[Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage

[Andreas Schou]

Kai --

They've got the right to decide what's acceptable and unacceptable. But
there are certain things that we have enshrined in our Constitution as being
more important than other particular things. You conservatives want to go
after the federal 14th Amendment? I'll take that bet.

Incidentally, virtually this exact case has been heard once in the past --
by the US Supreme Court. We won last time*.

-- ACS

(1)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=387&invol=369

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Kai Eiselein, Editor <
editor at lataheagle.com> wrote:

>  Do societies not have the right to decide what is acceptable and what
> isn't?
> Why not make polygamy legal?
> Why not let brothers marry sisters or first cousins marry first cousins?
> (Other than the inbreeding issue)
> Why not just make an amendment stating a marriage can be between ANY
> consenting adults? That would be the best way, wouldn't it?
> I can just hear the champagne corks popping as divorce lawyers celebrate
> the thought of multiple wives divorcing a husband.
>
>  *From:* Joseph Campbell <josephc at wsu.edu>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 20, 2008 11:57 AM
> *To:* Kai Eiselein, Editor <editor at lataheagle.com> ; kjajmix1 at msn.com ;
> vision2020 at moscow.com ; Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay
> Marriage
>
> According to Wikipedia, "*Due process* (more fully *due process of law*)
> is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights
> that are owed to a person according to the law of the land, instead of
> respecting merely some or most of those legal rights."
>
> Do you think that rights are better served by allowing the general public
> to decide who has the right to speak, to vote, to wed? If to wed, then why
> not to speak? Why shouldn't the general public be allowed to determine
> whether or not you have the right to speak?
>
> I'm trying to bring the issue home to something you might relate to
> personally. Something to engage your empathetic imagination.
>
>
> On 11/20/08 11:37 AM, "Kai Eiselein, Editor" <editor at lataheagle.com>
> wrote:
>
> I'm going to play Devil's advocate for a moment, and to be clear I don't
> give a rip about gay marriage one way or another. Hey, if if gay couples
> want to keep divorce lawyers in business by forking over thousands of
> dollars in fees and spend months going to hearing after hearing after
> hearing, well, welcome to the hetero world. Toss in a child or two and
> becomes even more fun.
> *...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall  abridge the
> privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
> State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
> of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
> of the laws."
> *Doesn't a referendum come under "due process"?
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 11:16 AM
> To: <editor at lataheagle.com>; <kjajmix1 at msn.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage
>
> >>From Article 6 of the US Constitution -
> >
> > "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
>
> > in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,
> under
> > the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
>
> > and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
> > Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
> >
> > -------------------
> >
> >>From the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution -
> >
> > "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
>
> > jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
> > wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
> > abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
> nor
> > shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
>
> > due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
> > equal protection of the laws."
> >
> > -------------------------------------
> >
> > Now, which part of the US Constitution are you struggling with, Kai?
> >
> > Tom Hansen
> > Moscow,
> > Idaho
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------
> > This message was sent by First Step Internet.
> >           http://www.fsr.com/
> >
> >
> Kai Eiselein
> Editor, Latah Eagle
>
> ------------------------------
> =======================================================
>  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 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
> Kai Eiselein
> Editor, Latah Eagle
>
> =======================================================
>  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/20081120/51982e43/attachment-0001.html