The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: franksolich on May 26, 2009, 12:07:30 PM
-
Just breaking on Drudge.
-
I wanted to get this in; I always dreamed about having a scoop.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98E21HG1&show_article=1
-
But the existing marriages stand. How dumbass is that?
-
Yeah, this is the whole news story, from the link above.
This is all it is:
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - California high court upholds gay marriage ban but allows existing same-sex marriages to stand.
-
Annnnd... off to DU I go! :-)
-
But the existing marriages stand. How dumbass is that?
Pretty damn DUmbass. but I'll take the "consession". Once again it's justfrigginwonderful seeing the gays getting their panties in a bunch, and thats just the guys. :lmao:
-
DUmmie heads exploding in 3-2-1...... :rotf:
-
This ruling was pretty much a given. They have got to, at all costs, keep this issue away from the USSC.
The idea the existing marriages stand is an absurd piece of twisted jurisprudence. How can two people be "married" while the very state in which they "married" has a constitutional amendment which clearly states they are not married?
-
Kind of hard for a Constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional
-
I don't fully understand these two decision either - someone told me that to invalidate the ones now, it'll take another ballot initiative in 2010 to do so. 5-2, I think.
By 2010, most of these sham marriages will be over anyways. I will always want the homosexual lobby to lose on any issure, they need to be stopped at all costs.
-
DUmmie heads exploding in 3-2-1...... :rotf:
Wait until Obama refuses to ride in on a white horse.
-
DUmmie heads exploding in 3-2-1...... :rotf:
Awww man....no rainbow ponies in CA after all. :fuelfire: :-)
-
The reason why they allow the gay marriage unions to stand was ex post facto. You cannot pass any law retroactively.
-
The reason why they allow the gay marriage unions to stand was ex post facto. You cannot pass any law retroactively.
Yeah, remember, there was an interval of time between unionizing gay marriage, and when the referendum took place.
What was done during that interval can't be undone, because a law can't affect someone retroactively.
-
Yeah, remember, there was an interval of time between unionizing gay marriage, and when the referendum took place.
What was done during that interval can't be undone, because a law can't affect someone retroactively.
Had the courts undone that too, it would of ended up in the US Supreme Court. Since, it does not retroactively does that, no teeth.
-
Yeah, remember, there was an interval of time between unionizing gay marriage, and when the referendum took place.
What was done during that interval can't be undone, because a law can't affect someone retroactively.
All true, but we must not forget it was this same court which created these false-legal "marriages" in the first place. Prop. 8 was the result of an activist ruling that had no legal reason to be. I think a case could be made that these "marriages" were not constitutionally legal from the get-go. It would be a tough sell, but I would be pleased if it was brought up for consideration.*
*If for no other reason than to pour salt and vinegar into an open festering wound.
-
Yeah, remember, there was an interval of time between unionizing gay marriage, and when the referendum took place.
What was done during that interval can't be undone, because a law can't affect someone retroactively.
ever heard of an annullment??
-
This ruling was pretty much a given. They have got to, at all costs, keep this issue away from the USSC.
The idea the existing marriages stand is an absurd piece of twisted jurisprudence. How can two people be "married" while the very state in which they "married" has a constitutional amendment which clearly states they are not married?
A foot in both camps?
If existing same-sex marriages are legal, can ALL same-sex marriages as legal be far behind?
-
The reason why they allow the gay marriage unions to stand was ex post facto. You cannot pass any law retroactively.
Unless of course you're Billy Jeff, passing the largest tax increase in American history, and making it retroactive to money earned before you were even elected President.
The other argument against "grandfathering" the 18,000 already licensed, is the precident set when the Federal Government came after the Mormon Church at the close of the 19th century with it's anti-polygamy laws. In that case, existing - licensed by the Territory/State of Utah - marriages were not allowed to stand, and families were broken up by force of law in order to assure compliance with the new law.
-
Unless of course you're Billy Jeff, passing the largest tax increase in American history, and making it retroactive to money earned before you were even elected President.
The other argument against "grandfathering" the 18,000 already licensed, is the precident set when the Federal Government came after the Mormon Church at the close of the 19th century with it's anti-polygamy laws. In that case, existing - licensed by the Territory/State of Utah - marriages were not allowed to stand, and families were broken up by force of law in order to assure compliance with the new law.
Or unless you are the current congressshits passing a law to tax the AIG bonuses at 90% after they were given out.
-
Had the courts undone that too, it would of ended up in the US Supreme Court. Since, it does not retroactively does that, no teeth.
Id say the USSC is the last place California would want this to go. It would get kicked back as a States Rights issue and it would blunt any future for 50-state gay marriage utopia. I believe the thinking is once most states get some sort of gay marriage passed, they can press for recognition of gay marriage in all states. - Not necessarily performance of the ceremony but forced to accept the gay couple as legally wed and afford them the same recognition as any other legally wed couple.
-
The reason why they allow the gay marriage unions to stand was ex post facto. You cannot pass any law retroactively.
Lautenberg got away with it on his spousal abuse amendment. It was upheld on appeal.