AG: Prop 8 Backers Can’t Defend Marriage Ban

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California Attorney General Kamala Harris is signaling that she is just as strong a supporter of same-sex marriage as her predecessor in the office, Gov. Jerry Brown.

Harris submitted a brief to the California Supreme Court on Monday arguing that state law does not give the proponents of successful ballot initiatives the right to defend the measures in court.

The question is critical in the legal fight over California’s ban on same-sex marriages, known as Proposition 8.

Brown and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger refused to defend the voter-approved ban on appeal after a federal judge struck it down last summer.

Proposition 8’s sponsors have asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to allow them to step in, but the appeals court punted the issue to the California Supreme Court.

(Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press.  All Rights Reserved.)

  • Yes on 8

    You are the Attorney General of California. Follow the DAM law or we will vote you out of office! We voted against gay marriage TWICE. Enforce the laws like you are supposed to without any comments of how you don’t believe in them.

    • SC

      Understanding that the vote of the people was to ban gay marriage, does that make it legal? If the vote of the people was to bring back the guillotine for say…….adultery, and that was the vote of the people, is it than legal? This is a legality issue not a moral issue, this law simply violates American Civil Liberties.

      • Political Scientist

        Actually, yes, it does make it legal. American law is not based in absolute freedoms and to “live and let live”, it is based on majority rule (with certain concessions made to still include the minority).

        A vote was held. The majority voted for Prop 8. That decision should be upheld for the same reason that a No vote would have been upheld.

      • Kenny

        No it doesn’t. If you want to bundle with the same sex, then call it partnering or something else than marriage. I do not agree with the life style but will not attack those that choose it. It is not right to impose your beliefs on others as you are accusing us of doing. And in todays society, adultry is accepted so the guillotine would not stand a chance. We can’t even execute murders and sickos now.

      • landsknekt

        SC, I cannot believe how wrong you are. The AG has a sworn duty to uphold the laws of California. Since we voted prop 8 it becomes law until a court overturns it. Its not the AG job to impose their own morals but to uphold and defend the laws of California to the best of their ability. If Ms Harris and Mr Brown are allowed to impose what ever they think then why do we have any laws in this state? Let the (and each AG moving forward) determine the laws as they see fit.

    • bud


    • DemsSuck

      So is that true for all propositions or just this one? I do not agree with paying for the School Bonds I voted no on, so do I get to choose which laws to follow too? The Law is the Law. We live in a republic where the majority rule, unless found unconstitutional in a court of law. Has prop 8 been found unconstitutional? Answer is no? All you argueing about morality are off the topic here. It is about the law and following the law! California has been lead by feel good Dems for decades now and we ar broke, both monitarily and morally? So all you Dems arguing freedoms and bashing conservatives need to look what you have done to this state. Nice job A Holes…

  • Dustin Pugh

    I agree you were elected by the people of the state. To serve us not what you think is right and wrong. Do your job or get fired. Im tired of elected officials being able to not do their jobs and face little consequences when the rest of us struggle to get by can be fired for not doing our jobs. The people of california have clearly spoken on this issue twice. You might be pro same sex marriage but your job is to represent the people of california not your beliefs.

  • james


  • Rick

    Dems only listen to the voters when it serves their liberal agenda. We voted for prop 187 to deny social services to illegal aliens. That didn’t get enforced either. The Dems want gay marriage, amnesty for illegals and the legalization of recreation pot smoking. Smoking is bad for you unless it pot. Then the Dems like it!

    • Those Darn Dems Again!

      So, judging by your vitriol against “Dems” (maybe you’re unable to spell the whole word?), I’m guessing that you consider yourself a conservative. Doesn’t the conservative ideology call for smaller government and more individual freedoms? Knowing this, as a conservative, why would you want the state government to spend your tax dollars to defend an ammendment to the Constitution that strips individuals of a right that really doesn’t affect you one way or the other?

      • Kenny

        Rick is correct. The conservatives want smaller government but also wishes to maintain some of the idealoges that our forfathers created this nation for. Yea, I hear ya. What about slavery. They stated that a black man was considered a one third person and had no rights according to law. Since God didn’t create one third people, the law was corrected. Like I said before, if you want same sex unions, then call it something that identifies it as such. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Look at a pipe fitting. You cannot connect to male fitting together without female fittings.

      • bud

        Yoyr stupid

      • bud

        Suck it up! Oh yea you probably already did.

      • Those Darn Dems Again!

        Kenny, which founding father do these “conservatives” look to as a moral compass? The one who galavanted around Europe sleeping with any woman that he could? The one who had an affair with one of his slaves? Or the one who chewed copious amounts of marijuana to deal with the pain caused by bad teeth and injuries sustained during military service? I see your point, but I’d argue that these men were not moral paragons themselves, and they had very different views amongst themselves on how this nation should be governed.

        And seriously, pipe fittings? Are you comparing people to plumbing or are you saying that God created NPT threads?

      • a Voter

        So why bash Kenny alluding to illiteracy, is that your way of dealing with an expression of opinion that doesn’t fall inline with your own? Seems you wish to be able to express yourself, fully enjoying your right to do so, yet exhibit intolerance and attack when another differs; hey, that’s like discrimination, so what’s next, ya gonna spray paint insignias on Kenny’s garage door? And these moral paragons you reference later, whatever their behavior as you write about, the result of their efforts is a lil thing that gives you the freedom to voice your views, if you wish to enact some sort of change in that, imagine that coming to a vote in regard to the behavior this issue seeks to condone.

  • a Voter

    How does the argument in favor of same sex marriage, if permitted, then not open the door to pediphilia, incest, or other behavior related orientations or preferences; last I checked, that’s not quite the same as the issue of ethnicity or gender.

    • SC

      Pedophilia is violation of a child, how does this have anything to do with same sex marriage?

      • Kenny

        You must draw a line in the sand somewhere or the next thing you know “true love” must include a highschool teacher and the student, the baby sitter and the child, the rancher and his goat and so on and so on. When you continue to break the laws of morality then there will be no morals at all. We are living in a society that one can do whatever one wants, when one wants to, to whomever one wants to, wherever one wants to, however one wants to do it and it’s no longer ones fault if harm is caused.

      • a Voter

        It’s a behavioral orientation; what would be the difference if a 14yrd old (or younger) and her adult lover were to start with flags & stickers reading “Family Car” and then approach the courts and media proclaiming their love and trying to validate their union by seeking marriage? …or a mother and her son? …or polygamy? Then, if same-sex marriage is ok with you, just where would you choose to draw the line, if at all.

  • a Voter

    the argument opens doors, how could the same not be said ?

  • Niecee

    We voted NO GAY MARRIAGE!!It won,I think Education and other things happening in this State are WAY more important,than a piece of paper trying to justify and excuse a flaw in the way some brains are wired that make people forget what sex they are.Sorry your gay,marriage is a man woman thing.Nobodies saying those of you can’t be gay,go be gay knock yourself out,quit wasting the supreme courts time. Whats so important about being married anyway,i did it once,its no big deal

    • Yup

      If marriage is no big deal, then why do you care so much that gays not get married? Hell, if you’re worried about education, why do you want tax dollars that could otherwise go toward schools to be spent in court defending Prop. 8? Why not encourage as many people to get married as possible, gay or straight, and use the money gained by charging for the marriage licenses to improve our school systems?

  • Diana

    We voted yes for marriage between and man and a woman. Instead why not charge a luxury tax on gays!

blog comments powered by Disqus
The Taz Show
LIVE: Monday through Friday from 6am – 6pm ET

Listen Live