|
what are you guys talking about?
I'm confused...
Actually, on reading the legislation it actually bars California from recognizing homosexual marriages as valid. That would apply retroactively.
But to answer the main question I think is going on: laws, both statutes and constitutional amendments are not automatically retroactive. They can be, but they don't have to be.
This amendment could have said "no homosexual marriages can be performed in California" and any marriages performed before the amendment passed would have remained valid since they were conducted while it was legal to do so...unless the amendment specifically said that previous ones were also invalid.
I'm not sure I'm getting what you are asking about differences between statutes and amendments.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
|