From the article:
Apparently, not being familiar with the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, why should I expect they would be familiar with Article I, Section 9, which states: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
“The biggest question mark right now is the question of what happens to the marriages that were valid when they were performed, but now the constitution says they are not recognized,” said Yes on 8 attorney Andrew Pugno.
For the record, that means you can't make a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed, or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed, prior to the enactment of that law.
But then again, fundamentalist "Christians" haven't been wanting to listen to the Constitution for quite some time--why should they start now?
Not to mention King David, Solomon, Jacob, and many, many other bible figures...
Elder Farron Davis: As president of the Pocatello stake it is my unhappy duty and obligation to convene this church court on behalf of the Elder Aaron Davis for the grave and grievous sin, of homosexuality. In the light of your abnormal and abominable state and your refusal to see you have been duped into a hogwash alternative lifestyle...I wish my shame was enough for both of us. Not to mention the shame you brought to this church...our family...our ancestors...
Aaron: Wait a minute, our ancestors? Dad, your grandfather had half a dozen wives, and the same goes for every single person in this room. I'd say we were the original definition of 'alternative lifestyle.'
Elder Farron Davis: Are you calling us hypocrites?
Aaron: No, we've gone way beyond hypocrisy, Dad, now we're just being mean.
But now I'm telling them their business...
And they're just being plain mean...
4 comments:
This is a really good post. Back when I was doing research for my thesis about how women (both gay and straight) feel about gay marriage, I found a bunch of online chats, especially on AfterEllen.com , about the discussion around the 14th amendment and how many lawmakers seek to make this right irrelevant for homosexuals interested in marriage.
I have not heard or read many discussions about the ex post facto article, however. Thank you for writing about this.
Thanks, N! Always good to hear I'm covering all the bases. :)
QED: I find it very ironic how your are bitching about my bitching--it would seem, however, I'm the only one with a legitimate complaint. Funny, that...
Move to Canada and get married. If Rich drops dead tomorrow, you'll be landed with a hefty bill and you won't get to arrange to funeral.
Focusing on just CA; retroactivity is only a prohibition placed upon the Federal government if I remember correctly. That said, the CA state amendment did not declare retroactivity, which means it is not retroactive.
Yes, the fact that marriage is a right does mean it cannot be denied to anyone unless it is equally denied to everyone. This will take precedent over any state law.
Post a Comment