[Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage

Scott Dredge scooterd408 at hotmail.com
Fri Nov 21 00:55:58 PST 2008 

Kai,

Here's my answer's to your questions and my questions back to you...
> Do societies not have the right to decide what is acceptable 
and what isn't?
I don't know if they have the right to decide, but they seem to have the power to enforce.  In terms of gay marriage bans, I look at past history to see how good / bad for society previous marriage bans have been.  In terms of bans on interracial marriages, I see only negative effects on both individuals as well as society as a whole.  What's your take on interracial marriage bans?  Good or bad?  If bad, why did these bans exist in the first place and are these the same reasons why gay marriages are banned?  I think so.


> Why not make polygamy legal?
You tell me why not since you asked the question.  Make your case?  Extending identical rights to same sex couples that married couples are afforded neither helps not hinders the case for multiple marriages.  The rights already exist for married couples.  How would you go about extending these same rights for married couples to married groups of people.  You asked the question, so I'd like to hear if you have a coherent logic process for extending married couples right to married groups.  Good luck.



> Why not let brothers marry sisters or first cousins marry 
first cousins? (Other than the inbreeding issue)
Are these marriages banned?  If so, how?  State Constitutions across the country are being amended to strictly define marriage as between one man and one woman.  This would not preclude an adult brother from marrying his adult sister or prevent adult first cousins from marrying.  If this is such a societal ill, than why has this not also been included in these state constitutional marriage definition amendments.  The answer is that is not required since the only goal of these amendments is to slam the door on gay marriage.  For some reason unbeknownst to me, incestial marriage is more societally acceptable than gay marriage.  Please explain that since again you brought it up.

> 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.
I'm not sure what problem you're trying to solve here Kai.  At issue is that there are benefits (health, tax, property transfer, rights of survivorship, etc.) that are granted to married couples.  same sex couples are denied those rights for no logical reason.  Couples benefits must have a positive effect on society otherwise why not just ban those benefits altogether?  And yet, when these same benefits that have a positive effect for married couples are granted to same couples, this is deemed as negative for society.  Why? 

-Scott


From: editor at lataheagle.com
To: josephc at wsu.edu; kjajmix1 at msn.com; vision2020 at moscow.com; thansen at moscow.com
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:05:19 -0800
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage




Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage



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 
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 11:57 AM
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

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
_________________________________________________________________
Proud to be a PC? Show the world. Download the “I’m a PC” Messenger themepack now.
hthttp://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119642558/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081121/6b1896a4/attachment-0001.html

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list