[Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage
Kai Eiselein, Editor
editor at lataheagle.com
Thu Nov 20 16:51:31 PST 2008
Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay MarriageWellll,
Let's see.
First of all, free speech is already guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, (The Patriot Act, aka the "Fear Law" has already assaulted it) there is no mention of marriage that I'm aware of in that document.
Sooo, that leaves it up to the states how to decide.
Apparently, California law allows for a vote by referendum to make amendments, so it would seem the first logical step would be to have a referendum to make an amendment to require that amendments be made by a vote of legislators only. It would make it less expensive for proponents/opponents of any given amendment by narrowing down who's pockets they need to line with cash to purchase a vote in their favor.
But I digress, the fact is voters, at least under California law, have the right to decide. This isn't a moral issue, it's a legal issue. Boiled down, all that marriage does is help clarify who is entitled to what within estates of decedents. It's not about "family" or "romance" or "love" or "children", it's about a contract and who can and cannot sign that contract.
If it wasn't a legal issue, then parties wouldn't need marriage licenses from the state, they wouldn't need to note whether they were married or single on tax forms or any number of other documents. All they would need is find the appropriate religious institution to marry them with no interference from the state.
Ideally, marriage would come under the "separation of church and state" statement mentioned so often here... under the "church" side. But that ain't gonna happen cuz there's too many lawyers and too much money for them to make at stake.
Joe, you could marry a seven legged space alien for all I care.
From: Joseph Campbell
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:37 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
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? Let's ask the same question about your right to free speech, or mine. I don't want the general CA public to decide whether or not I have that right, and I'm sure you would agree. What makes marriage different? I don't want them to tell me who I should marry either. Do you? Tell me that you don't 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? 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
Kai Eiselein
Editor, Latah Eagle
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081120/a732026b/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/a732026b/attachment.gif
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list