'tis the season

[rolanni]

The good folk who supported Proposition 8 in California are taking this time of peace on earth and good will toward all to continue their work of destruction and hatred. Not content with forbidding any more marriages between same-sex couples in their state, they are now suing to nullify those legally performed and executed marriages which were in place before Proposition 8 was passed. You all saw this, right? If you haven't, go on and read it; I'll be here when you get back.

The slim light in this miasma of wrongheadedness is the California Attorney General, who is calling on the court to invalidate Proposition 8 on the grounds that a constitutional amendment cannot be used to retroactively strip rights from a group of people. If any of you reading this live in California, please stir yourselves at this busy time to do what you can to support Attorney General Brown. I know, you've got plans, time set aside to spend with your family. Think of it as a gift to someone else, so that they can remain a family.

For those who failed of seeing Mr. Olbermann's November 10 commentary on Proposition 8, I offer it to you, below. Thanks to maryrobinette for bringing to to my attention.

Comments

[ruthannereid.livejournal.com]

Yeah, this still has me horrified. I hope it gets such a smackdown that history books are still feeling the sting decades from now.

*sigh*

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

Some people are just so fist-hearted that they can't see others enjoying love and happiness without trying to stamp it out. That is SO wrong. I've been an activist long since, relaying protest alerts about this kind of nonsense. But really it all comes down to power: who has it, who doesn't. Those with power tend to mistreat and oppress those without it.

[saruby.livejournal.com]

I don't really understand this kind of hatred and particularly not among those who call themselves Christian. Jesus was about forgiveness and lovingkindness, not about forcing people into a mold that doesn't fit them.

Marriage has changed many times throughout the course of history. Until relatively recently, it was mostly an economic thing. You married to make alliances or for land or because having children to work in the fields meant you had enough food. Polygamy was common in much of the world and is still legal practices in some places. The "one man and one woman" thing is not an eternal format that has been and always will be. It is simply the current popular expression in the Western world.

You know, Lisa and I had made plans to get married next summer. We have been together for 26 years. Not without ups and downs, but still longer than most of my friends have been married. We have a child, we own a house together, we care for each other when we are sick or hurt. We love each other. But we can't get married. And I don't get it. Brittany Spears can get married on a whim in Las Vegas and annul the marriage 2 days later, but after 26 years Lisa and I have no legal relationship. Sucks.

Thank you for bringing Olbermann's commentary to my attention. It is oddly heartwarming to me to have a straight man nearly in tears about my life and love.

They may be able to stop it, but I don't think they can undo it.

[bookmobiler.livejournal.com]

It seems pretty clear that the US Constitution takes precedent here. If a marriage was legal when they did it they can't be made not legal now.
Just as an example, you could prosecute somebody for making booze after prohibition, but not for making booze before it went into effect.
Artical I
Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law , or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Re: They may be able to stop it, but I don't think they can undo it.

[bookmobiler.livejournal.com]

I meant to mention that if marriage is regarded as a contract that prohibition against impairing contracts should also apply, as well as ex post facto.

Re: They may be able to stop it, but I don't think they can undo it.

[(Anonymous)]

"or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts" does not read "Law impairing contracts".

[(Anonymous)]

Jerry Brown rocks. But...I fear his treatise is going to be used by the Gays Will Ruin My Marriage and the Life of Our Children As We Know It people. I love AG Brown, loved him when he was Gov. We will see.

Check out the LA Times today for more on this.

Kelly
TC, CA