Prop. 8 sponsors seek to nullify 18K gay marriages

[Neecy]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.

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.

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Pepperdine University law school dean Kenneth Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.

The campaign submitted the document in response to three lawsuits seeking to invalidate Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment adopted last month that overruled the court's decision in May that briefly legalized gay marriage in the nation's most populous state.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/12/19/state/n150241S64.DTL&tsp=1

[EFerrari]

1. More unity.

:sarcasm:

[Rockholm]

68. Ah, and the timing factor is quite ironic.

Maybe the Rev Rick could comment a bit more on this.

[ruggerson]

81. I hope someone asks Warren his position on this

[marshall]

84. I'd settle for somebody asking Obama what he thinks

I couldn't care less what Warren thinks.

[AzDar]

2. This moves beyond being un-American. These people are fucking evil.

:grr:

[Joe Bacon]

70. That's just Starr's first step

Starr and his pal Prick Warren and the bigots who run the Moron Church cult aren't merely going to stop with gays and lesbians. I'm Jewish and my girlfriend is black. We know that Starr's next move will be against us.

Prick Warren is a Dominionist who believes in segregation of the races. So are the clowns who run the Moron Church cult. Nothing would please them more than having the Roberts Court throw out not only Loving vs Virginia, but reinstating Plessy vs. Ferguson which would restore segregation.

Prick Warren and his fellow ignorant, young-earth believing pals have to be stopped, and I'm so proud of Jerry Brown showing that he has enough of a backbone to stand up to that purpose driven bible beating boob.

[No Elephants]

99. Joe, I promise you. No one is going to throw out Loving v. Virginia or Brown v. Board

of Ed (which overruled Plessy v. Ferguson). I will give you my home outright if I am wrong.

Either move would be the end of America as we know it and everyone is aware of that. Besides, Obama will soon start appointing liberal Justices again.

Just pray that Justice Stevens, who is almost 89, does not pass away before the inauguration. (By asking him to swear in Biden, I think the Obama team guaranteed that he would not retire before the inauguration, but I don't think he intended to do that anyway.)

Chill.

[Joe Bacon]

101. I wish I could believe that

but there are FIVE solid Federalists on the court and the ones Obama is most likely to replace are Stevens and Ginsberg, both liberals. I doubt any one on the Federalist side is going to quit soon. Besides there are hundreds of Bush and Reagan appointed Federalist clones who would implement their Domionist plans in a second.

[sakabatou]

3. Those fuckers.

[Cha]

4. Fuck 'em.

They need to be stopped in their tracks.

[JI7]

5. bunch of hateful scumbags

[bluestateguy]

6. I'm going to be sick

And, btw, I've always suspected Ken Starr of being gay himself.

[Ken Burch]

43. Hell, he probably vogued in the stained blue dress!

(late at night, with friends!)

[Warren Stupidity]

7. These are the people we should honor at the inauguration.

These are the people we should respect and treat as friends with whom we simply have an honest disagreement.

[SoCalNative]

8. I wish the rapture would come

and take all of these idiots away. Then the world could be run and inhabited by the sane people again.

[FiveGoodMen]

15. Too bad we can't arrange one.

[superconnected]

95. Most people who are racist bigots are that way without religion too.

These people are bigots.

[glowing]

9. Wow, the hits keep coming.. So, Rev Warren is looking like the best person

to invite to the ceremony.. Just wait till Ellen goes on t.v. and starts asking her viewing audience why she can't be married to her partner..

[lapfog_1]

10. I'm sure that there will be an Amicus curiae brief from Obama's pal, Rick Warren.

Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas.

[maddezmom]

11. this assholes need to get a life

why don't they spend their money feeding the poor, educating disavantaged children, etc. Oh yeah, because this is sooo more important. :puke:

[JerseygirlCT]

12. Ken Starr. Such a surprise. nt

[ronnykmarshall]

13. I was told just the other day ...

"Your marriage is not in danger and you know it" in responce to Rev Warren.

[Faygo Kid]

14. Kenneth Starr is back. How nice. How did they miss John Yoo as counsel?

Wonderful hires by their respective law schools.

There is no doubt what fate Prop 8 leaders have in store for gays, if they could pull it off.

[KamaAina]

53. He must have been busy torturing somebody

:grr:

[CitizenPatriot]

16. Well, they never rest do they?

I hope Prop 8 gets overturned...and then perhaps CA can pass Prop 9: banning fundy unions as being dangerous to society.

The way they try to dominate the constitution with their religion needs to END.

[Maat]

69. This Californian will sign that petition -

to ban fundies unions from being recognized - how about the one that will just ban fundies from California period?

[CitizenPatriot]

76. perhaps a border check

when crossing into CA from anywhere..you know, can we see your license and religious affiliation?

Dominionists, go in the special lane. :rofl:

The Lane to Nowhere.


:rofl:

[Maat]

78. Yahoo!

I wish there had been such a border check before my neighbors came in!

:rofl:

[PatSeg]

17. Unbelievable arrogance!

Haven't they done enough damage already, now they want to rub it in.

The world is going to hell in a hand basket, and this is where they place their energies?

[BrklynLiberal]

18. Wouldn't this be a violation of the prohibition against ex post facto laws?

An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "after the fact") or retroactive law, is 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 the law

[depakid]

29. Typically, the prohibition against ex post facto laws deals with criminal punishments

Another constitutional doctrine might apply, though.

One might make a case that the state owes compensation for the "taking" of a property right (marraige contracts might be construed as granting property interests and benefits- and the conservative US Supreme Court has expanded the purves 5th Amerndment "Takings Clause" over the past 20 years.

(The same analysis may well apply to suits against the telecom industry file prior to the signing of retroactive immunity legislation).

[Wizard777]

56. It's an all inclusive statement. Shall pass no ex post facto law.

So it should apply to all law. If they intended it to only apply to criminal law you would think they would put it in with due process, cruel, and unusual punishment.

[depakid]

62. Here's the basic interpretation set out by the Supreme Court in 1798

(Obviously, things are a bit more nuanced in this day and age- and not always for the better ;) )

From Calder v. Bull

I will state what laws I consider ex post facto laws, within the words and the intent of the prohibition.

1st. Every law that makes an action , done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.

2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed.

3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.

4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender. All these, and similar laws, are manifestly unjust and oppressive.

In my opinion, the true distinction is between ex post facto laws, and retrospective laws.

Every ex post facto law must necessarily be retrospective; but every retrospective law is not an ex post facto law: The former, only, are prohibited. Every law that takes away, or impairs, rights vested, agreeably to existing laws, is retrospective, and is generally unjust; and may be oppressive; and it is a good general rule, that a law should have no retrospect: but there are cases in which laws may justly, and for the benefit of the community, and also of individuals, relate to a time antecedent to their commencement; as statutes of oblivion, or of pardon.

They are certainly retrospective, and literally both concerning, and after, the facts committed. But I do not consider any law ex post facto, within the prohibition, that mollifies the rigor of the criminal law; but only those that create, or aggravate, the crime; or encrease the punishment, or change the rules of evidence, for the purpose of conviction.

More: http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/cases/calder.htm

[Wizard777]

86. But there's a Constitutional double whammy on ex post facto laws passed by the states.

Article I, Section 10.

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 anything 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.

Any doubt that they meant the entire body by simply saying law should be cleared up by the use of any. You have an all inclusive word backing another all inclusive word. Even the state budget is enacted by law and any ex post facto law would even apply to that. This same provision would also over turn Prop. 8. Because it impairs the obligations of the contract of marriage. That is a power expressly denied the states.

[katbarb]

103. Agree, and it could be why

the supporters of Prop 8 backtracked fast at any chance to legally codify the results of the vote.

Instead, they have opened this new front, attempting to flame the fears and insult the feelings of those who have already consummated marriages, thus keeping their hot-button crusade on the front burner, even as they know Atty Gen. Brown is right. Under the California Constitution, no initiative can accomplish the denial of civil rights. While marriage may arguably not be a civil right, that is certainly debatable.

[Jack Rabbit]

19. If this is God's law, then I want to go to Hell

I'd rather be the Devil's disciple than worship such a hateful God.

[Pastiche423]

50. Another reason I do not believe in god

[roguevalley]

66. God isn't in this mess. I personally hope some 'voice of reason'

doesn't stop by this thread to tell everyone to SHUT UP. WHen they get through with GLTB, they will start on the rest of the human race. I hope people will soon get it. NO ONE IS EXEMPT!

[Pastiche423]

72. Oh yes "he" is!

[roguevalley]

77. No "He" isn't. Jeez. Just because some dumb fucker pretends to

speak for someone, then its true? What the hell. We have free will. that makes us do what we do. Warren can hate or not. He chooses to hate. That is his choice, not God's or God's will. You give a lot of credit to someone you imply doesn't exist with your quotes.

[Pastiche423]

79. If warren did not believe in "him"

then there would be no problem.

[roguevalley]

89. its the way warren believes, not God. Warren again is the problem. He uses

God as his platform for his zenophobic, meglomaniacal hatred. that is not the fault of ANYONE but him.

[Pastiche423]

90. You know the way god believes???

Either way, "he" and warren will be on stage together. And all thanks to Obama.

[roguevalley]

91. I loathe this too. As for do I know how God believes? Yeah. i was taught that

God loves me no matter what a fool I may be and even if I can't see Him around the fucking noise that people have thrown up around Him, He sees me. I am really clear on the fact that the God who created all of us, *ALL OF US* in His own image is not in favor of some making judgements that are not ours to make. Judge not lest ye also be judged. Love thy neighbor as you love yourself. Do unto others as you would expect them to do unto you. That is God. Warren? Not so much.

Your anger with Warren is accruing to God, who loves you just the way you are. Of that, I am *very* clear.

[Pastiche423]

94. Of that, you are wrong

Please keep your silly superstitions to yourself.

[roguevalley]

98. silly superstitions. You are a really bitter person. that is okay. I don't mind. I

feel for your bitterness that you can be the only one with an opinion or a position that matters. How godlike of you. Be mad at me if you like. I forgive you.

[and-justice-for-all]

20. It makes me sick to know that these fucks have validation

for their bigotry now!

There should have never been a vote on this to begin with!!

[scytherius]

21. There is no way this should be tolerated. The revolt must be tangible and in their faces. n/t

nt

[frylock]

22. c'mon dems, you're not reaching far enough

[Sherman A1]

23. The marriages were legal at the time they took place

and the change in the law came after they did take place. I suspect that this one will be a real uphill battle for the Prop 8 supporters.

Would that not be "after the fact?"

[musette_sf]

24. how's that "forging alliances" and "reaching out" stuff going?

gosh knows, we're just a nice "seat at the table" conversation or two away from bringing the H8ers to our point of view!!! all we have to do is acknowledge what we have in common instead of what we differ about!!!

[Career Prole]

34. No shit.

:grr:

[Bluenorthwest]

25. Disgusting excuses for human beings

And among the coat holders is Barack Obama, legitimizing the whole thing with a spotlight victory waltz with Rick Warren.

[NorthCarolina]

26. The Prop 8 supporters know they must overturn these existing marriages

because the courts would never allow Prop 8 to stand if it created two classes of LGBT citizens in the State....those married and those that can never be married. That dichotomy could never be allowed to persist in our form of Constitutional Law.

[kevinbgoode]

35. Interesting, however. . .because at least two states have two different levels of "marriage"

exclusively for heterosupremacists, of course. One is the regular form of marriage set by statutory law, and the second is the fundy-sponsored, completely legal "covenant" marriage, with different legal responsibilities. Yep - two different classes of marriage, pushed by the same clowns who claim that can't exist for the gays.

I'm almost laughing right now at how stupid Californians were to fall for this dog-and-pony clown car act from the Right - whose goal all along was to assert more religious influence over government AND to assert special rights of government to arbitrarily dissolve marriages without the consent of the parties.

Remember Terri Schiavo.

[KamaAina]

55. Three

Arizona (soon with a fundie whackjob governor, thanks to Napolitano's appointment to DHS!) caved in to this shite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage

In 1997, Louisiana became the first state to create covenant marriage as a legal category; since then Arkansas and Arizona have followed suit.

They were trying to get La. to pull this stunt when I was there around 1990. Truly, 'tis said, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

[bsiebs]

59. Heterosupremacists...

Heterosupremacist...that is perfect.


Edit: Cant spell Heterosupremacist

[jgraz]

27. Have I mentioned yet tonight how much I hate these people?

[neuvocat]

28. This is all part of a plan to undermine benefits, IMO.

Go after a segment of the population that is hated by another segment of the population, draft legislation to cover your tracks in such a way that dogma is applied and then you can help business reduce pesky overhead and add more dollars to the bottom line.

That's my theory anyway.

[williesgirl]

30. I hope these mean motherfuckers die a slow, pain death & soon. rec'd

[Politicub]

31. Looking at the faces of the supporters of prop 8

is gazing at the visage of evil.

[proud2BlibKansan]

32. Just a bunch of hateful control freaks

[2Design]

33. truly evil satanic devil people - just plain unchristian n/t

[mentalslavery]

36. Economic warfare

It is very effective. I am curious how many contacts the gay community has with Hollywood and how much pull those contacts have. If Hollywood could shut down over this issue I think you would see movement in the right direction. Watch this culture comprise its "christian values" when they can no longer watch survivor.

Additionally, I think organized population shifts of the gay community/like-minded peeps to take over economic/political power at the local level would be very effective. This is what the right wing has been doing for the past 38 years. The black community did a lot of economic warfare during the civil rights movement and it had some significant effects.

We can strategically defund areas and pressure those area's to change. We can also reach out to poor area's with the promise of economic investment depending upon civil rights enforcement. The african american community (and latinos) have a significantly high rate of homophobic beliefs, but are economically fucked. If the two parties can agree to work together they can help each other. Each party needs to realize that both are victims of injustice and working together is the most effective way to change society. Assuming a partnership, then pooled economic/political/social resources magnify from percentages in the mid-teens to possibly 30 percent.

Also, on a more abstract note, working together creates understanding and involves fostering interpersonal relationships. Its hard to hold homophobic views after getting to know a gay person. As a college teacher I watch lots of people experience their first interaction with others who are "not like them" and watch them change over the four year period. Additionally, these partnerships create different socialization experiences for young people such that the youth develop different beliefs and attitudes than their parents.

[Dukkha]

37. misery loves company

they're all divorced & broken homes so they want gays to be as miserable as them

[proud2BlibKansan]

38. That's not the article in your link

Link goes to: Jerry Brown urges court to void Prop. 8

[Neecy]

44. look below that story

The Chronicle online has the bad habit of putting a related story on top of an existing one. The original story is just below the new AG blurb.

[proud2BlibKansan]

48. Below it I only see comments

[Neecy]

49. The Jerry Brown thing is only about 2 paragraphs

The two stories are broken with this:

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

And then it goes right into the original story without the headline.

[nahant]

39. Prop 8

"Pepperdine University law school dean Kenneth Starr" We all know that Ken is a fucking Asshole! and these Prop 8 Bigots need to climb back into the hole they came out of!!

[lligrd]

40. Do These Asswipes Have Nothing Better To Do

than trying to make other people as miserable as they are?

[slackmaster]

87. From their perspective, they don't

They see it as a divine mission.

[Solly Mack]

41. Oh, look! They're reaching back across the aisle..and slapping the shit out of people.

[CitizenPatriot]

42. I've posted this a few times tonight

so forgive me if you've already seen it. Please consider signing up and donating:

Petition to kill Prop 8:

http://www.petitiononline.com/equlity/petition.html

donate to kill Prop 8:

https://secure2.convio.net/laglc/site/Donation2?idb=177...


At the urging of church President Thomas Monson, Mormons contributed more than $15 million to fund the deceitful advertising campaign that resulted in a small majority of Californians supporting Prop 8. For each donation of $5 or more at www.InvalidateProp8.org, the Center will send Monson a postcard to let him know a donation was made in his name to fund legal organizations fighting Prop 8 and to fund grass-roots efforts supporting marriage equality.

[Pastiche423]

51. You can't sign this unless you are a resident of Cali?

[CitizenPatriot]

58. I signed it and I'm no longer a resident

If you can't sign the petition, you can still donate to the cause, which would be an awesome way to vote from afar:-)

[Pastiche423]

61. If you did

then I will vote using by former address in SF (a place I desperately want to go back to).

Thanks!

[CitizenPatriot]

63. yeah, they don't actually ask for your address...but I felt it was cool

because I used to live there....that doesn't sound very ethical, but I think it's the right thing to do, at least for me. Hope that makes sense.

[Pastiche423]

73. Yes, it makes sense to me

Especially since it is where I left my heart.

[Lucky Luciano]

45. geez...don't they have better things to do? Like washing their hair..

doing their nails?

[David Zephyr]

46. Hey! "Your not the only minority in the world!" "You need to prioritize your issues." "You can wait"

Oh, yeah. I can't wait for all the stealthy homophobes that are so comfortable with themselves these days here at the DU to begin their lecturing all of us in the GLBT community.

Let the finger wagging and pontificating begin.

[libnnc]

60. "Quit being so mad! You're ruining it for the rest of us!!11"

Lighten UP!


:sarcasm:

[MikeE]

47. As I said in a couple other posts

with the rise in hate crimes, the Warren thing, and this, they are going to push the community to riot again.

[MrScorpio]

52. Sounds like an incitement to riot to me...

[KamaAina]

54. Prop H8 supporters: Putting the "dump" in the Friday News Dump

:grr: :banghead:

[Sander]

57. This might backfire

I am not an attorney, but I think this tack may actually backfire on these bigots. I could see the California Supreme Court ruling that the entire referendum was unconstitutional. That it represented a major change in the California Constitution that requires more than a simple majority vote to pass.

The Court might even rule that the referendum effectively denied members of an at-risk group (homosexuals) from its basic constitutional right (to marry). Therefore it violates the "equal protection" provision of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment as well as the California Constitution.

[Seldona]

74. That was my first thought, as well as hope.

The irony would be oh so delicious. Welcome to DU btw.

[windoe]

64. How insane to grant gay marriage and then take it away...

people are under enough stress to threaten them personally...and deny their happiness. This is so sad.

WHY when this country has so many challenges, do some people focus on banning gay marriage? Our freaking country is collapsing around us and these people don't have ANYTHING better to do????

I really think these bigots are mentally unsound, they are totally nuts.

[baldguy]

65. Pure unadulterated evil.

[Maat]

67. These people are SO evil!

They will NOT succeed. This Californian will fight them - successfully - no matter how long it takes!

In Solidarity and Friendship,

[CatholicEdHead]

71. Scum

Unless anybody pushes back they will just take it to the next level.

[Raine1967]

75. That link has changed, I think.

I clicked.. and this is where i was sent:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/12/19/state/n150241S64.DTL&tsp=1


The California attorney general has changed his position on the state's new same-sex marriage ban and is now urging the state Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.

In a dramatic reversal, Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a legal brief saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is itself unconstitutional because it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right. Earlier, Brown had said he would defend the ballot measure against legal challenges from gay marriage supporters.

But Brown said he reached a different conclusion "upon further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution.

"It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative," he said in an interview Friday night. "Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote."

Brown, who served as governor from 1975 to 1983, is considering seeking the office again in 2010. After California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, Brown said he personally voted against it but would fight to uphold it as the state's top lawyer.

He submitted his brief in one of the three legal challenges to Proposition 8 brought by same-sex marriage supporters. The measure, a constitutional amendment that passed with 52 percent of the vote, overruled the state Supreme Court decision last spring that briefly legalized gay marriage in the nation's most populous state.

Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the attorney general's change of strategy "a major development."

"The fact that after looking at this he shifted his position and is really bucking convention by not defending Prop. 8 signals very clearly that this proposition can not be defended," Minter said.

The sponsors of Proposition 8 argued for the first time Friday that the court should undo the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters banned gay marriage at the ballot box last month.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief telling the court 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.

<...> more at link... But it seems as tho someone is changing the story.

[Blue_Tires]

80. Kenneth Starr is mixed up in this?

he must have some VERY VERY deep-seated sexual hangups

[MadMaddie]

82. Let's start by following the money

Who is paying Starr? Is it the Mormon church? Is it Warren's church? Well folks if we want to do something it's time to start taxing the churches, these two churches rake in billions a year, they use town and city infrastructure, they use police for their events and they don't pay a dime in taxes.

How do you destroy criminals or large entities such as these churches? Follow the money......Al Capone was taken down because of taxes.....many a politician taken down because of money.....

Again who is paying Starr?

[booley]

83. well this isn't the first time

When the theocons pushed to outlaw gay marriage in michigan, they said the bill would NOT affect domestic partnerships of state employees.
Then the bill got passed and they waited all of two seconds before suing the governor, claiming that such partnerships were illegal because of the law they earlier claimed would have no effect.

That's the problem with the self rightious. They think they are good because of what they believe, not because of what they do. So they feel justified to do anything as long as it supports their "cause"

Let us be careful about going down that same road.

anyway, I responded to the comments on the article. I was gettign annoyed at the people who claimed their support of prop 8 was not bigotry..

I really wish people would try to do a penny's worth of research. Yes marriage is a RIGHT. Loving v Virginia established that.
Marriage has changed through out History. The BIBLE alone proves that.
And to those who claimed hate had nothing to do with supporting prop 8, there is a problem.
Regardless of how you view marriage, you still took it upon yourself force others to abide by how YOU would choose to live. You used your right to decide to take away that ability from others for themselves.
Prop 8 solved no real problem. It helped no one. But it did harm a certain group that wasn't harming anyone.
Even if you want to claim your reasons were not bigoted, your actions certainly look that way. At least offensively intrusive (why do YOU get to decide who other people get to marry?)
Imagine if someone worked really hard to break up your marriage. Would you accept that they only interfered in your life for the sake of a definition of a word?
or would you think they were being hateful?

[Danmel]

85. My son said it best when he was 10 years old

during the 04 election when there was all that talk of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage

He said "Mom, isn't the Constitution supposed to PROTECT our rights? So why do they want to use it to take people's rights AWAY?"


Pretty much sums it up.

[Bariztr]

88. Losing my Religion

There are so many words (which I could use on DU) I would like to say, actually scream, at these people that it is taking all that I can not to type them.

These people and their invisible sky-fairy belief system disgusts me. I want to be tolerant but how can a reasonable person see this and not conclude these deluded fools are a menace to the rational members of society? Yes I am painting with a very broad brush, but how else can one quantify the effect of religion when we see this kind of oppression? It's time for tax status revocation and for churches to be treated as any other PAC.

No "special rights" for religion.

[Guaranteed]

92. Vested Interests

There's nothing to worry about with this. Those who got married are safe.

[superconnected]

93. If these kind of peopel fully got their way we'd start having roundups. This is scary.

[RCinBrooklyn]

96. TThanks for staying silent, Obama. Backstabbing motherfucker.

[KakistocracyHater]

97. Religious Police alert-again

now they are deciding what is legit & what isn't...

[trashcanistanista]

100. This is hinging on AG Brown's ability to convince

the CSSC to invalidate 8. If he wants a shot at Gov., he better put his heart and soul into this fight. These people will never stop and I predict some type of prop 8 will be on every ballot for the rest of my life unless it is stopped now or they are driven out of California in the upcoming depression. Personally, I think it will be invalidated next year.

[alfredo]

102. Alienation of Affections

Alienation of Affections: a tort based upon willful, malicious or intentional interference of a marriage relation by a third party