Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
ROCK, FLAG & EEEEAGLE! -> The No Sonicu Forum -> uh oh homos
Post Info TOPIC: uh oh homos
Jason


Only in cartoons

Status: Offline
Posts: 4655
Date:
RE: uh oh homos
Permalink  

I wonder if she'll actually go through with it.

__________________
Jason: a demanding lover
Jasno: a lover in demand
MATHSEX


MASTER BATOR

Status: Offline
Posts: 1164
Date:
Permalink  

it's win-win: if she doesn't get jail time, she will retain her liberty. however, if she gets thrown in the slammer, she's in a sexy situation with oodles of chicks

__________________
MorisUkunRasik


World's Strongest Millionaire

Status: Offline
Posts: 4715
Date:
Permalink  

lol oodles

__________________


"Moris should be here soon to rub it in my face..." -Pizza
Jason


Only in cartoons

Status: Offline
Posts: 4655
Date:
Permalink  

Except she's married...

__________________
Jason: a demanding lover
Jasno: a lover in demand
MorisUkunRasik


World's Strongest Millionaire

Status: Offline
Posts: 4715
Date:
Permalink  

not anymore!

__________________


"Moris should be here soon to rub it in my face..." -Pizza
MorisUkunRasik


World's Strongest Millionaire

Status: Offline
Posts: 4715
Date:
Permalink  

BUZZ ZING!

__________________


"Moris should be here soon to rub it in my face..." -Pizza
john31584


Zinc Saucier

Status: Offline
Posts: 5420
Date:
Permalink  

It's not clear if the marriages that already took place are still valid.

The state attorney general has already said that he won't pursue any legal action to invalidate them, so they'll probably remain in effect.

__________________
DEATHPIGGIE


I'm fat and nobody likes me

Status: Offline
Posts: 8440
Date:
Permalink  

Would it or would it not violate the constitution's prohibition of ex post facto laws? That seems like a good defense to invalidate at least the retroactive part of the law, but I haven't heard anyone talk about it.

__________________
4176_72679264115_502169115_1632781_7399058_n.jpg
john31584


Zinc Saucier

Status: Offline
Posts: 5420
Date:
Permalink  

Maybe. Both the California and U.S. constitutions prohibit ex post facto laws, but it's really hard to say if it will apply here.

If there is an attempt in the state to invalidate the same-sex marriages, the best argument against it, under the U.S. constitution, would be the Contracts Clause.

"No State shall...pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts"

Basically, this means that a state can't pass a law invalidating contracts that have already been entered. It was the main basis for constitutional challenges of the actions of state governments before the passage of the 14th Amendment.

__________________
«First  <  1 2 3 | Page of 3  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
ROCK, FLAG & EEEEAGLE! -> The No Sonicu Forum -> uh oh homos
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard