Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will Prop. 8 kill same-sex marriages that now exist?
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 10/31/8 | Bob Egelko

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.

Important piece of paper

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

Crucial language

...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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 2008election; california; homosexualagenda; moralabsolutes; moralrelativism; playinghouse; prop8; proposition8; protectmarriage; queerlybeloved; samesexmarriage; sodomandgomorrah; traditionalmarriage

1 posted on 10/31/2008 6:18:34 PM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Sorry San Francisco. There is no such thing as same-sex “marriage.” It’s only a counterfeit


2 posted on 10/31/2008 6:29:20 PM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL; goldstategop; ViLaLuz

If it passes, I bet the judges that made propositon 8 necessary will be facing tough retention elections in future years.


3 posted on 10/31/2008 6:42:05 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
It will invalidate them. The amendment is quite clear on what is defined to be a marriage. And the state courts have to follow the state constitution.

"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

4 posted on 10/31/2008 6:52:55 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.”


5 posted on 10/31/2008 6:57:54 PM PDT by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

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.


6 posted on 10/31/2008 7:12:25 PM PDT by Fee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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”.


7 posted on 10/31/2008 7:34:24 PM PDT by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wacka

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.


8 posted on 10/31/2008 7:40:48 PM PDT by filospinato (Yes on 8! in Sacramento)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DaGman

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.


9 posted on 10/31/2008 7:47:51 PM PDT by SmithL (Drill Dammit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Whatever these people think they are it is sure that they are not married. Marriage is between one man and one woman


10 posted on 10/31/2008 7:56:52 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Vote Obama: Get more stuff!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


11 posted on 10/31/2008 7:57:49 PM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fee

concur


12 posted on 10/31/2008 8:02:48 PM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (When BH0 was 8 he attended his mosque in jakarta; Bill Ayers was simultaneously bombing the Pentagon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


13 posted on 10/31/2008 8:08:52 PM PDT by airedale ( XZ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaGman

Hmmmmm...using that logic, slavery would have still been legal until the existing slaves died off.


14 posted on 10/31/2008 8:09:23 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: airedale
That applies only to criminal actions not to administrative proceedings like marriage. If the court gets the law wrong, the status quo is restored and no real harm is done. The status of gays and lesbians as domestic partners won't change. They just can't call themselves married.

"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

15 posted on 10/31/2008 8:25:55 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: filospinato
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.

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?

16 posted on 10/31/2008 9:22:00 PM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: airedale
There is a constitutional bar against ex post facto laws (retro active law) in both the California Constitution and the Federal Constitution.

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...

17 posted on 10/31/2008 9:44:12 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

They no doubt will as long as Jerry the fairy is still Attourney General.


18 posted on 10/31/2008 9:49:01 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
Private benefits are not affected by the constitutional amendment. Domestic partners who get them from a company would still get them. Its a red herring to say that Proposition 8 would change it.

"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

19 posted on 10/31/2008 10:28:45 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

Jerry Brown is a heterosexually married man since 2005. He married Anne Gust who he’d dated since 1990.


20 posted on 11/01/2008 7:40:03 AM PDT by newzjunkey (CA: YES on PROP 4. *** MCCAIN-PALIN ***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

They’re not concerned. I think the first of the four is not up for retention until 2012.


21 posted on 11/01/2008 7:41:25 AM PDT by newzjunkey (CA: YES on PROP 4. *** MCCAIN-PALIN ***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

The AG disagrees with your assessment on ex post facto grounds. The status of those marriages will definitely be battled in the courts.


22 posted on 11/01/2008 7:43:23 AM PDT by newzjunkey (CA: YES on PROP 4. *** MCCAIN-PALIN ***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

“Jerry Brown is a heterosexually married man since 2005. He married Anne Gust who he’d dated since 1990.”

That’s all show, he’s queerer than a $3 bill.


23 posted on 11/01/2008 7:49:15 AM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

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.


24 posted on 11/01/2008 8:52:20 AM PDT by airedale ( XZ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


25 posted on 11/01/2008 8:58:14 AM PDT by newfreep ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." - P.J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson