[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