Cyclists: Let the Backlash Begin (or Not)
Muni Ticket Agent Arrested After Assaulting Juvenile
So Much For That Plastic Bag Ban
Verizon Droid: Big Deal? Or Just Another Late Arrival Rival?
Feinstein : Will She Or Won't She?
Not content with the amount hate spewed forth in the name of God, prop. 8 supporters are now looking to untie the knots of more than 18,000 couples who were married before the ban went intro effect. While the California Supreme Court decided whether or not to allow discrimination to stand in the state's constitution, same-sex marriages are still recognized as valid until the final decision comes down in March of 2009. (KCBS)
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Umm... link? Source? It was my impression that the third "issue" on the lawsuit was not a matter of the pro-8 lawyers wanting to void the marriages as both sides wanting a definitive ruling.
Otherwise, it's still relevant to know whether this was something said by someone officially part of the lawsuit or some random pro-8 person.
Thought laws and ammendments weren't retroactive
There is nothing in the verbage of Proposition #8 which make it ex post facto. This should go before the courts. The latent homophobics are not aware of the 14th Amendment. Per the The Supreme Court of the United States: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
ilama is right. Article 1, Section 10 of the Federal Constitution explicitly says States cannot pass a retroactive ex post facto law.
Since they're perfectly happy to try violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and our State Constitution, I don't really expect them to care about any of the silly little rules our country is based upon.
Hey, let's unwrite science while we're at it! Yay, church!
the_absentee, you mean we can do that!? What are we waiting for?
I think some of you misunderstand the concept of 'ex post facto'. That provision was specifically meant to deal with prosecuting someone for a crime that was not illegal when they committed it, a common abuse of the British empire (and thus one of the three civil rights the framers managed to fit into the Constitution itself).
I don't see how Prop 8 can't be retroactive, given the language. If only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, then only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Doesn't matter when it was solemnized, or how. It is not valid or recognized.
I hope the fact that they will have annulled 18,000 marriages ends up shooting the Prop 8 backers in the foot. The sob stories and lawsuits will be incredible.
Ok, so they are going back on their previous statements that they would not seek to invalidate existing marriages. Douchebags.
However, it's my secret hope that shenanigans like this will predispose the Supreme Court to give them a righteous smackdown.
(Also: the specific use of the term "ex post facto" is technically incorrect, but they're still going to have a hard time nullifying legal contracts entered into in good faith.)
pantsgolem- the Yes on 8 campaign said that THEY would not seek to invalidate the existing marriages, but that they expected other people would take up that battle. The campaign said that the uncertainty of those marriages was the fault of the court and that they should have to deal with it. Lovely people.
I've always wondered why homosexuals are so determined to "marry" each other. The only conclusion I can reach is that homosexuals believe calling their deviant lifestyles a "marriage" would somehow soothe that uneasy feeling associated with the creepiness of their deviant sexual choices.
I've known two men in heterosexual marriages who have "come out of the closet" and as a result, wrecked their marriages and their families in their infantile pursuit of homosexual happiness. They now pathetically shack up with another man and have left the wreckage of broken hearts and betrayal in their paths. They disgust me.
Look, if two men or two women want to have sex with each other -- and maybe a poodle too -- I suppose that is their business, as repulsive and disgusting as that is. Hey, what you do with a consenting adult or canine is your business I suppose.
But, what I don't understand is why homosexuals insist on wearing their lifestyles on their sleeves. Let me clue you self-centered homosexuals in a little secret: We don't care! Unless, of course, you decide to shove it in our face with a farce called "same sex marriage." Then you've kicked a hornets nest of heterosexual anger.
Look, if you want to get married, grow up and if you're a man, find a good woman and marry her. If you're a woman, grow up and find a good man and marry him. That's the way God intended it. I just don't see how grown people can parade around in public in leather committing sex acts on the street is somehow an "alternative lifestyle."
Marriage is a sacred, Godly institution that has served civilization well as a building block of family and community. Homosexuals need to stop tampering with an institution that they neither deserve nor merit.