Excerpt:
The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions. The document reveals for the first time that opponents of same-sex marriage will fight in court to undo those unions that already exist.
"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.
The campaign submitted the document in response to three lawsuits seeking to invalidate Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment adopted last month that overruled the court's decision in May that had legalized gay marriage in the nation's most populous state.
Both Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office is scheduled to submit its own brief to the court Friday, and gay rights groups maintain that the gay marriage ban may not be applied retroactively.
My comment:
This is absolute *crap.* We do not have ex post facto law in this country for a reason. And now these bigoted asshats want to judicially annul legal marriages?
Okay, you folks who were in favor of Prop 8 -- here's a question for you. Which of *your* rights shall we put to majority vote. Is it okay to judicially annul your marriage because, say, you got married outdoors instead of in a church? Because *that,* people, is the real slippery slope that this represents. Keep your baloney about pedophilia, polygamy and incest -- those are red herrings. The real slippery slope comes when someone can take away your rights because they think you are icky.
There is only one other instance in history which I have been able to find that is comparable: the Nuremberg Laws.
Is that really where you want to position yourself?
No comments:
Post a Comment