|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
leftyladyfrommo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-12-08 11:59 AM Original message |
Just wondering. What does prop 8 mean for Ellen DeGeneres? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Systematic Chaos (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-12-08 12:02 PM Response to Original message |
1. Not to mention George Takei (Star Trek) who just got married a couple weeks ago. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rox63 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-12-08 12:10 PM Response to Original message |
2. I don't know if Prop 8 invalidates marriages that have already taken place |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
stray cat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-12-08 12:11 PM Response to Original message |
3. No word yet on whether it has an effect on previous marriages is there? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bushisanidiot (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-12-08 12:11 PM Response to Original message |
4. I dunno. Maybe she and several others should demand to be arrested since they are now |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
underseasurveyor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-12-08 12:15 PM Response to Original message |
5. I heard that it will not affect those already married |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Starry Messenger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-12-08 12:15 PM Response to Original message |
6. It's still up in the air. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sabriel (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-12-08 12:17 PM Response to Original message |
7. How could it NOT nullify those past marriages? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GreenPartyVoter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-12-08 12:42 PM Response to Reply #7 |
8. There is no language in the prop that makes it retroactive, therefore it does not |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
petronius (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-12-08 01:01 PM Response to Reply #8 |
11. I think it's going to require some clarification from a higher court |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kajsa (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-12-08 12:50 PM Response to Reply #7 |
9. The former, legal marriages remain |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
suston96 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-12-08 12:53 PM Response to Original message |
10. It's in the US Constitution - "ex post facto"....Google it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Wed May 01st 2024, 07:04 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC