Bastards

[elfs]

Bastards:

Sponsors of the California ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage are seeking to nullify thousands of marriages between gay and lesbian couples performed after the state Supreme Court ruled them constitutional.

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity," one of the briefs read. "There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions, or exclusions: 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'

" ... Its plain language encompasses both pre-existing and later-created same-sex (and polygamous) marriages, whether performed in California or elsewhere. With crystal clarity, it declares that they are not valid or recognized in California."

Because nothing says Christian love or the sanctity of marriage like tearing existing marriages apart.

Comments

[srmalloy.livejournal.com]

Because nothing says "I'm completely ignorant of the law" like trying to enforce ex post facto legislation. Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution: No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, ...". Do I hear "Move to dismiss as blatantly unconstitutional"? Right up there next to the motion to overturn Proposition 8 on the grounds that, by declaring that California shall not recognize or hold as valid any marriage except between a man and a woman, the moment a gay couple married in either Massachusetts or Connecticut enter the state, California is in violation of Article 4, Section 1 of the US Constitution, the "full faith and credit" clause. Had the backers of Proposition 8 been competent, they'd have written the proposition so that the relevant text stated "The state of California shall enact no marriage except between a man and a woman" or something similar, which would have prevented new gay marriages in the state but not run smack into the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution. But they wanted to get it rammed in the most restrictively they could word it, and they're going to get it shot down in flames for it. State constitutions are subordinate to the Federal Constitution; if you're going to abridge the rights of certain groups within the population, you need to come up with ways of doing it that aren't blatantly and stupidly illegal.

[mikstera.livejournal.com]

How does DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, factor into all this?

[(Anonymous)]

It gives California an out, pending the legal status of its effects as codified in 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C and the declaration of SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia that 'Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....'; since the challenge to Proposition 8 would have to go before SCOTUS, a decision could very well throw out DOMA as well as Proposition 8.

None of which addresses the ex post facto attempt that is going to turn around and bite them on the ass. It's equivalent to California deciding to address its budget shortfall by raising property taxes, retroactive to the last five years, payable immediately.