[Vision2020] love and marriage
joekc at adelphia.net
joekc at adelphia.net
Mon Feb 20 09:51:42 PST 2006
Phil,
I want to go on record as noting that I'm for equal treatment for all. I understand the point about the unfair benefits of marriage. Of course, not all of the legal benefits of marriage have to do with economic benefits. Consider hospital visitation rights, for instance, just to use one example.
--
Joe Campbell
---- Phil Nisbet <pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com> wrote:
=============
Keely, J and Joe
That being the case, your assumption falls upon its sword. I find the very
idea repugnant.
Why is it that I have to grant a financial benefit from my pocket to two
people simply because they happen to sleep in the same bed and have sex with
each other? And I find it as repugnant for Heterosexuals to receive those
benefits as I find it for gays.
As a single parent, why is it that I have to pay extra when two people
without kids decide that they want to contract not to have sex with somebody
else? What sacred right do they have to take from me because they chose to
have sex exclusively with just one other person?
There are rafts of double income no kids couples, DINKs, who line up for the
gravy train of benefits granted for people who chose to marry. They receive
extra health insurance, cheaper taxes, special privileges and they do it on
the backs of the singles of this country.
So congratulations that all of you want to extend the numbers of people who
receive benefits for this act. The trouble is that it’s not universal,
since it clearly discriminates against those of us who carry out the same
work without any extra benefits and hands out the benefit solely for the act
of rubbing genitals together.
So it’s not about LOVE, its all about money, benefits for having exclusive
sex paid for by those who do not chose that particular lifestyle. It is
inherently unfair to those of us who are gay, heterosexual or celibate and
remain single.
Phil Nisbet
>From: "J Ford" <privatejf32 at hotmail.com>
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] love and marriage
>Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 14:10:34 -0800
>
>Absolutely agree(just thought I'd get that outa the way, though.)
>
>And thanks to Miss Saundra for her input...well said!
>
>Your first sentence is what needs to be heard over, over & over & over.....
>
>"My criteria for ANY law is that it be based on principles of morality that
>appeal to us ALL"
>(my emphasis.)
>
>
>J :]
>
>
>
>
>>From: joekc at adelphia.net
>>To: J Ford <privatejf32 at hotmail.com>
>>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] love and marriage
>>Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:15:31 -0500
>>
>>Good point, J!
>>
>>My criteria for ANY law is that it be based on principles of morality that
>>appeal to us all -- such as do no harm -- as opposed to ones that appeal
>>only to some -- such as those based on some religious text. The laws
>>against marriage of children, for instance, are have lots of reasons in
>>their support; others do not. This is the basis for stopping the slippery
>>slope.
>>
>>--
>>Joe Campbell
>>
>>---- J Ford <privatejf32 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>=============
>>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/
>>
>>_____________________________________________________
>> 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
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
>Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
>_____________________________________________________
>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
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
_____________________________________________________
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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list