[Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage
Scott Dredge
scooterd408 at hotmail.com
Mon Nov 24 21:42:12 PST 2008
Kai,
Your answer does not say it all. If I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that bans on interracial marriages were bad. You made no attempt to at all to address my follow on question of 'why did these [interracial] bans exist in the first place'? Please answer this directly.
If you agree that interracial bans were wrong and yet society enforced these bans on marriage, how is that you're so sure that same sex marriage bans are are not wrong? I say they're wrong because they create an inequality which creates social unrest and we're seeing that in the form of pickets, boycotts, etc. Until this inequality is fully addressed, this issue will not subside. Personally, I don't have a hangup up about Polygamous families. Regarding domestic partner laws, these laws do not offer the same rights / benefits as married couples.
>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
same-sex couples face other financial challenges against which legal marriage at least partially shields opposite-sex couples:
potential loss of couple's home from medical expenses of one partner caring for another gravely ill one
costs of supporting two households, travel, or emigration out of
the U.S. for an American citizen unable to legally marry a non-US
citizen
higher cost of purchasing private insurance for partner and
children if company is not one of 18% that offer domestic partner
benefits
higher taxes: unlike a company's contribution to an employee's
spouse's health insurance, domestic partner benefits are taxed as
additional compensation
legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner documents to
gain some of the power of attorney, health care decision-making, and
inheritance rights granted through legal marriage
higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and
preventative care: 20% of same-sex couples have a member who is
uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples
current tax law allows a spouse to inherit an unlimited amount from
the deceased without incurring an estate tax but an unmarried partner
would have to pay the estate tax on the inheritance from her/his partner
same-sex couples are not eligible to file jointly or separately as
a married couple and thus cannot take the advantages of lower tax rates
when the individual income of the partners differs significantly
-Scott
From: editor at lataheagle.com
To: scooterd408 at hotmail.com; josephc at wsu.edu; kjajmix1 at msn.com; vision2020 at moscow.com; thansen at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:52:10 -0800
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.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
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. Download now.
Kai Eiselein
Editor, Latah
Eagle
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster_112008
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081124/948f99ff/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list