Yes on H8 files motion to invalidate all same-sex marriages

[Shana A]

Yes on H8 files motion to invalidate all same-sex marriages (+)
by: Pam Spaulding
Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 22:02:56 PM EST

http://pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=5CB03A41973F868F60866D93CBD2C186?diaryId=8715

The final nail in the coffin to the dignity and civil rights of the 18,000 same-sex couples who married in California. The proponents of Prop. 8 have filed a motion (Strauss v. Horton, S168047) asking the Supreme Court to nullify all existing same-sex marriages. It makes you sick. BTW, Ken Starr, of the salacious, blue dress-sniffing Starr Report, will argue before the court on behalf of the haters.

[Natasha]

Yes on H8 files motion to invalidate all same-sex marriages

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8715
Pam Spaulding
Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 22:02:56 PM EST

The final nail in the coffin to the dignity and civil rights of the 18,000 same-sex couples who married in California. The proponents of Prop. 8 have filed a motion (Strauss v. Horton, S168047) asking the Supreme Court to nullify all existing same-sex marriages. It makes you sick. BTW, Ken Starr, of the salacious, blue dress-sniffing Starr Report, will argue before the court on behalf of the haters.

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.

[tekla]

He'll have about as much luck with this as the whole Whitewater deal, courts are loath to overturn prior actions, for good reason.

[Susan]

Actually not likely to work as most constitutions have provisions against ex post facto laws which are basically retroactive enforcement of newly enacted laws/penalities.

[tekla]

That too, and Brown is going to take on the entire amendment, saying its not an amendment, but a major revision of the Constitution, and that it also violates t the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative."