Wouldn't they still be married? Since technically they did it when it was still legal. kingdre
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"
Disgusted to live in a state with that in the constitution. Not only will they not marry homosexuals, they won't even acknowledge that they're married. Sickening.
[QUOTE="kingdre"]Wouldn't they still be married? Since technically they did it when it was still legal. AlternatingCaps
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"
Disgusted to live in a state with that in the constitution. Not only will they not marry homosexuals, they won't even acknowledge that they're married. Sickening.
On the other hand, it does open the ban to a US Constitutional challenge, since that is in clear contradiction to Full Faith and Credit.
[QUOTE="kingdre"]Wouldn't they still be married? Since technically they did it when it was still legal. xaos
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"
Disgusted to live in a state with that in the constitution. Not only will they not marry homosexuals, they won't even acknowledge that they're married. Sickening.
On the other hand, it does open the ban to a US Constitutional challenge, since that is in clear contradiction to Full Faith and Credit.
Keeping my fingers crossed that the courts will fix it again.
[QUOTE="kingdre"]Wouldn't they still be married? Since technically they did it when it was still legal. AlternatingCaps
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"
Disgusted to live in a state with that in the constitution. Not only will they not marry homosexuals, they won't even acknowledge that they're married. Sickening.
Ah....at least one good thing came from this election.
[QUOTE="kingdre"]Wouldn't they still be married? Since technically they did it when it was still legal. -Austin-
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"
Disgusted to live in a state with that in the constitution. Not only will they not marry homosexuals, they won't even acknowledge that they're married. Sickening.
Ah....at least one good thing came from this election.
A Libertarian who supports the state restricting people's rights, and state interference in general? Way to be consistent!
[QUOTE="kingdre"]Wouldn't they still be married? Since technically they did it when it was still legal. xaos
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"
Disgusted to live in a state with that in the constitution. Not only will they not marry homosexuals, they won't even acknowledge that they're married. Sickening.
On the other hand, it does open the ban to a US Constitutional challenge, since that is in clear contradiction to Full Faith and Credit.
Indeed it does. I am assuming it will be challenged and eventually be pushed up to the supreme court who will hopefully push us ahead away from the dark ages of civil oppression in which we apparently dwell in the state of California.
Log in to comment