If you want a sense of the degree to which politicians in Sacramento are acting on the principle “by any means necessary” in their desire to be rid of Proposition 8, the state’s marriage amendment, and their absolute contempt for the people of the state who approved the amendment, you need look no further than the news from yesterday. It reports that California’s new attorney general filed a brief with the California Supreme Court arguing that only public officials can represent the state in defending marriage laws. Conveniently, the attorney general and governor are not willing to defend the marriage law, so if the AG’s proposal is accepted, there would be no defense of Proposition 8.
The real kick in the story is that the brief filed yesterday is an amicus brief — in other words, the AG was not required to weigh in at all, she just chose to express her opinion that the people who put the proposition on the ballot (and convinced a majority of Californians to adopt it) should not get to have a say in its defense. The legislative leadership also jumped in, defeating a bill that would have made clear that initiative sponsors can defend their laws in court, in a committee vote yesterday. So the ruling political class in California is arrayed against a fair hearing for Proposition 8. Let’s hope the California Supreme Court refuses to go along.
With last week’s news about the effort to keep DOMA from getting a lawyer, one could reasonably ask why some influential people believe marriage doesn’t deserve a defense. Maybe they are less sure of their own position than they seem.
In terms of impeachment, isn't the AG's refusal to defend laws duly passed by the citizens of the state on the grounds that "I don't like this law" similar to a refusal to enforce the law? Perhaps there's a distinction under the laws of California and the AG can't be impeached for her complete and utter disregard of her duties - but she should be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"... one could reasonably ask why some influential people believe marriage doesn’t deserve a defense"
It's not "marriage" doesn't deserve a defense, it's that bigoted discrimination doesn't deserve one, particularly by officials who've been elected to serve all people. Equality in this matter wouldn't change straight marriage at all so the premise that they need to defend something that's not being affected is ludicrous. Unless, of course, you're less sure of your position on marriage than you seem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat it tells you is the lengths the left will go to impose its particular worldview on an obstinate and unwilling populace. They know they can't win the public debate, so they will impose their views by judicial fiat. And yet, they are dishonest enough to protest if anyone questions their methods - they claim to want to protect the integrity of an "independent judiciary" (as long as it is dependably a leftist judiciary).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo defense because the laws are unconstitutional.
That is a pretty solid proposition, don't you think?
What if Congress passed the following law over a veto: "Catholics may not go to Catholic mass?" Would the AG have an obligation to defend the law?
Of course, there may be people who think the law is perfectly constitutional (indeed, it was passed by 2/3 of each house of Congress). But would that compel the AG to defend?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"It's not "marriage" doesn't deserve a defense, it's that bigoted discrimination doesn't deserve one, particularly by officials who've been elected to serve all people. Equality in this matter wouldn't change straight marriage at all so the premise that they need to defend something that's not being affected is ludicrous. Unless, of course, you're less sure of your position on marriage than you seem."
Excuse me, but it appears that it is already affecting people who happen to hold the consensus position of civilization for the past couple thousand years. According to King and Spaulding and, apparently, the government of California, people who object to homosexual marriage (i.e. a majority of Californians) are not even worthy of being represented in court.. How long before this spreads to other sectors of society? Not long. I guess "tolerance" for other opinions only goes so far.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Equality in this matter wouldn't change straight marriage at all"
What a sweeping generalization! hughman, what evidence can you marshall that would prove this statement? This appears to be the full body of your argument, so surely you must have convincing support for it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Hughman - It's clear to me that gay marriage supporters are the ones who aren't sure of their position and have resorted to trying to deny their opponents (a majority of citizens of California, BTW) an opportunity to be heard at court. A new low.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCharlieCT: The only problem with impeachment is that it would take the California legislature to do it. This is the same body that wouldn't even let out of committee a law that makes clear that the proponents of the ammendment have a right to help defend it in court.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@MarkW: Thanks - I was giving the California legislature too much credit...but I would hope someone would at least have the guts to present an article of impeachment in committee.
@Allajn: your hypothetical is absurd and clearly unconstitutional (remember freedom of religion and all?) while there is little to no support for gay marriage in the history or laws of this country or western society in general.
But, assuming a law as ludicrous like that passed - it would be the AG's responsibility to resign if she felt strongly that the law violated the constitution and she could not defend or enforce the law.
I'm all in favor of the AG of California following her conscience and resigning in this case. There are several jobs she'd be qualified for - like sweeping up at Denny's, for example.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey know the only way they can force this gay marriage nonsense on people is by rigging the judicial process and mandating the other side take a dive. This is the kind of corruption and malfeasance you see in your average banana republic, and it speaks volumes about the hopeless unpopularity of the Prop 8 opponents' position that their cause depends on such furtive tactics.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusehughman demonstrates why liberals in power are so dangerous.
He actually believes that those ideas that he doesn't agree with must be criminalized and that those who hold those beliefs are not entitled to a defense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCharlie,
That was a very Nixonian answer.
There have been a number of AGs who have refused to defend cases and not resign. In other words, there is no precedent. Indeed, when faced with a Court order to act, at least one president said "no" and he was not impeached and he did not resign (Jackson).
My example was not ridiculous, it was just taking your principle to a legitimate extreme. I find proposition 8 just as ridiculous as the law I proposed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAllajn: Circular reasoning. You assume the answer as an argument. IE, it's not at all reasonable to assume that this law is unconstitutional. That's why you go to court.
That's why we bother having courts. If not, we could just go to the AG and let him decide which laws are constitutional and which aren't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAllajn: Your answer is typical Obama-speak. As MarkW notes, the AG is not the arbiter of what laws are constitutional. She's not a hero because she doesn't defend laws that you happen to disagree with. The AG can have opinions, but her job is to defend and enforce the law (and not work against it, as she's also doing in this case). If she can't perform her statutory duties as AG based upon her personal political opinions, it's her obligation to resign.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSupporters of hom...... marriage like to frame the issue as whether or not hom.....s being married affect a heter....ual marriage. That isn't the issue.
The issue of marriage, for society, is that the healthier hete....ual marriages are, that produce healthier, productive future citizens, the healthier society will be.
Society has no interest in how individuals without children and who do not intend to create them, cohabit. There is no restriction on any couplings, even multiple couplings, of individuals of any gender. There is, however, limitations on who can receive benefits from the state to those who can, conceivably, procreate as well as on the NUMBER of people who can procreate within the state's definition of marriage.
Society won't benefit from polygamy (many men would lose the opportunity to wed). Society gains nothing when any two people live together (hete....al, hom....ual or ase..al). The solution isn't to extend marriage to those who can't (by virtue of their natural inabilities) or who don't chose to have children.
Restrict the BENEFITS of marriage by the state to couples who produce children or who are guardians. If anyone wants to call their union a "marriage", fine. It won't be a state supported (or endorsed) union absent children to protect.
Note: apparently "heter....", "homo..." and even the three letter word for intercourse are prohibited as "objectional language" according to a notice on my original posting.
Utterly amazing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is an attack not just on Prop 8, but on, at the very least, the entire initiative process.
-------------
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe way the state (government at all levels) treats individuals vis-a-vis marriage may indeed be a violation of equal protection: Why should a single individual be treated differently from a married individual?
The AG is not the arbiter of whether a law is constitutional? I disagree.
But first, you might be right, but, as an officer of the court, an AG has an obligation to not raise a frivolous argument. Moreover, the AG has a duty to represent her client zealously. If the AG determines that the client (the state) does not want her to argue a law is unconstitutional or if such an obligation is frivolous, she is under an obligation not to do so.
Like any client, the State of California is free to choose another attorney. It has chosen not to do so.
On the other hand, the AG is not under an obligation to defend unconstitutional laws. That is simply the case. If it were not, any citizen would have a legitimate gripe when the AG or DA decided not to prosecute a slam dunk case.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCharlieCT says: "The AG can have opinions, but her job is to defend and enforce the law (and not work against it, as she's also doing in this case). If she can't perform her statutory duties as AG based upon her personal political opinions, it's her obligation to resign."
You have to understand, tho, that the AG in question was in the Oakland and then San Francisco district attorney's office (read: Pelosi territory) for her entire career. For Harris to have taken any position other than she did would be unthinkable, given the politics of the Bay Area.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAllajn: Is the AG, the attorney of the govt, or the attorney of the people? The two are not synonomous.
Regardless, for the AG to first decide not to defend this law, then refuse to allow anyone else to defend the law, makes the AG judge, jury, and executioner.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"It's not "marriage" doesn't deserve a defense, it's that bigoted discrimination doesn't deserve one"
One man's bigoted discrimination is another man's wise policy choice. I suspect you believe that taxing the rich at a much higher rate than the poor is not "bigoted discrimination".
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse