Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Is a Warren uninvite really impossible to contemplate? Previous entry: Hard times for you, happy times for Bible thumpers

Yes on 8 files motion to invalidate all same-sex marriages

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. When will we get to vote on his marriage?

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.

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

...The Supreme Court could hear arguments in the litigation as soon as March. The measure’s backers announced Friday that Starr, a former federal judge and U.S. solicitor general, had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases.

Meanwhile, California Attorney General Jerry Brown has changed his position and is now urging the state Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8:

After studying the matter, Brown concluded that “Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification.”

Backers of Proposition 8 expressed anger at Brown’s decision not to honor the will of voters, who approved the measure in November.

“It’s outrageous,“said Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Proposition 8. “it is unconstitutional to deny a fundamental right, said Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors. “We are very pleased that upon review of the law, he has moved from his previous statements that he would defend Prop 8. As the state’s highest attorney, Jerry Brown has done his job today to defend the Constitution and protect the rights of minority groups, including the more than 18,000 same-sex couples who married in California.”

Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors released this statement on Brown’s brief:

“Attorney General Brown’s position that Proposition 8 should be invalidated demonstrates that he is a leader of courage and conviction,” to defend the Constitution and protect the rights of minority groups, including the more than 18,000 same-sex couples who married in California

A reaction from one of the commenters at my pad in reaction to this news that their marriage will be one of the ones dissolved is below the fold.
From Blend reader Vanhattan:

This has been a war brewing for decades.  Personally, I am elated that the scorched earth policy against The Gays, their love, liberty and equal protection under the law, by the christianist fundamentalists’ has finally been irrevocably documented in the light of day by these latest court briefs.

The intent of the christianists has always been to deny the humanity and dignity of The Gays (I define The Gays as all GLBTQ).  For years, all we asked for were crumbs.  In doing so, a sizeable majority of us realized that the christainists did not intend for us to have ANY rights including basic human dignity and respect that all humans deserve.  So we found our own dignity and started fighting for all the rights that we are denied.  The Gays started going after equal civil marriage rights because it encompasses so many rights and privileges and is one of the core fundamental rights of any person and couple.

So here we are.

Now the christianists, slowly and painfully, have to reveal their true intent and motives in the light.  The body politic does not yet fully understand that christianists are motivated by pure unadulterated hate, fear and bigotry and that the label “hater and bigot” are perfectly legitimate labels they will wear around their necks.  Well, this is going to change for the truth is being revealed.

Many folks do not understand the grave danger that denying one minority group equal civil rights actually carries despite numerous examples of it in global history.  Until last summer in California, the christianists could argue that the gays never had the right to marry and never should.  The argument has fundamentally shifted in a huge way.  Not they are forced to take away our new found marriage rights.  This is more than ugly, but a very dangerous precedent and I believe that many previously unsympathetic people to same sex marriage will see this clearly.

I lost most of my “biological family” years ago to christianist fundamentalism.  I maintained a few strained relationships for another 20 years, and these remnants crumbled at last over my marriage.  Actually, I am glad. It has finally set me totally free of the hate I subjected myself and my “real” family to.

Never again will I accept crumbs.  Not from my “biological family”, not from our leaders and not from our constitutions.

I will fight to the death for my equal rights under the law.  I am sure that many here have come to the same conclusion and there is no going back.

We will ultimately win the good fight.  Please prepare yourselves for an even tougher and bitter battle. None of this is going to be pretty and my guess is that It will get much uglier before it gets better.

Also: more reactions in Mirele’s diary.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 05:50 AM • (31) Comments

Vanhattan:
that was beautiful. *CHEER*.
i am not gay, so i cannot fully understand. i try - i have always, even as a small child, thought the “othering” of GLBT people wrong and stupid and intolerable. this feeling as grown as have.

now… now the fucking fundies have AGAIN codified that anyone who is different from them must be punished for those difference. despite the fact that, according to their OWN belief system, everyone is has God made them and to try and become some God did NOT make you is blashphemous. they make my head - and my heart - hurt.

keep up the fight - i’ll be on your side through every battle.

Comment #1: denelian  on  12/20  at  06:10 AM

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.

Another wonderful step forward in the protection of marriage.

Next up on the agenda, protecting the US from any further terrorist attacks by bayonetting those who made it out of the towers on Sept. 11th.

Comment #2: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  12/20  at  06:41 AM

Three words:
Ex Post Facto

If they can get the marriages—which were legal when performed—invalidated, they will have pulled off the most significant constitutional violation ever.

That is the line the other side should take.

Comment #3: Angelia Sparrow  on  12/20  at  10:25 AM

Angelia—The Ex Post Facto clause only applies to criminal law.  Administrative law agencies enact ex post facto regulations all the time.  See also Smith v. Doe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Doe

Comment #4: Dave  on  12/20  at  10:41 AM

What great people these Proposition 8 folks are.

Comment #5: Notorious P.A.T.  on  12/20  at  10:45 AM

How nice.  Didn’t these people say during the campaign that the amendment wouldn’t change existing marriages and civil unions? 

Mark my words - if they’re successful with this (or even if they aren’t), they’ll be after civil union benefits next.

Comment #6: Dave  on  12/20  at  11:10 AM

As is typical with conservatives, the Christianist bigots got greedy and overreached. Karen L. Strauss, whoever that hatemonger is, has opened up the basis of a countersuit that will help invalidate Prososition 8 sooner rather than later.

Comment #7: Factcheck  on  12/20  at  11:16 AM

I suspect it was no accident that they filed this brief six days before Christmas. These are cruel, heartless, spiteful, greedy people. As others have said, we can only hope that the revelation of their true colors for the world to see will backfire in big, painful ways.

Comment #8: FundamentallyFlawed  on  12/20  at  01:06 PM

OK, who’s actually surprised.  They’ll be attempting to get the California Domestic Partnership law repealed as well.  Prop 8 was about more than marriage—it was part of their larger goal of making queer lives unlivable.  They really are out to destroy us.

Comment #9: MAJeff, God of Biscuits  on  12/20  at  01:23 PM

“I suspect it was no accident that they filed this brief six days before Christmas.”

...I suspect if they could have filed it on Christmas Day, they would have, just to pound the point harder.  And getting Ken “There’s a Cum-Stain On Monica’s Dress” Starr to do it?...

I think they’re seriously overreaching, and they’re going to pay a serious price for this assault on people who pose no threat to them at all.  This looks like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory…

Comment #10: MikeEss  on  12/20  at  01:35 PM

I suspect it was no accident that they filed this brief six days before Christmas.

I now have visions of Ken Starr bellowing “CRACHETT, YOU’RE WORKING THROUGH CHRISTMAS!”

Because gays aren’t allowed to have happy family memories of married christmas with their kids. That’s reserved for White people with the right religion who are rich.

Comment #11: karpad  on  12/20  at  01:47 PM

Somebody breaks an old lady’s styrofoam cross and it’s proof that GLBT folk are mean ol’ haters..
Somebody wants to shred the marriage licenes of 18,000 couples and it’s proof that they’re dedicated to “protecting marriage”>
Assholes. If they could, they’d visit each couple individually, rip up their licence in front and them, and dance around going “Neener, neener, neener!”
And of course, if they DID do that and one of the couples chased them off the premises with a baseball bat, they’d say, “See! THEY’RE the truly intolerant ones!”

Comment #12: Bill S  on  12/20  at  01:54 PM

I think they’re seriously overreaching, and they’re going to pay a serious price for this assault on people who pose no threat to them at all.  This looks like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory…

and I even see the sentence upon which to hang that beatdown.
“Proposition 8’s brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions.” Really, Ken Starr? you, the guy who when hunting for adultery when chartered to search for corruption based on real estate, are going to claim that clear mandates have no wiggle room? “Thou shalt not kill” is even more brief and unambiguous and still has endless finagling.

I might take the interpretation that “a man and a woman” makes it singular. A married couple can divorce, obviously, but if either wishes to remarry, they can only remarry the same person, since it does not include a clause for “a man and a different woman after divorce, or a woman and a different man after divorce.” How would the voters of California feel about nullifying all second+ marriages in the state?

The overwhelming hubris of claiming that you’ve crafted a legal phrase without confusions deserves a swift pummeling.

Comment #13: karpad  on  12/20  at  01:59 PM

Can gays just refuse to pay CA taxes or honor any contract they want now?  California has declared they are unequal, and if “all men are created equal”, they can’t be “men” anymore.  Logically, they are not responsible for taxes (any more than my non-“man” cat has to shell out), and any contract would hold even less water than a contract with a 3yo, who at least is an acknowledged “man”, not a legal untermench.  See if California is more dedicated to $$$ or Mormons.

Comment #14: Phalamir  on  12/20  at  02:11 PM

I could be very naive here, but I’m with Factcheck. I think this will prove to be an overreach that might be good for our side in the long-run. Legally, I think they are on very thin ice, especially given they are going before the same state Supreme Court that found a right to marry in the state constitution. Politically, despite the passage of Prop 8, I think trying to nullify existing marriages looks really bad. But philosophically, they practically have no choice but to pursue this. I have everything crossed for those whose marriages are threatened.

Comment #15: chingona  on  12/20  at  03:07 PM

Where can we donate to something?

Seriously, I didn’t donate to No on 8 and I have felt awful about it since then (I didn’t think they’d need my help - I mean, California! CALIFORNIA!!). I can help now at least.

Comment #16: Ellen the Eclectic  on  12/20  at  03:08 PM

Well, this doesn’t surprise me in the least. Christians are finally showing us what they truly believe in. 

Control.

Hatred.

Running other people’s lives.

Shoving their bullshit down everybody’s throats.

You really can tell they are Christians by what they love…

Comment #17: dejah thoris  on  12/20  at  03:57 PM

Makes me wonder if Jerry Brown has been playing the long game this whole time. I always assumed that if Prop 8 passed that some asshole would challenge those marriages. Maybe Brown knew that was the key to getting this back in front of the CA Supremes, who would then nail it down once and for all.

Comment #18: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  12/20  at  04:29 PM

Let’s not jump to conclusions:

“I suspect it was no accident that they filed this brief six days before Christmas.”

Their filing date was dictated by the CA Supreme Court. As was our side’s filing date, set forth in the same court order for January 5, 2009.

+++++++++

My wife and I were married this past summer in early August. My mother officiated. We were married at my wife’s parents’ home in front of over 50 people. So much for family values, eh?

If the court hears oral arguments in March and agrees with the yes on Prop 8 side we could be unmarried by June, 90 days after oral arguments, and 2 months short of our first wedding anniversary.

Comment #19: teac  on  12/20  at  05:15 PM

“I now have visions of Ken Starr bellowing “CRACHETT, YOU’RE WORKING THROUGH CHRISTMAS!” “

the sad thing is that ken starr is actually very personable in real life.  it’s too bad he’s batshit crazy.  i hope this case proves the tipping point and prop 8 gets invalidated altogether.

Comment #20: chareth  on  12/20  at  05:28 PM

karpad, how about ‘Ken Starr is poking into people’s private lives again’?

Comment #21: hf  on  12/20  at  07:09 PM

Since the text reads
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

There’s no surprise Ken Starr should be arguing the bigot position. He is, after all, the right-wing expert on what the meaning of “is” is.

Comment #22: paul  on  12/20  at  07:10 PM

You homosexualists are going about this all wrong.  You’d be much better off if you’d make a big show of JOINING with these Prop 8 folks under the condition that ALL marriages are invalidated.  At least, that would be my strategery if I was one of you, which I’m not, in spite of the assless chaps and the brandy alexanders (which are simply eccentric lifestyle choices of an intensely hetero nature).

Comment #23: RUGGED IN MONTANA  on  12/20  at  09:48 PM

Fuck.

Alright. These fuckers want war, I hope we can give them war they will not soon forget. It is time to end the Culture War forever and I wish I was a fucking billionare so I could wade in on this. SCOTUS. Challange the 501 c 3 of the Mormon, Catholic, Saddleback and every other fucker who thinks they can TAKE RIGHTS FROM OTHER AMERICANS. Scorcher earth, strip the power to influence politics forever. File civil suit after civil suit, bankrupt the fuckers just like we did the neo-nazis and white aryan resistance. Investigate the dark closets of each of these assholes and publish everything.

Obama, the gauntlet has been thrown down, I was going to brush off this whole Warren business but fuck him, his church and every single mouthbreathing assclown of the religious right. STAND UP FOR THEM AS THEY STOOD UP FOR YOU.

Dammit, I am FUCKING MAD.

Comment #24: Grandjester  on  12/20  at  10:14 PM

“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

see, this is my point. just because you leave it at a sentence, absentee homobigots, does not mean it is uncomplicated.

Define Marriage. The sentence you provide there is “only marriage between a man and a woman” language which implies there is such an entity, just that you don’t recognize it, which is similar to “guarantee not valid in Nebraska” notations. It’s still there, and a legal entity, just not one you acknowledge. rather odd to concede the existence of something you’re trying to legislate into nonexistence. Now, if you defined marriage as a contract between a man and a woman, you’d have something. but no, you stop short of that.

Nevermind the precedent set.

I still have never, ever heard an explanation as to why the various anti-marriage bits doesn’t violate the full faith and credit clause. So long as Massachusetts recognizes it, all other states are obligated to recognize hose marriages, just like everyone has to acknowledge Vegas marriages, no matter how sleazy.

Comment #25: karpad  on  12/21  at  12:36 AM

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Prop. 8 does not give the state any power to dissolve people’s marriages. Whom the State of California hath joined together, let no man put asunder. The summer’s same-sex marriages were valid when entered into. These marriages established legal relationships between thousands of couples.

Attempting to interpret Prop. 8 to force these couples to return to their previous status would violate not the Ex Post Facto clause, but the Constitution’s Contracts Clause, which forbids the impairment of contracts. This past summer, marriage was a contract between two people of whichever sex.

Further, dissolving their marriages would make the state liable for millions of dollars in economic damages. These couples changed their positions based on their marriages: they sold and bought houses, gave up apartments, bought furniture, moved from SF to LA and vice versa.

Going forward, Prop. 8 may prevent new same-sex marriages from being recognized. But it gives the state no more power to dissolve same sex marriages than the state has to dissolve opposite sex marriages.

Comment #26: Hector B.  on  12/21  at  02:08 AM

After having read the brief linked to on this page, I do not see how Ken Starr’s group has standing to challenge the marriages validly entered into over the summer. What injury have they sustained, that can only be remedied by dissolving other people’s marriages? The court should kick their pleadings ASAP.

Comment #27: Hector B.  on  12/21  at  02:27 AM

Can couples sue the state for this? It seems to me that people spent anything from a few dollar for a license, to some serious travel and wedding spending with the understanding they would get a contract entitling them to a lifetime of benefits, which is now under threat of being taken away without their consent.

Comment #28: Samantha Vimes  on  12/21  at  05:46 AM

Silly, gays aren’t human and don’t have rights to sue.  It’s okay to fleece them for marriage licenses and shit because you can’t do that to real people.

Seriously, this is what these assholes are saying. Gay people aren’t human. Meanwhile, this kind of shit exposes them for the hateful bigots they really are.

Comment #29: ginmar  on  12/21  at  08:37 PM

Dave—

I pointed out, right after Prop 8 passed, that it was in conflict with another provision of the California Constitution, which specifically prohibits ex-post facto laws that affect *contracts*

Add in that it is on record from the California Supreme Court that a marriage is a *contract* between two individuals, and you find the conflict.

Anybody who thought that these maroons wouldn’t try to invalidate all same-sex marriages was asleep.

It was also a stated goal in Massachusetts if they could have gotten the anti-same-sex marriage amendment passed here.

Thse people are oppressive bigots who want what *their* religion states is “right” enshrinbed into law at the expense of *all*

Comment #30: Craig R.  on  12/22  at  03:01 AM

Dave,

I think you are partially wrong on the ex post facto thing.  If any law works a harm to me for something I did in a good faith belief that such thing was legal might be, IMHO, challenged.  Let’s say they passed a law in all their bigotted gloriousness that a Jew and a Gentile could not be business partners.  Now never mind the US Constitution for the nounce.  Let suppose that my buddy Silverstein and I made a pretty big investment and that while it had done pretty good for awhile it was now worth substantially less.  Well now we have to dissolve our partnership and take a loss.  Getting the idea?  I think I (we) have an actionable cause.  What say you?

I don’t think it’s much different.  Since the bastards don’t care about the hearts they’re breaking perhaps there is legal recouse because of unconstitutional “takings.”  At least the bastards would have to deal with several thousand potentially ugly law suits.  Just a thought.  Could be wrong.

Comment #31: Magis  on  12/22  at  08:02 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.