leftyladyfrommo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-12-08 11:59 AM
Original message |
Just wondering. What does prop 8 mean for Ellen DeGeneres? |
|
You know, that is just really awful if it means that all those people who finally thought they could get married are now illegal - or at least not married in the eyes of the law.
|
Systematic Chaos
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-12-08 12:02 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Not to mention George Takei (Star Trek) who just got married a couple weeks ago. |
|
I saw him and his partner interviewed just before the wedding and they both looked so happy.
|
rox63
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-12-08 12:10 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I don't know if Prop 8 invalidates marriages that have already taken place |
|
I did hear Ellen give a major shout out to Keith O this morning, for his special comment decrying the passage of Prop 8.
|
stray cat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-12-08 12:11 PM
Response to Original message |
3. No word yet on whether it has an effect on previous marriages is there? |
|
I also suspect the CA courts will nullify prop 8
|
bushisanidiot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-12-08 12:11 PM
Response to Original message |
4. I dunno. Maybe she and several others should demand to be arrested since they are now |
|
illegally married. That would get some good press for us. "Gays thrown in jail for marrying."
|
underseasurveyor
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-12-08 12:15 PM
Response to Original message |
5. I heard that it will not affect those already married |
|
They will still retain legal marriage status. It only affects and prevents marriage rights AFTER the vote passed.
Assholes:mad:
|
Starry Messenger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-12-08 12:15 PM
Response to Original message |
6. It's still up in the air. |
|
Jerry Brown says this shouldn't be retroactive though, so that's promising.
|
Sabriel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-12-08 12:17 PM
Response to Original message |
7. How could it NOT nullify those past marriages? |
|
If it doesn't, then you'll have two groups, one enjoying married status, one not. I don't know how they're going to reconcile that discrepancy.
|
GreenPartyVoter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-12-08 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. There is no language in the prop that makes it retroactive, therefore it does not |
|
affect currently married couples. (According to Whoopi on the View the other morning.)
|
petronius
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-12-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. I think it's going to require some clarification from a higher court |
|
Even though the language wasn't specifically retroactive, it could be argued that 'recognition' of marriage is an ongoing active process, and that banning the recognition nullifies the marriages. On the other hand, there's the idea that people should be allowed to rely on the law as it currently stands, so people who made life-changing decisions nder one framework should not be retroactively punished.
Personally, I'd like to see Prop 8 tossed out entirely, but I'm not sanguine about it. If I had to guess, I'd put my money on prop 8 being allowed to stand and existing marriages converted to domestic partnerships... :(
(Caveat: IANAL.)
|
Kajsa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-12-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. The former, legal marriages remain |
|
legal through a grandfather clause.
This is true if it's not retroactive.
|
suston96
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-12-08 12:53 PM
Response to Original message |
10. It's in the US Constitution - "ex post facto"....Google it. |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 08:48 AM
Response to Original message |