Skip to comments.Will Prop. 8 kill same-sex marriages that now exist?
Posted on 10/31/2008 6:18:33 PM PDT by SmithL
SAN FRANCISCO- When Californians vote on Proposition 8, they'll decide whether same-sex partners' right to marry will still exist as of 12:01 a.m. Wednesday. What's less clear is the impact on as many as 16,000 gay and lesbian couples who have wed since June.
Some legal commentators say Prop. 8, if passed Tuesday, would retroactively invalidate all same-sex marriages performed in the state since a state Supreme Court ruling legalizing such weddings took effect. Others say the court established rights that can't be taken away, even if the law changes.
The answer could come from the same court that overturned California's previous law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Or it could come from a higher-ranking tribunal in Washington, D.C.
Craig Wetherbee and John Melena of Modesto weren't thinking that far ahead when they arrived at San Francisco City Hall last week for a wedding they had originally planned for next March, the seventh anniversary of their relationship.
"We'd rather do it now, when we can," Melena, 26, said as other like-minded couples lined up at the city clerk's office for marriage licenses.
Domestic partners for five years, they considered themselves married long before the state made it legal, said Wetherbee, 31. Even if Prop. 8 passes, he said, "I'll have my piece of paper on the wall."
If California voters approve Prop. 8, the legal weight of that piece of paper, and of thousands of others, will be up to the courts to decide.
About 16,000 same-sex couples will have married since mid-June, according to the UCLA law school's Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation
...The initiative that could undo those weddings is a proposed state constitutional amendment declaring that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized...
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Sorry San Francisco. There is no such thing as same-sex “marriage.” It’s only a counterfeit
If it passes, I bet the judges that made propositon 8 necessary will be facing tough retention elections in future years.
"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
It’s leading (Prop 8 is for banning same sex marriages) in the whole state except for the SF area. The Pro 8 ads play the SF mayor (Newsom) saying “Whether you like it or not.”
When slavery was outlawed by the US Constitution does that mean existing slaves must remain with their masters??? Using the pro gay marriage logic, the answer would be YES.
Why would this not be an unconstitutional ex post facto law? It could outlaw gay marriage going forward. But I’m not sure of the legality of annulling existing “marriages”.
I’m waiting with baited breath to see which way this goes. I’ve heard from polls that the Yes side is trailing in support, but judging from the number of Yes yard signs and bumper stickers I see everyday on my way to and from work, it very well may pass with a good margin. I don’t see how it can’t invalidate all of those “marriage” licenses when marriage will be defined as only between a man and a woman.
You just stated CA A/G, Jerry Brown’s position.
However, other states do not recognize homosexual marriages that are currently legal in California. If Prop 8 passes, then California would no longer recognize those marriages either.
Whatever these people think they are it is sure that they are not married. Marriage is between one man and one woman
If they revoke my unicorn license, does that mean I have to get rid of my unicorn?
Such silliness. What gets me is why conservatives still use such language as “same-sex marriage (sic)”. Of course no such critter exists. But letting the anti-family folks tell us what words to use is like letting the enemy dictate where, when and how the battle will be fought.
I doubt that they will invalidate the marriages that have already been held. There is a constitutional bar against ex post facto laws (retro active law) in both the California Constitution and the Federal Constitution.
Hmmmmm...using that logic, slavery would have still been legal until the existing slaves died off.
Easy. Imagine the instance where someone will be forced to make a decision regarding this issue. An employer or a business might have to make a judgment to extend some benefit to a homosexual employee and his/her partner. Now the employer says "only your spouse is entitled to benefits." The gay guy says, "he's my spouse." Employer replies, "per California Constitution, 'Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in this state.'" Who has the law on his side? The supreme law of the land (Constitution) or some transient judge?
So there is. But that did not stop the Clinton administration from raising taxes ex post facto.
Recall that the 1993 tax increase (as distinct from then 1993 "middle class tax cut" which never happened) was passed retroactive to January, 1993.
Net:net. A liberal can do any damn thing they please. But a conservative is stuck with following the law...
They no doubt will as long as Jerry the fairy is still Attourney General.
Jerry Brown is a heterosexually married man since 2005. He married Anne Gust who he’d dated since 1990.
They’re not concerned. I think the first of the four is not up for retention until 2012.
The AG disagrees with your assessment on ex post facto grounds. The status of those marriages will definitely be battled in the courts.
“Jerry Brown is a heterosexually married man since 2005. He married Anne Gust who hed dated since 1990.”
That’s all show, he’s queerer than a $3 bill.
It applies to laws not just criminal ones. While they would still be married the question is with the wording of the constitutional change how would the state have to treat them since by law the state no longer can recognize their marriage.
Can support for Prop 8 help McPalin in CA? I saw one thread that had M-P down by 2 points in CA - quite a shocker if true.