Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

THIS... Is How You LEAD !!! - 'Jerry Brown Files Motion To Resume Gay Marriage' - HuffPo

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:10 PM
Original message
THIS... Is How You LEAD !!! - 'Jerry Brown Files Motion To Resume Gay Marriage' - HuffPo
Wow... an important politician, with a major election fight on his hands, decides to ACTUALLY LEAD...

:wow:

Jerry Brown Files Motion To Resume Gay Marriage
PAUL ELIAS | 08/ 6/10 06:41 PM |

<snip>

SAN FRANCISCO California Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a motion Friday calling for resumption of same-sex weddings in the state.

Brown filed the motion after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker previously overturned Proposition 8, California's voter-approved gay marriage ban.


Walker ruled the law violates federal equal protections and due process laws.

However, he agreed to block gay marriages from immediately resuming until he can consider arguments on whether to keep the ban in effect while its supporters take their appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

It was unclear when Walker would issue a ruling on that issue.

The outcome in the appeals court could force the U.S. Supreme Court to confront the question of whether gays have a constitutional right to wed.

Currently, same-sex couples can legally wed only in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

California voters passed Proposition 8 five months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples already had tied the knot.

Walker presided over a 13-day trial earlier this year that was the first in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality.
Story continues below

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

Opponents said that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples.

<snip>

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/06/jerry-brown-fi...

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. way to go there Mr. Brown! hope youve started some campaigning too nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. But... his hands are tied... he has to defend the state's law
Oh wait. That only applied to Obama's AG.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. The state law is that Gay Marriages in California are legal.
As Prop 8 was overturned by the courts,
so everything goes back to how it was
before the proposition.

Remember? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Explain why the CA governor and AG weren't obligated to defend Prop 8
And yet Obama and Holder are somehow obligated to submit horrifically anti-gay briefs in defense of DOMA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Cause Holder and Obama are bigotted horrid homophobes
and Jerry Brown and Arnold aren't? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. WHY DO YOU HATE OUR PRESIDENT??!!!!?!?!?!?
:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Not for the same reasons that you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. OK, you've completely stopped making sense
But, I guess that's easier than having an adult discussion on the issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. Did Brown use the arguments that our own Justice Dept. used to defend the law?
I mean the egregious, unacceptable ones?

I don't know if omission or commission led to that, but I believe Brown has shown that you don't need to sell your soul to defend a law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-07-10 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #8
33. Who defended it in the court that just overturned it?
The court heard both sides. Somebody had to have defended it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-07-10 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #33
38. Holy shit. You don't pay attention at ALL, do you?
Look it up yourself. I don't have time to do basic homework like this for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Um... He's Running For Governor Of The State That Voted IN Prop 8 !!!
IOW - The MAJORITY of the state's voting public, in a Presidential Election year, said "No" to Gay Marriage.

He needs a majority of off-year election voters (usually higher Republican/Conservative turnout) in order to gain the office he seeks, yet here he is pushing for something that may just anger the voters.

I call that both courage and leadership.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. The MAJORITY of the state's voting public
Edited on Fri Aug-06-10 06:30 PM by KamaAina
was bamboozled by a multi-million dollar scare campaign funded by Mormon out-of-state money. For instance, voters were repeatedly exposed to spots threatening them with the dire prospect of schoolchildren being taught about same-sex marriage if Prop H8 didn't pass. All of it bogus, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. That May Be True, But...
it doesn't change my original premise.

And... At least he's not playing it careful, like some other important politicians we know...

This morning, senior White House adviser David Axelrod struggled to defend this position on MSNBC. Here's what he said:

"The president opposed Proposition 8 at the time. He felt that it was divisive. He felt that it was mean-spirited, and he opposed it at the time. So we reiterated that position yesterday. The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control. He's supports civil unions, and that's been his position throughout. So nothing has changed."


:wtf:

:banghead:

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dickthegrouch Donating Member (838 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #18
29. I don't buy Axelrod's position (or Obama's)
If you look closely at what Biden said in the Vice President's candidate debate and take into account when it was said, it was VERY ambiguous. Even though my initial reaction was pure fury, on re-reading Biden's statement, we could could have made a perfect ad for our side with his words.

The question Do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. "

Since, at the time, same-sex marriage was legal, I told the campaign to put that answer in an ad and give the voice-over
"Don't redefine marriage in California, Vote No on Proposition 8"

Of course, we never saw the ad, the campaign ignored me.

We should be using that clip for all it's worth to destroy the fundies, and force Obama to use that Constitutional scholarship to mean something (hint: equal treatment).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Actually,
Edited on Fri Aug-06-10 06:33 PM by FrenchieCat
I believe those stats have changed just enough since that law passed,
and that what Jerry Brown needs is activated and enthused Democrats
to win. If they stay home, the 99 million dollar candidate
could win.

However, I would believe that he is doing what he is doing also because
he believes in what he's doing, and his position allows him to get her done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-07-10 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #9
34. The court just overturned it, so that state can go back to the status quo ante
The same state allowed gay marriage to exist in the first place.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
26. +
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. Jerry Brown is the current Attorney General of California......
It would be a shame if he wouldn't have done this.

So yes...he is leading in a way that no one else can
considering his current position, and the state that he's from. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Spot on!
'cept, what's Holder's excuse?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. He's not running for office?
and this is a California State Law? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
28. I was referring to that which is within the USDoJ's jurisdiction.
Holder ain't no Brown, sadly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-07-10 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #5
35. That the federal law is different
It's one thing not to agree but quite another to argue that your opposition has no right to argue their case at all.

Another factor is that if they leave it be, it can pop up again, if it goes to court and the court makes a ruling, future Congresses have a precedent they can't ignore.

It's like being against anyone accused of a heinous crime of having a lawyer. Like the lawyer is personally on the side or murder or child molestation by defending one accused of it. The legal system is not a high school clique or something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-07-10 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. As I clarified above...
I was referring to the model advanced where an AG upholds the law.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arbusto_baboso Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. And this is publicity that all of Meg's millions can't buy for her.
Count on Brown to use it to the fullest.

He'll make even bigger points investigating the officials of the city of Bell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-07-10 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
30. He's smart and competent (also human). She's rich and nasty (also borg).
Edited on Sat Aug-07-10 09:22 AM by glitch
California is weird, right now they are neck and neck in the polls. I just hope our SoS has been making progress on cleaning out the election system, the situation is ripe for another rigging.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TriMera Donating Member (885 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
10. It's about time that somebody
stood up for us! Good job, Jerry Brown! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. The guy is interesting
I don't love all his stands or decisions and he IS a politician.

I just like the way he shows that he is unafraid and unashamed.

:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
12. Here's what courage looks like
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
16. I voted for him in the Dem primary for prez back in the 90s. Would have
loved to see him as prez.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #16
27. Imagine how different things might have been under President Brown
Almost makes you want to weep, doesn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-07-10 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #27
31. Ain't no almost about it.
The oligarchs would never have allowed it. They still might not, here in CA.

Going to be an interesting election, I hope everyone here is ready for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-07-10 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #27
39. Suede-denim secret police?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suffragette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
22. k&r
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
23. "Let Jerry speak!" -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
24. So did Schwarzenegger
I think they sort of had to because the judge requested arguements be submitted by today, and since both of them had opted to not defend PropH8, their positions were already known.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Yep... Just Saw That...
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-07-10 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
32. Sounds like a routine part of his job to me
Not that he isn't a good guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-07-10 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #32
36. No, WillyT is right. From the article:
"The governor and attorney general almost always defend state laws when they are challenged. But in this case, both refused to participate in fighting the lawsuit aimed at overturning the ban."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Oct 14th 2019, 05:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC