[Vision2020] Why I Support Gay Marriage
Mo Hendrickson
hend5953 at vandals.uidaho.edu
Thu Aug 13 14:02:57 PDT 2009
This is my long overdue response to Gary's questions from the end of July. As we all know life happens and sometimes things fall through the cracks, that is what happened to my response. With Palouse Pride this Saturday and the Washington State Referendum 71 likely to be on the ballot in November, I figured it was time to give my point of view.
First I want to thank Gary for asking his questions. I had honestly not done a whole lot of research into the effects of restricting marriage and found that I am now better equipped to handle questions when they come my way. I am by no means an expert but I want to share what I have found and speak from my own experience.
The first thing I am going to address is the notion that "most states allow pretty much all accomodation to homosexual couples as they do hetro except the title." Oh if this were even close to the truth I would be a much happier person. Lets take Idaho as an example. Same-sex couples in Idaho are pretty much considered roommates under the law. There is no legal protection granted to them by the state. A married couple in Idaho can file joint taxes, when a child is born both people in the couple are legally that child's parent even if sperm donation was used, they can make medical and financial decisions for the other person without drawing up legal paperwork...the list could go on and on. A same sex couple enjoys none of these or any other rights of marriage in Idaho.
Yes we can go to a lawyer and have wills and powers of attorney drawn up, but that does not make things equal. Say my partner and I where traveling out of state we are in an accident and one of us is unable to consent to medical care. I pull out my power of attorney hoping that the hospital will accept it and grant me the power to make the decisions. If they wanted they could look right past me and call my partners family to make those decisions. In my case we would probably be on the same page as to care, but that is not always the case. If a straight married couple had the same thing occur the hospital would not ask them to produce their marriage license before allowing the other to make those decisions. There are plenty of places across this country that still deny partners the right to visit each other in the hospital, simply on the basis that they are not a "family" member. Tell me how this is right? Tell me how this makes our country stronger, denying the right to see a loved one? To me this is wrong on so many levels.
I know I may not be answering your questions directly but I am trying to cover a great deal of information. You asked about the major tangible benefits for my partner and I. First and the most present for my partner and I is medical benefits. I am currently covered by her plan, she works for a company that has generously paid for our benefits. She is back in school and will be leaving her job in the next couple of years. She will be without health insurance because I cannot carry her on my insurance through the University. The insurance at UI may not be the best around but it is better than nothing. Along with health care if one of us were to get sick or injured and had to take time off, the other could not take family medical leave to care for the other person. A married couple is covered under the federal Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) which protects a workers job with unpaid time off to care for a sick family member. We are not married so we are not covered.
Second major tangible benefit, parental rights of each parent. I am unable to carry children, so when we start a family it will be my partner who carries the child. When our children are born, the sperm donor will have more rights to my child than I will. We will need to go through the process of adoption so that i can be the legal parent of the child. So not only do we need to go through the expense of pregnancy, we will have the added expense of legalizing my rights with my child. If my partner were to die before the process was over I could be denied custody of my child.
I really could go on and I intended this to be more empirical and less emotive, but alas it is something that is dear to my heart and would greatly improve the lives of millions of Americans. If you want empirical data I will gladly share the volumes of data that I found. But for now I will hold onto it...this email is getting long and my lunch break is almost over.
There is one final thing that I would like to say. Unfortunately I did not save the email in which you wrote this, Gary, and I don't have time to look it up in the archives, but in subsequent emails you referred to my partner as my "pal." I am not going to fly off the handle and call you all sorts of nasty names, but I will say this. That one little word hurt me. I don't think I am being overly sensitive to this either. We have been together for over six and a half years, she is not my pal, she is my partner. We share everything, good and bad, we have seen each other through some really hard times and we have celebrated with each other in the joyous times. You are a smart man, you know the impact your words have on people. I wanted to let you know that this time they cut a little too deep. I may not agree with most of what you write on the vision, but I do respect you. I ask that you do the same for me.
Ok, now it really is time to finish my lunch.
-Mo
From: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
To: hend5953 at vandals.uidaho.edu
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Choices
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:26:29 -0700
Since I've done that one before Mo, why not just for fun
try a different approach. Why don't you explain to me all the myriad ways
in which you being able to marry your partner is a benefit to me and/or society?
Explain how it will be good for children (mine or yours, assuming you have any),
how it will strenghten families, and how it won't cause large problems with
regard to an already tottering social security system. Lay out how it won't set
the stage for polygamous and polyandrous unions with all the inherent problems
that will bring. Perhaps, if nothing else, explain to me what the major tangible
benefits of it would even be for you and your partner.
All the things that you claim you long for can be achieved
by other legal means. It is my understanding that most states allow pretty much
all accomadation to homosexual couples as they do hetro except the title, why so
adamant in your insistance for a change to the status quo?
g
----- Original Message -----
From:
Mo Hendrickson
To: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 1:11 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Choices
One question Gary. I am hoping you can clarify this point
for me...
How would my desire to marry my partner adversely affect you?
Your marriage, I am making an assumption that you are married, has no
effect on me, so why would mine have any bearing on you? Why do you
advocate for denying me and my partner a legally recognized marriage?
Not that I expect an answer but I thought I would put it out
there. I guess anybody who is opposed to same gender marriage could
answer this question. And so we don't head down the ridiculous path of
marrying goats, I am defining same gender marriage as two consenting
adults.
-Mo
From: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Date: Fri,
24 Jul 2009 12:41:22 -0700
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re:
[Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with facts."
Another inconsequential argument. No valid
marriages are being rendered "null and void" and I'm not suggesting that any
be made so. I think that my views are quite consistant. I'm in favor of choice
when the choice doesn't adversely affect others who have no way of escaping my
decision.
What strikes me as strange is your notion that
your personally concocted idea of freedoms should be celebrated
and allowed to impact any and everyone with no regard for adverse
impact.
g
-----
Original Message -----
From:
Joe Campbell
To:
the lockshop
Cc:
TIM RIGSBY ; <starbliss at gmail.com> ; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent:
Friday, July 24, 2009 11:43 AM
Subject:
Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with
facts."
So you think that the state should not be forced to recognize marriage?
If they were to say that conservatives with inconsistent views were not
allowed to marry, and thus your marriage was null and void, that would be
fine with you? Yipes! As I said, this is a strange kind of freedom!
And I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm just pointing out the
implications of your own words.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 24, 2009, at 1:55 PM, "the lockshop"
<lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:
Is mis-stating my position really the only
way you can think of to try and make a valid point?
As I have said repeatedly, I believe that if
homosexuals can find someone who is willing to pronounce them man and man,
wife and wife, or man, wife, wife, or any permutation thereof then
swell, I wish them the best. What I am not in favor of is in my or the
state being forced to recognize it.
With regard to the abortion issue though
I've really got to admit that you've got me caught on the horns of a
delimma. How could I not see the similarity between making a choice
that has a 1 in 15 chance of potentially damaging the health of the
person doing the choosing and making a decision that
has a 100% chance of killing an innocent party?
In both of your examples the decision extends
to others who will not be given a choice to participate. Bar patrons and
employess do get to make an informed choice and as a result your comments
seem a trifle lame.
g
-----
Original Message -----
From:
Joe Campbell
To:
the lockshop
Cc:
TIM RIGSBY ; <starbliss at gmail.com> ; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent:
Friday, July 24, 2009 9:29 AM
Subject:
Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with
facts."
You don't even think that ADULTS are able to make decisions about
whom to marry or whether pr not to have children, so stop pretending to
respect a person's right to make decisions for him or
herself!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 24, 2009, at 12:11 PM, "the lockshop"
<lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:
It would seem that you, Mr. Moffet, and our city
council have a mighty low opinion of the intelligence of the patrons
and employees of bars and taverns. I can't speak for your students
but, I find it very difficult to believe that by the time a citizen
reaches the age of 21 in the United States he hasn't heard
the anti-smoking mantra to the point of nausea.
How lucky we are that there are people out there
who will take it upon themselves to prevent emancipated Americans from
making their own decisions with regard to the risks they take in
life.
g
-----
Original Message -----
From:
TIM RIGSBY
To:
starbliss at gmail.com ;
vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent:
Friday, July 24, 2009 7:47 AM
Subject:
Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with
facts."
I would like to add the idea of this
saying,
"Don't let the facts get in the way of a good
story."
Either way Ted, you brought up some very valid points
that tend to be forgotten when people discuss tobacco/smoking
regulation and legislation. What scares me as a Health Teacher
is when I hear my junior high and high school aged students talking
about how safe, they think anyway, Hookah bars are. When asked
if they would ever smoke cigarettes, they claim that they
won't. Yet what these students don't realize is that they are
actually smoking tobacco at the high school hookah parties.
What is even scarier is a lot of the parents think that hookah is a
safe alternative as well.
The hookah bar closest to my
house in Boise is constantly packed with young people all of the
time. Often times, other substances are being laced into the
tobacco as well and these young people are unknowingly smoking
illegal drugs along with their fruit and tobacco mixture.
I
predict in the not so distant future, Boise and possibly the State
Legislature will enact legislation to regulate/control these hookah
establishments.
Here is a question to ponder. By
definition based on Idaho Code, what is a hookah bar categorized
as? A restaurant, a bar, a private club? If it falls
under the bar definition, then people under 21 should not be allowed
in. It seems as though hookah bars would fall into an
undefined gray area of the Idaho Clean Indoor Air Act.
However, Moscow seems to have covered hookah bars in their recent
ban of smoking, I could be wrong though.
" 'Politics is the
art of controlling your environment.' That is one of the key things
I learned in these years, and I learned it the hard way. Anybody who
thinks that 'it doesn't matter who's President' has never been
Drafted and sent off to fight and die in a vicious, stupid War on
the other side of the World -- or been beaten and gassed by Police
for trespassing on public property -- or been hounded by the IRS for
purely political reasons -- or locked up in the Cook County Jail
with a broken nose and no phone access and twelve perverts wanting
to stomp your ass in the shower. That is when it matters who is
President or Governor or Police Chief. That is when you will wish
you had voted." - Hunter S. Thompson
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:39:45 -0700
From:
starbliss at gmail.com
To:
vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020]
"Please do not continue to confuse people with facts."
The "Off List" response referenced, from someone I regard as
one of the most educated and honest Vision2020 participants,
that I received to my post below on tobacco regulation, is in
total what is stated in the subject heading of this post. Wise
words, no doubt, that I ignore at my own risk...
Notice there is limited or no discussion of some of the
critical facts my post presented: that tobacco
(nicotine) is a physically addictive drug, with
underage tobacco addiction common, raising questions if whether
adult "choice" is in effect regarding employees or consumers in
tobacco related decisions; that tobacco is the leading cause of
premature death (nuclear waste or energy or even nuclear weapons
production is not even close as a cause of premature death); that
other drugs doing less harm to society than tobacco are criminalized
and prosecuted aggressively, involving civil and human rights
violations, yet who among those opposing regulation of
tobacco, will as aggressively advocate for these drugs to
be managed by free choice and the marketplace, rather than a
government "Big Brother?" Some, perhaps... While there are
others who should know better playing some on this list as
fools, for the sake of debate, or political advantage, or popular
image or whatever... Or they are as deluded as those they are
debating with...
My response to the "Off List" comment discussed
here:
Ummm... OK, I guess... However, being an idealist in belief
that expressing the truth is morally mandated (where did I get that
dangerous idea? I''ll end up in serious trouble! Oh, I
forgot, I already am...), I may not comply. I recently read a
variation of this same expression in James Lovelock's "Revenge
of Gaia:" "Don't confuse me with the facts, my minds made up."
Lovelock was referring to this mentality regarding the rejection of
nuclear power by many in the environmental movement.
Ted
Please do not continue to confuse people with
facts.
-----
Original Message -----
From:
Ted Moffett
To:
Moscow Vision 2020
Sent:
Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:55 AM
Subject:
[Vision2020] Tobacco: Targeting the Nation’s Leading Killer:
Centers for Disease Control
Tobacco (nicotine) is a physically addictive drug.
Once addicted, "choice" becomes a problematic concept. And
many people become addicted while underage, encouraged to
continue their addiction in bars, where cigarettes are
often shared between customers.
The fact tobacco is physically addictive is absent from the
comments of many opposing the smoking ordinance, as are the
facts regarding the magnitude of the
damage. Comparisons to other harmful behaviors
are drawn (fatty food, etc.), suggesting that a slippery slope
of regulation will lead to government control over too many
aspects of life, but many of these behaviors do not involve
a drug addiction. Of course alcohol has dramatic negative
impacts. But workers in bars are not forced to drink the
drinks the customers order, as they breathe the smoke
of the customers.
I find it incredible that the health of workers exposed to
an addictive drug when they breathe in the workplace is
approached so callously. They can work elsewhere, it's
announced with smug authority, as if in this economy workers
have the luxury of choosing whatever job suits their fancy,
rather than an urgency to take whatever work they can
find. If it was cocaine or heroin or methamphetamine that
workers were exposed to, the attitude might be different.
Profits from exposing workers to addictive drugs in the
workplace should be protected based on free market, free choice,
adult responsibility? If this is the logic, where are the
protests against laws imposed on those selling
cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine, et. al., to consenting
adults, which can result in long prison sentences? Let the
free market decide! Why stand in the way of
profits and the free choice of adults?
If those opposing the smoking ordinance were consistent in
their outrage against limits on the free market, their ideology
might have more intellectual credibility. Instead, the
libertarianism proposed is inconsistent and conformist. Or
perhaps those opposed to the smoking ordinance will now protest
that bars do not allow legal cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine
use? Think of the profits to be made! And remember,
tobacco prematurely kills more people than those three drugs
combined...
If attempts were made to criminalize tobacco like cannabis
is, resulting in prison sentences, home invasions, for sale or
use, I would oppose this vehemently. But an ordinance
regulating smoking in bars does not stop any adult from legally
using tobacco products in settings where they do not expose
workers.
If worker freedom of choice was a valid argument to justify
the exposure of workers to tobacco smoke in bars, than OSHA
could be mostly eliminated. After all, if workers exposed
to hazards monitored or banned by OSHA don't want to work with
those risks, they can work elsewhere, as long as signs posted in
the workplace inform them of the risks. A "Big
Brother" government bureaucracy gone.
--------------------------
http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh.htm
The Burden of Tobacco UseTobacco use is the single most
preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the
United States. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die
prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and
another 8.6 million have a serious illness caused by smoking.
For every person who dies from smoking, 20 more people suffer
from at least one serious tobacco-related illness. Despite these
risks, approximately 43.4 million U.S. adults smoke cigarettes.
Smokeless tobacco, cigars, and pipes also have deadly
consequences, including lung, larynx, esophageal, and oral
cancers.
The harmful effects of smoking do not end with the
smoker. More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans, including
children and adults, are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke.
Even brief exposure can be dangerous because nonsmokers inhale
many of the same carcinogens and toxins in cigarette smoke as
smokers. Secondhand smoke exposure causes serious disease and
death, including heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking
adults and sudden infant death syndrome, acute respiratory
infections, ear problems, and more frequent and severe asthma
attacks in children. Each year, primarily because of exposure to
secondhand smoke, an estimated 3,000 nonsmoking Americans die of
lung cancer, more than 46,000 (range: 22,700–69,600) die of
heart disease, and about 150,000–300,000 children younger than
18 months have lower respiratory tract infections.
Coupled
with this enormous health toll is the significant economic
burden of tobacco use—more than $96 billion per year in medical
expenditures and another $97 billion per year resulting from
lost productivity.
[A text description of
this graph is also available.]
The Tobacco Use Epidemic Can Be StoppedA 2007 Institute
of Medicine (IOM) report presented a blueprint for action to
“reduce smoking so substantially that it is no longer a public
health problem for our nation.” The two-pronged strategy for
achieving this goal includes not only strengthening and fully
implementing currently proven tobacco control measures, but also
changing the regulatory landscape to permit policy innovations.
Foremost among the IOM recommendations is that each state should
fund a comprehensive tobacco control program at the level
recommended by CDC in Best Practices for Comprehensive
Tobacco Control Programs–2007.
Evidence-based, statewide
tobacco control programs that are comprehensive, sustained, and
accountable have been shown to reduce smoking rates,
tobacco-related deaths, and diseases caused by smoking. A
comprehensive program is a coordinated effort to establish
smoke-free policies and social norms, to promote and assist
tobacco users to quit, and to prevent initiation of tobacco use.
This approach combines educational, clinical, regulatory,
economic, and social strategies.
Research has documented the
effectiveness of laws and policies to protect the public from
secondhand smoke exposure, promote cessation, and prevent
initiation when they are applied in a comprehensive way. For
example, states can increase the unit price of tobacco products;
implement smoking bans through policies, regulations, and laws;
provide insurance coverage of tobacco use treatment; and limit
minors’ access to tobacco products.
If the nation is to
achieve the objectives outlined in Healthy People 2010,
comprehensive, evidence-based approaches for preventing smoking
initiation and increasing cessation need to be fully
implemented.
CDC's ResponseCDC is the lead federal agency for
tobacco control. CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health (OSH)
provides national leadership for a comprehensive, broad-based
approach to reducing tobacco use. A variety of government
agencies, professional and voluntary organizations, and academic
institutions have joined together to advance this approach,
which involves the following activities:
Preventing young people from starting to smoke.
Eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke.
Promoting quitting among young people and
adults.
Identifying and eliminating tobacco-related health
disparities. Essential elements of this approach
include state-based, community-based, and health system-based
interventions; cessation services; counter marketing; policy
development and implementation; surveillance; and evaluation.
These activities target groups who are at highest risk for
tobacco-related health
problems.
-------------------------------------------
Vision2020
Post: Ted
Moffett
Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Celebrate the moment with your favorite
sports pics. Check it out.
=======================================================
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
=======================================================
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database:
270.13.26/2257 - Release Date: 07/23/09
18:00:00
=======================================================
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
=======================================================
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258
- Release Date: 07/24/09 05:58:00
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release
Date: 07/24/09 05:58:00
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release
Date: 07/24/09 05:58:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090813/da8d541a/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list