?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

A "No" vote on Proposition 8 will annul no marriages.
A "Yes" vote on Proposition 8 will annul over 10,000 marriages.
Which vote is really protecting marriage?

Comments

( 16 comments — Leave a comment )
(Deleted comment)
yourbob
Oct. 24th, 2008 04:22 am (UTC)
Query - in all seriousness, of course. Jerry Brown said the language was not retroactive and no marriages were going to be annulled. Has something changed that I missed? [I just don't want to use false arguments, like the other side does]
bovil
Oct. 24th, 2008 04:32 am (UTC)
It's a bit complicated, and there's no clear answer, just legal opinions.

The "Yes on 8" crowd believes that the proposition annuls marriages, and will, if Brown doesn't follow passage by issue a ruling annulling same-sex marriages, sue to do so.

Brown is probably right, such a lawsuit would probably fail, but it doesn't change the result that the proponents of the prop are working towards.
yourbob
Oct. 24th, 2008 04:35 am (UTC)
I just dislike "slippery slope" arguments.

Though I like the idea of retribution - introducing a measure disallowing all marriages ever issued by the State since its inception. You know - the "Defense of Domestic Partnerships Initiative".
bovil
Oct. 24th, 2008 04:50 am (UTC)
How's this, then:

If you ask a "Yes on 8" supporter if the proposition will annul same-sex marriages, they will say yes. They believe this. Use their beliefs against them.
bovil
Oct. 24th, 2008 05:38 am (UTC)
It's also not a "slippery slope" argument. These people already sued to block implementation of the Supreme Court's order so they wouldn't have to deal with any complications.
yourbob
Oct. 24th, 2008 06:01 am (UTC)
I gotta think about it.



But "just in case" and for the benefit of anyone that doesn't know me and is wandering by this entry and thinking I'm not just as against Prop 8 as you and k - I certainly am [and have already voted no]. I'm only considering the particular wording, not the sentiment.

Besides _I'm_ not married yet! Even if it's not retroactive it effects my prospects of ever being legally married. It definitely takes away my rights!
bovil
Oct. 24th, 2008 06:06 am (UTC)
So say it puts over 10,000 marriages in legal limbo.
cmdrsuzdal
Oct. 24th, 2008 04:38 am (UTC)
Beyond that, I'd say it's at least disingenuous to imply that the pro-8 crowd is somehow not against the marriages that have already happened, or that not having the ability to annul them gives them some sort of moral brownie point.

If they think a same-sex marriage held in 2009 is wrong and should be outlawed then they obviously think the same of one held in 2008, the rest is splitting hairs.
johnnyeponymous
Oct. 24th, 2008 05:06 am (UTC)
I've heard that each marriage will have to be individually annulled after the fact if it's going to happen. A mass annulment would probably lead to smome serious court challenges and could lead to more difficulties
Chris
bovil
Oct. 24th, 2008 05:17 am (UTC)
Regardless of what action the state is required to take, passage will lead to serious court challenges and difficulties. Can you imagine the expense to the state to investigate every marriage license issued in every county over the last 4 1/2 months and then pursue somewhere around 11k individual annulment preceedings?
idea_fairy
Oct. 24th, 2008 06:11 am (UTC)
Vote Yes on 8 to create jobs for lawyers and judges.
Does the marriage documentation explicitly say which (if either) party is male and which (if either) is female? It used to be sort of implied by the "Bride" and "Groom" terminology, but that can't really be relied on now. You can also guess from first names, but that isn't 100% reliable either.

So if this thing passes, and they want to do retroactive annulment, will they have to ask each couple who is what? "If you want to stay married, give us proof that one of you is male and the other female."

Vote Yes on 8 if you want to create jobs for lawyers and judges.
howeird
Oct. 24th, 2008 02:45 pm (UTC)
Re: Vote Yes on 8 to create jobs for lawyers and judges.
Interesting point. There is no requirement for a physical exam before marriage. I wonder how many same sex couples there are who present as different sex?
voidampersand
Oct. 24th, 2008 05:21 am (UTC)
Their idea of "protecting marriage" is a lot like "we had to destroy the village to save it."
bovil
Oct. 24th, 2008 05:24 am (UTC)
Yeah, but they don't see the irony in that...
(Deleted comment)
( 16 comments — Leave a comment )