Jerry Brown’s Argument to Void Prop. 8 Under Attack

Just a small correction--In Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) the U.S. Supreme Court first referred to the right to marry as “one of the basic civil rights.” It was probably repeated in the Loving case. And according to Starr (running for the position of most despised man in America) Californians should be able to use the power of the initiative and ballot and do whatever the hell they want. This is undemocratic and unconstitutional.

Wow! Fascinating Joseph. Please enlighten us more. You are very good at not expressing your own personal opinions on the matter, while writing ad hominem words. As you live in the racist homophobic state of Alabama, I am curious how you were able to pull that off? Are you able to speak English correctly, living in Alabama? Hmmm? By the way, ummm...the USA Constitutions overrrides State Constitutions. You give the impression that Ken Starr has a chance of winning this case. Why? Because you live in Alabama?

By Mr. Starr's theory, no African American students would have been allowed into the University of Mississippi during the civil rights era, because no doubt at the time, a majority of people in that state would not have wanted that. Mr. Starr is basically saying a bare majority of people get to decide on civil rights, instead of the court of law. So, by this logic, if 51% of the California voters voted for segregated schools, then we would have to go back to that. The whole point of the civil rights movement is that inalienable rights are the purvue of the judicial system to decide, and not the popular vote. Gosh, you know, in 1776, a majority of the people in the American colonies wanted to stay with the British, but a small group of people who believed in inalienable rights persevered against the then-majority. So the point here is that sometimes the rights of humankind needs to be defended by the minority. Something Mr. Starr completely misses.

its interesting to see ken starr talk about constitution when he broke every aspect in it when he failed to bring Bill Clinton down, Starr should have been sent to jail then, now he is back in the news riding a soft target 'homophobia' wow, anto

One final comment, and this is to Art: Don't hold your breath. Obama OPPOSES same-sex marriage. ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS. As for installing liberal judges to enact pro-gay legislation, ain't gonna happen. The two Justices most likely to leave office voluntarily are both already "liberal" (Stevens and Bader-Ginsburg) andthe Democrats do NOT have enough votes to prevent filibusters by the GOP against justices deemed "too liberal". They need 60, but even with Franken's representing Minnesota, there will only be 57 Democrats. There are 2 independents (Lieberman and Sanders) and 41 GOPers. (And, given the threats made by the Democrats against Lieberman during the last half of the year, he's very likely to vote with the GOP a heck of a lot--especially on Supreme Court nominees.)

(continued) Building on the Amendment procedure, most other states do operate under a system by which the State Legislators introduce and pass measures which, IF they're intended to alter the State Constitution, become proposed amendments. Most states send these proposals to the people for them to vote on. I believe you've mistaken the STATE Constitutional Amendment procedure with the process to amend the FEDERAL Constitution. (Under that process, most states ratify Federal Amendments through their legislatures, rather than going to the people. Some states do choose to ratify after the people have voted on the matter, but how states ratify the Constitution is left up to each state.)

(continued) 3--Jason, you're incorrect about the method by which State Constitutions are amended. Some states may operate the way you suggest, but many others ARE voted on by the people of the state. California additionally has the I&R (Initiative and Referendum) system, by which individuals or special interest groups can introduce initiatives and referendums WITHOUT needing to go to the Legislature. (This is a very long-standing part of California's Constitution.) The person (or group) creates a petition and asks people to sign it. Once enough people have signed the petition, it's presented to the proper state office for the signatures to be verified. If the verified signatures have passed the minimum threshhold, the initiative becomes a potential amendment which is to be voted on by the people of California.

(continued) 2--By the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1967 Loving case, marriage was declared a CIVIL right of the people. The Court did uphold that the states do have a right to impose certain restrictions (such as a minimum age requirement or limitations between family members; for some states, first cousins can marry while other states prohibit such marriages--first cousins who've married, however, can move freely without facing a state-ordered dissolution of the marriage). An argument can be made that the Court didn't intend for same-sex couples to marry but gay rights only came to the forefront 2 years after the Loving decision, and even today, many in the LGBT community oppose marriage. (Then again, there's not a lot of calls from the religious right to impose laws against divorce or restoring penalties for adultery.)

A few points that need to be addressed: 1--Jason, there is an even more fundamental Constitutional issue that has not only been completely ignored but it has been criminally ignored. Article IV, Section 1, aka, "The Full Faith and Credit Clause". It reads, "Each state to give credit to the public acts, etc., of every other state." This is the reason why we don't have to have a separate driver's license for each state we wish to travel through. This is the reason why straight married couples are not required to get re-married when they move from one state to another (nor are they required to re-marry in their home state after marrying in Vegas or on a cruise or in Tahiti, etc). The Federal Constitution supersedes State laws, even State Constitutions but because of DOMA (which has the force of law but does NOT have the legal standing to override the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution), states are allowed to ignore same-sex marriages performed LEGALLY in Massachusetts.

Someone should have eradicated this vermin back when he was causing problems before. Republicans are a cancer that should be excised from society - or they will kill us all.