Comments on: Jerry Brown to Supreme Court: Void Prop. 8

By: wunsacon

wunsacon — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:40:24 +0000

I think this is making a mistake. This tactic probably just creates extra backlash.

There’s my Monday morning quarterbacking for ya…

By: Cellar47

Cellar47 — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 13:43:42 +0000

Who can forget the sight of Starr every morning during Monicagate walking out of his house with a bag of garbage to put in the trash. He’s still walking around with a bag of garbage.

Let’sa hear it for Linda Ronstadt’s ex-boyfriend!

By: misswildthing

misswildthing — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 07:29:39 +0000

Jerry Brown was governor of Calif and while he was governor had the wacky idea of, ready for it…recycling. That is one of the reasons he was called governor Moonbeam. His father was also the Guv of Calif and lost re-election to a Hollywood actor named Rayguns. His sister ran for Governor and lost to some guy name Wilson, I think.

He was not a good mayor of Oakland but his replacement, Ron Dellums, makes Brown look like a frigging statesman.

If he saves my institutional marriage from the crown with pitchforks and torches I will be indebted to him for my lifetime. Of course, this does not mean he gets my vote, just my gratitude. After this last election I will be much more wary with my vote because who knows who will be speaking at the swearing-in ceremony. A homophobic minister perhaps who would never let me be part of his church, as if I wanted to be part of the pitchforks and torches set.

By: MikeInTheMountainWest

MikeInTheMountainWest — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 06:41:27 +0000

I’m not sure the court system is the best way to win the gay marriage fight. I know that will probably upset some people but I worry that in the long run it could do more harm than good. Majorities of many states have passed anti-gay marriage amendments and a decision by the courts on Marriage could be the catalyst for a successful attempt to amend the US Constitution to define marriage as exclusively heterosexual. That would make it impossible to win for another generation.

By: lokywoky

lokywoky — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 06:36:12 +0000

I lived in California for almost 30 years and have been gone from there for about 4. But I thought that there was a requirement that a proposition had to be ‘vetted’ by some court or committee of judges to pass constitutional muster before it did go on the ballot since there had been a rash of obviously unconstitutional stuff, some of which had passed and the State had to spend a lot of money on legal fees as a result. So I’m wondering what exactly happened in this case?

By: MarkH

MarkH — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 06:06:52 +0000

Looks to me like the amendment should never have been allowed on the ballot. Not only from a moral point but from a legal point.

It appears to me that one of the biggest problems in CA is that people put initiatives on the ballot and con the public into supporting them when the initiative really means something altogether different.

Three Strikes was like that: people didn’t realize a strike could be something felonious, but not violent. Now they’re drowning in red ink from all their prison spending and Prop 13 won’t let them raise taxes to pay for it.

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 06:03:50 +0000

Brown was not a great mayor for Oakland (as an Oaklander I get to say that), but at heart he’s a rational being with a real devotion to the Constitution and to the law. It’s damn good to see him applying himself to do the right thing here.

My contempt for Ken Starr, on the other hand, knows no bounds. (h/t Dear Leader Jane.)

By: BargainCountertenor

BargainCountertenor — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:33:41 +0000

Marriage began being registered by the church because it was necessary to track births, baptisms, marriages and deaths. The State co-opted the system not long afterwards. Registering vital events was necessary (among the nobility, at least) for tracking property rights. In most of Western Europe, primogeniture was practiced, so it had to be known who the eldest living legitimate son and heir was.

So it all started with the Church tracking its sacraments, the State got involved to protect property rights. As the system evolved in Europe, couples had to go to their local registrar to take care of the paperwork there. Then they went and found the clergycritter of their choice to handle the Flying Spaghetti Monster. With our American genius for conflating things, we fucked it up. We still have to go to the County Clerk’s office for a license, but then we have to find some other authority to handle the signing, etc.

When a couple stand before the congregation and are pronounced spouses, they aren’t married yet. The license has to be signed, witnessed and sent off to the State Vital Statistics Bureau. Once the documents are received and recorded by the Vital Statistics Bureau, then (and only then) are they married.

There is no reason in the world we can’t bifurcate the system again. Go to the County Clerk’s office, pay the license fee, etc. Sign the thing and witness it — every County Clerk’s office has at least half-a-dozen notaries. Ship it off to the capital. Haul a temporary endorsed copy off to the clergy-critter of the appropriate sect, and have her (him?) do that voodoo the she (he?) do so well. If you don’t need the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s blessing, then don’t bother with phase 2. If you need to visit the nearest LDS temple for Joe Smith’s blessing, well, go.

In the eyes of the State, you’re married once the paperwork is filed. The State really shouldn’t care who you’re marrying, with exceptions for protecting the incompetent. Like kids, people who are non compos mentis, etc.

The slippery slope argument just doesn’t apply here. The State is perfectly competent to make rules for marriage like, “Only one to a customer,” or “Only one at a time to a customer.” We’re not going to let paedophiles marry prepubescent children, nor will we automatically decide to permit polygamous or polyandrous relationships to be recognized.

By: lokywoky

lokywoky — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:33:00 +0000

You do know that he was the governor of California before he was mayor of Oakland…

By: SFgreenmama

SFgreenmama — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:26:30 +0000

Jerry Brown is one of the best things to happen to California. I’m thrilled he was first mayor of Oakland–talk about trial by fire–no possibility of hiding behind do-gooder white liberalism when you’re faced with the real thing–and now, thank goodness, AG.

I’m thrilled he’s taking on Prop 8. Someone has to . This is a fundamental right.