[Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage

Mon Nov 24 11:20:47 PST 2008

Question, Visionaires -

In a polygamous marriage, are all spouses inter-married?  In other words . . . Are not only the husband married to his several wives, but are the several wives married to each other?

If so, then wouldn't a polygamous marriage consist of (conceivably) multiple same-sex marriages?

Hmmm.

Tom "lesbian trapped in a man's body" Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

From: editor at lataheagle.comTo: scooterd408 at hotmail.com; josephc at wsu.edu; kjajmix1 at msn.com; vision2020 at moscow.com; thansen at moscow.comDate: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:52:10 -0800Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage

Scott,
My take on interracial marriage? I was was in an interracial marriage, my child is the product of the marriage. That pretty much says it all.
Polygamy has been a cultural norm in many parts of the world. And it does have some practical applications.
For instance, in cultures where the male population has been decimated, for whatever reason, it would make sense for males to have multiple wives. 
So where would this apply in the U.S.? In areas where the male population has been hammered by death and prison terms. The number of eligible females to eligible males is completely out of whack. Why not let stable, albeit larger ,family groups have a chance. Nothing else has worked.
To my knowledge, no state allows for marriage between close relatives.
Doesn't California already allow for gays to have benefits through domestic partnership laws? I believe it also applies to hetero couples living together.
It would make far more sense for the state to administer those, than marriage. Leave marriage up to religious organizations and domestic contracts to the state.

From: Scott Dredge 
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 12:55 AM
To: editor at lataheagle.com ; josephc at wsu.edu ; kjajmix1 at msn.com ; viz ; thansen at moscow.com 
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage
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.comTo: josephc at wsu.edu; kjajmix1 at msn.com; vision2020 at moscow.com; thansen at moscow.comDate: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:05:19 -0800Subject: 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 AMTo: <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 EiseleinEditor, 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 EiseleinEditor, Latah Eagle

Proud to be a PC? Show the world. Download the “I’m a PC” Messenger themepack now. Download now. 
Kai EiseleinEditor, Latah Eagle
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081124/8616760a/attachment-0001.html 