The Black Vault

We don't have to let justices do our thinking for us.

I think blackvault was looking for a simple reason why it should not be allowed.

greeney2 wrote:I'm sure if you searched it, you can probably read the 7 judges rulings on the matter, in which 4 found Prop 8 was unconstitutional, but 3 did not. I am sure they have sound legal reasons for their judgement. This is why we have courts with 5,7 or 9 judges to decide these difficult cases.

Yes, I am looking for a solid argument. Supreme Courts don't run my life, nor do they tell me how to think. I think it was a sad day they felt Prop 8 was unconstitutional, especially since the people of California VOTED for it. How many THOUSANDS against 7? The people spoke, plain and simple, and the will of 7 told us no.

So, aside from those morons, I am just asking to anyone who'd like to answer, to give a VALID reason on why we shouldn't allow it.

So, greeney, tell us all why you think that gay marrage should not be legal.

"Jesus woves me (real good) yes I know...'cause the babble tells me so..."

And I'd bet that all those on the panel that voted against it had a Pocket Babble in their pockets.

blackvault wrote:Yes, I am looking for a solid argument. Supreme Courts don't run my life, nor do they tell me how to think. I think it was a sad day they felt Prop 8 was unconstitutional, especially since the people of California VOTED for it. How many THOUSANDS against 7? The people spoke, plain and simple, and the will of 7 told us no.

So, aside from those morons, I am just asking to anyone who'd like to answer, to give a VALID reason on why we shouldn't allow it.

John I am a bit confused by your wording, "sad day they felt prop 8 was unconstitutional"??? The measure defined marriage as between and man and woman, which the court rejected as Unconstitutional (limiting same sex), so they overturned prop 8. For the same sex advocates, that was a good day not a sad one, because it allowed same sex marriage by the ruling, and ruled against the will of he people. (which is very slim by only 1% in favor)

There are 2 sides to this issue John, the moral and ethical side of the issue, which as a voter you have the right to vote according to your feelings, upbringing, and even your religious beliefs, and do it without persecution or intimidation. People are guided by many reasons for many issues how they vote. Some for religious beliefs, and some just for the way they believe, having nothing to do with religion. The reasons each way, nobody is required to explain to anyone how they voted so others can persecute them for their choice. One would hope everyone votes for everything with a valid reason and conviction, but some people will reject every measure purely to vote down the financial impact of new measures.

Secondly, you have the purely legal side of the issue, that follows both the State and Federal Constitutions, and many times involves our court systems. No, you do not live by what Supreme Courts rules, but the laws we must follow many times are from these courts. Very difficult issues of your life have been decided by these courts, and there are landmark legal cases as our presidents. Issues like this one, abortion, the Death penalty, many others present a dilemma between the letter of the law, rights of one over others (which is the heart of this one), and multitude of issues. Legally speaking under the California State Constitution, prop 8 was put on the ballot, by a legal process of petition to amend the Constitution by a 50% vote. You know the results, it passed, than appealed to our courts, who overturned it as Unconstitutional. The state had prior landmark cases, and other State Supreme Court rulings, that found there was no such discrimination citing civil unions as reasons why. So there is legal presidents and foundation on this issue, but as courts adopt new judges, the courts may be balanced more to the "Conservative" or to the "Liberal" sides of rulings, something we hear talked about with every new Federal Judge appointed. If they will be more conservative or liberal in their legal rulings. Much of this goes along with administrations in office, the mood of the courts and how they get new appointees.

Times change, this is an issue that is now a done deal, so may as well adopt it in 50 states, and get working on all the other supporting things to prepare for same sex marriage in our system. There are many issues to now deal with from insurance rates to tax forms, status boxes, dependent issues, as well as all the new required obligations of debts, other legal issues that go along with marriage.

I have said it before "Be careful what you wish for", because people who were living together, now will join in marriage. Many programs they qualify for as a single status before, now is going to change as they check the status box to married, if they get married. That may disqualify your financial bracket qualifying you as filing single, to a duel income married bracket and no longer eligible for programs. In addition to your new spouse, now being legally responsible for your debts, where living together legally they could not touch you. They may find a medical program as a single, or other housing program may disappear with married status. Everything will change with the change in married status, just like it does when men and women get married. How many times have you herd about 2 elderly couples(opposite sex), who opted to live together, because their SS would be affected and other benefits they have would be affected if they got married. Once that married status box is checked off, eligibility changes immediately for many things.

I think he's asking for a valid reason why it should be illegal.

I just explained myself the best I could.

greeney2 wrote:John I am a bit confused by your wording, "sad day they felt prop 8 was unconstitutional"??? The measure defined marriage as between and man and woman, which the court rejected as Unconstitutional (limiting same sex), so they overturned prop 8. For the same sex advocates, that was a good day not a sad one, because it allowed same sex marriage by the ruling, and ruled against the will of he people. (which is very slim by only 1% in favor)

Sorry, that's what I get for typing early in the morning, and misspeaking in my idiotic morning state Let me clarify, and re-word my response... because I had the wording of the bill reversed in my head. Although ultimately the bill is deemed unconstitutional, California still does not allow for same sex marriages to take place. That's what I meant to say was sad.

You gave a good explanation on "be careful what you wish for" but none of your reasonings listed effect you personally, so what does it matter? Because their status changes, or SS, or insurance, or whatever, doesn't effect me, or you. So why does it matter?

Times do change, but unfortunately, it is far from being a done deal. According to WikiPedia:

"As of November 2012, nine states—Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington—as well as the District of Columbia and two Native American tribes —have legalized same-sex marriage."

Prop 8 is still in limbo, as it is now in the California Supreme Court's hands on whether or not they will hear the recent appeal:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/marria ... nouncement

So apologies for misspeaking, but regardless of Prop 8 being "unconstitutional" the fight is far from over.

Though in California, much has changed since 2008. I wonder if in todays eyes, a same-sex marriage ban is even wanted here. This poll was done in February of this year, and is the most recent I found:

The latest Field Poll finds voter approval of same-sex marriage to be at the highest level ever
recorded during thirty-five years of polling on the issue in California.

Currently 59% of this state’s registered voters favor allowing same-sex couples to marry and have
regular marriage laws apply to them, while 34% disapprove. Another 7% do not express an
opinion.

This division of sentiment is nearly a complete reversal of the findings from the first time The Field
Poll began measuring Californians’ attitudes toward same-sex marriage in 1977. At that time, 59%
disapproved and 28% were in favor.

Source: http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/su ... ls2406.pdf

So, greeney...the reason you don't want gay marriage to be legal is because straight guys/gals might get married just for the benefits?

Then what the heck is keeping heterosexuals from getting married for the same reason!

Yeah...let's pretend to the world we're gay, when we're straight.

What man or woman would want to go through life like that, just to get a few special privilages? Sure, maybe a few whackos, but that's a given, with anything.

It sounds like something out of a bad comedy movie. A "television/movie education."

I agree. I think the level of fraud in relation to same sex marriage would be so minuscule, it would pale to the fraud of "traditional marriage" between a man and a woman.