Thursday, March 5, 2009
Jerry Brown Harmed Gay Marriage
People / Politics / Religion Robert Gammon — Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Jerry Brown got a lot of accolades for his opposition to Proposition 8 , the anti-gay-marriage initiative (including some from us), but it was clear from today's historic state Supreme Court hearing that the attorney general did more harm than good. Today's hearing, in fact, makes one wonder whether Brown inserted himself into the Prop. 8 fight for purely political reasons.
The basic battle today was the argument over whether Prop. 8 was an illegal revision to the state constitution or a legal amendment. Lawyers for gay marriage supporters argued that it was a sweeping, illegal revision, and as a result, same-sex marriage couldn't be outlawed by a simple majority vote (Prop. 8 won in November by four percentage points). Anti-gay marriage attorneys argued the opposite -- that Prop. 8 was a simple, ordinary amendment that only needed 50 percent plus one to become law. Brown, meanwhile, maintained that he was with the same-sex marriage supporters, but then he significantly undercut their argument.
Christopher Krueger, a senior assistant attorney general who represented Brown at the hearing, was forced to admit that his boss agreed with the anti-gay marriage folks --that Prop. 8 was a legal amendment to the constitution. One justice even asked Krueger what side Brown was actually on. It was a serious blow to the pro-gay marriage movement, because the court typically takes the attorney general's opinions seriously. By agreeing with anti-gay supporters, Brown gave the Supreme Court cover to uphold Prop. 8.
Krueger, who repeatedly stumbled over his words and was easily the worst debater at the hearing, then tried to proffer Brown's esoteric argument. Specifically, he said that Prop. 8 should be tossed -- even though it was a legal amendment --because it violated the concept of "inalienable rights" under the state constitution. But most of the justices would have nothing of it, dismissing the argument out of hand. Justice Joyce Kennard, who voted for gay marriage last year, skewered Krueger, noting that Brown's argument rested on out-of-date court decisions from the mid 19th Century.
Clearly, if Brown wanted to help the cause of gay marriage, then today's hearing made it obvious that he needed to stay out of the fight completely or argue that Prop. 8 was an illegal constitutional revision. But by instead taking a position that was obviously unwinnable, Brown helped the anti-gay marriage cause.
Today's hearing provides evidence that Brown's true reason for entering the legal fray may have been to offset the popularity of one of his likely political opponents, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. Newsom is a strong gay-rights backer and a likely candidate against Brown in the 2010 Democratic primary for Governor. It was Newsom who started the gay-marriage battle when he unilaterally decided to marry gays and lesbians in San Francisco several years ago. But Brown can now say he fought the good fight for gay marriage, just like Newsom, thereby undercutting Newsom's claim to fame.
Brown also has to know that it'll be a tough, complicated argument for Newsom to make that the attorney general helped the anti-gay forces -- while calling for Prop. 8 to be overturned. So congratulations, Jerry, for your brilliant and cynical master stroke. You made a path for yourself to the governor's mansion while helping set back the cause of equality at the same time.
Comments (5)
Showing 1-5 of 5
Dear Mr. Humes:
Thank you for botching your case. Those of us who abominate the very idea of gay marriage revel in the irony of the of the AG's office sabotaging the very argument they advanced. And please, let the justices on the supreme court have a modicum of common sense so obviously lacking on the "anything-goes" political left. Just for once, I'd like to see the gay rights movement stopped in its tracks.
like
dislike
Dear Mr. Humes:
Please be assured that the decent, God-fearing people of this State- you know, the ones with families, who slapped your elitist social engineering project down in November-- were laughing with glee at the monumental incompetence of the AG's pathetic waterboy/designated-faller-upon-his-own-sword at the hearings.
Moonbeam betrayed the trust of the people who pay his salary, but then Moonbeam has a long history of betraying foundational moral principles of those to whom he has asserted his loyalty.
Please also be assured that we will not forget those in the AG office who likewise betrayed our vote, and we will be very sure to take advantage of every opportunity to frustrate the future political ambitions of each and all of them.
After all, if you guys are prepared to oppose the people of California's sovereign right to amend their constitution WHILE IN THEIR PERSONAL EMPLOY, it is a very safe bet that you represent a clear and present danger to democracy and you ought to be voted out of any office for which you run, and fired from any office to which you might in future be appointed.
And finally, let me say: congratulations to Justice Starr, who made your team look like the botch-jobbers they truly are.
With all due respect to Mr. Humes, the Deputy Attorney General looked completely out of his league. What ever point he was trying to make was lost and instead only undermined the arguments of the other plaintiffs.
Robert Gammon’s assertion that the Attorney General’s ringing defense of same-sex marriage in the Proposition 8 case was somehow harmful to gay rights is utter nonsense. Attorney General Brown has worked tirelessly to strike down Proposition 8 because he believes it to be discriminatory and unconstitutional.
In 2008, the California Supreme Court concluded that the fundamental right of liberty contained in Article I, section 1 of the state constitution includes the right to form the enduring relationship called marriage and that it cannot be denied to same-sex couples. In arguing in the Proposition 8 case that this right cannot be stripped from same-sex couples by a popular vote, the Attorney General advanced the cause of equal protection for all citizens.
I personally supervised the team of deputies who worked on this case. They presented the arguments forcefully and with complete fidelity to the California Constitution.
Sincerely,
James M. Humes
Chief Deputy Attorney General
