: “You don’t have the rights to even breathe!!” Euro-America: “I demand the rights to take a leak out in public!!”)
Mark (411533) — 12/20/2008 @ 9:46 amHaving Whitewater special prosecutor Ken Starr as the lead Prop 8 defender will drive the left nuts. Part of Brown’s governor strategy is to keep this media storm going until his 2010 election.
From LAT: In an interview, Brown said he had developed his theory after weeks of consultation with the top lawyers in his office. “This analysis was not evident on the morning after the election,” he said.
Brown’s previous comments after the election have become, er, inoperable — to use a Nixon term.
Wesson (3ab0b8) — 12/20/2008 @ 9:59 amPeccator Dubius wrote: “No, the Constitution cannot be amended by a popular vote to change a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution without a compelling interest.”
— This is the same bs argument put forth by the CA Supreme Court decision that prompted Prop 8, the phantom “constitutional right to marriage”; a right enumerated NOWHERE in that document. In addition, nowhere in that constitution does it say that a “compelling interest” (presumably to be determined by a court) is necessary in order for an amendment to be allowed.
Icy Texan (b7d162) — 12/20/2008 @ 10:08 amI don’t understand the argument. At the time that the petitions were filed with the Secretary of State, the Marriage cases had not been handed down. There was no body of the state which would have taken the position, on the day the petitions were filed, that gay marriage was constitutionally protected; so how can it have been invalid to file the petitions.
Even if AG Brown is right on substance, he’s just flat wrong on procedure. Even if you concede that the procedure he wants followed – the revision procedure – would have been required for petitions filed in July, the procedure in question could not have been followed when the petitions were actually turned in.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 12/20/2008 @ 10:14 amIcy Texan: i’m sorry, but the California courts have been talking about a fundamental right to marriage for generations. The innovation in the marriage cases was not saying that marriage was a fundamental constitutional right; it was saying that discriminating against gay people required a law narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest, and saying that the marriage laws were not so narrowly tailored.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 12/20/2008 @ 10:15 amComment by aphrael — 12/20/2008 @ 10:14 am
How could even think that AG Brown is even possibly incorrect?
Another Drew (4dc1ef) — 12/20/2008 @ 10:19 amDon’t you realize that when he was Governor, he was the second-smartest person in town,
after Ch.Justice Rose Bird?
AD,
Aphrael is agreeing with us that Bron is being both wacky and wrong. Don’t mock the man…
He thinks Brown is incorrect because he is incorrect…
And thus the amendment, making such law unneccessary.
I just can’t stop laughing that the top lawyer in CA is saying the CA Constitution is unconstitutional. It’s just insane.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/20/2008 @ 10:26 am1) Any unmarried man of legal age has the right to marry any unmarried woman of legal age who consents to it, and vice versa. THAT is the “fundamental right”.
2) There is no “sexual orientation” question on a marriage application. A gay man can marry a gay woman, a gay man can marry a straight woman, a straight man can marry a gay woman. The restriction applies to gender, NOT sexual orientation.
Icy Texan (b7d162) — 12/20/2008 @ 10:29 amThe state assembly and legislature just this week clearly violated the state constitution by passing $9B of tax increases without the consitutionally required 2/3 majority vote. This requires an immediate response by the AG, for who else but him has the position to file briefs to protect the constitution? THIS consitutional tax law IS the will of the voters. Instead, he chooses to spend his time filing a brief AGAINST the will of the voters on the marriage issue.
JGlanton (6b29b3) — 12/20/2008 @ 10:30 amComment by Scott Jacobs — 12/20/2008 @ 10:26 am
Another Drew (4dc1ef) — 12/20/2008 @ 10:46 amMy comment was meant with extreme sarcasm of the subject, not an attack on the commenter; which is why I threw in the barb re Rose Bird (a Brown appointee BTW, who we summarily threw off of the bench when the stench became unbearable).
It has always been Jerry’s goal, regardless of any oath of office he might have sworn to,
Another Drew (4dc1ef) — 12/20/2008 @ 10:50 amto advance his interest, and let the People of CA go to Hell if they get in his way.
So far, he has accomplished his goal admirably,
with only the speed-bump of his Senate defeat to slow him down.
Then my appoloies.
I just don’t like people needlessly jabbing at aph when a) he’s agreeing with them and b) when he’s willing to discuss things rationally. We need more like him…
But prefferably female, leggy and busty, who like slightly overweight guys in their early thirties…
😉
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/20/2008 @ 10:58 amAgeist!
Another Drew (4dc1ef) — 12/20/2008 @ 11:13 ammope. merely targeting the age-range I happen to be in. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/20/2008 @ 11:31 amBeyond the impact of true-blue, ultra-blue state politics in California (not to mention Rhode Island and Michigan), pervasive for over 10 years, on social-cultural matters, the same philosophical-governmental orientation also has led (or can lead) to an equally enviable outcome in other categories…
Mark (411533) — 12/20/2008 @ 11:43 amIssuing intent to recall Brown NOW for not enforcing the constitution and pressing the gay marriage annulments now will force the Supreme Court to make a decision this week. Thus the gays can not stockpile money until March organizing against a judicial recall. Besides a recall of Brown a democrat is more popular among party loyal republicans than recalling other republicans. Also it drives home the point of recall personally to the judges who may have read about the failure to recall Byrd. These libs read their own newspapers and listen to their own TV/Radio which is for brainwashing the public but only brainwashes themselves as the Prop 8 polls showed no on P8 winning. An immediate intent to recall Brown will bring the justices back to reality besides http://www.protectmarriage.com already have a list signer from the Prop 8 petition drive hence getting a recall election going should only take a month. Remember that Matell Toys (and other toy manufactures) was recalled by Brown and they would love to recall him now. Now we have funding, signers, and political push to recall Brown saving the taxpayer a recall of Arnold and the 4 gay justices in March. A delay in recalling Brown will indicate weakness and the justices will toss Prop 8. Really it all or loss at this point in time.
br (edd700) — 12/20/2008 @ 11:49 amHere is the website for the constitutional ammendment against gay marriage.
http://www.protectmarriage.com/read.php
Here is the recall info
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_recall_faqs.htm
for the intent to recall form.
And the following book further defines the founders principles printed before 1864
Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the U.S.
(Book & CD-ROM)
https://www.americanvision.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=1807
for the legals.
Comment by Mark — 12/20/2008 @ 11:43 am
It’s only going to get worse as more and more local political entities are forced into the Bankruptcy Courts to get out from under the grossly unfunded pension and health plans they have promised, been coerced into agreeing to, their public-employee unions.
Plus, once the State has run out of cash, and has to write warrants to its’ suppliers, as I understand BK law, it only takes three creditors to force the State into Court for a BK reorginization.
Another Drew (4dc1ef) — 12/20/2008 @ 11:54 amIt can get very sticky next year.
[…] 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 […]
Hot Air » Blog Archive » California AG reverses course, decides to challenge Prop 8 (371ae1) — 12/20/2008 @ 12:03 pm“While I haven’t reviewed the legal arguments, it’s hard for me to imagine that a right announced just this year is so fundamental that it can’t be changed in the same manner that we generally change the state constitution.”
I never understood how a simple majority vote could deprive people of a constitutional right. Seems like a silly way to set up a system.
imdw (8bb588) — 12/20/2008 @ 1:12 pm1.
I never understood how a simple majority vote could deprive people of a constitutional right. Seems like a silly way to set up a system.
Comment by imdw — 12/20/2008 @ 1:12 pm
That is because same sex marriage has never been recognized as a fundamental right. Personally, I think ought to be. However the proper form would be through the political process not by judicial fiat.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 12/20/2008 @ 1:53 pmI never understood how a simple majority vote could deprive people of a constitutional right. Seems like a silly way to set up a system.
It’s a much better system then the one used to enumerate the right to gay marriage in the Constitution.
This is treason. I’m very angry.
Roy Mustang (ad5f36) — 12/20/2008 @ 2:23 pmAnyway, I hope the judges will overturn Prop 8. I want to see a backlash against this evil, undemocratic judicial system we have. I want to see impeachments.
Roy Mustang (ad5f36) — 12/20/2008 @ 2:28 pmIt’s true that Brown’s argument is inane, but it only exists because of a fundamental flaw in constitutional jurisprudence created by Republicans and I will explain how.
The only way an amendment to the constitution could itself by “unconstitutional” is if it claimed to be enacted by a PROCEDURE other than that laid out in the constitution (or state charter) Therefore, the amendment could be PROCEDURALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Any amendment enacted by a procedurally correct process, by definition is SUBSTANTIVELY CONSTITUTIONAL.
However, in the DeShaney case, the US Supreme Court Republican majority declared the US Constitution a “charter of negative liberties.” This means that the government can never be said to have an obligation to positively do something for its citizens but only to refrain from infringing upon individual rights.
The problem is that such a view does not make sense with any constitutional decision which recognizes substantive due process rights emanating from the 14th amendment. Although Republicans may disagree with those rights, they are settled Supreme Court law. Instead of facing those decisions and saying they were wrong, the Republicans instead characterize them as procedural.
So, in the confusion of what is procedural and what is substantive, we now have a Democratic attorney general arguing that the SUBSTANCE of an amendment is PROCEDURALLY improper.
What a mess of law
Nero (658ff2) — 12/20/2008 @ 3:40 pmComment by Nero — 12/20/2008 @ 3:40 pm
Except…We are not talking about amending the U.S.Constitution, we have amended the Constitution of the State of California, according to the proceedures within that document; so, whatever SCOTUS has said re amending the U.S.Con. is immaterial.
Another Drew (4dc1ef) — 12/20/2008 @ 3:47 pm“. . .who like slightly overweight guys in their early thirties”
Face it, Jacobs, at 5’8″ and 220 pounds you’re not “slightly” overweight. If you admit to that, it’s probably more like 5’6″ and 250.
As you yourself said:
“. . .I love mashed potatoes. A little lumpy, thick, with a bit of skin? I will nearly fill my plate (there might be a clue there why I’m 5′8 and around 220 lbs).”
Official Internet Data Office (8aa339) — 12/20/2008 @ 5:03 pmJust a bit vicious for Christmas, isn’t it?
OTOH, it is not a very good idea to reveal personal data over the ‘net.
Another Drew (65e45d) — 12/20/2008 @ 5:05 pm#26 – The AG is saying it’s like the situation 50 years ago, when the people of the State of California passed an initiative to allow discrimination in real estate based on race.
Wrong. The past initiative had an actual physical effect on the lives of people – they were denied physical access to housing based on race.
Prop 8 does no such thing – it merely defines marriage. Gays can still marry, still have ceremonies, and still live together. The difference is the State is not enrolled in enforcing an idea. As I’ve said before, nothing will change in the lives of gays regardless of the outcome, and the phony comparisons with actual discrimination highlight the inaccuracy of the supposed relationship.
Brown’s claim is the inverse of the past initiative – he wishes to invoke the state to enforce thought patrol on its citizens, with the requisite discrimination lawsuits and alteration of the educational agenda. The authority of the State to enforce an idea is what is desired, not the protection of any ‘rights’.
Apogee (366e8b) — 12/20/2008 @ 6:42 pmawwwwwwwwwww…
you DO care, OIDO… I’m touched… Really.
No, it’s 5’8, and about 220lbs. But you’re sweet for worrying, honey.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/20/2008 @ 6:46 pmimdw wrote:
But that’s just it: same-sex marriage has never been recognized as a constitutional right.
Indeed, heterosexual marriage isn’t really a fundamental right, in that we place all sorts of restrictions on it:
It should be noted that the Congress required Utah to restrict recognition of marriages to one man and one woman, and such be written into the state constitution, before statehood would be granted.
State recognition of marriage has never been free from state restrictions.
The nitpicky Dana (556f76) — 12/21/2008 @ 6:27 amAll these arguments are logical to the one presenting the argument but in the end it is one who has the power (ie FORCE for trekies). Recall Brown and save the taxpayer waiting the court P8 decision and 5 other possible recalls. A new attorney general by March can annul the gay marriages and then go on to eliminate gay unions. This is going to be complete sweep in CA. Join the American Independent Party (AIP) for completion of this task. The Republican Party was created to get rid of slavery but the republicans gave us this court ruling so the AIP guarantees this result. Do not worry about the legislators they reduced to a part-time Senate per the Little Hoover Commission which is how Nebraska operates. The Terminator seems to be back on the correct track since the announcement of a 10% cut in all departments. He will have to convince the judges to stand-down of P8 since he encouraged the gay court ruling. The court has no say on gay marriage anymore anyway. Power has been transferred the Protect Marriage folks as in the past with Gov Hiram at the turn of the century to cleanup up the government. Start the Brown recall.
br (cb27c6) — 12/22/2008 @ 9:16 am[…] “a little state control of speech wouldn’t hurt“. Of course, this is a guy who thinks his own constitution is unconstitutional. I guess a little state control of the voters is good too, huh, […]
Ronald Reagan’s Fairness Doctrine | Cold Fury (6f4592) — 2/15/2009 @ 2:53 pm