Will California's Gay Marriage Ban Force Divorce?
Proposition 8, a California initiative that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, has passed. Because the measure amends the state constitution, it would effectively overrule the decision of the California Supreme Court that banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory.
But this leaves a convoluted side effect which will have a major impact on many Californians and others.
Thousands of same-sex couples married between the court decision in May and the vote on November 4. What will happen to those couples?
The law will either be interpreted as:
1) Those same-sex couples who are already married can stay married. But that would leave the dilemma of the state both approving same-sex marriage, and saying it's unconstitutional.
2) The marriages of those already married same-sex couples would be forcibly ended by the government. That would essentially mean the state would force married couples to divorce.
Neither one of these options is something that conservatives or liberals would fully support. The effects of the court decision and the vote cannot be ignored, and it will force this issue to stay in the public arena. Either way, this controversy is far from over.
And is also begs the question: does this mean that the state of California would define the polygamous marriages of most Biblical patriarchs as illegal?
"The federal appeals court in Atlanta on Friday halted Troy Anthony Davis’ execution, the third time his life has been spared shortly before he was to be put to death."
This is hard for us to believe and hard to write. The U. S. Supreme Court has refused to review the Troy Anthony Davis case. Davis was convicted of killing a police officer who was shot 17 years ago, and sentenced for execution.
All right, so no one but us is likely to care that this is our 100th entry in The Loveshade Family Blog. But it's a significant anniversary for us.
Davis was convicted of fatally shooting Mark Allen MacPhail, a 27-year-old officer killed on August 19, 1989. The court said it would meet on Friday to discuss the case, but hasn't said when it will make a decision on whether or not to reconsider it.
