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