Commentary: Brown takes right course on Prop 8 | McClatchy Washington Bureau

×
Sign In
Sign In
    • Customer Service
    • Mobile & Apps
    • Contact Us
    • Newsletters
    • Subscriber Services

    • All White House
    • Russia
    • All Congress
    • Budget
    • All Justice
    • Supreme Court
    • DOJ
    • Criminal Justice
    • All Elections
    • Campaigns
    • Midterms
    • The Influencer Series
    • All Policy
    • National Security
    • Guantanamo
    • Environment
    • Climate
    • Energy
    • Water Rights
    • Guns
    • Poverty
    • Health Care
    • Immigration
    • Trade
    • Civil Rights
    • Agriculture
    • Technology
    • Cybersecurity
    • All Nation & World
    • National
    • Regional
    • The East
    • The West
    • The Midwest
    • The South
    • World
    • Diplomacy
    • Latin America
    • Investigations
  • Podcasts
    • All Opinion
    • Political Cartoons

  • Our Newsrooms

You have viewed all your free articles this month

Subscribe

Or subscribe with your Google account and let Google manage your subscription.

Opinion

Commentary: Brown takes right course on Prop 8

The Sacramento Bee

January 05, 2009 01:58 PM

This editorial appeared in The Sacramento Bee.

California's attorney general, the state's chief law officer, has the duty to uphold the California Constitution.

So what is the duty of Attorney General Jerry Brown on Proposition 8, the voter-approved ballot initiative that changed the state constitution to eliminate same-sex marriage?

There's no hiding from the issue, which is before the California Supreme Court. A March hearing and a ruling within three months are coming.

At first, Brown's stance was technical: The amendment was properly passed by voters and he would defend it in court.

Now, however, he has reversed himself, saying it is his job to defend the whole California Constitution – not just the power of voters to amend the Constitution.

This is the right course.

Brown rightly notes that the Proposition 8 case poses a conflict between the constitution's Declaration of Rights (Article I, Section 1) and the power of the voters to amend the constitution (Article XVIII, Section 3). He concludes that the state Supreme Court should "harmonize the two constitutional provisions" to safeguard "both the legal rights of minorities and the people's right to direct democracy."

How to do this? Article I, Section 1 states that all people have "inalienable rights," including life and liberty, property, safety, happiness, and privacy.

Brown argues that any measure that would abolish these fundamental rights must have a "compelling reason" for doing so – it must be necessary to provide for public health, safety or welfare.

To read the complete editorial, visit The Sacramento Bee.

Read Next

Opinion

This is not what Vladimir Putin wanted for Christmas

By Markos Kounalakis

December 20, 2018 05:12 PM

Orthodox Christian religious leaders worldwide are weakening an important institution that gave the Russian president outsize power and legitimacy.

KEEP READING

MORE OPINION

Opinion

The solution to the juvenile delinquency problem in our nation’s politics

December 18, 2018 06:00 AM

Opinion

High-flying U.S. car execs often crash when when they run into foreign laws

December 13, 2018 06:09 PM

Opinion

Putin wants to divide the West. Can Trump thwart his plan?

December 11, 2018 06:00 AM

Opinion

George H.W. Bush, Pearl Harbor and America’s other fallen

December 07, 2018 03:42 AM

Opinion

George H.W. Bush’s secret legacy: his little-known kind gestures to many

December 04, 2018 06:00 AM

Opinion

Nicaragua’s ‘House of Cards’ stars another corrupt and powerful couple

November 29, 2018 07:50 PM
Take Us With You

Real-time updates and all local stories you want right in the palm of your hand.

McClatchy Washington Bureau App

View Newsletters

Subscriptions
  • Newsletters
Learn More
  • Customer Service
  • Securely Share News Tips
  • Contact Us
Advertising
  • Advertise With Us
Copyright
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service