[Vision2020] Challenge to Crabtree

Mon Sep 3 00:01:04 PDT 2007

Gary,

To summarize your opposition to equal treatment of same sex couples to traditional married couples below:

1) It's too much work for law makers to duplicate existing marriage laws and perform a global search and replace of 'spouse' with 'partner'.

2) Giving same sex couples the same rights, benefits, tax brackets, etc. as traditional married couples and their children has no effect on the rights, benefits, tax brackets, etc. of the traditional married couples and their children.  

3) Allowing same sex marriages sets up the groundwork for fraud in the identical way that traditional marriage does.

4) So far, I'm only pointing out the rights, benetifits, tax laws, etc. that are afforded to traditional married couples because they're married and that the identical rights, benefits, tax laws, etc. are denied to same sex couples because they're denied marriage and apparently none of these inequalities have anything to do with marriage.

In other words, you have no logical reasons to deny equal rights, benefits, tax laws, etc. to same sex couples that are allowed for traditional married couples.

-Scott

----- Original Message ----
From: g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
To: Scott Dredge <sdredge at yahoo.com>; viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 7:14:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Challenge to Crabtree

"I simply am trying to understand your reasons 
behind your sudden about face from "we need less government" to now wanting 
government to actively step in to deny these benefits."

The government would have "to actively step in" to 
allow those benefits not he other way around. As I have said many times 
before I would greatly prefer that the state had no involvement in marriage 
what so ever. There should be tax credits for the raising of children 
irrespective of marital status. 

That said, the evidence seems to indicate that the 
best template for a prosperous, stable, and healthy community is the traditional 
man and wife raising up the next generation of Americans. (and golden retrievers 
and gold fish) 

If the tax inequities that you use as justification 
for homosexual marriage are the major sticking point a far simpler solution is 
to eliminate the death tax altogether. Allowing same sex couple to avoid this 
tax by "virtue" of their marital status simply sets up a myriad of additional 
possibilities for scamming the government out of revenue, to say nothing of 
health care providers, employers, and insurance company's.

So far, all the arguments I'm hearing have nothing 
to do with marriage as such and everything to do with money. Why do you not 
attempt to address the money issues instead? Could it be that to do it through 
the alteration of traditional marriage provides the validation this group finds 
so sorely lacking as well as opening the doors for further societal changes that 
will be detrimental to the common good?

g

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Dredge" <sdredge at yahoo.com>

To: "viz" <vision2020 at moscow.com>

Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:23 
PM

Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Challenge to 
Crabtree

> Gary,
> 
> Most of the time I find your posts quite 
logical, but on this issue same sex marriage I see you posting wild 
inconsistencies and I'm wondering if you can logically defend your stance or if 
you have nothing else in your arsenal other than "it is not good for the 
community or the country as whole" without providing something for me to try and 
see your point.  For what it's worth, I also want what's best for the 
community / country as a whole and for me that starts with everyone being 
allowed equal rights and equal opportunity to pursue their life, liberty, and 
happiness.  My take is that equality is something you agree on as well to 
an extent.  You want to see all crimes prosecuted equally - and I don't 
believe you and I disagree on this - even though you and I have come down on 
opposite sides of hate crime legislation with me interpreting hate crime law to 
protect every person equally and you believing that it creates inequities and 
that it should be
> struck off the books.  Ultimately, if I'm 
reading you right, we still both believe in equality for everyone and maybe we 
can discuss hate crime legislation in more detail later.
> 
> Now 
getting back to the topic of same sex marriage, this is where I see a huge 
inequality and when I point out exactly what this inequality is in terms of 
partner benefits and surviving partner benefits you accuse me of "tak[ing] a 
demographic that already skews higher on the affluence scale and provide them 
with a few extra tax dodges".  The "tax dodges" as you deem them, exist for 
married couples and I agree with those tax dodges because without them, a 
surviving spouse would be faced with huge tax liabilities upon receiving 
property from the deceased spouse.  Applying the identical scenario to the 
same sex couple living next door (ie, same demographic), now suddenly - and 
quite puzzling to me - the big bad government that you have so much disdain for 
doesn't look so bad to you as it sticks it to the surviving same sex partner 
with heavy tax hits.  You go on to claim that you don't want special 
benefits for same sex partners.  I agree with 
that
> hypothetical statement although you would need to explain what 
you mean by "special benefits".  When you use phrases like "special 
benefits" my interpretation of this is that same sex couples would be getting 
some benefit that heterosexual couples would not be getting. If you mean that 
you don't want same sex couples to have equal already existing benefits that are 
granted to married couples, then I simply am trying to understand your reasons 
behind your sudden about face from "we need less government" to now wanting 
government to actively step in to deny these benefits.
> 
> I'm 
truly interested in hearing your reasons why keeping this inequality is good for 
the community and country.  Knock yourself out!
> 
> 
-Scott
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: g. crabtree 
<jampot at roadrunner.com>
> To: 
Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net>; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Sent: 
Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:42:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Challenge 
to Crabtree
> 
> Oh my, once again Mr. Campbell just can't seem to 
avoid trying to set up a 
> pissing contest and a fairly lame one at that. 
The answer to the question:
> 
> We are justified in preventing gays 
from marrying because _________.
> 
> Is we are not. Homosexuals can 
run off and find any mail order minister they 
> like to perform whatever 
solemn ceremony that makes their little hearts go 
> pitty-pat. They can 
emotionally swear life long fealty to one another till 
> they are blue in 
the face and I will do nothing but wish them the best. What 
> I will not 
do is recognize that their little performance is in some way good 
> for 
the community or the country as a whole.
> 
> For the record, what I 
suggested with my remark about mothers was that your 
> assertion 
regarding your having "the right to marry any adult person of your 
> 
choice" was, like many of your bold proclamations, incorrect. Using it as 

> the counterpoint for your silly little game I suppose is probably the 
best 
> you could do.
> 
> Save the vote in this goofy little 
for someone who cares. What's right isn't 
> decided by a show of hands. 
Please try to remember (assuming you ever really 
> grasped the concept at 
all) that good and right are distinct concepts from 
> some vague, 
squishy, personnel notion of "fair."
> 
> g
> ----- Original 
Message ----- 
> From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
> To: 
<vision2020 at moscow.com>
> 
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 6:23 PM
> Subject: [Vision2020] Challenge 
to Crabtree
> 
> 
>> Crabtree suggests that if folks have a 
right to gay marriage, then they 
>> have
>> (a) a right to 
marry their mothers, and (b) a right to marry multiple 
>> 
partners.
>>
>> I say that this is just crap that that some 
people bring up because they 
>> have
>> no argument and the 
best that they can do is appeal to emotion.
>>
>> I challenge 
Gary to fill in the blank:
>>
>> We are justified in 
preventing gays from marrying because _________.
>>
>> If he 
does so, I will fill in this blank:
>>
>> We are justified in 
preventing people from marrying their mothers because
>> 
_________.
>>
>> Then we'll let the people of Moscow vote as 
to which response is better!
>>
>> --
>> Joe 
Campbell
>>
>> 
=======================================================
>> 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/20070903/a3d14292/attachment-0001.html 