"A flip-flop, flippty-flip-flip-flop you don’t stop…" says a community commenter at Michelle Malkin's blog. The little ditty accurately describes the shenanigans taking place at the Attorney General's office.
Jerry Brown, CA Attorney General, came gallantly to the defense of the people's Prop 8 vote immediately following the November 4th elections, vowing to uphold the constitutional amendment against his own personal beliefs. Now, however, in a perhaps-not-so-surprising turn of events, Brown has renounced his supportive position and fallen in with gay rights activists' "rainbow-love-change-civil rights-freedom" mantra, claiming that the amendment was "inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty." RIP, Jerry Brown, RIP.
Most outrageous is this quote from Brown himself that claims his change of heart was brought about by, "further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution." It is my humble opinion that the astute and capable Jerry Brown, would undoubtedly already be quite versed in Proposition 8 and every aspect of its Constitutional repercussions; he is the Attorney General, after all.
Pearl opines:
How to win a 2010 governor's chair? Jump ship on Proposition 8 in order to win popularity with the up-and-coming, "enlightened and progressive," young CA voter pool.
But really, can we really blame JB for being more afraid of the gay rights activists' reactions should Prop 8 be upheld than the traditional marriage supporters' reactions should Prop 8 be overturned? Hm? The answer is no, not if you've been following the blazing trail of GRA hate visible from outer space.
On a more positive note, joining the Yes on 8 legal defense team is the esteemed Kenneth Starr, Dean of Pepperdine University Law School, former US Court of Appeals Judge, DC Circuit, and former US Solicitor General who has argued 25 cases before the Supreme Court.
The type of judicial activism and legal activism demonstrates how using the court to impose public policy is a assault on democracy itself.
ReplyDeleteJerry Brown "defended" the institution of marriage in California (no wonder we lost.)
It was (and is) tyranny plain, simple, and obviously.
40 years after Roe the true fruits are plainly obvious.
The left is a ends justifies the means type of animal.
This is not now nor ever has been a constitutional issue.
Indeed clear precedent establishes that marriage is between one man & one woman.
The same-sex "marriage" movement itself is required to get a constitutional amendment themselves at both the state & federal levels in order to make such a change.
That’s the way the system works.
As an attorney I have a clearer bead than most on this fact.
Perhaps I will right a post sometime demonstrating this.
In the meantime interested parties should read J. Johnson concurring in the (recent) Washington State marriage decision.
No authentic understanding of the subterfuge being committed is possible without this base of understanding.
GRA hate?? Really?? Can you honestly say that you believe that the relatively few examples of violent activism over the past few months by a tiny minority of members of the gay community can really amount to the enormous number of Gay-Hate crimes over the last.. well... centuries? Attacks. Bombs.Murders. Gay people have been subject to all of these from members of the heterosexual community forever. Compare that to the events of the last few months, where a small number of misguided people, angry at the removal of their rights, fought back in a way which most of the gay community deplored.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteLet's cut the excuses. The only comparison that I see in this election is law abiding citizens and those who want what they want, regardless of the law, and at any cost to society.
Framing the argument the way you have provides imaginary justification for a whole range of things that have nothing to do with the issues at hand. "Yeah but he hit me first!"
I think we ought to be able to expect more from fellow adults, gay or not gay.