• Source: Flickr
  • Here's How Furious Jan Brewer Is That Same-Sex Marriage Just Came To Arizona

    Tea Party Republican Governor Jan Brewer isn't mincing her words over today's ruling striking down Arizona's same-sex marriage ban. Here's what she has to say.

    Remember when Jan Brewer was so mad at President Barack Obama she waved her pointed finger at him on the tarmac at a Phoenix airport in 2012? Double that, at least.

    Unlike her attorney general who is opposed to same-sex marriage but maturely explained why he chose to not appeal today's ruling, Arizona's 70-year old conservative Lutheran governor just released a scathing press release, invoking amped-up Republican rhetoric, including the proverbial "unelected judges" line.

    A strong states' rights devotee, Brewer today blasted the federal courts which "have again thwarted the will of the people and further eroded the authority of states to regulate and uphold our laws."

    Apparently, the more than 40 rulings from federal courts related to same-sex marriage -- in favor of same-sex couples -- isn't sufficient proof that the courts are actually doing their jobs.

    “It is not only disappointing, but also deeply troubling, that unelected federal judges can dictate the laws of individual states, create rights based on their personal policy preferences and supplant the will of the people in an area traditionally left to the states for more than two hundred years," Brewer ranted, ignoring Supreme Court rulings like Loving v. Virginia.

    "As Justice Scalia opined, such action is tantamount to ‘an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’ and is an image of the judiciary ‘that would have been unrecognizable to those who wrote and ratified our national charter,'" she added.

    “Simply put, courts should not be in the business of making and changing laws based on their personal agendas. It is not the role of the judiciary to determine that same-sex marriages should be allowed. Historically and traditionally, that power belongs to the states, and to the people. If society wants to recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions, that decision should be made through our elected representatives or at the ballot – not the courts.”

    Still talking about civil unions? Wow.

     

    Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr

     

    Related At The New Civil Rights Movement:

    Only One In Five In Arizona Supported Anti-Gay 'Religious Freedom' Bill

    Breaking: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Vetoes Anti-Gay 'Religious Freedom' Bill

    On Our Radar - Arizona Kicks Off Its Rainbow Shades

    Get weekly news & updates
    Subscribe
    Support our work DONATE



    Register to VOTE

    Showing 34 comments

    Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

    • commented 2016-05-02 13:35:43 -0400
      Sure, this is ‘way old news. But, how delicious that this hag of hatred and subterfuge displays how consistently repulsive she is both on the outside and on the inside. She’s just so wrong on all aspects of her statements. Edited for reality, she might have better aligned herself with the actual world:

      Simply put, legislatures and governors should not be in the business of making and changing laws based on their personal agendas. It is not the role of the Government, neither the legislature nor executive, to determine whether same-sex marriages should be allowed. Historically and traditionally, that power belongs to the Constitution of the United States, and to all of the people it is designed to protect. If society wants to deny same-sex marriage or substitute marriage with civil unions, that’s just too bad. That discrimination is prohibited to our elected representatives and at the ballot – to be enforced by the courts.

    • commented 2016-05-01 18:50:06 -0400
      Well Jan, nothing truer was ever said than just this:
      What goes around, comes around. You cheated
      the people who do believe in the right to love who
      they wish and now you’ve been cheated out of
      being able to impose your disbelief in that right.

    • commented 2015-02-11 11:52:42 -0500
      When did the men vote in favor of allowing women to hold office Governor Brewer?

    • commented 2014-10-19 22:22:49 -0400
      Again I’ll say, would she promote a state’s rights to own slaves? To this day Southerners are whining that the Civil War was not about slavery; it was about states’ rights, so would she be for abolishing the 13th amendment and allowing some states to own slaves? I mean, if that’s what the people wanted?

    • commented 2014-10-19 18:55:43 -0400
      No state may pass a law that contravenes the US Constitution, and the anti-gay law that bestows a civil right only upon heterosexuals and denies it to LGBT does just that.

    • commented 2014-10-19 10:31:08 -0400
      It’s TERRIFYING that an elected official can have such an inaccurate understanding of how our justice process works. Civil Rights will NEVER be left to a ballot or state law. The federal government exists TO uphold the constitution and ensure that state law is never in violation of said constitution. What. an. idiot. No one is interested in your hateful, inaccurate and uneducated behavior. You are a disgrace to your position. Go throw your temper tantrum in private. #conservadicks never cease to amaze me with their complete lack of humanity…

    • commented 2014-10-19 02:25:52 -0400
      has had that is :)

    • commented 2014-10-19 02:24:44 -0400
      She sounds like she has ONE DRINK TO MANY (as usual)!

    • commented 2014-10-18 15:52:58 -0400
      If civil rights were left to a vote, there would be none. She has no grasp on history or how the judicial system works. She is ignorant.

    • commented 2014-10-18 15:23:17 -0400
      what a load of horse-shit! a 70 year governor who has no memory of our historical past shouldn’t have been elected in the first place. states rights were determined with the 14th amendment. otherwise, slaves would still be the property of those who could afford them. the bigot she is does not exclude her from being an elected official voted in by other moronic bigots. no offense arizon.

    • commented 2014-10-18 10:31:00 -0400
      Fuck that old tired witch! Somebody shoot her and get it over already! She’s so out of touch with reality, and the times we are living in!!

    • commented 2014-10-18 09:51:52 -0400
      she wants the courts to hear her case about how there is no need for court rulings

    • commented 2014-10-18 06:07:56 -0400
      If only Brewer had collected all those decapitated heads in the desert she assured us were there, she could have used them to frighten those judges into submission.

    • commented 2014-10-18 00:41:52 -0400
      A couple of “Jims” here that need some educating. Civil rights are not intended to be voted on by the people – the rights of the minority would rarely, if ever, be recognized. That is precisely why the Courts must step in and protect the rights of all under civil law. The Constitution guarantees Equal Protection to all – no asterisks excluding those who aren’t approved of by bigots. So no, Brewer is NOT correct in her rant. And the “good people” of Arizona are celebrating that equality has come to our state.

    • commented 2014-10-17 23:37:34 -0400
      “Simply put, courts should not be in the business of making and changing laws based on their personal agendas."
      Jan, the court was simply following the Constitution. If the founding fathers knew what we know today about sexual orientation, they would agree with this decision. “It is not the role of the judiciary to determine that same-sex marriages should be allowed.”

      But apparently it’s ok for people who have never met me to determine that my marriage should NOT be allowed?

      Jan, Jan Jan!

    • commented 2014-10-17 23:33:29 -0400
      It’s not the Supreme Court’s job to decide when something is discriminatory and unconstitutional? REALLY???

    • commented 2014-10-17 23:15:29 -0400
      I think she misunderstands what their job is. Their job is to interpret the law and to settle dispute that the lower courts are unable to resolve themselves. In this case, they are asked to determine if same-sex marriage should be allowed, despite the “will of the people.” They have to weigh all aspects of the issue and determine if the law that the “people” want is constitutionally valid. If, for example, Texas voted to ban interracial marriage, and the majority of people voted for it, it is the job of the supreme courts to look at the case and say no, in fact, you cannot do that.

      They’re doing the same thing here. The people voted laws into place prohibiting an unpopular class of citizens from getting married, mostly for religious reasons. The courts have received challenge to that decision, and in reviewing our country’s laws have determined that this is one of those things that the people shouldn’t have been allowed to vote into law.

      The shame is that it took a very long time to come about. Many of those laws have been on the books for over 10 years. But just because a law is old doesn’t mean it’s actually legal. That, my dear, is what the judges are paid to do. Just because the majority outruled a minority doesn’t mean the minority should be unprotected, or that the majority is right.

    • commented 2014-10-17 22:56:11 -0400
      My only thought is that when I put my peter somewhere it won’t be in a mans anus

    • commented 2014-10-17 22:50:35 -0400
      Never since Lincoln has a states people been stomped on as has the zebras administration done to the good people of AZ

    • commented 2014-10-17 22:40:24 -0400
      Lost in the thoughtless chatter here is the fact that Governor Brewer is correct.

    • commented 2014-10-17 22:20:32 -0400
      Fortunately, ol’ Jan is out of office in a few months. And Dorrae, before you spout off your nonsense, learn the difference between marriage – a contract under civil law – and holy matrimony, which is still the exclusive domain of churches.

    • commented 2014-10-17 22:08:59 -0400
      Dorrae, I must have missed the part where the courts indicated that the law will now force a church to perform a marriage for a loving couple. There are plenty of christian churches out there that are more than happy to do so, and just as many if not more non-christian ordained ministers that are happy to do so. And all of them call it a marriage….your religion is not the only one out there and I and my faith have just as much right to the word and institution as you do.

    • commented 2014-10-17 22:01:58 -0400
      “It is not the role of the judiciary to determine that same-sex marriages should be allowed.”

      Let’s just agree with Ms. Brewer for a moment.

      The truth is, Ms. Brewer, the constitutionally mandated responsibility of the Judicial Branch in our Constitutional Republic, is to assure that NO majority vote away the rights of ANY minority.

      And if you’ll take a look at your "un-elected judges, at least 1/2 the judges who have ruled against your Teanderthal bigotry, were appointed by conservative GOP presidents.

      Your feeble attempt at rhetoric is just that… feeble attempt at rhetoric using Fox/Tea Party talking points with no basis in fact.

    • commented 2014-10-17 21:51:54 -0400
      A Civil Union is OK but don’t demand that my church preform these “marriages” because they are not marriages. A marriage is 1 man & 1 woman. There are many legal ways to display your “love” for one another it doesn’t have to be in church,

    • commented 2014-10-17 21:20:33 -0400
      You lost the war, sourpuss. Get over it.

    • commented 2014-10-17 20:42:10 -0400
      I find it interesting that the right wing likes to scream activist judges, unelected judges. Federal judges are appointed by presidents ratified by the Senate. They hate this, yet in every red state they want to see the constitution amended do that the governor can appoint the us senators. That’s right they advocate for an unelected Senate!

      Republican ideology
      Judges not elected = horrible idea
      US senators not elected = great idea

      ???

    • commented 2014-10-17 20:16:05 -0400
      Jan Brewer of Arizona is like Joni Ernst of Iowa: both Lutherans cut from the hate-woven cloth of Martin, both older women attempting to buttress a dying age, and both outside the pale of reality reeling against a new age of freedom for all. Like Ernst, Brewer distorts reality and calls upon discredited judgments of equally antique people who are attempting to stop the flow of time and the march of progress. Being old myself, I hate to admit it that it will take time for all the discombobulated senior citizens who refuse to think for future generations, die out—but never fear, there is a gaggle of youth that spins their wisdom from the pseudo-stars of Duck Dynasty (a sham at best) and the droppings of tart theologians who distort the messages of their messengers.

      Brewer is past history, but will still tarnish the image of Arizona for years to come as many retirees labor under the same yoke that nothing changes, and equality is forbidden to those who do not conform. Hopefully, she will be voted out of office, and people decry her ignorance. All people have a right to love, regardless of whom they love, and the laws must be applied equally. Brewer and Ernst may think they are stopping a rush of water but they will be engulfed in a sea of change and be washed away with other debris.

    • commented 2014-10-17 18:34:16 -0400
      I suppose in her world states should also be able to vote whether blacks are human beings, or whether women should be allowed to vote.

    • commented 2014-10-17 18:27:41 -0400
      It is amazing that, as a lifelong Arkansan, I continually peer down my nose at the incredibly regressive, racist and increasingly vitriolic state of Arizona. Well…those who represent the state of Arizona (and their highly acidic personalities), that is. I know these elected officials manipulate the truth and perpetually pander to the fears of the large retiree community of the state. But, at the same time, I know so many progressively minded folks in Arizona,.and keep expected to see some dent in this perpetually and aggressively regressive attitude. How can Arizona (Jan Brewer, et al) be THIS incredibly fascist in attitude?

    • commented 2014-10-17 18:07:32 -0400
      Dear Jan:
      As AG Horn said, “I think this is the end of it.” I am sorry that equality is so offensive to you. I will be happy to see you go along your angry way – out of the office and as the face of the State of Arizona. May you find peace in your hate.

    Your rights, your movement.
    Join today:
    Your rights, your movement.
    Join today: