If you read the top story from today’s L.A. Times, you might have seen some unlikely news about Prop. 8: Calif. State Attorney General Jerry Brown has filed a 111-page brief asking the State Supreme Court to discard it altogether.
From the article:
“The attorney general has a legal duty to uphold the state’s laws as long as there are reasonable grounds to do so. Last month, Brown said he planned to ‘defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California.
But in his filing, Brown, who personally supports same-sex marriage, offered a novel legal theory to back his argument that the measure should be invalidated.”
That argument states that you can’t use the amendment process to take away rights without a good legal reason.
O RLY?
This is the same Jerry Brown who asked appellate courts to apply a new, fourth requirement when considering people for equal protection under the law: they cannot be able to normally access the legal process. You know, because gay people, dual-income, no kids (DINKs) — they can buy their rights, can’t they?
Remember, Brown also said that Prop. 8 was not a constitutional revision, though that could be just as well, because that could have proven to be a difficult fight, given that California has several precedents of sweeping constitutional changes approved as amendments.
Maybe we should ask Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth W. Starr, who will testify sometime this year on behalf of Protect Marriage, an anti-same-sex marriage group. And while we’re at it, we can ask him where his sister Brenda went.
