[Vision2020] Why I Support Gay Marriage
Mo Hendrickson
hend5953 at vandals.uidaho.edu
Fri Aug 14 10:18:09 PDT 2009
I will write more later about gay marriage. But I need to say this
now. When I wrote that your use of the word Pal hurt me...I don't
think I really expected an apology from you. But there was a small
part of me that hoped that you would have the human decency not to make
some snide comment about how not sorry you are. I was also makybe
hoping you would be able to carry on a civil discourse about this
topic, but apparently you won't even pretend. There are ways of
disagreeing with other people without belittling and hurting people in
the process.
I also find it interesting that you did not give the full definitions of pal and partner.
From dictionary.com
pal /pæl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pal] Show IPA noun, verb, palled, pal⋅ling. Informal.Use pal in a Sentence –noun 1. a very close, intimate friend; comrade; chum. 2. an accomplice. –verb (used without object) 3. to associate as comrades or chums: to pal around with the kid next door.
part⋅ner /ˈpɑrtnər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pahrt-ner] Show IPA Use partner in a Sentence –noun 1. a person who shares or is associated with another in some action or endeavor; sharer; associate. 2. Law. a. a
person associated with another or others as a principal or a
contributor of capital in a business or a joint venture, usually
sharing its risks and profits. b. special partner. 3. silent partner. 4. a husband or a wife; spouse. 5. either of two people who dance together: my favorite partner in the waltz. 6. a player on the same side or team as another: My tennis partner was an excellent player. 7. partners, Nautical. a framework of timber round a hole in a ship's deck, to support a mast, capstan, pump, etc.
Nautical
references aside, one of the definitions of partner is spouse. The
additional definitions of pal are chum and comrade. I don't think it
would be too much of a leap for me to say that you see my relationship
as a friendship, not as a consensual loving partnership. I have plenty
of "pals" but only one partner. But I think you probably knew all of
this.
-Mo
From: jampot at roadrunner.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:14:42 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Why I Support Gay Marriage
Unfortunately, my question was not answered in even
the most oblique fashion. What I asked was "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?" What you replied with was the standard song we have all
become so familiar with. To paraphrase: "I want it because I perceive it as good
for me." and, because I thinks it's "fair." We've heard this all before and
I am not going to respond at that level because to do so is to make this into
some sort of a personnel argument regarding your lifestyle (which I have no
interest in) rather than a discussion of the merits of changing a policy that
has worked, sometimes imperfectly I'll be the first to admit, for
centuries.
Next order of biz, I suppose, is me making some sort
massively insincere apology for my choice of noun to refer to your
"partner." Let's face it, we all know that I would not be sorry in the
least so I won't even pretend for the sake of civil discourse. I'm
glad that you choose to believe that I'm a "smart man." You would not need to
search very hard to find venomous and vociferous disagreement. Either
way, I do know what the words I choose to use mean,
from dictionary.com
Pal 1. a very close,
intimate friend.
Partner 1. a person
who shares or is associated with another in some action or
endeavor.
and now you do too. Take from this what you
will.
respectfully,
g
----- Original Message -----
From:
keely emerinemix
To: Mo Hendrickson ; lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:24
PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Why I Support
Gay Marriage
Mo, thanks for a very important contribution to the debate
surrounding same-sex marriage. I appreciate your not only taking the
time to answer Gary, but the reasonableness with which you answer his
questions. This, and many other reasons, are why I'm blessed by God to
call you and your partner -- "pal" IS utterly offensive -- my dear
friends.
Keely
www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
From: hend5953 at vandals.uidaho.edu
To:
lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
Date:
Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:02:57 -0700
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject:
[Vision2020] Why I Support Gay Marriage
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
Get free photo software from Windows Live Click here.
=======================================================
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/20090814/69f7f8e6/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list