[Vision2020] Craig's official statement
g. crabtree
jampot at roadrunner.com
Wed Aug 29 17:52:03 PDT 2007
You righteously assert that "...people in positions of power have chosen in the past not to prosecute crimes against minorities" Specifically when, with regard to the current topic and in anything like recent history has anyone committing a crime against a homosexual gotten off precisely because of the victims sexual preference? Who, exactly, In a position of power has failed to prosecute a crime against a homosexual because of the victims orientation. Hate crime legislation is a solution in search of a problem that, as near as I can see, doesn't exist. This is not to say that I don't believe that there are vermin running around that would happily assault a homosexual for their "lifestyle." What I don't believe is that they will not be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if caught. Hate crime laws do not make thugs into tolerant citizens no matter how you might wish it were so.
"Health care benefits between same sex partners, property transfer in excess of $11,000 per year without tax penalties between same sex couples, property transfer to a surviving same sex partner without tax penalty and a step up in cost basis, to name a few."
Thanks for your help in making my point with regard to marriage. It appears that you would like to take a demographic that already skews higher on the affluence scale and provide them with a few extra tax dodges. Perhaps you would do better to switch to my side in this discussion and lobby to remove government from having anything to do with marriage.
Lastly, you failed to address my questioning of the converse of your initial claim. Why do you think that the granting of special rights to homosexuals is good for the country. Is it OK to assert that "I believe it's good" without citing any specifics? I think that the basic difference between you and the rest of your amigos on this list and myself is that I believe the solution to most problems is less government whereas there seems to be no limit to the areas of human Endeavour that you would have The State poke it's incompetent and over reaching nose.
g
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Dredge
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Craig's official statement
If we had equal protection, we wouldn't need hate crime legislation now would we? All crimes would be prosecuted based on the crime committed not based on who the crime was committed against. Since they are not, and since some people in positions of power have chosen in the past not to prosecute crimes against minorities, etc., hate crime legislation was introduced to remedy that situation. It's been upheld on appeal as constitutionally sound. Maybe someday hate crime legislation will be as obsolete as the anti-sodomy laws and the anti mixed-race marriage laws and then we can strike them from the books.
What rights are being denied? Health care benefits between same sex partners, property transfer in excess of $11,000 per year without tax penalties between same sex couples, property transfer to a surviving same sex partner without tax penalty and a step up in cost basis, to name a few. There are a whole host of others. You seem to think that this is something good for the country...offering benefits to married couples and denying same sex couples both marriage and the equal benefits. Why? Because there are only 3% of them and gayness might catch? Because there might be proportionally as many sham same sex marriages as there are sham heterosexual marriages. I don't think the percentage of gays in the overall population has much to with it. Marriage laws can easily scale to same sex partners . Why else have there been a slew of amendments to state constitutions defining marriage? The answer is because the existing marriage laws didn't define it and if they did you wouldn't need to be tinkering with the constitutions.
-Scott
----- Original Message ----
From: g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
To: Scott Dredge <sdredge at yahoo.com>; vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 3:25:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Craig's official statement
Enacting hate crime legislation to provide special protection to a small (or large, for that matter) group who feel put upon is bad law. It is the very antithesis of equal protection. There is a major difference between denying rights and granting unique rights. Aside from the marriage issue, which we all know has nothing to do with marriage in the conventional sense, what rights are being denied homosexuals?
The specific arguments have indeed been clearly laid out time and again. What has yet to be explained rationally is why providing special considerations to less than 3% of the U.S. population is good for the country.
So, how about it? How exactly will the country become a better place if yet another group is added to the list of those unable to make their own way in the world without the help of mommy government?
g
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Dredge
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Craig's official statement
I don't know Gary, is it possible? If someone happens to be in a position of power and is denying rights for homosexuals and homosexual couples that are already available for hetoresexuals and heterosexual couples, don't you think that they should be able clearly explain why they believe same sex marriage / hate crime / equal rights is bad for the country instead of just saying "I believe it's bad" without citing any specifics?
-Scott
----- Original Message ----
From: g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>; Scott Dredge <sdredge at yahoo.com>
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 6:25:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Craig's official statement
Leaving aside the question of Senator Craig's sexuality, did I miss the legislation that made it mandatory that all homosexuals march in lockstep with the whole same sex marriage/hate crime/pro special rights agenda? Is it not possible to be homosexual and sincerely believe that these things are bad for the country and vote accordingly? Apparently not, what the heck could I have been thinking...
g
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com>
To: "Scott Dredge" <sdredge at yahoo.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Craig's official statement
> Hey, I don't have anything to prove here. I was just stating that,
> based upon what I had heard at the time, it sounded possible that he
> might have been innocent of the charges despite what he said in court.
> Not that he *was* innocent, not that I wanted him to be innocent, not
> that I even give a flying fsck whether he was innocent or not. That was
> based upon a story that detailed the crimes of touching another mans
> foot in the stall next to you and reaching under the partition.
>
> What a truly horrific thing for me to say. I should be ashamed of myself.
>
> At the time, I hadn't read the NY Times article that Tom posted. The
> standing outside the restroom door for two minutes looking through the
> crack thing falls neatly into the category of "odd behavior".
>
> So, ok, maybe he is a hypocrite. So here is another thought that will
> probably get me reviled as Satan's second cousin or something, but how
> do you avoid be hypocritical on some subjects when you are ostensibly
> representing your constituents? What do you do if you are inwardly
> pro-homosexual, but your constituency isn't? Were you elected to vote
> as you wish? Or were you elected to vote as your constituency wishes?
> If he's a hypocrite, he became one the day he courted the electorate
> that differed from his own personal views.
>
> Paul
>
> Scott Dredge wrote:
>> Oh give it up, Paul and Roger. Are you guys not paying attention? You can find Larry Craig's hypocrisy just about everywhere. Did you not see his press conference today? The first sentence out of his mouth was, "Thank you all very much for 'coming out' today" as if all the reporters and everyone else in the audience had some closeted secret that had come to light and they were owning up to it unlike himself. Criminy! If that ain't hypocrisy, I guess I don't know what hypocrisy is. Of course, maybe I don't know. Hmmm...let me think about that a bit...
>>
>> -Scott
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
>> To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>; Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net>
>> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 9:55:29 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Craig's official statement
>>
>> My sentiments also. I don't know where Craig stands on sexuality. Joe. maybe you could let us know were the hypocrisy is?
>> -----Original message-----
>> From: Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
>> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:25:26 -0700
>> To: Joe Campbell joekc at adelphia.net
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Craig's official statement
>>
>>
>>> Sure, be my guest.
>>>
>>> You're welcome.
>>>
>>> Is he actively anti-homosexual or something? Despite the fact that he
>>> gave me a nomination to the Air Force Academy in 1984 (which turned me
>>> down) I haven't really followed his career that much.
>>>
>>> I'm just saying that I'd hate to be in that situation and not actually
>>> be guilty. Tapping your right foot. Who knew? I might also be tempted
>>> to just pay the damn fine and hope nobody notices, too.
>>>
>>> I do know I plan to keep both feet solidly on the floor for the duration
>>> next time I'm in an airport restroom.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul,
>>>>
>>>> You're not really that naive, are you? How about hypocrisy? Can we accuse him of that?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Joe Campbell
>>>>
>>>> --------------------
>>>>
>>>> The article I read in the Washington Post said that he had tapped the
>>>> foot of the person in the stall next him and reached under the
>>>> partition. Naive to ways of the dance of restroom stall courtship and
>>>> etiquette, I probably would have handed him some toilet paper blithely
>>>> assuming that his dispenser was empty.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't yet read the articles linked to earlier - so it's possible it
>>>> was more than that. But given what the Post said, I can't really accuse
>>>> him of much myself.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> 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
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> 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
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>
> =======================================================
> 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
=======================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
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
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070829/8b69bbcd/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list