[Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage

[Kai Eiselein, Editor]

Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay MarriageLet's then.
The issue is gay marriage, not free speech. 


From: Joseph Campbell 
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:20 PM
To: Kai Eiselein, Editor ; kjajmix1 at msn.com ; vision2020 at moscow.com ; Tom Hansen 
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage


The question is who should decide matters of law: the people, by popular vote, or judges, who have knowledge of the Constitution and legal precedent? I think the latter. Personally, I feel that most of the things below that you find absurd are in fact absurd. More the reason not to leave the vote up to the general public.

Notice you did not answer whether or not you think that your right to free speech hinges on their opinion. Do you? And if not that right, why others? Let's stick to one issue at a time, and deal with the others later.

Joe

On 11/20/08 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 <mailto:josephc at wsu.edu>  
  Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 11:57 AM
  To: Kai Eiselein, Editor <mailto:editor at lataheagle.com>  ; kjajmix1 at msn.com ; vision2020 at moscow.com ; Tom Hansen <mailto: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
    =======================================================


  Kai Eiselein
  Editor, Latah Eagle




Kai Eiselein
Editor, Latah Eagle
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081120/3352b2d9/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 257 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081120/3352b2d9/attachment-0001.gif