I do occasionally find something presented by the Los Angeles Times editorial board that I can commend, and I like to point it out when I do, since I am constantly disagreeing with them in my blog posts.
Similar to something written by their columnist, George Skelton, the board ran an editorial that argues California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown have an obligation to defend the Proposition 8 (the California Marriage Amendment). The editorial board starts our reminding us that they don’t like Proposition 8.
But there's a difference between opinion journalists and the state's constitutional officers. California's top public lawyer and its chief executive have an obligation to defend the laws of the state whether they like them or not - and that should include the ban on same-sex marriage.It's...not...a...ban.
Last week, a state court turned down a request by the Pacific Justice Institute to force Schwarzenegger and Brown to defend Proposition 8. Its decision was understandable; the governor and attorney general have a fair amount of discretion when it comes to determining their actions in particular cases. But just because the governor and attorney general made a legally defensible choice, that doesn't mean they made the ethical one. Proposition 8 was passed by voters and became California law. Voters have a right to expect the state to defend its laws.Hooray for making sense!
Brown has his legal view as to whether Proposition 8 is constitutional or not, but it's up to the courts to make the determination on that. The state still has an obligation to give the law the best possible defense.
At this point, the state could best fulfill its obligation by hiring an outside attorney to represent it in the appeal.
Agreed.
I'll just take this opportunity to remind people who are (or are eligible to be) registered voters in California that it may make a difference who is elected Governor and who is elected Attorney General. Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris have made it clear they will not defend the state constitution as amended by the voters. Meg Whitman and Steve Cooley, if I recall correctly, have both indicated they will defend the state constitution in this matter if given the chance.
[A little more after the jump.]
Many of the comments that follow the editorial on the website attempt to counter with "but Prop 8 is unconstitutional." Isn't that precisely the matter in question? It's like saying, "Of course the defense attorney shouldn't appeal the conviction. The defendant is guilty." If for no other reason, Schwarzenegger and Brown should defend the state constitution against a federal judge who is going against precedent.
It is Constitutional, practical, and necessary to treat different behaviors and different kinds of relationships differently. All of our laws do so. The pairing of two men or two women is a demonstrably different kind of behavior and different kind of relationship than the pairing of a bride and a groom. While not all will, the pairing of a bride and a groom is the only KIND that IS ABLE to naturally produce new citizens (who did not consent to the arrangement) AND provide those new citizens with a legally, financially, and socially bound role model and bonding guardian from each of the two sexes that comprise all of society, cooperating with each other for the good of the children.
In a day where situational ethics seem to be the rule, even law-makers are treating their duties to defend and obey the laws as a buffet table, where they can pick and choose what they want to obey/disobey. That, in my book, leads to anarchy.
ReplyDelete