You knew I couldn't let this one sit

[howeird]

kproche started it, and it has been picked up by most of my FL:

A "No" vote on Proposition 8 will annul no marriages.
A "Yes" vote on Proposition 8 will annul over 10,000 marriages.
Which vote is really protecting marriage?

Truth is, Prop 8 probably won't annul any marriages. Atty. Gen. Brown has said as much. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/04/BA8P1250FN.DTL&tsp=1

It's rare for a right to be taken away retroactively, and the language of the amendment does not say anything about reaching back into the past. Think about it - we have very strict drunk driving laws, but nobody is being thrown in jail who was arrested for DUI prior to those laws. People who smoked indoors prior to the anti-smoking ordinances got away with it and are Scott-free. My favorite two strip joints are still in operation because the courts ruled it illegal to close them down when the zoning laws were changed in an attempt to boot them out.

I'm still voting against Prop 8, but I wish my side would stick to the facts.

Comments

[bovil.livejournal.com]

Actually, I started it...

Brown is offering a legal opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

The proponents of Prop 8 believe and have in their ballot arguments the claim that the initiative will invalidate all same-sex marriages regardless of when and where they were performed. In the case of passage, they will sue to see that implementation follows their interpretation.

Your smoking analogy doesn't fly. People who smoked indoors prior to the anti-smoking ordinances weren't grandfathered in and allowed to continue smoking in bars.

The zoning laws example is better, and court cases may play out that way. However, the article you quote points out that ballot arguments have been used by courts to figure out "the will of the people" when interpreting an initiative statute.