Originally posted by: sactoking
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
That is the basis of my argument. California (I'm assuming) has some equal protection clause/amendment in its constitution that this new passed law is in direct conflict with. It will be heard and any sensible judge would rule against it.
That's exactly what California has, an equal protection clause. It's the same clause that caused the CA Supreme Court to rule against the last proposition that tried to ban gay marriage. Prop 22, I believe.
And for whomever was asking if it's retroactive, I do not believe that it can retroactively affect those who have already been married.
The difference is that Prop 8 is an amendment to the CA Constitution. None of the other measures were amendments, they were laws.
If Prop 8 is in fact passed, the effect will likely be this: The CA Constitution Equal Protection clause will state "Everyone has rights, blah, blah, blah..." Then later on the Constitution will say "This has been Amended to remove the ability for homosexuals to marry from the Equal protection Clause."
Considering that the Prop initially went before the CA Supreme Court and they rejected it as misleading, then it was reworded by the Atty General, then the CASC affirmed the Prop, I don't see them later ruling on it. Again, it is NOT in conflict with the CA Constitution, it CHANGES the CA Constitution.
Also, the wording it has is something to the effect of "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California", which means that the prior legal marriages would be null and void, as would other unions performed in other states.