The Black Vault

I gave all my reasons here a long time ago, and voted according to my preference on the issue, which nobody needs to be browbeaten for, shamed over, nor be ridiculed for, and called morons for. Least of all, they do not owe to anyone, to produce a valid reason. That is why our founding Fathers designed our elections to be secret ballots. That is why its called a Democracy, everyone differs of all issues, for their own reasons. Our ballot had a measure far bigger than this one in this months election, and not one person has mentioned it, nor did it conger up inflammatory feelings. It was hardly even mentioned in the voting results. Nobody batted an eye when the death penalty was just upheld, another issue that has been in the Supreme Courts for decades. If you want to contend the courts do not matter, that is incorrect completely. It has taken the courts to insure all our laws concerning all discrimination, and civil rights, and issues like abortion, the Death Penalty, rights of Religions, and many many issues are decided, according to knowing what our laws mean. Laws protecting gays, have come from these courts, and they are mandated for all of us to go by. This is one of them too. It may be in appeal, however it will be upheld, and in the meantime I believe they are allowing gay marriage to go ahead.

According to our laws and State Constitution, this measure was on the ballot, not to make same sex marriage illegal, but to define what was never said in black and white, marriage would be defined as a Man and Woman. That verbage was never in black and white, because it was just a given assumption. It was not a measure that was worded, "Lets make it illegal for gays to get married". The gays rights groups were testing the fact it doesn't say Man and Woman, it did not say either way. Prop 8 only was to add those words, and clarify in writing the requirement.

This has now been or very soon will be in enough states, that the conclusion is, it should just be adopted nationwide, and avoid decades of fights, and interstate conflicts in confusion over filing status problems.

I voted in favor of Prop 8, just like 51% of my state did, and similar outcomes in other states did. The measure was done according to law, and placed on the ballot, I also accept that the court systems have spoken and this is going to be implemented in our society. We live by the laws we enact in our country. In times when our Democracy fails someplace, our system has 3 branches of Government, to decide some of these judicial dilemmas that pose conflicts in moral and ethical ways of thinking. It may go against your belief sometimes, and that does not mean your belief is wrong, it means the law conforms to include everyone.

I would think if the issue was that clear, this time and the previous time I mentioned, all 7 justices would have ruled in favor, however the court was split by on vote each time, there were different legal perspectives, just like the voters had different perspectives in the matter. The issue is just tipping the scales.

I'll say it outright... no one SHOULD be knocking you for the way you feel. I am not.

I don't agree, in fact, I strongly disagree, but I was outvoted in California on Prop 8.

Even as more states enact it, I am sure it will not just be thrown on the docket in all 50 and it will end all debate. I am sure this was be an issue long after I am gone.

You brought up the death penalty, and that is still not enacted in 50 states... and debated every day. I did not bring it up here, as that is a different topic altogether, but since you did, it does prove my point this issue, actually THESE ISSUES, will never be "put to rest."

In short, to your death penalty point, I just don't see how killing shows that killing is wrong. Just sayin'

(Maybe we should start a thread elsewhere to debate the death penalty point)

Who used the term moron in this debate , and who else was badgered to show a "valid" reason, and justify how they may have voted several times? I brought up these other issues and our courts, because sometimes our Democracy gets it wrong, and dilemmas result in a conflict of rights over ethical issues. The California State Constitution provides the voters to amend their Constitution with a 50% vote of the voters. But in doing so according to our Constitution, it violated the civil rights of some people, according to the opinions of 4 out of 7 justices. But 3 also agreed with the 51% of the voters, for sound legal reasons. So be it, prop 8 is being overturned, we live with the results, and let it go.

So we have a tie breaker, and we live with this system in our Democracy. Like I said the mood of the courts changes, with the mood of administrations, from Conservative thinking to liberal thinking. This State is known as more liberal in its mindset, but we certainly have no shortage of Conservative thinking people. John, you yourself are very liberal in some areas, but also very Conservative in other areas. Like the state, you have a balanced outlook, depending on the issue involved. I know your view on the death penalty, but you also were a strong Bush supporter, who you know was Governor of Texas, who is very active using the Death Penalty, and also not a backer of Gay marriage or abortion. I know you, no more advocated torture or killing babies in Iraq supporting Bush, any more than someone voting in favor of prop 8 should be labeled a homophobic gay hating bigot. Voters, court judges, Presidents, gays and straights alike, all have Conservative and liberal sides to them, what is a bigger example of that, than this issue being so split down the middle? In a liberal State, the voters still have not voted to abolish the death penalty.

Brings up another question, why shouldn't issues like this and the death penalty, just be decided once and for all with a federal blanket ruling? Abortion was!

The only issue I have here is....are people allowing their religion to make the decision for them? Or are they making the decision based on their own feelings about it? I've got no problem with their votes either way if it's based on the latter.

We can never progress as a species as long as people continue to let primitive unsophisticated humans do their thinking for them.

Who you callin' liberal?

If consenting adults want to get married, then that's their business. People shouldn't be able to violate other people's rights, just to push religious dogma.

Greeny's position appears to be that in this democracy we should be entitled to vote what's in our hearts.

While I agree that we are so entitled, voting to support a ban on gay marriage does, as you say, violate other people's rights.

Even in a democracy, should the majority be able to take away some people's rights? I don't think so. For example, if the majority supported Jim Crow laws, that would not be cool at all. A ban on gay marriage amounts to taking away rights from some people.

If it was that simple, why is it that on 2 occasions, the California Supreme Court rulings were split 4-3, and 3-4, and not 7-0? Each occasion 3 or 4 judges had sound legal reason for their rulings, the court, like the voters, was split down the middle. The very same argument you give, the same could be said for the requirements of civil unions. Read the requirements for civil unions, they have a age requirement of 62 for opposite sex unions, or they must be same sex unions otherwise.

greeney2 wrote:If it was that simple, why is it that on 2 occasions, the California Supreme Court rulings were split 4-3, and 3-4, and not 7-0? Each occasion 3 or 4 judges had sound legal reason for their rulings, the court, like the voters, was split down the middle. The very same argument you give, the same could be said for the requirements of civil unions. Read the requirements for civil unions, they have a age requirement of 62 for opposite sex unions, or they must be same sex unions otherwise.

So are you saying that all split decisions are somehow invalid?

No, what I have said is the issue has been split down the middle both by the voters 51-49%, and by the court rulings. If the issue was as clear cut legally, 2 times the court rulings would not have been decided by one vote. In both of these 2 landmark rulings, each side of the argument has strong legal merit.

Are you telling us that there is absolutely no legal reasons for how these 7 judges saw the issue, that sided with prop 8 and ruled no discrimination in the prior case? First time 4-3 they ruled there was no such discrimination against gays, because of the existing federal civil rights laws and the provisions for civil unions. This time around, 3 judges still ruled to uphold Prop 8, 4 to overturn it, so the prop was overturned. If what you say is completely true about Jim Crow laws (I do not agree), why would you not have seen 7-0 in both of these ruling? That the Jim Crow laws were so obviously, no other conclusion could be arrived? That was not the case, and I am not sure the Jim Crow laws have even been in the cases at all.

The conclusion is that, in this heated debate, there is legal merit for both sides of the argument. Like it or not, that is a fact. Average the results of the 2 landmark cases and its 7-7, hardly a one sided result. As we all know, the court is deciding now if they uphold the overturn, or if they will hear arguments for the appeal.