A lot of–if not most of–the money pushing prop 8 is from out of state.
In the interest of accuracy; both sides raised a lot of money from out of state. The percentage of out of state funds is about equal on both sides.
If you go to the links I provided, you’ll see that the LDS Church donated a little over $2k every seven days. You’ll also see some business owners in southern Utah who made private donations of $10,000, and then donations in the names of their business of $10,000. I’m sure you can figure out the connection…
It may not be politically correct to say so, but I feel a whole lot different when it’s out-of-state Kossacks donating to preserve freedoms than when it’s out-of-state Mormons donating to oppress.
I don’t disagree, but it is slightly unbalanced reporting to say that the yes side has taken in a lot of out of state money without acknowledging that the no side has taken in basically the same amount from out of state.
I did my part to help raise in state money, I worked several times at the no on 8 campaign making calls and of course donated myself. Come on CA…NO ON 8!
Probably ticket, although arrest would be a bit extreme. Think of it this way: CA puts restrictions on under 18 year old drivers. Those restrictions apply to anyone with an out of state license, too. Or, do you think folks from Nevada can use their cell phones when they drive in CA? No way.
If Prop 8 passes how soon will same-sex marriage become illegal? Has there been a rush of couples getting quickie marriages in the last couple of days?
I was discussing FF&C with a couple of right wingers the other night as regards gay marriage, and they were under the impression that while all states do all blue sky other states driver’s licenses, this isn’t a FF&C requirement.
To be honest, I don’t know if it is or not (never took Conflicts…). But, I do know a state isn’t required to recognize other states’ CCW permits, for example, even if they have CCW themselves.
That’s actually where it gets very interesting. Given that legal gay marriages have been performed, what happens to those couples…
They will be deported to MA, of course. 
I think the courts will not revoke any marriages already performed. Those couples will have to endure the misery of marriage like the rest of us!
So essentially FF&C is toothless? If two states have an identical law in every respect than FF&C operates. But if they differ in the details even a little than FF&C cannot attach?
Seems a bizarrely simple way to bypass the US Constitution.
As for the cell phones not sure that is comparable. That denotes how you must operate your car while in California. Like obeying California speed limits even if Nevada has higher speed limits. It is a bigger step to say you simply cannot drive than it is to say you cannot use your cell phone.
The Ventura County clerk was on the news last night. He said that he’d keep allowing the marriages until the election is certified should 8 pass. That could be tomorrow sometime of, if there is a recount or something, up to a couple of weeks. Courthouses have reportedly been packed for the last couple of weeks with same sex couples looking to marry.
If it passes, there will no doubt be court challenges about the existing marriages.
That (again, as I understand it) doesn’t make a difference. FF&C doesn’t compel one state to change its laws. If a state says “gays can’t be married here,” FF&C doesn’t require them to recognize diddly. All it does is say that, if two states have the same laws for something, then doing it in one state counts as doing it in the other.
I believe that it would be, yes.
They can’t revoke the marriages. So hasn’t the damage already been done to that holy institution of marriage?
I understand, but they had to get it on the ballot in the first place, which includes collecting a whole bunch of signatures, and isn’t cheap. The last coupled of times they tried this they didn’t get enough. This is like a national issue to some people, because if it happens in California, it can happen in other states.
Just to debate this point only: Why not?
That would be like saying (and please don’t take this any further than for textual purposes) that when slavery was outlawed by amendment that a court shouldn’t overturn a prior slave-owner relationship.
I think unless explicitly detailed in the law a grandfather exception (making up legal terms) applies. So if you stole bread today and they made it illegal tomorrow (go with me on this) they cannot bust you. I have not read Prop 8 language but unless it explicitly undoes previous marriages then I think they stand.
The 13th Amendment explicitly made slavery illegal in the United States. Period. It said it shall not exist in the US. The language denied its existence anywhere in our borders.
“Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Emphasis added. Even if marriages already performed aren’t revoked, do you honestly think that there won’t be waves of jackasses champing at the bit to strip away all of the legal benefits of marriages from gay married couples the instant Prop. 8 passes? Wills will be contested, hospital visitation rights will be denied, and what recourse will a gay married couple in California have if their marriage is suddenly neither valid nor recognized?
There seems to be some debate about that among legal experts. Why do you think that “they” can’t? “They” often do things we don’t want “them” to do.
Oh, this is going to be a never ending battle. Well, maybe not never ending, but it’s going to go for some time to come. Thing is, time is on the pro-SSM side. A few years ago this wouldn’t have stood a chance of being defeated. Prop 22 passed in 2000 with a significant majority.
I am not optimistic about Arizona. Even a large Obama turnout might not be a good thing if many of those voters are conservative Hispanics. The Mormons have been in full force here as well raising over 7 million dollars for the Yes side. Somehow, the Supreme Court will have to straighten this full faith and credit clause with regards to same sex marriage. I’d rather Obama appoint those judges.