The Black Vault

You discriminate whether you're in denial of it or not.

What's the difference between a black man and white woman getting married and two gays getting married? The genitals? Why are genitals more important than race?

And once again, a missed opportunity to explain why gay marriage contradicts the US constitution.

Please show where the US Constitution mentions marriage at all. This comes under the US Constitution leaving states to self govern.

Why is it discrimination when the California Constitution also states California may amend its State Constitution with a 50% vote, which was done. This was an amendment to define marriage. Every kind of licence or certification has rules, from dog licences to professional positions. Every checkbox on a application isn't discrimination, just like your application to be a teacher.

The voters spoke in accordance with the California State Constitution, just like they have many times before, like Prop 13. Was that discrimination against future home buyers who were taxed higher? The courts said NO,they backed to Constitution to amend by 50%! In view of that, prior attempts to redefine marriage failed becasue the same State Supreme Court, ruled gays previously were not discriminated against, because of the laws of civil unions and other laws protecting gay people. Nobody challenged that to be allowed. When a vote in the court is 4-3, 3 judges sided with the will of the people, one judge difference is not overwhelming. Boiling it down to simple discrimination is boloney, just like you challenging the sign on bathroom doors. That the womans bathroom discriminates against men. Or restraunts should allow adults to eat off the childs menu, isn't discrimination. That you are not allowed in ladies rooms, and visa versa, and the only difference is genitals, so whats your point?

greeney2 wrote:Please show where the US Constitution mentions marriage at all. This comes under the US Constitution leaving states to self govern.

Precisely my point. It's not prohibited by the most fundamental set of laws vis a vis the constitution. States are allowed to self govern, yes. That's the tenth amendment. Since gay marriage isn't prohibited by the federal constitution, anyone who takes a law suit far enough will eventually hit the supreme court who would be forced to look at the letter and spirit of the constitution. Discrimination based on sexual orientation will eventually be seen as unconstitutional, just as the Jim Crow laws were.

Why is it discrimination when the California Constitution also states California may amend its State Constitution with a 50% vote, which was done. This was an amendment to define marriage. Every kind of licence or certification has rules, from dog licences to professional positions. Every checkbox on a application isn't discrimination, just like your application to be a teacher.

Pfft. If 50% of voters voted in favor of slavery would that make slavery OK?
When (not if, but when) defense of marriage laws are challenged at a high enough level, they will eventually be seen for what they are: discrimination based on sexual preference.

The voters spoke in accordance with the California State Constitution, just like they have many times before, like Prop 13. Was that discrimination against future home buyers who were taxed higher? The courts said NO,they backed to Constitution to amend by 50%! In view of that, prior attempts to redefine marriage failed becasue the same State Supreme Court, ruled gays previously were not discriminated against, because of the laws of civil unions and other laws protecting gay people. Nobody challenged that to be allowed. When a vote in the court is 4-3, 3 judges sided with the will of the people, one judge difference is not overwhelming. Boiling it down to simple discrimination is boloney, just like you challenging the sign on bathroom doors. That the womans bathroom discriminates against men. Or restraunts should allow adults to eat off the childs menu, isn't discrimination. That you are not allowed in ladies rooms, and visa versa, and the only difference is genitals, so whats your point?

Wow, you are deeply in denial that you discriminate, huh? You can bring up anything you want but we're talking about marriage here. Requiring one penis and one vagina in order to get married is going to be hard (no pun intended) to justify in the long (again, no pun intended) run.
Don't think I'm not noticing that you have presented absolutely zero reason why gay marriage should be illegal. That the voters might support it, again, doesn't make it right or even consistent with existing law.

Don't think I'm not noticing that you have presented absolutely zero reason why gay marriage should be illegal.

I didn't vote to make anything illegal for anyone, I voted to clarify marriage as between a man and woman. That issue got to the ballot becasue of a Judge who violated the law, and preformed mass marriages that were not in accordance with requirments.

The prior rulings of the Supreme court of California ruled there was no discrimination of gays, becasue of the allowance of Domestic partners and Civil Unions. That was a president case in California, I agree with that ruling. That was one of two factors in my voting, in addition to believing Marriage is a Sacrament. I also believe the first Judge who overturned the State vote, violated his oath of being a Judge, and should have recused himself from that case. He is to directly involved with the issue, and lived in the center of area in Califonia that started the issue, should be considered biased in his ruling.

If you care about the Constitution, you should be looking at the offences of 2 judges who have violated their limits.

greeney2 wrote:

Don't think I'm not noticing that you have presented absolutely zero reason why gay marriage should be illegal.

I didn't vote to make anything illegal for anyone, I voted to clarify marriage as between a man and woman.

So you would vote in favor of legalizing gay marriage?

Oh and the fact that marriage is a sacrament has no bearing on the legality of it.

There are times when a moral issue and a written law conflict. People are not required to abandon what they precieve is their religious teaching, and only vote according to the legality of things. They vote on issues and candidates guided by their lifestyles, interrests, moral views, etc. People write in Mickey Mouse rather than vote for any of the candidates who may all have questionable morality. It matters when an elected person isn't faithful at home to voters, even if the legailty has no bearing on the elected office.

Legality may have many inturpetations, as proven by the fact we have a 7 judge State Supreme court, 9 in the Federal. Only 4 of them overturned this issue, 3 did not. If the legality was that straight forward, courts would never be divided. You always claim I am so ignorant of the Constitution, but the inturpetation of Constitutional issues is very complex, has many sides, and is swayed by either liberal or conserative judges. This is clearly a liberal/conservative division in our courts, just as it was with the voters on the ballot. Boiling it down to simple discrimination is not the case, since our state is diversified by race, religion, and age, in addition to the counties of the state all being so different in lifestyle. People from all walks of life voted this prop in.

Complex issues get revisited all the time, with new arguments, just look at issues like the death penalty, executions methods, abortions, gay marriage, even though these issues previously were ruled on by the courts. Appeals that go on for generations and beyond, so inturpetation of laws and the Constitution is anything but simple.

greeney2 wrote:There are times when a moral issue and a written law conflict.

That might be a fine observation if gay marriage was in any way immoral.


It isn't.


Prohibiting gay marriage is discrimination.

People from all walks of life voted this prop in.

That doesn't mean that discrimination is OK.

Let me know where you are registered so I can send you and the Mister a nice wedding gift.

That old brutally irrational stranglehold on human sexuality is slipping, slowly but surely.