To the fucking retards who brought the original suit, YOU FUCKING RETARDS. I called it. I told you so. Now deal with it, assholes.
California approves gay marriage banYeah, it will. I've seen a legal opinion that they would not be affected, I don't remember just where, based on contract law (the government cannot retroactively invalidate contracts, which is what a marriage is under the law), but I'm not sure that's certain. For one thing, under the law, marriage is a special contract which, unlike all other contracts, cannot be dissolved by the consent of the contract parties without the consent of the state. That will have to be sorted out in court.
SAN FRANCISCO — California voters have approved a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, overturning the state Supreme Court decision that gave gay couples the right to wed just months ago.
With almost all precincts reporting, Proposition 8 was leading by a 52%-48% margin. Its passage creates a legal limbo for thousands of same-sex couples from California and elsewhere who have been married in the past few months. Legal experts have said it will have to be resolved in court whether their unions still are valid.
But in the meantime, I will say "I told you so" to the retards who brought suit and convinced the retards on the California Supreme Court to go along with it.
And for you who voted against allowing gay marriage? With small exceptions for those who want to keep the religious idea of "marriage" but allow civil unions with all of the legal effects, and for that (probably small) minority who are only objecting to it being forced by a court rather than the legislature, and for those others who simply want to keep sexuality private and not public but who have old-fashioned (but not hateful) notions of "marriage", YOU ARE ALSO RETARDS.
Oh, but do you want some MORE retardity? Try this: YOU FUCKING RETARDS who think that trying to overturn a constitutional amendment by arguing that it "amounts to a revision of the state constitution, and therefore must be handled by the legislature", oh jesus christ, FUCK YOU. You are too stupid for words.
The cities, the ACLU, gay rights group Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights said today in lawsuits that the measure prevents courts from protecting the rights of minorities and amounts to a revision of the state constitution, and therefore must be handled by the legislature.Oh, GAWD, crawl off someplace and die.
Law professor Vikram Amar said the lawsuit is a long shot.At the risk of stating the blindingly, painfully obvious, DUH. Worse is the quote in the Sackatomatoes Bee (registration probably required):
The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the state constitution's core commitment to equality for everyone.Which is roughly equivalent to arguing that the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is invalid because it is an attempt to undo the 18th Amendment.
Feh. You made your own beds, retards. Lie in it.
7 comments:
Hear! Hear!
My biggest gripe with BOTH sides in the Gay MArriage debate is that they're BOTH trying to force their moral standards on the other. The pro-gay marriage folks won't settle for just civil unions because they want to make everyone recognize their marriages as morally the same. The anti-GM folks are so opposed to gay relationships, they're willing to even deny gays the civil unions. And the people who support it aren't keen on extending it to any other non-traditional unions -- polygamists, polyamorous, handfasting, etc.
Personally, I'd prefer that the government not define who can or can't love whom. Referree the contracts, but stay out of who may enter into them.
Yeah, but how do you really feel?
Better, now that I got that out.
Ken, I sat on a panel a few months back (I was there to offer tax advice) that was presented to a group of same-sex couples, and one of the attorney's on the panel aslo said something about the outcome of Prop 8 not effecting couples who were married in the interim. Since this was a constitutional amendment, it cannot be retroactive, and cannot be applied to those couples already married.
I don't know if this is accurate, but that was his take, anyway.
Yeah...you called it. I am sorry you were right, as you are. What a friggin' mess.
"Since this was a constitutional amendment, it cannot be retroactive..."
Unclear and, of course, still to be litigated. Laws of either the statutory or constitutional variety can be retroactive, but they generally have to actually say so.
The only way a state constitutional provision's retroactivity can be a problem is if it violates (valid) federal law. Prop 8 isn't criminal in nature, so it doesn't violate ex post facto. However, applying it retroactively would arguably impair obligations of contract, which the federal constitution prohibits the states from doing.
Oh, and I agree with pretty much everything you said, Ken.
funny how we both made the connection to Prohibition!
Just watch: now the idiots who brought the suit in the first place will bring more under federal law and either get smacked down, or get the Ninth Circuit to invent a federal right to gay marriage, provoking an even bigger backlash and actually putting wind behind the sails of the idiots who want a ban in the federal constitution.
Post a Comment