[mrsmel]

I frankly admit to knowing nothing about legal matters, but it does seem as though (using the standard of common sense rather than legal technicalities) allowing the previous "marriages" to stand somehow gives the queers something to stand on by being able to say "how are these 'marriages' legal when they've been ruled unconstitutional"? I don't know how that would work in a court, but it makes sense to me (I mean from their viewpoint. I of course vehemently disagree with the notion of queer "marriage", and to me it would only be common sense that if the court has also said so, then how can they say that the contracts previously engaged are "marriage"? )

[CounterCounterCulture]

They got their foot in the door but haven’t knocked down the door... for now.

The Gaystapo won’t be happy until they rid the world of good, moral people.

[fwdude]

The Ex Post Facto reasoning is bogus. The issue with the existing "marriages" that were performed from May through November isn't ANYTHING like, say, legal drinking age, sentencing guidelines, or such things that actually exist in FACT.

The amendment was meant to confirm the fact that homosexual "marriage" doesn't exist (isn't valid), there's no such thing, any more than a cat is a hamster. It takes a political ruling to come up with anything else. This isn't justice.