Prop 8 Sponsors Want to Nix 18,000 Gay Marriages
The sponsors of Proposition 8 are asking the California Supreme Court to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters last month approved the ballot initiative"
Look, sorry you fascists, but that's simply impossible.
1.) It's called a Grandfather clause and that means you can't just make something illegal or void something with an ex post facto law.
2.) Prop 8 has zero legal standing. It was a Constitutional Amendment passed as a proposition by simple majority without ever having gone through the state legislative bodies. Even in the legislature you need to have a two thirds majority to pass.
3.) You do not have the required "compelling justification" for the nullification of 18,000 marriages, especially when it would cost the state millions
4.) Stick it, assholes.
Showing posts with label ex post facto. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ex post facto. Show all posts
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Court Finds Necrophilia is Illegal Even When Using A Condom
Men to face charge after court finds necrophilia is illegal in Wisconsin even when using a condom
"Three men accused of trying to dig up a grave in Wisconsin in order to have sex with a dead woman entered not guilty pleas this week. The twin brothers, Alex and Nicholas Grunke, and Dustin Radke (all pictured) are alleged to have attempted to remove the body of a 20 year-old woman killed..."
Labels:
consent,
ex post facto,
law,
Necrophilia,
Nicholas Grunke,
Wisconsin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Interestingly enough Wisconsin /is/ one of the many states where there is an actual exclusion in the law making it legally impossible to rape your spouse - i.e. they are considered always consenting regardless of circumstances, including inflicting bodily harm.
Additionally, there's this whole thing called "ex post facto" which says that you can't create a law that doesn't exist, to punish someone, 'cause it's just a little unconstitutional. Not just against the Bill of Rights, no, it's in the constitution itself, right next to Habeus Corpus.
A laughably bizarre case to follow. And only /one/ of them actually wanted to have sex with the corpse.