The discussions and very heated debates on Proposition 8 are far from being over, which shouldn’t be surprising giving the delicacy of the matter. Banning gay marriage in California has brought about a series of questions and protests. For instance, are the gay marriages that happened before the passing of Proposition 8 still valid? And if so, why can’t others marry their same-sex partners? What about those couples who had their wedding ceremonies all planned out and paid for? Why was this choice made by referendum? Does it not violate civil liberties?

 

In a surprising move, California Attorney General Jerry Brown, an advocate for Proposition 8, has asked the state Supreme Court yesterday, Friday, December the 19^th, to invalidate the ban on gay marriage that was approved by the voters. But why this change of heart regarding such a controversial matter, on which people are usually divided into two clear sides, the supporters and opposers? According to Jerry Brown himself, “the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification.”

 

Jerry Brown wrote an astonishing brief on Proposition 8, 111-page long, which he filed at practically the last moment before the court’s deadline. Many legal experts were surprised by the decision of California’s Attorney General, as just last month Brown stated that he planned to “defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California.” His reasoning is that, besides the fact that he himself supports same-sex marriages, the Constitution of California grants a person’s right to marry.