[Vision2020] love and marriage

Sun Feb 19 09:50:14 PST 2006

I hate to tell you this, but we ARE told whom we can/cannot marry - no first 
cousins, no siblings, no children under a certain age, no multiple partners, 
etc.  This law would just be adding to that list.  If you are going to 
protest one, you're gonna have to protest them all.  Slippery slope, to say 
the least.

J  :]

>From: joekc at adelphia.net
>To: Bill London <london at moscow.com>
>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] love and marriage
>Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:17:11 -0500
>
>Thanks for posting this, Bill.
>
>I think it is important to note that the harm is done to us all, not just 
>gays and lesbians. (Which is not to suggest that a greater, more direct 
>harm is done to gays and lesbians specifically.)
>
>The Idaho Legislature seems to think that they are allowed to say who can 
>or cannot marry whom. If this is true in the case of gays and lesbians, 
>then it applies to the rest of us, as well. At least, I can't see why this 
>slope is not slippery.
>
>One can muster up abstract arguments based on some religious text to 
>suggest a difference, but that only means that the right to marry the 
>person of your choice is subject to the philosophical and moral whims of 
>the majority. If you think the right to marry the person of our choice is 
>not subject to public opinion, then you should disagree with LAWS against 
>same-sex marriage. You may continue to refrain from the practice yourself, 
>but you should not tell anyone whom to marry unless you're willing to 
>extend to them the same privilege.
>
>I'd like to see one principle upon which this recent decision is based that 
>would not have disastrous consequences were it applied universally.
>
>--
>Joe Campbell
>
>---- Bill London <london at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>=============
>The Idaho Legislature has now decided that we will be able to vote to add 
>an anti-gay marriage provision to the state constitution.  What does this 
>mean to our gay neighbors?  Please read Rebecca Rod's essay from the Friday 
>Daily News.
>BL
>
>--------------------------------
>
>Daily News, Friday, February 17, 2006
>
>                         COLUMN: To have and to hold: Rites and rights of 
>gay marriage
>
>
>                         Rebecca Rod
>
>                         In the midst of this year's Hallmark hubbub of 
>hearts and flowers and other symbols of love and commitment for sale, I 
>found myself reflecting back on Valentine's Day of February 2004.
>                         My partner, Theresa, and I spent most of that 
>weekend glued to the TV, watching reports of breaking news showing some 
>2,000 gay and lesbian couples making history by getting legally married in 
>San Francisco. We saw pairs of men and men, and women and women lined on 
>the grand granite stairs of City Hall, their numbers spilling onto the open 
>plaza and stretching down the walkways for blocks. Old and young, dressed 
>up and dressed down, holding hands, holding the hands of their children, 
>their friends and families, all ages, colors, sizes, and shapes - all 
>looking so naturally "normal" like anyone and everyone, that even some 
>protesters in the crowd seemed taken aback enough to stop and have to 
>remind themselves now, who were they protesting against, and for what?
>
>                         One man with a protest sign who was interviewed 
>said he'd actually changed his mind once he'd gotten down there and seen 
>all these regular happy people who just wanted to get married.
>
>                         Then the camera showed us inside City Hall where 
>the marriages were taking place. Mayor Gavin Newsom's first act was to 
>marry two 80-something-year-old women who'd been "together" already for 
>more than 50 years - and not far off, another city official was "tying the 
>knot" for a male couple decked out in twin tuxedos, pronouncing them 
>"spouses for life" - with everyone beaming and crying at the same time.
>
>                         Meanwhile, Theresa and I were beaming and crying 
>right along with them from our couch in front of the TV, bearing witness 
>with the rest of the world to these historic marriages.
>
>                         Of course, now we know the rest of the story, 
>don't we? Those few thousand people (more than 4,000 marriages were 
>registered in San Francisco from February to March) and other gay and 
>lesbian couples who got married during that same time in cities west and 
>east, had their marriages revoked or voided within about six months.
>
>                         Then, in desperate efforts to guard against future 
>bouts of marital terrorism, individual states began crafting constitutional 
>amendments to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, by God. In 
>fact, a group of worried Idaho legislators (worried about votes in an 
>election year) have brought this amendment idea up yet again in our 
>Statehouse. The amendment passed both the House and Senate and will be 
>placed on the ballot to be voted on in November.
>
>                         Why does extending this right to marry pose such a 
>threat to some people? As humans, we celebrate so many of the most 
>meaningful times of our lives in the presence of our loved ones. Family and 
>friends gather around us for these special "rites" - namings, baptisms, 
>confirmations, graduations, and yes, marriages. We are held up and blessed, 
>congratulated, kissed, and wished well with plenty of hugs and tears all 
>around - as well it should be. During these times, the love of our family, 
>friends, and community is not only most evident, but most wanted and needed 
>to help guide us through life's passages from one landmark to the next. We 
>not only gain meaning and direction for our lives from these events, but 
>the outpouring of love and support we receive gives our lives a certain 
>shape and quality. And what quality is of more importance in the life of a 
>human being than his or her capacity to give and receive love? Why anyone 
>would want to intentionally de!
>  ny his or her son or daughter, relatives, friends, or e
>
>
>                         ven strangers the legal human right to live a full 
>life of open, supported commitment to a loved one is beyond my 
>understanding. Talk about a basic "Right to Life" issue!
>
>                         Well, I have faith that our day will come. Love is 
>gaining ground in cities and states and countries here and there every day. 
>Like water wins over rock with a steady trickle over time, or sometimes in 
>the fury of a flash flood, love will find its way. Weak and self-serving 
>constitutional amendments will not block the power of love. And history 
>will be made again.
>
>                         * Rebecca Rod has lived in Moscow for more than 20 
>years, the past 14 of them with her life partner, Theresa. She has a 
>master's degree in library science but has been self-employed as an 
>artist/potter for more than 10 years. Last fall she was hired as a program 
>advisor for the University of Idaho Women's Center.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
>  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
>

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/