Legal limbo

[mike2jb]

So, Am I the first?

Question about the 18,000 or so couples married over the last 5 months--some say they are still valid because you cant retroactively change a law. That's what Jerry Brown claims.

As I see it, the legal counter-argument to that is:
It's not retroactive. The couples WERE married for 3, 4 or 5 months--whatever; but they are no longer married now (just as a divorced couple was married and are no longer), because marriage is now ONLY between a man and a woman.

If Atty General Brown wins, we're still in a limbo of who, if anyone, is going to recognize our marriages. They can just point to Prop 8. If the other opinion wins, it would be the first instance in American history of involuntary divorce of any married couple.  BTW, that's different from annulling them, because "annulment" implies they were never "really" married in the first place (like what happened to Gavin's marriages in 2004).


Or-- both arguments will be moot and the Supreme Court will declare Prop 8 unconstitutional on the same grounds as it declared Prop 22, since there is now precedent for that decision from their May ruling.

[LavenderMom]

As you know by now, Kenneth Starr is representing Yes on 8 and is attempting to retroactively enforce Prop 8 and nullify all gay marriages. Mr Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school, is defending legalized discrimination because the majority wants it. Which law book states that legalized discrimination against another human being is just, right and fair by majority rule? If Prop 8 is upheld, then Justice is not blind - it is deaf and dumb.