[olezip]

“Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification,” Mr. Brown said in a statement.

Mr. Brown's assertions are unjustifiable. He is clearly incompetent. His argument is unnatural and against the laws of nature. How does he tie marriage between males or between females to constitutional rights? Does an orange have the constitutional right to be an apple? Maybe an orange covets the apple because it can never be an apple. The insane covet what they cannot have.

To me and anyone else with common sense, it is clearly not a constitutional right to be granted that which can never be. What compelling justification does one need to show that a man is not a woman, that a marriage between a man and a man cannot produce children, or a marriage between a woman and a woman cannot produce children? To pretend otherwise is to mock and degrade what marriage is, a union between a man and a woman.

What fundamental constitutional rights is he talking about? There are no dots to connect in this false relationship.

[goldstategop]

Of course, you're right. Legally, Jerry Brown's arguments don't hold a drop of water. As I observed, his gallery is not the people of California. Its the radical gay lobby and he needs the support of the extreme Left to win the Democratic gubernatorial primary in 2010. His position is way to the Left of where Californians are. This is the guy who wrote the hostile and biased ballot summary title and language to try to defeat Proposition 8. He almost succeeded. Does a leopard change its stripes? You don't need to ask. There's no legal and moral argument for same sex marriage.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus