Jerry Brown, Misogamist

Issues relating to the family are important to this blog. Last Spring, the California State Supreme Court ruled against traditional marriage--repudiating a clear democratic majority of the state and misinterpreting key parts of the state constitution.

Californians responded by getting over a million signatures--more than enough to get a measure on the ballot this fall which would alter the California constitution in favor of defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

It's likely the measure will pass.

Despite California's reputation as a state that votes Democrat, a Constitutional amendment protecting marriage enjoys a clear majority.

But the leftists in the state were never going to leave it up to the people. In this case, Jerry Brown is the one doing the meddling. Per John Fund of the Wall Street Journal:

California Attorney General Jerry Brown is stepping outside his law enforcement role and playing politics with a November ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriage in the state.

Backers of the measure collected some one million signatures this spring under a title approved by Mr. Brown's office that made it clear the measure would "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid." Since the signatures were collected, the state Supreme Court has ruled same-sex marriage constitutional but also allowed the ballot measure to go before voters.

Mr. Brown, a candidate for governor in 2010, has apparently decided to make a play for liberal Democratic primary voters by changing his own office's description of the measure. It now reads that the ballot initiative seeks "to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry," a much more negative way of describing the measure. His office says the meaning is the same.

But both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage "know that to some voters -- perhaps a decisive bloc in a close election -- the new ballot title language could make the measure sound punitive by eliminating a 'right,'" notes Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters.

Lawyers question the validity of Mr. Brown's move. If the meaning is the same, why is the change needed? If the meaning is different, the change contradicts the petition that placed the proposition on the ballot. Either way, the change is groundless.

If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.