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]

Here's the problem with the initiative regardless of which side you are on -- the people who are squicked by same-sex marriage thought they could solve it by simply inserting one line into one section of the California state constitution.

They took no notice of all the assorted ramifications and overlapping constitutional and legislative components that affect how the state deals with recognizing couples in the state. Not to mention the actually very messy question of how one defines "man" and "woman" (see http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Essays/marriage.html for elucidation of that little problem).

So, if this proposition passes, we end up with one hell of a mess. It probably won't actually do what supporters claim they want and will likely make life hellishly more complicated for those of us who got married this year.