AG Brown: Despite vote, same-sex marriages since May 15 will stay legal

Too early to tell for sure.

But legal precedent tends to lean toward these marriages remaining valid. from the state's point of view, this is a legal contract between two parties, and once enacted said parties take actions and make investments based on the validity of the contract.

While the state could restrict such contracts being enacted in the future, it would need to have exceptionally compelling arguments to retroactively void existing contracts, because the effect of doing so would clearly have damaging consequences to those who have already moved forward based on the validity of the contract. The state would be open to countless lawsuits for compensatory damages on behalf of those harmed by voiding the contracts.

From a legal standpoint, there are no such exceptionally compelling reasons in this case.

(I'm not a lawyer, but I watch Judge Mathis.) ;-)

If they stay legal even after a negative vote, then the whole proposition could be challenged under equal protection clauses in the U.S, (and maybe California) constitutions.

From the article:

"In another development Monday, the California Catholic Conference, representing Catholic bishops, endorsed Prop. 8, declaring that "same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex unions" and that only a relationship that can produce children should be called marriage"

So I have a couple of questions. I visit a married straight couple every year in Florida. They are ages 88 (male) and age 84 (female). They were married in the local Catholic Church about 2 years ago. My questions are:
1. Does the Catholic Church really believe that these two are capable of, and should actively seek, producing children.
2. If the Catholic Church does not really believe the position stated in question 1, are they lying about their stance? Is lying not a sin before god?

OMG. Wilma's not posted his spam here yet? He's slipping. If it's about gay marriage, I'm sure he'll be here.

kooky wrote:

OMG. Wilma's not posted his spam here yet? He's slipping. If it's about gay marriage, I'm sure he'll be here.

Hope not. Im sooooo over and bored with his BS!

Imprtnrd wrote:

<quoted text>Hope not. Im sooooo over and bored with his BS!

I Know, Wilbot 3000 need to be set to self-destruct mode.

ScottyMatic wrote:

But legal precedent tends to lean toward these marriages remaining valid.

I did a little research on this and you are correct, legal precedent argues that any law changing an existing right cannot invalidate that same right for those that already had it.

Two examples: When the legal drinking age was raised to 21, those that were 18 at the time were still exempt and could still purchase alcohol.
When they enacted the Brady Bill, they could not ban the ownership of existing assault weapons, nor prevent the private sale of those same weapons from one party to another.(one example, although not the best one to use in here because of trolls but adds to the precedence is the sex offender registry laws, those that were convicted before the laws were enacted are exempt)

Logic would be in favor of those who were already married under current law could not have their rights revoked.

And now for the irony part. The term and practice was used FOR discrimination against blacks by the southern states:
"The name grandfather clause arose from the exceptions that were made for veterans of the Civil War. If the veterans were qualified to vote prior to 1866, their descendants were also qualified. Thus, in effect, if a person's grandfather could vote, he could vote without further restrictions."

Gotta love how a law originally designed to prevent rights will actually preserve them now.

dante2810 wrote:

<quoted text>
I did a little research on this and you are correct, legal precedent argues that any law changing an existing right cannot invalidate that same right for those that already had it.
Two examples: When the legal drinking age was raised to 21, those that were 18 at the time were still exempt and could still purchase alcohol.
When they enacted the Brady Bill, they could not ban the ownership of existing assault weapons, nor prevent the private sale of those same weapons from one party to another.(one example, although not the best one to use in here because of trolls but adds to the precedence is the sex offender registry laws, those that were convicted before the laws were enacted are exempt)
Logic would be in favor of those who were already married under current law could not have their rights revoked.
And now for the irony part. The term and practice was used FOR discrimination against blacks by the southern states:
"The name grandfather clause arose from the exceptions that were made for veterans of the Civil War. If the veterans were qualified to vote prior to 1866, their descendants were also qualified. Thus, in effect, if a person's grandfather could vote, he could vote without further restrictions."
Gotta love how a law originally designed to prevent rights will actually preserve them now.

Thanks for the info, and the ironic historical trivia. Meanwhile, I am still reasonably confident that Prop 8 will not pass--even though the California voters have in the past been responsible for giving us Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwartzeneggar.

[QUOTE who="Fred (IL Wil)][/QUOTE]

There is are only logical reasons to allow American citizens to prevent the ludicrous restriction of marriage contrary to the neocon will of the Christian far-right. Your sensible, anti-discrimination rights campaign is only making things worse for prejudiced Christians. The ridiculous political charade of "one man one woman" remains exposed as the fraud that it is.

No significant percent of heterosexuals has stayed married more than 20 years in ANY country that permits procreation.

Breeders are NOT the same as other people. They seldom form longterm exclusive
relationships, often completely obsess on extra-marital sex, and have much elevated rates of many diseases and social ills. THIS is the reality.
No heterosexual "marriage" is recognized by the US Constitution. We cannot "democratically" alienate people's civil rights, no matter the "majority."

No law could ever make a difference as to what is or is not a marriage. It is of course ludicrous to claim that "the will of the people" is to disenfranchise others on the legal definition of marriage.

Heterosexual "marriage" is a complete FRAUD.
Two individuals are still two individuals, regardles of their social relationship.

No heterosexual relationship justifies the reasons for government endorsement of any marriage, and the special rights of married people should be abolished.

No heterosexual relationship is a "real" marriage.
Marriage is a religious institution, so the government has no proper jurisdiction over it.

Here are some MAJOR differences between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage, especially regarding any governmental involvement:

Like it or not, marriage and family are a farce. Slave labor was the basic building block of American Society.

No significant percent of heterosexuals has remained faithfully "married" in ANY country that allows the breeders to try and right their own mistakes vicariously through the lives of their numerous children, and the best statistics indicate that only about 10% of the US population is "GLBT" anyway, which is no more than the blacks or the hispanics, so how could they matter?

The conception of children out of wedlock is the most common motivation for heterosexual marriage. Gay Marriage involves no such accidents, and is based on mutual love and support, so heteromarriage fails on this one, too!

Having two arms, two legs, and a belly button are the best statistical predictors of a child's future success in life. Homosexual parents can accomodate this.

Marriage is recognized as archaic and unpleasant by nearly all Americans. Americans routinely reject their own marriages through divorce and most find monogamous heterosexual acts to be boring and intolerable.

(Hey, look Wil! It makes better sense when the same wild statements come from the other direction!)

;-)

This is exactly what I've been saying!

If Prop 8 passes then you set up the following conflict;

Prop 8 cannot be retroactive so you have existing same-sex marriages which remain 100% legal while at the same time you have a constitutional amendment that makes them legally unrecognizable by the State of CA - a conflict. You have an additional conflict with the State constitution equal protection clause.

So, Prop 8 goes to court. Which court?

The court of last hearing! What court was that?

The State Supreme Court! How did they last rule about same-sex marriage? They ruled it is legal.

They now rule Prop 8 to be unconstitutional.

HOWEVER - IT WILL BE FAR SUPERIOR FOR EVERYONE to have Prop 8 defeated so that we silence the critics about the will of the people.

All we need is a 50%+ 1 vote to win.

MAKE SURE YOU ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE! MAKE SURE YOU THEN ACTUALLY VOTE!

Eric

gemelk wrote:

This is exactly what I've been saying!
If Prop 8 passes then you set up the following conflict;
Prop 8 cannot be retroactive so you have existing same-sex marriages which remain 100% legal while at the same time you have a constitutional amendment that makes them legally unrecognizable by the State of CA - a conflict. You have an additional conflict with the State constitution equal protection clause.
So, Prop 8 goes to court. Which court?
The court of last hearing! What court was that?
The State Supreme Court! How did they last rule about same-sex marriage? They ruled it is legal.
They now rule Prop 8 to be unconstitutional.
HOWEVER - IT WILL BE FAR SUPERIOR FOR EVERYONE to have Prop 8 defeated so that we silence the critics about the will of the people.
All we need is a 50%+ 1 vote to win.
MAKE SURE YOU ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE! MAKE SURE YOU THEN ACTUALLY VOTE!
Eric

You are of course completely irrational. No homosexual "marriage" is recognized by the federal government.

Any ruling by the ridiculous rogue court that disenfranchised California voters on the definition of marriage must be based on the Constitution of California, which after the election will include an amendment preventing such disenfranchisement of California voters, thus an end to your riduclous political charade.

Fred wrote:

There is no logical reason to allow.... blah blah blah.
Marriage is recognized as moral and necessary by nearly all Americans.

Ok... against my better judgment I will post a simple response in the form of a quote by the great Mark Twain:
“Often, the less there is to justify a traditional custom, the harder it is to get rid of it.”

Fred wrote:

There is no logical reason to allow your fanatics to redefine marriage contrary to the common will of the American People....etc and so on and so forth...

Don't you ever get tired of repeatedly posting this opinion piece of yours? What are you going to do if the voters in California defeat prop 8? Will you then be lecturing about how the people were disenfranchised by themselves?

Peace

Finally we hear from the Wilster. I was beginning to worry. He must have been off burning crosses or eating babies when this thread began.

Oh...and ScottyMatic: Too funny, dude. And right on point.

All gay men and women throughout the country should be involved in helping our brethren (and sisteren, I guess) in California defeat this ugly amendment. Contributions of money or time are needed. Here in Hawai'i, where this all began in the US more than a decade ago, we are mobilizing to do what we can to help our left coast family. I urge everyone to join in the fight. A victory (defeating the amendment, that is) will benefit everyone in every state eventually.

JohnBoston wrote:

If they stay legal even after a negative vote, then the whole proposition could be challenged under equal protection clauses in the U.S,(and maybe California) constitutions.

Many legal experts in fact hold that the amendment, even if adopted, would be struck down because it would contradict the equal protection clause already in the constitution. If not you would have a constitution that contradicts itself, and they will never strike down the equal protection clause

Not only would a victory for prop 8 cause the legal equivalent of a paradox for all marriages, it seems to me that it would also destroy the credibility of any contract signed in California.

If my Uncle who imported fruit from the West Coast to Illinois had signed a contract for a ton of California oranges and made proises to his distributers based on that contract, his business would have been materially harmed if an initiative could invalidate the already signed document.

California would lose business to Florida or Brazil.

Someone with more legal training, am I on the right track here?

John wrote:

<quoted text>
You are of course completely irrational. No homosexual "marriage" is recognized by the federal government.
Any ruling by the ridiculous rogue court that disenfranchised California voters on the definition of marriage must be based on the Constitution of California, which after the election will include an amendment preventing such disenfranchisement of California voters, thus an end to your riduclous political charade.

You're right about the Federal government but eventually we will prevail and you know it and that is why you spam all over the place. You're afraid of us!

In time enough States will allow same-sex marriage and/or Civil Unions and the Federal government will change its laws too or the Supreme Court will force them to. Either way, I win, you lose!

The CA State Supreme Court acted 100% legally and lawfully and no one can prove otherwise! Their decision is LAW and will remain so.

Come November Prop 8 will be defeated as fewer people believe in hate, like you.

Eric

gemelk wrote:

<quoted text>
You're right about the Federal government but eventually we will prevail and you know it and that is why you spam all over the place. You're afraid of us!
In time enough States will allow same-sex marriage and/or Civil Unions and the Federal government will change its laws too or the Supreme Court will force them to. Either way, I win, you lose!
The CA State Supreme Court acted 100% legally and lawfully and no one can prove otherwise! Their decision is LAW and will remain so.
Come November Prop 8 will be defeated as fewer people believe in hate, like you.
Eric

Silly girl, the wind is blowing the other way. A growing majority of states already have consitutional amendments in place to block the ridiculous political charade of homosexual "marriage." Several other large states, including your own, will join the list this fall!

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
Silly girl, the wind is blowing the other way. A growing majority of states already have consitutional amendments in place to block the ridiculous political charade of homosexual "marriage." Several other large states, including your own, will join the list this fall!

Why are you always so disrespectful to everyone?