Interesting . . . or Not Trivia (was RE: [Vision2020] love and marriage)

[Saundra Lund]

Apparently, twenty-six states *allow* first cousins to marry -- Idaho is
*not* one of them.  "US prohibitions against cousin marriages predate modern
genetics."

"No European country prohibits marriage between first cousins. It is also
legal throughout Canada and Mexico to marry your cousin. The U.S. is the
only western country with cousin marriage restrictions."

And, "Simply marrying within your own race increases the odds of birth
defects. Marrying within your own town further increases your chances."

Source:  http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=facts

Interesting, huh?  But, of course, this *is* Idaho.

I thoroughly enjoyed Ms. Rod's column -- thanks to Bill London for sharing
it here.  She has renewed my optimism that love and common sense and justice
and fairness and equal protection all *will* eventually triumph!


HTH,
Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
- Edmund Burke

***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2005, Saundra Lund.
Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum
without the express written permission of the author.*****

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of J Ford
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 9:50 AM
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] love and marriage

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.