About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Los Angeles Times Wants Defense Of Anti-Gay Marriage Law It Opposes

September 08, 2010 1:15 pm ET by Joe Strupp

Here is an unusual approach for a newspaper: Urge state officials to defend a voter-created law that they do not like and that the paper does not like.

That seems to be the view taken by the Los Angeles Times in an editorial today in which it urges California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to use state resources in defense of the controversial Proposition 8 gay marriage ban, which even the newspaper has opposed.

The editorial states:

We don't like Proposition 8, and neither does California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown or Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. 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.

Their refusal to defend the voter initiative against a federal lawsuit wasn't an issue earlier because ProtectMarriage.com, a key group behind Proposition 8, was allowed to take the role of legal defense in the trial phase. But now that the case is heading to an appeals court, it's doubtful that the group can continue in that role. In general, the parties appealing a court decision must be directly affected by it to have legal standing. Schwarzenegger was sued, not ProtectMarriage.com or other supporters of Proposition 8, and the trial judge's decision clearly stated that the resumption of same-sex marriages would not harm heterosexual unions in any meaningful way.

It later adds:

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.

This may make the paper's upcoming editorial endorsements that much more interesting to watch.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by carlileb5935 (September 08, 2010 7:48 pm ET)
      1  
      What a stupid editorial-- plus, they forget (or didn't know) that the AG often will not defend laws they feel are either illegal or will not stand up to court scrutiny. It's nothing new.

      Notice too the huge number of front-page LAT feature stories on right-wing personalities lately? It's like every day there's another one. Always soft ball, too.

      But left figures? For them it's snooze time....
      Report Abuse
    • Author by open_mind (September 09, 2010 3:54 pm ET)
         
      This does bring up an interesting point. If the people of a state wish to pass what seems to be clearly unconstitutional referenda, are state officers at all obligated to defend it? Isn't the first obligation of a state leader to protect and defend the Constitution of their state before defending the laws of the state?

      Besides, do the proponents of Proposition 8 expect a rigorous defense of their act from a government that does not at all support the referendum?

      Why wouldn't ProtectMarriage.com have legal standing in the case? Are there no members in California that would be affected by the law?
      Report Abuse