Kelsey ([info]sidhedancer) wrote,
@ 2008-10-24 00:25:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Repost this please, if you like, and ask others to do so also...


A "No" vote on CA Proposition 8 will annul no marriages.

A "Yes" vote on CA Proposition 8 will annul over 10,000 marriages (many with kids.)

Which vote is REALLY "protecting marriage"?


(NOTE: Each and every single vote WILL count. There is no "electoral college" for referendums.)




thank you JohnO for posting this...

as an addendum: The proposition will EFFECTIVELY annul these marriages, but does not specify the legal requirement of the action.


(5 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]horndogrob
2008-10-24 01:21 pm UTC (link)
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

An amendment to the constitution legally cannot be retroactive. It stops new gay marriages from happening, does not annul the ones already made.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]sidhedancer
2008-10-24 07:05 pm UTC (link)
Proposition 8 is an initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. If passed, the proposition would "change the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California." A NEW section would be added stating "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]horndogrob
2008-10-24 11:45 pm UTC (link)
I know what it says. With the wild things Kara's dad comes up about it do you think I wouldn't have done my research? The fact is that it cannot change the marriages that were made during the period it was legal.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]sidhedancer
2008-10-25 12:06 am UTC (link)
It does make them "constitutionally inconvenient." It does set a precedence. Following the exact wording it does make it legal to refer to the current marriages as invalid or unrecognizable.
The wording leaves the legality of the marriages made during that period up to the discretion of the reader.

As my friend John posted:
True, the prop only changes a definition, but changing the definition changes the basis of the marriage. It is expected (souce unconfirmed) that the "Yes on 8" support groups would follow with a push for laws and/or lawsuits to invalidate the existing marriages.

I do see your point and am willing to make a slight change to my post. I will edit it to say that it will "effectively annul" the marriages.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]horndogrob
2008-10-25 03:30 am UTC (link)
I'm not sure what the difference is between annul and effectively annul. Sounds the same, I know what you're trying to say ... I think.

I do agree that if it goes through that certain groups will probably push to annul those marriages based on the new law (since the new law wont do that on it's own). But they're not entirely outside of their rights. There was already 2 laws in CA against gay marriage. 2 laws. It was really just on the whim of a city official (mayor of SF) and a couple of judges that took lawmaking into their own hands.

Now I said not entirely because the voters lost their right to have the laws they pass mean something. I don't, however, really think it's our right as a republic (everybody says democracy, but that's not what we are) to tell consenting adults what they can and cannot do with each other.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(5 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…