Prop. 8 sponsors seek to nullify 18,000 gay marriages

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | December 19, 2008 | Lisa Leff, Associated Press writer

[Deo volente]

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.

[SFR]

Kick ‘em when their up, kick ‘em when their down.

[DrewsDad]

Careful, someone might start plotting to burn down all the black Mormon Churches.
Oh, wait.

[Frantzie]

Man I wish these people handled the cases for finding out of O is an illegal alien,born in US or nat born cit. They are very focused and relentless. Probably smart Mormons.

[annalex]

That probably won’t happen, and it may turn off some people otherwise supporting the traditional marriage.

It will reinforce the tactic of the pro-gay lobby, which pointed out that Prop 8 removed a right already enjoyed. After all, we can assume that both the gay folk who got “married” and those officials “marrying” them were acting in good faith.

I’d rather see these poor people forgotten.

[nmh]

Oh, oh ... poor RHINO, Arnie.

This will UPSET Arnie, the good for nothing Demoncrat in drag.

[goldstategop]

A marriage contracted in violation of the law is void regardless of when it was performed. The language of Sec. 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is clear: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." Period.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[SGCOS]

Somewhere in here is a joke about ‘bohica’ but I just can’t make it.

[Patrick1]

Maybe Rick Warren can mention this before he prays at the inauguration.

[goldstategop]

The "right" was judicially created. It never existed before in all of California history. The voters emphatically said the California Supreme Court's holding of Prop. 22 as unconstitutional, now reinstated, was wrong.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[mlo]

Prop 8 did not reinstate Prop 22.

[Deo volente]

I’d rather see them forgotten, too, but they won’t let us.

They want to shove their “marriages” in our faces until we give our approval and tell them it’s perfectly alright and a really, really good thing.

[goldstategop]

It did that by giving the voided law constitutional sanction. So yes, it has been reinstated.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[mlo]

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.

This seems unnecessary since Prop 8 defines what the state recognizes as marriage. It didn't include an exception or sub-definition for marriages performed between certain dates.

It ought to be up to a gay couple to sue to try to have their previous legal marriage recognized, if they can.

[mlo]

No. Prop 22 has no legal weight still. It was voided by the court. Prop 8 was a new and different thing.

[goldstategop]

A judicially created "right" is inferior to one that exists in the constitution. The Justices may not agree with the people's overruling them but they're right even if that seems wrong to those charged with carrying out their will.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[goldstategop]

Its the same language as that used in the statute. For all and intents and purposes, the law is alive again because the constitution says the same thing the law does for the purpose of defining a marriage in California.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[quadrant]

I supported and voted for Prop 8. Yet, I feel this demand is a tactical mistake. The SC of CA may consider this as a vindictive attempt to circumvent their decision to overturn Prop 22. The goal is to end same sex marriage now and in the future, which we've done with the passage of Prop 8. Lets not attempt to press the advantage to the utmost, no matter how satisfying and proper the cause. Remember, the book about Operation Market Garden, A Bridge Too Far. Attempting to terminate these 18,000 marriage which were sanctioned by the SC of CA is going a bridge too far.

[mlo]

"A judicially created "right" is inferior to one that exists in the constitution."

There is no such legal principle. Since the judges interpret the constitution, for all intents and purposes the "judicially created right" does exist in the constitution. That's why a constitutional ammendment was required to change it.

[mlo]

"Its the same language as that used in the statute. For all and intents and purposes, the law is alive again because the constitution says the same thing the law does for the purpose of defining a marriage in California."

Admittedly this is not a very important dispute, except in terms of legal accuracy. But the statute is defunct. The constitutional ammendment is in effect. That they both used the same language is immaterial.

[edge10]

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner.

[mlo]

"Yet, I feel this demand is a tactical mistake."

Seems that way to me too. It's giving the court the opportunity to rule against them.

[edge10]

I would say wrong. A judicially created right can be removed via a new set of judges, or a changing of minds.

If a right is enumerated in a constitution it cannot be removed by judges alone without throwing the entire system in to chaos.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Just give “single people” the same rights ( soc security benefits and pension inheritance and medical decisions given to a significant other, equality in taxation).....

and the whole rationale for gay marriage goes away!

[mlo]

I was replying to the statement, "A judicially created 'right' is inferior to one that exists in the constitution."

Whether future judges change their minds or not, the above statement is not true. If the judges say the constitution means right X exists it carries as much weight as if right X is spelled out explicitly.

[cmj328]

They were null ab initio.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Good.

These fighters are showing American conservatives how to save our country.

We don't save our country by smiling and wringing our hands and hoping to be friends with people that hate us and our beliefs.

We save our country by fighting. Damn their hatred and scorn, full speed ahead.

[annalex]

It is a very good idea.

I think, Rick Warren should also offer a prayer for the killed unborn.

[annalex]

I understand that, but the left will use this as a rhetorical weapon, to portray these 18,000 x 2 as victims.

[annalex]

I mean these who were “married” under the court-imposed regime are best forgotten. If that thing wins, there are going to be rivers of crocodile tears for their suffering.

[annalex]

They already have that in California under living partner legislation. The one material privilege gained by the gays from their definition of marriage is that they would have been able to fight for equality in adoptions. It is all about children, not about the gay people temselves: what is taught in schools and what criteria for adoption are legal.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

No. Pensions, social security benefits, medical decisions ( beyond the families’ wishes) and taxation laws are NOT included in the partner legislation.

If you file taxes as a single person or have soc security benefits those are federal regs and are not transferrable at present anywhere.

If gays lobby were smart, they would go for changing these laws cause they would have all the singles behind them.

[real_patriotic_american]

I applaud the sponsors of Prop. 8 for acting to nullify the gay marriages! I hope our politicians show the same support.

[fr_freak]

I supported and voted for Prop 8. Yet, I feel this demand is a tactical mistake. The SC of CA may consider this as a vindictive attempt to circumvent their decision to overturn Prop 22.

I disagree. Now is not the time to become timid in the culture war. The opinion you just expressed seems to suggest that we passed Prop 8 due to the benevolence of the judiciary which allowed us to have this little victory, but that if we push our luck they might just decide to take away all of our rights to self-governance again, in the same way that Mommy lets junior have a cookie, but if he asks for a second cookie, she throws the whole bag in the garbage.

These judges are not our parents, nor our rulers, nor our gods, nor our royalty. They are supposed to uphold the law, and the law is supposed to be an extension of the will of the people. We passed Prop 8 in order to slap the judges down who had previously disregarded the law and subverted the will of the people. The moral high ground rests with the people, not the judges, so we should not give a damn if they don't approve. If those judges want to try to subvert the law yet again, they should be impeached or otherwise removed from office. We should not fear their displeasure. They should fear ours.

[hunter112]

Here's my question: On what basis do the Prop 8 supporters have standing to nullify the same-sex marriages? If individuals are being asked to honor them, and have reasons (mostly economic) not to do so, then they have standing before a court.

If this is dismissed, that will be the reason.

[bert]

You must realize that we are in a war.

We must fight to win. Complacent apathy will bring loss and death.

[anniegetyourgun]

Oh my goodness...then those people would be living in sin....oh, wait....

[annalex]

Yes, if they instead fought to expand domestic partner legislation, there would be little opposition.

[annalex]

What makes you think I disagree?

[TheInvisibleMan]

Correct!

Since the 60’s Conservatives have timidly given ground little by little. The left takes 2 steps forward and we become concerned about holding them to only 1 step. We sometime hold them to that 1 step. Then, form that 1 step position they take another 2 steps. We then,again, try to hold them to just 1 step.

This is madness. Looking back... we have held them a little but their total progress is winning the culture war. Time to make a stand.

[quadrant]

Just after Prop 8 passed, the gay community assembled and began a series of raucous demonstrations against Prop 8 in general and the Catholic and Mormon churches in particular. The rhetoric coming from these demonstrations bordered on inflammatory, almost to the point of inciting violence. Those who supported Prop 8 acted with calm resolution and displayed a reasoned restraint that was in sharp contrast to the actions of the gay community. Of course, none of this matters to most of the media and the gay community, but to the public at large, we were seen as reasonable and rational citizens.
We must continue to act as adults. We must remember Winston Churchill's admonition to be magnanimous in victory. This conflict with the gay community will not end when and if the SC of CA affirms the propriety of Prop 8. We can expect that in another few years, repeal amendments will be offered. lets allow these marriages to stand, and grid ourselves for the struggle to come.
Judges are not parents, but they are humans, no matter what degree of judicial impartiality they pretend. We have won the battle, for now. Lets not throw the victory away in what mat be seen as a fit of vindictiveness.

[fr_freak]

We must continue to act as adults...We have won the battle, for now. Lets not throw the victory away in what mat be seen as a fit of vindictiveness.

I think you and I have vastly different definitions of "adult". Were the Founding Fathers being childish when they rebelled against the King? Sometimes, the adult thing to do is to act against things that should not be tolerated. If the Left is crossing the legal and moral line, which they very clearly are, the adult thing to do is to smack them down before the problem gets even worse. To do less than that is to shirk your adult responsibilities.

If we really want to win, we cannot slack off for even one minute. We cannot be timid. We have to keep up the fight on all fronts at all times. That is the adult thing to do.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

It seems pretty dumb...the emotional onslaught of the gay movement...why not address the legal issues and financial issues if equality and “fairness” are the concerns.

Our country certainly wants equal rights along legal and financial concerns. but this is an onslaught on cultural and religious mores...and THAt is not fair and not a politically and strategically smart move.

[fwdude]

That probably won’t happen, and it may turn off some people otherwise supporting the traditional marriage.

On the contrary, if all the illegal marriages (so-called) are allowed to remain valid, every single couple will be used as a litigant in the next inexorable round of lawsuits as a wedge to make same-sex "marriage" legal - the people's vote be damned. Either the Constitution means what is says, or it means nothing and we have the seeds - sprouts, really - of anarchy.

[Maelstorm]

The marriage licenses should never have been granted and never would’ve had the judges not overstepped their bounds.

[quadrant]

The Founding Fathers went to great lengths to avoid a break with Britain. I realized that historical license was taken with “John Adams” but the series demonstrates a fundamental point: a great deal of difference of opinion existed within the Founding Fathers. They displayed the patience of adults, but the Crown displayed the arrogant petulance of children.
I realize the Left is arrogant. They crossed “the line” long ago. All the more reason why we must be resolute but in control of our emotions. Personally, I fantasize about crushing the Left, but short of exile, I realize they will always be here. We must always remember what they are: adults with the emotional development of children. That is, like children they seek the ideal, and they do not know when to stop. They feel they must move forward. They are, at heart, people of they lie. For them, truth is not defined by an objective standards but springs from within their own desires. We must counter their lies with truth, truth of the Bible and truth of the Constitution. While we cannot falter, we cannot use their methods against them. They would not hesitate to act vindictively. We must not.

[reaganaut1]

On the contrary, if all the illegal marriages (so-called) are allowed to remain valid, every single couple will be used as a litigant in the next inexorable round of lawsuits as a wedge to make same-sex "marriage" legal - the people's vote be damned.

I agree. For example, right now in CA, must an employer offer health insurance to the "spouse" in a gay "marriage" conducted before Proposition 8 passed, if the employer does so for other married couples? If the Supreme Court respects the law (big IF) and invalidates the gay marriages, then employers are on firm ground in ignoring such marriages. I think companies that want to offer benefits to the "partners" of gays should be allowed to do son on a voluntary basis.

[fwdude]

If the Supreme Court respects the law (big IF) and invalidates the gay marriages, then employers are on firm ground in ignoring such marriages.

If the proposition is upheld, California law will simply revert to the status before the disastrous Supreme court decision in May - homosexual couples can just be registered as domestic partners. This status is still protected in California, protecting their "rights" to demand the same thing true married couples are entitled to: insurance benefits for partners, state tax filing status, state inheritance rights, etc. "Marriage" by another name will still be the law of the land in the land of the fruits and nuts.

[Hetty_Fauxvert]

I agree; though I voted for Prop 8, I do feel trying to nullify the previously recognized marriages is a tactical error and will do nothing but create sympathy for them, as well as perhaps a precedent that we really don’t want. A lot of things are grandfathered in, in various ways ... my house sits far too close to our property line for the county’s taste, but the house was there before the county made the rule. It would be inconvenient, to say the least, if the county tried to enforce their property line rule on us right now. I’d rather see these 18K gay marriages left to go on alon, in their various ways, to eventually be reguarded as a curiousity, than lose the war fighting over them.

[annalex]

every single couple will be used as a litigant

The lawsuit on hand made every gay and "married" couple a litigant, with a legitimate grievance.

It is innecessary, and hurtful for the conservative cause.