![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
And now the news
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.)
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.)
no subject
Not in this state from what I've seen. But YMMV.
no subject
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.