Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

With the reality that some want to revoke "18K" CA gay marriages

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
SHRED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:56 AM
Original message
With the reality that some want to revoke "18K" CA gay marriages
My sister asked me these questions:

"How will the state know which marriages are same-sex (other than the very public ones like Ellen..) since the revised marriage license simply says Party A and Party B – no gender distinction or box to check – for that matter how do they know there are 18k – secret tally based upon observation when the license was obtained?"

Anyone have answers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. You have to present a birth certificate, driver's license, or state-issued ID to get a license
Edited on Sat Dec-20-08 10:13 AM by slackmaster
All of that information is recorded, and all of the forms of acceptable ID indicate gender.

They can pull the information by a simple database query, if they really want to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SHRED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Does the public have access?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. There are two types of marriage license in California - Public and Confidential
The public has access to Public licenses; anyone can get a copy of a particular one for a small fee. Confidential ones are protected from scrutiny by the general public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hendo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Odd
I wonder if the confidential license was created for celebrities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Either that or to allow families to keep the lid on "shotgun" marriages
A lot of people opt for the Confidential option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
6. They have our birth certificate information
Also they have our names which in most cases are fairly gender specific. At any rate, the second anybody tried to get benefits of any kind as a married couple they'd be denied because their marriage wasn't valid (should the bigots win). So my marriage was legal for all of four months before it was thrown into limbo, and now I may be forcibly divorced by a bunch of bigots with money, power and a shitload of hatred.

If they could experience 1/10th of the pain and suffering they've caused us it might be worth it, the scum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RetiredTrotskyite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. That SUCKS!
for the goddamned fundies to be able (possibly) to forcibly divorce you. :hug: What the fuck ever happened to "ex post facto". If your marriage was legal for four months, then it should STAY legal. Those fucking, smug-faced bastard HYPOCRITES! More and more I am inclined to move to Canada. This country only gives a shit about the bigots and their money, power, and privilege. :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ioo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
7. If they due revoke them, My lawyer will be filing a lawsuit on CA to recoup costs
Edited on Sat Dec-20-08 03:38 PM by Ioo
We were told that even if prop 8 passed that those done would be legal because they were legal and props can not be retroactive... We will sue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchtv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I'll want my fee back , too
fuck all those religious RW scumbags who voted that hateful change, including.\ Rick Warren et al
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SHRED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I would sue for the entire cost of the wedding
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

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