[Vision2020] RE: Dale Courtney/Community Congregational Church.

[Dale Courtney]

Thanks. See: http://right-mind.us/archive/2005/05/28/5191.aspx

Looks like there were numerous errors in that Daily Evergreen article that
were never corrected. 

Best,
Dale 

-----Original Message-----
From: Donovan Arnold [mailto:donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Saturday, 28 May 2005 09:06
To: Dale Courtney; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] RE: Dale Courtney/Community Congregational Church.

Dale,

"You wrote, "It says that you were *married* in the 'Moscow Community
Congregational Church' -- a church which doesn't even exist."

I may be incorrect about this and have the wrong church, but I am certain
that the church Melynda is taking about does exist: 

http://www.wsulibs.wsu.edu/holland/masc/finders/cg314.htm

It is called the "Pullman Community Congregational Church." The Daily
Evergreen might have called it the "Moscow Community Congregational Church",
but to me that would seem odd considering that it is located in Pullman.

Donovan J Arnold





--- Dale Courtney <dmcourtn at moscow.com> wrote:
> Melynda,
> 
> Two things. First, I'm not aware that there is a legal distinction in 
> either Washington or Idaho between a "legal contract of marriage" and 
> a "religious marriage union".
> 
> The article you cite
>
(http://www.dailyevergreen.com/disp_story.php?storyId=4309)
> states: 
> 
> "Huskey and her partner, Joan Opyr, have been together for 11 years 
> and have a 3-year-old boy and an 8-year-old girl. The couple was 
> married in the Moscow Community Congregational Church, yet spent 
> thousands of dollars on lawyers in order to ensure that they have some 
> of the same protections provided by a legal marriage contract."
> 
> That article doesn't say *anything* about a "religious union". It says 
> that you were *married* in the "Moscow Community Congregational 
> Church" -- a church which doesn't even exist.
> 
> Perhaps it would have been better to go back to the Daily Evergreen 2+ 
> years ago and correct those comments then and there? It's quite 
> misleading to state in the Daily Evergreen that you were married in a 
> non-existent church when you weren't. Agreed?
> 
> Second, I don't have the ability to edit people's comments (even my 
> own).
> But since that comment was made on the blog, feel free to comment on 
> it there and I will *gladly* acknowledge that Joan made that comment.
> 
> Best,
> Dale
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
> On Behalf Of melyndahuskey at earthlink.net
> Sent: Friday, 27 May 2005 19:10
> To: Vision 2020
> Subject: FW: [Vision2020] RE: Dale Courtney
> 
> Dale writes:
> 
> "And I do try to be fair and honest; correct my mistakes; and give 
> reference to all the sources I cite. I do not find it "rude"
> or "unchristian" not to
> back down from things that are right -- even when it pokes a hole in 
> someone's pet theories."
> 
> On April 28th, Dale, you wrote:
> 
>   "Don #2, 
>       "Thanks for posting that link to Melinda's diatribe.
>       "And, yes, homosexual marriage is still illegal in Idaho. See: 
> [link to code deleted]
>       "And while they may 'claim' to be married in Idaho [link to 
> Daily Evergreen article deleted], it's still illegal in both Idaho and 
> Washington.
> 
>       "I wonder if Saundra and Rose will pursue such a blatant 
> violation of Idaho State Law with the ferocity that they persecute 
> Christ Church? After all, they are only doing their civil duties."
> 
>  But I didn't write the "diatribe" in question: 
> Joan Opyr was the author of
> the piece.  You'll be correcting that?
> 
> Same-sex marriage is presently illegal in Idaho and Washington; I 
> can't have a state-recognized marriage.  But I have never claimed to 
> be legally married.  I have never attempted to get a marriage license, 
> either fradulently or as an act of civil disobedience.  In the Daily 
> Evergreen article you cite, I clearly differentiate between the legal 
> contract of marriage, from which Joan and I are excluded, and our 
> religious union.
> State law doesn't regulate my religious practice, so my church wedding 
> didn't break the law.  Acknowledging that I am married by the 
> standards of my faith, although not of the state, isn't illegal 
> either.
> 
> You have falsely accused me of breaking Idaho law. 
> Can I expect a
> retraction?
> 
> Melynda Huskey
> 
> 
> 
>
_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving the 
> communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>  
>                http://www.fsr.net                   
>    
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> 
>
_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving the 
> communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>  
>                http://www.fsr.net                   
>    
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com