Same Sex Marriages performed now will be legal even if constitutional ammendment passes

[grantcart]

Don't have a link but in an article in the San Diego Union Tribune today they had a number of constitutional experts, and even experts from the groups submitting the ammendment against same sex marriage saying that if a constitutional ammendment passes it will have no legal impact on any marriages performed between now and its passage.

The only hope in stopping SSMs in the interim is to have a restraining order and no one expects one to be issued.

SSMs can begin in 30 days and would be completely legal up and until a constitutional ammendment passed to prohibit it.

Hopefully the ammendment fails in a landslide.

Also couples from other states will be able to get married in California which is different from the MA ruling.

[BlooInBloo]

1. I'm thinking that a good way to innoculate against gay-hating ballot initiatives...

would be for gay marriage in CA to become a fait accompli on a large-ish scale.

[grantcart]

2. me too I would like to see 100,000 marriages between now and the election

have the city offices run 24 hours a day. People from all around the United States flocking to CA

California rejects the ammendment in a landslide - which I am certain it will


A lot has changed in 8 years.

[davidinalameda]

3. and lots of money for local governments

this IS a good thing since there is a huge budget crisis here

[mitchtv]

4. They are already licking their chops

here in Coachella Valley which is now dead for the summer. Palm Springs expects to compete for many Gay weddings. To quote one top chef in a major country club " I don't care if they are from another planet, as long as they pay the bill". A true Californian

[davidinalameda]

5. the only thing I'm worried about is getting a thousand invites to weddings

and having to buy presents for them all

this is the busy season for birthdays in my family

My nephew's birthday is next week; my anniversary is next week; a friend's baby's 1st birthday is coming up next week; my dad's birthday is June 1; my niece's is June 9 and then of course there's Father's Day

my little sister is getting married in the middle of July; my 2nd oldest sister's b-day is the week after the wedding and then I'm okay until the middle of August

then it starts back up again in September with two birthdays; I think I have couple of birthdays in October and then I'm done until Christmas

I really don't like this time of the year

[mitchtv]

7. uh -oh Good luck

My sister called almost immediately asking "when's the wedding?" Partner mumbled something about feeding a bunch of freeloaders. "I want mariachis" whined mitch. Ends up, a double wedding with the two oldtimers next door, WW2 vets,with 43 years together and a fancy dinner. a big wedding might be anticlimactical for us two

[jumptheshadow]

10. LOL, I can relate to you

Every time we get one of those thick envelopes written in script, it's "Oh, no, not again." But then she dirty dances with the bride, shocks the groom's family and it's all worthwhile.

[Tyo]

6. It'll be legal in California and MA

Nowhere else.

[Chovexani]

9. I don't know

I am hopeful about NY, now that we have a far less divisive governor in who is 100% committed to equality.

[LeftHander]

8. How can this state amendment not conflict with existing

Amendments and the U.S. constitution?

We will end up with some having equality and some not. That just doesn't seem right. Can any controlling group of nutjobs put any language in a amendment they want?

[FreeState]

11. "Can any controlling group of nutjobs put any language in a amendment they want?"

In California yes. The initiative process here is a joke.

FYI here is the language of one of the proposed Amendments (I dont know which one they are currently going over the signatures for).


"Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere. A man is an adult male human being who possesses at least one inherited Y chromosome, and a woman is an adult female human being who does not possess an inherited Y chromosome. Neither the Legislature nor any court, government institution, government agency, initiative statute, local government, or government official shall abolish the civil institution of marriage between one man and one woman, or decrease statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage shared by one man and one woman, or require private entities to offer or provide rights, incidents, or benefits of marriage to unmarried individuals, or bestow statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage on unmarried individuals. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding, from within this state or another jurisdiction, that violates this section is void and unenforceable "

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i769_07-0098.pdf


Here is the other one that is more than likely the one they are trying to get on the ballot because it would be easier to pass because it does not do away with domestic partnerships:

"SECTION 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution. to read :
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California ."

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initiative.pdf

[trickyguy]

12. Does that mean these marriages get the over 1000 benefits provided for married couples?

And will these benefits be only available in the state of California? It's great that this has passed but what about the other 48 states?

Are there any protections there? I doubt it.

I worked against the marriage amendment here in Wisconsin for two years only to see our efforts go up in dust.

There are just too many straights out there- including my sister from San Diego - who want to "own" the word marriage.

And they are pretty damned tenacious about it.

We need to be happy with civil unions if that's where the protection is.

Straight society will never give gays all the rights and benefits which they enjoy. We're just to queer for that.