10,000 marrages at risk, make that 11,000. A common queston addressed.

[johno]

Regarding last night's post by me and many others.

A common response is to ask is "where does the 10K count come from?"

I did some digging today, the base is a study from:

The Williams Institute
UCLA School of Law

http://www.law.ucla.edu/WilliamsInstitute/publications/CASSMarriageCounts.pdf



Also, some folks have asked, in comments to my post and to other posts...

But the prop doesn't say anything about annulling the existing marriages.

True, the prop only changes a definition, but changing the definition changes the basis of the marriage. It is expected (souce unconfirmed) that the "Yes on 8" support groups would follow with a push for laws and/or lawsuits to invalidate the existing marriages.


"Are not domestic partnerships the same?"

I collected several ideas, but I think I'll just stick was a basic simple one:

"Seperate but Equal" is not was equal rights for all means.

Comments

[kproche.livejournal.com]

The exact text of the proposition:

SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.

This immediately puts the 10,000+ legally valid same-sex marriage licenses that have been granted since the state Supreme Court ruling at odds with the state constitution.

In other words, Andy and I become "constitutionally inconvenient".