[Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage

Joseph Campbell josephc at wsu.edu
Thu Nov 20 12:37:51 PST 2008 

That is not the issue. The issue is who decides whether gay marriage is OK?
The general CA public, by popular vote? Or the California Supreme Court? I
think that the latter is a better judge. Why? Let¹s ask the same question
about your right to free speech, or mine. I don¹t want the general CA public
to decide whether or not I have that right, and I¹m sure you would agree.
What makes marriage different? I don¹t want them to tell me who I should
marry either. Do you? Tell me that you don¹t see a problem with letting the
public decide who you can and cannot marry?


On 11/20/08 12:23 PM, "Kai Eiselein, Editor" <editor at lataheagle.com> wrote:

> Let's then.
> The issue is gay marriage, not free speech.
> 
> From: Joseph Campbell <mailto:josephc at wsu.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:20 PM
> 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
> 
> 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?
> Let¹s 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, ³Due  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.²
>> 
>> 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  shouldn¹t the general public be allowed to determine whether
>> or not you have  the right to speak?
>> 
>> I¹m 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/20081120/6fc41b40/attachment.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/20081120/6fc41b40/attachment.gif

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list