What Does Brown Do For You?

The Los Angeles Times had a lot of marriage neutering coverage over the last few days. Our dear friend Jerry Brown is making headlines again.

While again refusing to defend the California Marriage Amendment, Jerry Brown does argue that it should be kept in force until federal courts rule on it. Maura Dolan has this blog entry.

[Much to read below the fold - check it out!]

California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown asked a federal court Thursday not to block Proposition 8, arguing that a resumption of same-sex marriages in the state before the federal challenge was resolved would put those unions in "legal limbo."

Did he do the same thing after the California Supreme Court overturned Prop 22, when the California Marriage Amendment was heading for the ballot? That court should have taken this approach back then.

Brown's decision to oppose an order blocking Prop. 8, which his office contended violated the state constitution, reflects widespread concern among supporters of same-sex marriage that the federal challenge may ultimately fail.

I certainly hope so.

In fact, many gay rights activists openly condemned the federal suit as fraught with risk. They had urged supporters and gay couples not to sue in federal court out of fear that a loss before the U.S. Supreme Court could set back the cause for decades.

Oh, but if is such a fundamental right that marriage licenses be granted to brideless or groomless couples, even when the people of a state have said no, surely any court would see that right now, right? For goodness sakes, I can see the fundraising appeals on TV in other countries: "Won't you help? For less than a dollar day, you can help ensure that two guys can get a marriage license together in California."

Maura Dolan and Carol J. Williams had this article on the challenge to the CMA as well as the federal DOMA.

Brown's willingness to fight a state law that has been upheld by the state's highest court contrasted sharply with President Obama's decision this week to oppose a federal challenge to the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act brought in Orange County.

In that case, a married gay couple, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, has challenged the constitutionality of both Proposition 8 and the 1996 federal law that prohibits extension of federal benefits to same-sex couples.

It sounds like Obama is straddling the fence, until we get to this:

In a statement, Obama's lawyers noted that the president considers the gay marriage ban discriminatory and wants it rescinded, but that his government is legally obliged to defend the law on the books.

Take a note, Jerry Brown.

Then there was this long editorial, in which the marriage neutering cheerleaders at the paper decry that Californians can recall judges from the state Supreme Court. In the process, they again advocate for marriage neutering, yet again playing the race card and spewing the inevitability mantra, before calling the amendment "hateful".

Michael Finnegan, reporting from the "L.A. Pride" parade in West Hollywood, has this blog entry that restates that marriage neutering advocates aren't happy with Obama thus far.

With the Obama administration facing growing discontent among gay supporters, the mayors of Los Angeles and San Francisco joined in voicing concern today about a new U.S. Justice Department brief supporting the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

And if there are two people who are authoritative on how we should be dealing with marriage, it is two mayors publicly known for their violation of marital vows.

Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund, called the administration's defense of the law unacceptable.

"Unfortunately, the malicious and outrageous arguments and language used in the Justice Department's brief [are] only serving to inflame and malign the humanity of same-sex couples and our families," Carey said.

I see. So unmarried people aren't human? It is so interesting to see some of the same people who have, in the past, denied that getting marriage licenses was an important thing to do ("it's just a piece of paper") now saying that it is vital to human existence.

Here is the subsequent article from Michael Finnegan.

Sadly, it looks like the media coverage has gotten to the point where we're just going to get the same regurgitation of appeals to emotion, without any new compelling arguments. Most newsrooms are going to continue to quote same-sex couples with children that they did not make together (but the news will not ask the obvious), talking about how "it's not fair - after all, we love each other" - and if they quote a marriage defender, it will either be one of the official campaign people, or someone who, it will be noted, is been divorced and who will not be quoted with anything other than an appeal to the Bible. At best, it is going to be cast imprecisely as "equality vs. tradition" or "rights vs. tradition". They have their boilerplate script.