Skip to comments.
Fate of 11,000 same-sex marriages uncertain if Prop. 8 passes
Sacramento Bee ^
| 10/21/8
| Jennifer Garza
Posted on 10/21/2008 12:08:06 PM PDT by SmithL
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-76 next last
1
posted on
10/21/2008 12:08:06 PM PDT
by
SmithL
To: SmithL
“”I wake up in the morning thinking about it, and it’s still on my mind when I go to bed at night,” said Dru Richie, 53, who is among the newly married. At times, she said, she feels sick to her stomach with the stress.”
Hm, well your situation has me sick to my stomach too, but for a whole other reason entirely.
To: SmithL
How many of those couples have already broken up for someone else?
3
posted on
10/21/2008 12:09:19 PM PDT
by
weegee
(In honor of Joe the Plumber, at noon, we should all lower our trousers to half mast.)
To: SmithL
11,000 - wow, what a homosexual state. Always knew SFO was the capital.
4
posted on
10/21/2008 12:09:27 PM PDT
by
Cheerio
To: SmithL
Ex-post facto laws being illegal the marriages will remain legal. Prop 8 will only ban future gay marriages.
5
posted on
10/21/2008 12:10:49 PM PDT
by
PeterFinn
(Buraq HUSSEIN Obama. If the libs don't like his name then why support him?)
To: SmithL
Would the marriages carried out before Proposition 8 still be legal? I'd suspect that they would still be legal. Wouldn't this fall under the expost facto (sp) or bill of attainer clause?
6
posted on
10/21/2008 12:11:26 PM PDT
by
beltfed308
(Heller: The defining moment of our Republic)
To: SmithL
OMG, what’s gonna happen to Mr. Sulu?
7
posted on
10/21/2008 12:15:34 PM PDT
by
RexBeach
To: PeterFinn
Not all Ex Post Facto laws are illegal. Regulatory or administrative laws (among others) can be applied backward. This is not the application of the criminalization of these marriages (which would be illegal), but rather an administrative nullification. This may well be very legal to nullify that which is subsequently unconstitutional.
To: RexBeach
9
posted on
10/21/2008 12:17:00 PM PDT
by
nufsed
To: SmithL
Legally, the language of the proposition is very clear. There is nothing uncertain about its effect. If it passes, those marriages will be null and void.
To: SmithL
An act that is ALWAYS immoral can NEVER be legalized by a human court. In the eyes of Heaven, these unions have never existed. If there is blame, its the arrogance of men, who by their impious and felonious conduct, have sought to subvert the decree of God.
"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
11
posted on
10/21/2008 12:18:49 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: SmithL
I don’t much care how the state decides to handle this after the election. That is a matter for politicians and bureaucrats and I am sure they will exercise their moral judgment as clearly and decisively as they do at all other times. But it must be stated that participating in some mumbo-jumbo with the connivance of a county clerk or judge, pagan priestess or apostate officiant is in no way a marriage.
12
posted on
10/21/2008 12:19:53 PM PDT
by
scory
To: beltfed308
No, they wouldn't. The court had no power to order an illegal act to be performed. And any illegal act under the law would remain illegal. The words in Prop. 8 are quite clear on what marriage is recognized and valid in California. It admits of no exceptions!
"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
13
posted on
10/21/2008 12:21:07 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: PeterFinn
Make-believe marriages aren’t covered by ex post facto law prohibitions.
14
posted on
10/21/2008 12:22:14 PM PDT
by
LearsFool
("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
To: SmithL
"The people who support the ban can go on with their lives the next day," said Robin Richie, 50. "Ours could be turned upside down." No Robin, you can continue living your perverted existence but it will be turned right side up for the vast majority of normal people.
15
posted on
10/21/2008 12:23:07 PM PDT
by
libh8er
To: scory
A marriage is only a marriage when God is a partner in it. When God is left out, either groom nor bride know true joy. That is why marriage is a sacred and not primarily a secular institution. The vow a couple makes before God in a synagogue or church is testament to the true nature of marriage.
"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
16
posted on
10/21/2008 12:24:03 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: SmithL
In related news ... “Fate of 11,000 unicorns uncertain if research confirms that unicorns don’t exist.” IOW, I am quite certain that no marriages are endangered by this proposition.
17
posted on
10/21/2008 12:25:41 PM PDT
by
MathDoc
(I'm Joe the Plumber's friend, and I vote)
To: libh8er
Exactly. And they will STILL have all the benefits and rights of domestic partners. Which Prop. 8 will NOT change. That is quite satisfactory to most of us.
"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
18
posted on
10/21/2008 12:26:37 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: SmithL
Gosh, they could be “living in sin!”
19
posted on
10/21/2008 12:28:16 PM PDT
by
rightinthemiddle
(Without the Mainstream Media, the Left is Nothing.)
To: SmithL
"The people who support the ban can go on with their lives the next day," said Robin Richie, 50. "Ours could be turned upside down." Oh, really? Just how will that happen?
20
posted on
10/21/2008 12:28:52 PM PDT
by
fwdude
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-76 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson