DISQUS

DISQUS Hello! ETC: Everyday Thoughts Collected is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.

Community Page

ETC: Everyday Thoughts Collected

Personal Blog of Randy Thomas
Jump to original thread »
Author

No Gloating Zone - A Weird Mix of Emotions

Started by Randy · 8 months ago

Two of the elections outcomes brought out two emotions that had me flip flop between sadness and hope.
First …
Since I was a McCain supporter it is just a matter of fact that my “team” lost the Presidential race. I was of course sad about that and while I am c ... Continue reading »

61 comments

  • Mindy

    8 months ago

    You've pretty much described what I've been feeling today as well. Thanks for articulating it.
    I'm so glad the Lord can be trusted. I'm also praying.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    I am glad it made sense to you Mindy. I had a feeling I wasn't alone in this.
    reply
  • Jonathan

    8 months ago

    " I was talking with Alan this morning and my heart broke for the 66,000 same sex couples who just had their civil marriage licenses rendered void"..
    Woah..I must have missed something, but where did this rendering of formerly 'valid' civil-unions
    occur? (In what state) My heart still breaks for these people, to have shattered their once-realized-dreams.. May their dreams be replaced with the hope and healing of Christ and may this hhope and healing be expressed through the Christian community coming around them with HIS Love!
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    I agree with your prayer Jonathan.

    when the CA state supreme court ruled that it was "unconstitutional" to deny same sex couples marriage licenses ... it became legal for them to marry. The state had to comply with the judges decision. Now that the "constitution" of the state has been amended, the judges are beholden to uphold that constitution. It's part of how the "checks and balances" work out.

    However, you can fully expect more lawsuits and legal wrangling but from May(?) till yesterday ... it was fully legal to marry same sex couples in California and apparently 66,000 same sex couples did exactly that.
    reply
  • B.T.Carolus

    8 months ago

    It is not at all clear yet, Randy, whether the previously issued liscences will be ruled void or not...which means we're in for a lot of 'fun' over the next few weeks/months.
    reply
  • Jonathan

    8 months ago

    And I was looking at someone's comment about absentee ballots...do we think these petition stances will stand after the rest of the ballots are processed?
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    I heard something similar but I am not sure what that is about. I don't know if there is enough of those to offset the margin. BUT the margin isn't that big.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    That's true. There will be all kinds of lawsuits but it will be very hard to win if the prop clearly passed.
    reply
  • Jonathan

    8 months ago

    Could they theoretically just..'move' to places like Massachusetts? ...The document was formerly valid, and it'd be recognized there.
    reply
  • Jay

    8 months ago

    The attorney general of California said that the approximate 18,000 same-sex marriages will remain valid. Their validity can be legally challenged, but I really hope Christians in California at least have the compassion not to challenge them now that Proposition 8 has passed.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    I saw 66,000... where did you see 18,000?
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Nevermind... I found it. I will need to correct the person who sent me that email. Thanks for bringing that up.

    Regardless...that's a LOT of people.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    The short answer is no. If it isn't valid in the home state it won't be recognized as valid in another.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Judge Napolitano on FOX News says that a government can't take away a right that it has previously given without due compensation. He isn't exactly sure what the courts will end up doing but he believes that those marriages will have to be treated as such until the courts change the outcome or for the life of those unions. Regardless, this still puts those couples in legal limbo.
    reply
  • Oceanskater

    8 months ago

    I was wondering the outcome of FL; I saw AZ & CA on the news.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    FL's won by the largest margin 62% to 38%. They had to win by sixty percent in order for it to pass.
    reply
  • Jonathan

    8 months ago

    So thats what you were talking about with the magic-60! I get it now..Awesome.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Alan just posted his after election thoughts too http://www.alanchambers.org/just_think/2008/11/...
    reply
  • Jack Yan

    8 months ago

    I understand your feelings on the issue, Randy. It is hard not to feel some sympathy for any couple, straight or gay, whose union’s recognition has suddenly changed. I always felt that in the California case, where I have read the judgements, the majority judges were not clever enough. If they had an agenda to legalize gay marriage, then their interpretation of the law left matters open to future attacks. Unlike the precedent that some relied upon (Perez) where the legislature had been clumsy (intentionally?), California law was far clearer. You are right that in the case of California, it gave same-sex couples false expectations over the definition of marriage.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    That is something to consider Jack. Thanks for adding your thoughts. It is good to see you.
    reply
  • B.T.Carolus

    8 months ago

    And it should be added that the pro-prop 8 folks asked the supreme court to stop any same sex marriages from taking place until after the election, so that this problem would be avoided. They refused to do so, and the couples that married did so knowing that there was a chance the amendment would pass. So in that sense they purposefully took a gamble, and it didn't pay off (although it will if previously married couples decide to sue and judges somehow contrive to find in their favor and rule the amendment invalid [yeah, I know it can't happen, but I also don't trust the courts anymore]).
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    That is a very good reminder B.T.

    I don't know.... I think if I had been gay over the summer and wanted to marry, I don't know that I would have seen it as a gamble even with the potential outcomes changing, I probably would have allowed my hope to justify doing it believe that CA would not allow Prop 8 to pass. That doesn't invalidate your points, I am just saying I don't know that they would have thought it a purposeful gamble but more of a hopeful desire.

    Am I splitting hairs? :)

    ... and I am right there with you in regard to "trust" in the courts.
    reply
  • Mindy

    8 months ago

    You've pretty much described what I've been feeling today as well. Thanks for articulating it.
    I'm so glad the Lord can be trusted. I'm also praying.

    reply
  • Jonathan

    8 months ago

    " I was talking with Alan this morning and my heart broke for the 66,000 same sex couples who just had their civil marriage licenses rendered void"..
    Woah..I must have missed something, but where did this rendering of formerly 'valid' civil-unions

    occur? (In what state) My heart still breaks for these people, to have shattered their once-realized-dreams.. May their dreams be replaced with the hope and healing of Christ and may this hhope and healing be expressed through the Christian community coming around them with HIS Love!

    reply
  • Ellie

    8 months ago

    It is not at all clear yet, Randy, whether the previously issued liscences will be ruled void or not...which means we're in for a lot of 'fun' over the next few weeks/months.
    reply
  • Brenna Kater, the Oceanskater

    8 months ago

    I was wondering the outcome of FL; I saw AZ & CA on the news.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    I am glad it made sense to you Mindy. I had a feeling I wasn't alone in this.
    reply
  • Jonathan

    8 months ago

    And I was looking at someone's comment about absentee ballots...do we think these petition stances will stand after the rest of the ballots are processed?
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    I agree with your prayer Jonathan.


    when the CA state supreme court ruled that it was "unconstitutional" to deny same sex couples marriage licenses ... it became legal for them to marry. The state had to comply with the judges decision. Now that the "constitution" of the state has been amended, the judges are beholden to uphold that constitution. It's part of how the "checks and balances" work out.



    However, you can fully expect more lawsuits and legal wrangling but from May(?) till yesterday ... it was fully legal to marry same sex couples in California and apparently 66,000 same sex couples did exactly that.

    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    That's true. There will be all kinds of lawsuits but it will be very hard to win if the prop clearly passed.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    I heard something similar but I am not sure what that is about. I don't know if there is enough of those to offset the margin. BUT the margin isn't that big.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    FL's won by the largest margin 62% to 38%. They had to win by sixty percent in order for it to pass.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Alan just posted his after election thoughts too http://www.alanchambers.org/just_think/2008/11/...
    reply
  • Jonathan

    8 months ago

    Could they theoretically just..'move' to places like Massachusetts? ...The document was formerly valid, and it'd be recognized there.
    reply
  • Jonathan

    8 months ago

    So thats what you were talking about with the magic-60! I get it now..Awesome.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    I also stated
    I wish they had never been put in that position to begin with.
    I believe that the judges usurped their authority and gave these couples a false expectation. It is sad to me to think of gay couples looking at a piece of paper that they had viewed as a sign of acceptance and tolerance and now having to look at it as *void* in the eyes of the state.



    I am happy that marriage is defined the way I think it should be from a faith and societal perspective. At the same time, I am also sad that same sex couples were put in this position of having something taken away from them, that is supposed to have a huge emotional/love/relational investment tied with it. The judges made their erroneous decision against the will of the people and created scenario that caused very high expectations to be broken.



    Regardless of the arguments, and you may not believe or understand me, but It is possible to be glad for a public policy decision but not be happy about its emotional impact on a community I still care deeply about.

    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    The short answer is no. If it isn't valid in the home state it won't be recognized as valid in another.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Judge Napolitano on FOX News says that a government can't take away a right that it has previously given without due compensation. He isn't exactly sure what the courts will end up doing but he believes that those marriages will have to be treated as such until the courts change the outcome or for the life of those unions. Regardless, this still puts those couples in legal limbo.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    I saw 66,000... where did you see 18,000?
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Nevermind... I found it. I will need to correct the person who sent me that email. Thanks for bringing that up.


    Regardless...that's a LOT of people.

    reply
  • Jack Yan

    8 months ago

    I understand your feelings on the issue, Randy. It is hard not to feel some sympathy for any couple, straight or gay, whose union’s recognition has suddenly changed. I always felt that in the California case, where I have read the judgements, the majority judges were not clever enough. If they had an agenda to legalize gay marriage, then their interpretation of the law left matters open to future attacks. Unlike the precedent that some relied upon (Perez) where the legislature had been clumsy (intentionally?), California law was far clearer. You are right that in the case of California, it gave same-sex couples false expectations over the definition of marriage.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    That is something to consider Jack. Thanks for adding your thoughts. It is good to see you.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    That is something to consider Jack. Thanks for adding your thoughts. It is good to see you.
    reply
  • RThomasETC (Randy Thomas)

    8 months ago

    No Gloating Zone - Weird Mix of Emotions http://tinyurl.com/5mteuv The Morning After The Election Initial Thoughts http://tinyurl.com/5t3mlj
    reply
  • Pomo

    8 months ago

    RYC, "former friend" was probably not the best choice of words. I meant former in the sense that we don't really talk anymore. Not that if our paths crossed that i would just ignore you or something. I'm not like that. While I certinly disagree with your support of the FL prop and don't think it was very Jesus-like, I still spend alot of time defending ya'll. To be honest I don't know how long thats gonna last but as of now, I still do it...

    As for bailing out, I didn't go anywhere. Ya'll didn't give effort to stay in touch. Neither did I. That sounds pretty mutual to me. That doesn't mean we're not acquaintences. I would come up and say hi anytime I saw you or the others.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Well, I am glad for that :)

    Pomo, as you know, a lot of (if not most) friendships in life aren't really very deep and/or simply come and go. I enjoyed talking with you but you seemed to have a better friendship with others and I was glad for that. I knew of some of your struggles or concerns but you took them to others and I was glad you could go to them. So, when you weren't around there wasn't a compelling "need" within me to catch up or chase you down.

    However, if you had an expectation that I should have pursued our friendship more and I blew that expectation ... for whatever part of that I need to take responsibility for ... I certainly apologize.

    Regardless of where you are in your journey or beliefs, I would still hope to call you friend. And that is the truth.
    reply
  • Pomo

    8 months ago

    Nope, no real expectation. No worries.
    reply
  • Pomo

    8 months ago

    RYC, "former friend" was probably not the best choice of words. I meant former in the sense that we don't really talk anymore. Not that if our paths crossed that i would just ignore you or something. I'm not like that. While I certinly disagree with your support of the FL prop and don't think it was very Jesus-like, I still spend alot of time defending ya'll. To be honest I don't know how long thats gonna last but as of now, I still do it...


    As for bailing out, I didn't go anywhere. Ya'll didn't give effort to stay in touch. Neither did I. That sounds pretty mutual to me. That doesn't mean we're not acquaintences. I would come up and say hi anytime I saw you or the others.

    reply
  • Hugo

    8 months ago

    How sanctimonious can you get? TYopu claim to feel "sorry" for people you sought to hurt, who youintnetionally sought to defame in the most deep way by ridiculing and deprecating their love, life and relationships.


    Because the gays dared to stand for their rights, you feel the need to punish them and now when they lay beatn, you feel "sorry" for them. taker responsibility for once for your hatred, you closet case.

    reply
  • B.T.Carolus

    8 months ago

    And it should be added that the pro-prop 8 folks asked the supreme court to stop any same sex marriages from taking place until after the election, so that this problem would be avoided. They refused to do so, and the couples that married did so knowing that there was a chance the amendment would pass. So in that sense they purposefully took a gamble, and it didn't pay off (although it will if previously married couples decide to sue and judges somehow contrive to find in their favor and rule the amendment invalid [yeah, I know it can't happen, but I also don't trust the courts anymore]).
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    I knew some wouldn't understand and I am truly apologetic if I came off sanctimonious. That is not how I want to be.


    You quoted me as saying "sorry" twice. I didn't say that in the original post and can't remember when I said it that way. Please show me where I said that and I will be glad to clarify in hopes to not sound so sanctimonious.



    Plus, I don't think I have ever "ridiculed" or "deprecated" their love, life or relationships. I used to live, love and have gay relationships. I know the investment, dreams and hopes. Now that I have different moral views and completely different life goals. I do try to be honest in saying what they are but I would never do so in a ridiculing manner. At the same time, I can't prevent others seeing moral disagreements in such light even though I do try to afford dignity and respect wherever possible when I talk about those opposing views.



    Plus, I have zero desire to punish anyone. Even though you judge my beliefs as hateful, that doesn't mean I am. I don't and won't hate you.

    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    That is a very good reminder B.T.


    I don't know.... I think if I had been gay over the summer and wanted to marry, I don't know that I would have seen it as a gamble even with the potential outcomes changing, I probably would have allowed my hope to justify doing it believe that CA would not allow Prop 8 to pass. That doesn't invalidate your points, I am just saying I don't know that they would have thought it a purposeful gamble but more of a hopeful desire.



    Am I splitting hairs? :)



    ... and I am right there with you in regard to "trust" in the courts.

    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Well, I am glad for that :)


    Pomo, as you know, a lot of (if not most) friendships in life aren't really very deep and/or simply come and go. I enjoyed talking with you but you seemed to have a better friendship with others and I was glad for that. I knew of some of your struggles or concerns but you took them to others and I was glad you could go to them. So, when you weren't around there wasn't a compelling "need" within me to catch up or chase you down.



    However, if you had an expectation that I should have pursued our friendship more and I blew that expectation ... for whatever part of that I need to take responsibility for ... I certainly apologize.



    Regardless of where you are in your journey or beliefs, I would still hope to call you friend. And that is the truth.

    reply
  • Election Night LIVE BLOGGING!!

    8 months ago

    [...] from the below transcript but if you really want to have a broader look at my overall impression. Read this post too. [...]
    reply
  • Pomo

    8 months ago

    Nope, no real expectation. No worries.
    reply
  • California Courts Continue to

    8 months ago

    [...] originally wrote in a comment on this post [...]
    reply
  • Avoiding Controversy « El

    7 months ago

    [...] 11, 2008 at 4:55 pm (Culture) Disparate people have been talking about what our post-prop 8 reactions should be. Â The internal discussion [...]
    reply
  • Alex

    8 months ago

    Randy,

    Please help me try to understand your thought process here. You are "elated" that the amendments banning same-sex marriage have passed, and yet upset that same-sex couples are now banned from getting married? The measures you actively promoted have rendered void the civil marriage licenses of 66,000 same-sex couples, yet at the same time you feel heartbroken for them?
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    I also stated
    I wish they had never been put in that position to begin with.
    I believe that the judges usurped their authority and gave these couples a false expectation. It is sad to me to think of gay couples looking at a piece of paper that they had viewed as a sign of acceptance and tolerance and now having to look at it as *void* in the eyes of the state.

    I am happy that marriage is defined the way I think it should be from a faith and societal perspective. At the same time, I am also sad that same sex couples were put in this position of having something taken away from them, that is supposed to have a huge emotional/love/relational investment tied with it. The judges made their erroneous decision against the will of the people and created scenario that caused very high expectations to be broken.

    Regardless of the arguments, and you may not believe or understand me, but It is possible to be glad for a public policy decision but not be happy about its emotional impact on a community I still care deeply about.
    reply
  • Hugo

    8 months ago

    How sanctimonious can you get? TYopu claim to feel "sorry" for people you sought to hurt, who youintnetionally sought to defame in the most deep way by ridiculing and deprecating their love, life and relationships.

    Because the gays dared to stand for their rights, you feel the need to punish them and now when they lay beatn, you feel "sorry" for them. taker responsibility for once for your hatred, you closet case.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    I knew some wouldn't understand and I am truly apologetic if I came off sanctimonious. That is not how I want to be.

    You quoted me as saying "sorry" twice. I didn't say that in the original post and can't remember when I said it that way. Please show me where I said that and I will be glad to clarify in hopes to not sound so sanctimonious.

    Plus, I don't think I have ever "ridiculed" or "deprecated" their love, life or relationships. I used to live, love and have gay relationships. I know the investment, dreams and hopes. Now that I have different moral views and completely different life goals. I do try to be honest in saying what they are but I would never do so in a ridiculing manner. At the same time, I can't prevent others seeing moral disagreements in such light even though I do try to afford dignity and respect wherever possible when I talk about those opposing views.

    Plus, I have zero desire to punish anyone. Even though you judge my beliefs as hateful, that doesn't mean I am. I don't and won't hate you.
    reply

Add New Comment

Returning? Login