[Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage

Fri Nov 21 12:15:45 PST 2008

Joe and Scott, you are both very correct.

Consider this as well;

Gay and Lesbian marriage brings no harm economically or physically to the individuals or society. 

Polygamy only works in a society that isn't gender equal. Because if men can marry as many women as they want, then women could also marry as many men as they want. Then we could have an endless web of men and women married to each other. There is also real harm to a spouse that is sleeping with others, both economically and physically.

Incest is different too because each partner in the relationship is not equal. A father has a great deal of social and economic power over his daughter. As does the mother over the son, or an elder sibling over the younger. This is of course in addition to the actual harm that comes to an individual offspring born with a genetic mutation and the society having to care for the individuals born with genetic defects. There is real harm done here to society and individuals in cases of incest. 

Animals, the sick and far fetched comparison, that is also incomparable because animals cannot give consent, nor are they equal to humans on the social level in our society. Animals and pets are property not persons, and you cannot marry property, only persons. 

Best Regards,

Donovan

--- On Fri, 11/21/08, Joseph Campbell <josephc at wsu.edu> wrote:

From: Joseph Campbell <josephc at wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage
To: "Scott Dredge" <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>, editor at lataheagle.com, kjajmix1 at msn.com, "viz" <vision2020 at moscow.com>, thansen at moscow.com
Date: Friday, November 21, 2008, 6:49 AM

This is great, Scott, and I agree! Especially with the issue of polygamy, which is a non-issue. The fact is NO ONE has the legal right to marry as many people as they would like whereas SOME folks do have the legal right to marry the one person that they want to marry, whereas others do not. Likewise, no one has the legal right (currently) to marry their sister. Laws banning same-sex marriage are discriminatory in the way that polygamy laws and laws banning brothers from marrying their sisters are not, for they allow some folks to do things that other folks cannot do.

Of course, I make this point nearly every time it comes up and it doesn’t stop these slippery slope arguments from coming up!

Joe

On 11/21/08 12:55 AM, "Scott Dredge" <scooterd408 at hotmail.com> wrote:

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 <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

Proud to be a PC? Show the world. Download the “I’m a PC” Messenger themepack now. Download now. <http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119642558/direct/01/> 

=======================================================
 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/20081121/bc7c2c19/attachment.html 