And now the news

[kierthos]

First up, good news.

Al Franken now has a slight lead in the Minnesota Senate race. There are still a number of votes to count, but it's looking better over there.

Now, bad news. Or more to the point, asshole news.

Prop 8 supporters seek to nullify same-sex marriages.

Okay, I'm not a lawyer. And yes, odds are there are points that I'm overlooking. But isn't there something about not retroactively applying laws? I mean, you can't pass a law on Wednesday outlawing people wearing green shirts, and then arrest someone who wore a green shirt a week before for violating it. You have to wait until they violate that law again, right? So, right now (to leave the silly law examples behind), you currently can't get a same-sex marriage in California, but it should not invalidate existing marriages.

Furthermore, I can't see how they can challenge the validity of those marriages as they aren't a party to the marriage contract. Guy A and Guy B got married during the all too brief window in which same-sex marriages were legal. Now that it's illegal, Guy C or Lady D cannot come along and legally say that A & B's marriage contract is invalid because they aren't a party to the contract. They have no standing in the contract to make the challenge to begin with.

(Now, of course, I'll end up with various law students and/or lawyers pointing out why and where I'm wrong.)

Comments

[morinon.livejournal.com]

If marriage contracts only involved parties A and B, nobody would care. But they also involve the government.

Honestly, the real problem here is how the government deals with marriage contracts right now, and what benefit is the government getting for its effectively pay to members of gay marriages versus straight marriages?

Because that's what it's about. It's about the legal advantages of marriages, but nobody here asks what the government gets out of it?

As for the rest, as I understand it Prop 8 was an attempt to amend the constitution without going through proper means.

[kierthos.livejournal.com]

I just think we need to coin a new phobia.

You know, like claustrophobia is fear of enclosed spaces, so {whatever}phobia would be the fear of gay people getting married.

[jdack.livejournal.com]

It's not a phobia, it's a syndrome. It's called being a shithead.

[delwin.livejournal.com]

I'm still a fan of removing government from the marriage contract altogether. Create a new contract that is all the legal/visitation/monetary stuff, don't call it marriage, and let the govt. be a part of that. Then have a separate marriage contract that is between A, B, and whatever *church* marries them.

Once you've separated those fully then bring civil rights into it and have the newly minted contract be available for anyone who wants it and let the churches fight out who and what can be married.

Personally I'd be tempted to see if I can get a pastafarian to renew my vows.

[morinon.livejournal.com]

I agree, myself.

[jdack.livejournal.com]

My best friend and his wife were married by a Pastafarian. In my state anybody with a "Universal Life Church" ministry license (which can be given by another minister) can legally marry people. You even get to choose your own title on the certificate.

Also, agree fully that gov should stay out of marriage. The only benefit if bringing law into it is that assholes who cheat and whatnot still have to support their kids by law.

[delwin.livejournal.com]

That's paternity - not marriage. If you father a child and never marry the mother you're still on the hook for child support... so that really doesn't come into it.

From what I can tell it's inheritance, power of attorney, protection from testifying against your spouse, hospital visitation and taxes.

Does anyone else know of something in the legal part of marriage that isn't covered under those?

[jdack.livejournal.com]

If you father a child and never marry the mother you're still on the hook for child support

Not in this state from what I've seen. But YMMV.

[delwin.livejournal.com]

What state do you live in?

If the mother wants she can declare someone the father, then hit him up for child support. He can fight it by forcing a paternity test. If that paternity test says he's the father then he's on the hook period. I don't think that changes much from state to state but the details might .

Either way children have almost nothing to do with marriage.

[mierandra.livejournal.com]

Personally I'd be tempted to see if I can get a pastafarian to renew my vows.

I think they'd object to the reception menu. Don't they consider pasta dishes cannibalism?