California AG Jerry Brown supports fed lawsuit: Prop 8 violates 14th amendment

The Feds

It looks like the Obama administration is trying to throw us all under the bus, knowing full well that without our votes, he wouldn't be in office today.  I'm glad that Attorney General Jerry Brown is doing something about this!

---

by: amberb_57 @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 08:09:44 AM CDT

"Trying"? Are you kidding?

WE'RE UNDER THE FUCKING BUS!!!!!! ARE YOU BLIND?

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 08:36:12 AM CDT

Jerry Brown lost my respect when he sent that dumbass to the Prop 8 oral argument

He should have been there himself. The CA Supreme Court took it easy on the AAG, but he was an embarrassment to himself and the office and did nothing to support the cause.

Educate me.

---

by: BethCA66 @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 09:47:35 AM CDT

Agreed

I was watching on streaming video and had to turn it off, he was so awful. Ugh.

---

by: cbear @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 10:06:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

True.

Honestly soon after Chris Krueger ruined Brown's case, I decided to support Gavin Newsom for CA Governor. Yes, I was really that pissed.

However, I'm ready to forgive and forget if Brown does the right thing now. And besides, it's really the judges' fault (all 6 of them, and especially the 3 of them that had previously been on our side) that they chickened out from doing the right thing.

Act on Principles and make equality happen.  

---

by: atdnext @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 10:10:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I've been a Gov Jerry 'Moonbeam' Brown fan for a long time.

Yep, I'm going to have a hard time deciding between Brown and Newsome...(Villariagosa was pres of SoCal ACLU at one time which gets him points in my book too).

My dream ticket the 1984 pres election was Jerry Brown/Jesse Jackson.  I would have been in heaven...usually I'm more practical than this, but I tend to go with philosophy and ideology when it comes to my vote...got to have the vision before the action I say.                  

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 12:46:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

hmmm

Villaraigosa gets points for attracting more Latino votes -- but as a City of Los Angeles resident, I kinda feel that he's more of an "empty suit" than not.   What do you think Karen?  (do you live in LA?)

---

by: suigenerousla @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 13:03:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have to say

I find it really hard to follow local LA politics and issues.
The most I know is my City Council rep is Tom LaBonge (voted against him) and my LA County Supervisor is Zev Yaroslavsky (I vote for him).  I live 3 houses away from the district line where across the street the Supervisor is homobigot Antonovich.  
Villaraigosa "knows where the bodies are buried", so in fact, his suit is very full.  
What should I be paying attention to locally?

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 14:23:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I understand that...

but maybe he didn't realize how poorly that guy would do?  I'd like to give Moonbeam the benefit of the doubt, after all he's been an ardent supporter of marriage equality even as the AG of the state.

---

by: Bruno @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 13:11:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm all for second chances, giving the benefit of the doubt, etc, often to my detriment. BUT

Ultimately, it's on Brown's head. If the AAG was too green, nervous, whatever to adequately represent the state, someone in that office should have known it. While I was listening, IIRC correctly, the court gently suggested he adjust the podium to his height. This might seem like minutia, but one of the first things you learn in Con Law is that you adjust the podium, even if you don't need to (!), to give yourself a moment to gather your thoughts and calm your nerves. And the court was very, very kind to him while he bungled the state's case. Someone in his department knew he wasn't up to the task, and this wasn't some trivial case. If the state were serious about overturning Prop 8, they should have brought in the big guns.

Educate me.

---

by: BethCA66 @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 14:21:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

wow

The brilliance of filing a suit where your defendants are agreeing with you and helping argue your position in court!  Wonderful.  

I wonder who is going to step up and argue the other side in this?   Not the Obama administration as the US is not a defendant and I don't think a federal court will allow the subsitution of parties the way the CA supremes did it letting Starr argue for the yes on 8 people.

Lawyers among us: could this eventual ruling be more likely to be Prop 8 specific as we have two classes of relationship for gay people in CA?   (a situation not addressed in Baker v Nelson, of course)

Would a positive ruling on the more narrow idea of whether you can have married gay people and those with another relationship designation be less likely to be taken up by the SCOTUS?  

Would a positive ruling on the narrow implications in this case have the effect of insuring the future of marriage equality in states that already have it?   Would the constitutional ammendment idea (albeit unlikely) in Iowa be dead?   Would it impact a place that has recognized out of jurisdiction marriages: NY, DC, perhaps RI?, MD (forthcoming)?  The decision in the CA supremes on May 26 seems to support that idea -- not anulling the marriages makes the argument that if your CT marriage was acknowledged in NY and you made decisions based on what you were presented to be the law at the time your marriage must continue to be honored.  If it is then there will be two statuses in a state that acknowledges gay couples in any other way -- no?

Is

---

by: suigenerousla @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 10:09:21 AM CDT

Great queston

I wonder who is going to step up and argue the other side in this?

The Governor could, but he's tended to shy away from personally making legal arguments, and I suspect he'd do anything to keep his name out of the SSM debate right now, deep in the political waters as he is.  I doubt we'll see anything from him.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not optimistic about what SCOTUS would do in any case.  But you may here have very well found the reason that this federal case got filed when it did, it may be that the lack of opposition was perceived as a unique opportunity (we'll have different management here in CA after next year) to get the case heard without opposition.

---

by: Joe Decker @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 10:39:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think......

......SCOTUS won't hear the question of two classes of gay relationship recognition as it only pertains directly to CA presently, with secondary implications for NY, RI, and possibly MD (depending on what the AG does there).

It would pretty much kill the change the consitution idea in Iowa too, but that is prospective.

On the questions of whether denying federal benefits to married gay couples is constitutional or denying full faith and credit pertaining to these marriages or civil unions is constitutional, it seems the SCOTUS would take those questions up if that is part of the decision from the ninth circuit.  

I am somewhat optimistic about how they might rule as the seeds of a positive finding for us are in the dissent of Scalia's in Lawrence v Texas.   He went way over the top in that opinion because he knows that if you can't criminalize private behavior, it is extremely difficult to find rational legal justification based on precedant for discriminating on the basis of it.

---

by: suigenerousla @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 12:33:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It wouldn't kill...

the amendment in Iowa, but they'd have to word it to retroactively annul the existing marriages.  That might cause some other court issues I'm sure.

---

by: Bruno @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 13:14:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

but given the CA outcome....

...which was unanimous, and the havoc it would cause with third parties who relied on the marriage license as part of various business transactions, I seriously doubt they would retroactively allow that -- plus most every ballot initiative is prospective.......

---

by: suigenerousla @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 22:19:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Arguing the other side...

I believe the Alliance Defense Fund shitheads (Pugno) are going to argue it.

---

by: Bruno @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 13:12:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually, Pugno

is a ProtectMarriage sh*thd....I know, I know the two are in bed together, but still a distinction.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 14:25:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He was "allied"

I guess.  "Allied" with the "Alliance," seemed like he was part of them.  On a side note, that bastard is running for public office now: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...

---

by: Bruno @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 18:07:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

but he can't.....

.....he's not a party to the suit, and unless the Fed court allows them too come in and argue, which is sometimes allowed in state court, but very rarely in Fed court, then they can't -- they don't have "standing"

---

by: suigenerousla @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 22:15:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Would they be more likely...

to let the ADF argue it if no one else (i.e. Brown) would?

---

by: Bruno @ Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 01:45:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

my sense is......

.....Federal Court, esp the Ninth Circuit is loathe to do that, the issue of defense is by nature more important to a state court regarding a state law, i.e., the CA Supremes have more of an interest in "upholding the will of the people" (so much an issue in CA) as opposed to the straight up question of whether Prop 8 defies the 14th ammendment....(btw, the 14th ammendment challenge seems like a an excellent one regarding 8, the CA justices seemed to be setting it up in thier May 26 ruling -- they called it "discrimination", they talked about two systems, etc., they really laid out the case for the Federal Court to rule in our favor)

---

by: suigenerousla @ Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 10:08:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good on Jerry Brown.

This is how a constitutional law expert should argue. Hmmm, I thought we had elected one of those to be President. What happened to him?

Act on Principles and make equality happen.  

---

by: atdnext @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 10:12:29 AM CDT