The marriages were legal when they were entered into. Whether or not one agrees with the court’s decision last year to legalize gay marriage, it’s absolute fact that the marriages entered into after that decision but before prop 8 were done so legally . The question before the court was whether prop 8 invalidated such marriages or just applied going forward. The court decided that under its precedent the prior marriages should remain valid.
YOu explained quite well. The court made a conservative decision and stated clearly that Prop 8 did not invalidate those marriages.
And the “harm” done to those who’s “marriages” would just resort to domestic partnerships would have been... what, exactly?
That makes those 9,000 or so a rare breed, so to speak. Their life span, or the life of their marriag, provides a built-in sunset provision to that now-constitutionally banned activity. We may see a fight to label those marriage licenses a tranferable property interests that survive the death of the original licensees. Unlikely, but then that’s what granddad said about gay marriage.
Under that logic, shouldn't CA recognize illegal marriages into which a pair of men or a pair of women legally entered in other states such as Massachusetts?
Prop 8 was very simple, and under any normal definition of the word "is," same-sex "marriages" from last year should no longer be valid or recognized here.
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"
Will employers now be required to give them benefits, and will the government have to pay Soc Security survivor benefits to these "spouses?"
Also, do other states have to recognize these 17,000? marriages..