3 ms·
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721891, which I will quote in part: "Prop 8 would not and did not "nul
by BrendanEich 7y ago
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721891, which I will quote in part:
"Prop 8 would not and did not "nullify" any marriages licensed by the state in the middle of 2008. See
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Prop-8-not-retroactive-Jerry-Brown-says-3274457.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Prop-8-not-retroactive...
Retroactive or ex-post-facto law is unconstitutional. I am a big fan of this principle. It protects all of us."
I did not support nullification, and it was never going to happen, because it would have been unconstitutional, as then-AG/once-and-future-governor Jerry Brown said. What's more, Prop 8 actually passed, and no nullifications occurred.
- groby_b 7y agoWith all due respect, discriminating against gay people was also unconstitutional, that didn't stop it from being introduced. And nullification was a part of what prop 8 proponents asked for from the very beginning. (And filed a lawsuit to achieve right after prop 8 passed) You chose your bed to lie in, part and parcel - because that's how voting on & supporting propositions works. You don't get to claim post-hoc you were only supporting parts of it.
- BrendanEich 7y agoI'm not claiming anything "post-hoc", because I have never supported retroactive laws. Have you? Or were you ignorant of their unconstitutionality and projecting that ignorance onto me? I voted for Obama in 2008, but I didn't endorse everything he did or stood for. If you voted for him, were you at that time lying in bed with his rejection of marriage equality? Answer honestly, and by your own phony standard! You don't get to claim "post-hoc" that you were clairvoyantly counting on him to "evolve" in 2012. Your reply is deeply dishonest.