Jerry Brown's reverse on gay-marriage ban: Is it a game-changer?

[cboy4]

Southern California -- this just in

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/12/jerry-browns-re.html


Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown's reversal on Proposition 8 -- he now is asking the California Supreme Court to reject it -- is the talk of the blog world today. Of course, the pro-gay-marriage forces are happy. But there is a lot of debate about whether Brown's rejection of the voters' will on gay marriage can fly. link #1 below Jonathan Turley writes:

Brown's position between the earlier and current litigation seems hopelessly conflicted. It would have been more consistent if he refused to defend either the earlier law or current law. Yet, there is the problem of lawyers defending a law that they consider to be unconstitutional. Brown can argue that, once the Court recognize the constitutional right of same-sex couples in the Constitution, it became a problem to have it set aside by popular vote. The earlier law was the result of legislative consensus while this is the product of popular vote. Yet, there status as "law" is the same for the purposes of the Attorney General's office.

on edit-----------> LA Times link

[tekisui]

1. No link. nt

[cboy4]

2. I've been hoping he'd do something susbstantial to help!

He has always been a good guy, which is why I voted for him for AG.

It'll be interesting to see whether it's determined there's a conflict of interest.

x(

[bluedawg12]

3. Another reason why civil unions are a bad idea

once a law is passed, in this case a good one, same sex marriage rights, and then another law is passed reveresing the first one, it's a muddle.

If civil union laws were passed and then, in an attempt to pass gay marriage laws civil unions were rejected, there would be twice the problem. Getting rid of a bad law (CU) in order to pass a good law, marriage.

This case is an example of the conflict of two laws regarding the same matter.