I’ve heard a lot of people in the business have been screwed by their business managers.
[QUOTE=Walloon]
Anyone know if the proposed amendment to the California constitution would retroactively void existing same-sex marriages?
[/QUOTE]
If the text that I found the other day is in fact the text that was submitted to the CA AG for certification, yes:
However, there are a number of “marriage amendments” floating around the net so this may not be the actual submitted text.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
It’s good at least until November, when there might be a constitutional amendment against gay marriage on the ballot, which might or might not pass. Otherwise, the Supreme Court of California has spoken, no one in the state can gainsay them, and the SCOTUS has no grounds to get involved.
[/QUOTE]
Last I heard, the ruling is not valid until 90 days after the ruling was issued. In that 30 day period, the court could grant a stay of the ruling until the November election to avoid potential problems associated with people getting married in the interim.
Ah, California, making the right decision about basic civil rights, yet putting the power to revoke them up to a general vote.
Here’s hoping California voters have grown up a bit since March 2000.
[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
Last I heard, the ruling is not valid until 90 days after the ruling was issued. In that 30 day period, the court could grant a stay of the ruling
[/QUOTE]
90 day … 30 day … er, what? 
[QUOTE=Walloon]
I’ve heard a lot of people in the business have been screwed by their business managers.
[/QUOTE]
Win!
Bravo for the grooms!
And I am not even a trekkie!
So, the writers of this possible amendment not only want to discriminate against homosexuals, they want to make it impossible for transsexuals to marry after reconstructive surgery. And they want to make civil unions pointless as well.
Which makes the writers of this possible amendment bigoted assholes of the first water. I hope to God the voters of CA squash this evil thing.
[QUOTE=phouka]
So, the writers of this possible amendment not only want to discriminate against homosexuals, they want to make it impossible for transsexuals to marry after reconstructive surgery.
[/QUOTE]
No, transsexuals can marry, but they are required to have gay marriages. Transmen can marry men, transwomen can marry women.
The trouble with transsexuals for the anti-gay marriage types is that unless they just completely prohibit transexuals from marrying, they’re going to have to allow some marriages that could be interpreted as gay marriages. Let transwomen marry men and transmen marry women? That’s gay marriage in their eyes, since that transwoman is “really” a man–we can’t let them marry another man! Let transwomen marry women and transmen marry men? That’s gay marriage too–two people who look like women marrying each other! Two people who look like men marrying each other!
[QUOTE=Walloon]
90 day … 30 day … er, what?
[/QUOTE]
oops. 30 days all around.