Jerry Brown discusses challenge of Prop 8 in federal court on CNN

[Pilgrim812]

Andrew Pugno is toast in California Politics.

[gofindyourmusic]

USA is about FREEDOM and Justice for ALL! Not just right wing Christians ,and narrow minded fear mongers. Read the Constitution !

[broyomama]

This is not about marriage equality. Most people who support that notion actually do not support marriages with multiple spouses (like polygamy), and consenting adult brother/sister marriages. So much for "equality for all"!

[Permaglo]

I'd like to see "Protect Marriage" actually do anything to protect marriage.

I love how Pugno brings up Federal cases ruled at a time when judges openly referred to gays as "fags."

And Coretta Scott King was FOR marriage equality for gays. I think she knows a little about the civil rights movement.

[tennischris2010]

Here is the other question. Gavin Newsome was recently talking with some very unhappy citizens of Bell California and telling them he plans to clean up all cities in CA with similar problems. What exactly was Jerry doing all of these years when he should have been paying attention to this kind of fraud and abuse of power?

[RichardDuryea]

the 14th amendment was created to allow people from another 'Race' life liberty and property back in 1868 (right after the end of the civil war). So that former slaves could have right that could not be taken away without due process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Since when did homosexuality become a race?

Because that is how it is being played.

[ERAUPRCWA]

@RichardDuryea the constitution has been amended over the years to add clauses into the document. Homosexuality is a protected claus of equality in the amendment.

[lizardfirefighter110]

@memtroita9139 I understand your frustration. Politicians are like ice cream: They come in all colors and flavors. They are oh so sweet during an election, but after the vote their promises just melt away.

[lizardfirefighter110]

This is a Republic not a Democracy. The fact that a majority believe, or agree on something does not make it right. No one has the right to infringe upon the liberties of others. Same sex marriage does not infringe upon the liberties of anyone else. What if the argument was changed, so that based on a particular religion same sex marriage was acceptable. For example, "same sex marriage is part of my faith". Now what? It is all about personal liberties, not a particular believe system.

[lizardfirefighter110]

@memtroita9139 Why is Jerry Brown trash? Because he is trying to do what is right by The U.S. Constitution. He tried to make Oakland nicer, so he is trash? What would someone have to do to get your approval?

[airplaneking]

No comparison? That Pugno attorney is a fucking idiot.

[nxdxboy]

It's not about having a federal pro-gay marriage law, It's about how denying gay couples the right to marry breaks other federal laws making the ban unconstitutional. And as far as the civil rights comparison, no of course no two experiences are the same, and maybe most will agree that the the race issue was more severe, but we're dealing with the SAME principles of hatred and discrimination of the past and if we can't recognize that now we have learned nothing. Pathetic.

[Jahkillian]

nxdxboy, "but we're dealing with the SAME principles of hatred "

How do you mean? I real don't see anybody preaching hatred towards gays like they did for blacks and jews. I don't see nay at all towards gays. I don't think marriage has anything to do with hatred.

But maybe you can explain so i can understand?

[nxdxboy]

Gee, yes it must be so frustrating for the voters who voted to ban gay marriage and take away the fundamental human rights of thousands and thousands of tax-paying citizens, to see their vote challenged. It must be frustrating to vote on something that in NO WAY affects proponents of prop 8. Gee, I wonder if maybe it's more frustrating for gays and lesbians all over the world to be denied basic rights as well as to be humiliated, misunderstood and discriminated against for centuries. Dumbass.

[kenballer00]

@nxdxboy

how do you take away a right that doesn't even exist in the first place?

gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite-sex for the purpose of procreation and rearing of children. what your proposing we do is create extra special rights that exist outside the constitution and common sense

the only thing we took away was your right to impose your way of life onto to society and that you do not have a right to do

[kd1s]

Pugno needs to put down the bible and study civics again. This IS a civil rights issue and the CA case is unique. The CASC created not two but three classes of people in their ruling.

That leaves some things up in the air to be settled on the federal bench.

[bimboblacky]

2 things: 1) Regarding the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's, refer to what Mrs. Coretta Scott King continually said AND wrote about equal treatment of GLBT people under the law; 2) California AND Massachusetts both need to realize that, at some point, they both must accept whatever the Supreme Court of the UNITED States eventually rules here. And, as former President George W. Bush said, there IS a way to override any such decision, and that is the Federal Constitutional process.

[stefanheikel]

It's frustrating for gays to get our rights stripped away idiot!

[prestda1]

It's not your right, it never should have been given to you freaks in the first place, I'm glad they took it away. Get back in the closet or move to Afghanistan

[stefanheikel]

No thanks for either. Perry vs. Schwartzenegger will rip you homophobes a new one!

[prestda1]

We'll see won't we?

[Starvalleybotany]

What a sweet and kind man you are prestda1. I'm sure your mother raised you to say those kinds of positive and kind things.

[prestda1]

Actually I developed those views after the guy my mom was dating turned out to be a pedophile.

[Starvalleybotany]

Oh how awful. What a terrible situation. I hope you turned the guy in if there was enough evidence to convict him especially to keep children from being molested. I just don't understand how people (typically men but sometimes women) can do such a despicable thing to a child. It's beyond my comprehension. I can kind of see how a man could find an attraction to his daughter once she got to be around 16 but that's not rooted in pedophilia yet it's still a very destructive thing.

[kd1s]

Tell you what prestda1, I want to move to CA and propose an amendment that says Christians can't run for office. After all, you CHOSE to be Christian. Why should I respect that choice?

I didn't chose to be gay. That is the key difference. You keep changing the terms of the argument hoping that you'll score points.

[prestda1]

By all means, go right ahead. As for choice not being an issue, I'm not so sure. The jury's still out on that one

[kenballer00]

@stefanheikel

how do you take away a right that doesn't even exist in the first place?

gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite-sex for the purpose of procreation and rearing of children. what your proposing we do is create extra special rights that exist outside the constitution.

the only thing we be taking away would be your right to impose your way of life onto to society and that you do not have a right to do

[stefanheikel]

@kenballer00

The rights exist in the Constitution (14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause?)

BTW, check out the recent court victory in Mass. regarding DOMA. It rips your side apart.

[kenballer00]

@stefanheikel

if you Go to Wikipedia and type in Baker v. Nelson, The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did. They also rejected and refuted many of the other same arguments gay activists make today

so the 14th amendment does not confer a RIGHT to gay marriage anymore than it does for polygamy

[kenballer00]

The federal court in Wilson v. Ake (2005):

"The Supreme Court has not explicitly or implicitly overturned its holding in Baker or provided the lower courts, including this Court, with any reason to believe that the holding is invalid today."

The California supreme court (2004):

"The United States Supreme Court has not expressly overruled Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, nor do any of its later decisions contain doctrinal developments that are necessarily incompatible with that decision"

[kenballer00]

From Lawrence v. Texas:

Kennedy and the rest of the majority:

"The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.