Prop. 8 sponsors seek to nullify 18K same-sex marriages

[MisterMark]

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer
Friday, December 19, 2008


The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions. The document reveals for the first time that opponents of same-sex marriage will fight in court to undo those unions that already exist.

Prop. 8 sponsors seek to nullify 18K gay marriages

 

[mindseye]

Mark -- It's good to see you again!

 

[MisterMark]

Mark -- It's good to see you again!

Thanks, mindseye.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Talk about trying to kick a person when they're down?!

 

[kalipygian]

When people pee into the wind, they are likely to get it all over themselves.

And, likewise, it is good to see you active again.

 

[MisterMark]

And, likewise, it is good to see you active again.

Thank you, kalipygian.

 

[slurper_la]

This sounds like a ploy by the Prop 8 sponsors to get this kicked to the US Supreme Court.

Knowing the legal consequences of attempting to enforce ex post facto legislation violates Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution they want this to be heard by the conservative leaning court in hopes of a sympathetic outcome.

This could get ugly - uglier than it has already become - and yet it could backfire big time in favor of the opponents.

 

[slurper_la]

OMG - I just read the article...

WTF!!!??? Are you kidding me? None other than Kenneth Starr has signed on as counsel for the Yes on 8 side.

There is no way on God's Earth he doesn't understand the significance of this action and of course on the other side we have "Where's My Spotlight Brown" who has blatantly renounced his fiduciary responsibilities as the state's top attorney (regardless of personal position) to file a brief in favor of striking the proposition.

Please... this is all about two bloviating attention seekers salivating over the prospect of arguing perhaps the case of the century before the highest court in the land.

We all lose on this one. ThhhhhhThat's all Folks!

.

 

[MisterMark]

We all lose on this one. ThhhhhhThat's all Folks!

Nah, I don't see it that way. Plus, this is California. It's always a bumpy ride. :biggrin1:

 

[MisterMark]

About Kenneth Starr's involvement:

Kenneth Starr to defend gay marriage ban before state Supreme Court | L.A. Now | Los Angeles Times

 

[slurper_la]

Nah, I don't see it that way. Plus, this is California. It's always a bumpy ride. :biggrin1:

Don't see what? Whichever side loses in this round petitions for a hearing by the US Supreme Court. This is no longer about California.

 

[MisterMark]

Don't see what? Whichever side loses in this round petitions for a hearing by the US Supreme Court. This is no longer about California.

I don't see how "we all lose", and frankly, I'm enjoying the drama of it all.

 

[slurper_la]

Well you enjoy the drama of our rights being dragged through the mud.

We all lose when legal maneuvering and court games are used to circumvent the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

[MisterMark]

Well you enjoy the drama of our rights being dragged through the mud.

We all lose when legal maneuvering and court games are used to circumvent the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

At this point, both sides can lay claim to either of those accusations. It's like Bush v. Gore: Fight until the last dog dies.

 

[slurper_la]

I didn't lay down any accusations but would you kindly expand upon your point?

 

[MisterMark]

I didn't lay down any accusations but would you kindly expand upon your point?

One could argue that both sides are guilty of legal maneuvering and court games. I see it as the system working the way it's supposed to work.

 

[slurper_la]

One could argue that both sides are guilty of legal maneuvering and court games...

Yes, I would agree with that which was exactly the point of my earlier post.

...I see it as the system working the way it's supposed to work.

Perhaps.

But the point here is the proponents of 8 have now decided to argue to rescind the licenses of 18,000 same-sex couples, even though that was never part of the language of the original proposition, in clear, bold, blatant and dramatic defiance of the US Constitution.

There could only be one reason for that and in my estimation Kenneth Starr knows this all too well and is the mastermind behind this change of direction. He and his clients know they have a tough case ahead and a slimmer chance of winning in the State Court so he's engineered a way to propel this beyond anything that comes out of the March trial.

 

[B_JasonDawgxxx]

Lets pray the right thing is done and its thrown out.

 

[B_Hung Jon]

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer
Friday, December 19, 2008


The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions. The document reveals for the first time that opponents of same-sex marriage will fight in court to undo those unions that already exist.

Prop. 8 sponsors seek to nullify 18K gay marriages

Just to remind people. Rick Warren, Obama's pick to give the invocation at his inauguration, is one of the big backers of the Yes On Proposition 8 campaign. If he's trying to nullify all these marriages, he's really a bad pick for Obama.

 

[MisterMark]

Just to remind people. Rick Warren, Obama's pick to give the invocation at his inauguration, is one of the big backers of the Yes On Proposition 8 campaign. If he's trying to nullify all these marriages, he's really a bad pick for Obama.

Thanks, Hung Jon.

Glad you made a comment. And by the way - your gallery pictures are very sexy. :smile: