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.