[Vision2020] Gay Marriage benefits for Gary

Sat Aug 15 11:08:54 PDT 2009

"... the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protecting the
free exercise of religion makes it unlikely that a church would be
forced by law into performing same-sex weddings."

I didn't say anything about being forced by law to perform same sex 
marriages per se, nor was I confining my thought to the US. The sorts of 
things I was thinking of when I said "provide services" was...

Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR

Vicars could be sued for refusing to bless gay weddings, fears ...

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=25762

etc.

While I'm convinced that the best possible environment for the raising of 
kids is in a family that consists of a man and a woman committed to one 
another for the long haul, using govenment to encourage it has (as most 
things governmental) become ineffective. I agree with Roger and as I have 
said before removing The State from the equation would seem to be the best 
solution.

g
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Glenn Schwaller" <vpschwaller at gmail.com>
To: "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gay Marriage benefits for Gary

I'm not an advocate of gay marriage, at least not until it is extended
to the concept of pluralistic marriage.  That being said (and I'm not
going to get involved in arguments over polygamy but feel free to do
so yourselves), the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protecting the
free exercise of religion makes it unlikely that a church would be
forced by law into performing same-sex weddings.

If arguments against gay marriage are considered either religious or
bigoted, our Constitution and the associated federal laws make seem to
prohibit endorsing of these viewpoints by the government.  I would
suggest reviewing for example, the First Thirteenth, Fourteenth,
Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth amendments for
discourses on government-sponsored discrimination, bigotry and
intolerance.

Every generation adds new legislation to forbid discrimination against
a "new" category of people, which suggests to me that obviously our
laws are meant to protect all categories of people.  I would go so far
as to say even those categories of people of whom our legislators
haven't gotten around to protecting.  At least not yet considering the
vast number of remarkably short-sighted and unimaginative legislators
who seem to get voted into office on a regular basis.

It will be interesting to see how the philosophy of these arguments
will be turned on their heads when one of these "new" categories of
people arise who really get the intoleristas knickers in a twist.

GS

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Andreas Schou<ophite at gmail.com> wrote:
> Right, yeah, Gary. I don't claim comprehensive knowledge, but 'm not
> aware of how such an action would be brought, much less any examples
> of how it could be done.
>
> -- ACS
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Mo
> Hendrickson<hend5953 at vandals.uidaho.edu> wrote:
>> "There are quite a few instances of legal action being brought to bear on
>> religious groups for refusing to provide services to homosexual couples."
>>
>> Please, please, please do give us your source on this statement.
>>
>> -Mo
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
>> To: kathys at moscow.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:50:06 -0700
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gay Marriage benefits for Gary
>>
>> I have always been of the opinion that just because people might disagree
>> over any particular point does not mean that they must become enemies or 
>> be
>> accussed of "not giving a rats ass." Over the years that we have known 
>> one
>> another, I'm quite positive that I have never let my opinion on this 
>> matter
>> bleed over into our relationship and It's unfortunate that all of a 
>> sudden
>> the fact that we are not in absolute agreement on this one topic causes 
>> you
>> to re-evaluate that.
>>
>> As to your contention that "No church will ever be forced to perform the
>> religious ceremony if we are given a civil marriage license," this is far
>> from reality. There are quite a few instances of legal action being 
>> brought
>> to bear on religious groups for refusing to provide services to 
>> homosexual
>> couples. I find it quite hard to believe that a repeal of DOMA would 
>> cause
>> that intrusion into religious practice to lessen. To the contrary, I 
>> would
>> envision a huge increase in that sort of harassment.
>>
>> So, to answer your questions in the order asked, absolutely and precious
>> little. I'm not sure what that changes, however. I've spoken with Pete 
>> and
>> there will be no further abuse of your neighborly hospitality and no
>> hypothetical future inconvience for me.
>>
>> g
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Katherine Sprague" <kathys at moscow.com>
>> To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 10:13 AM
>> Subject: [Vision2020] Gay Marriage benefits for Gary
>>> Gary,
>>> If Tabitha died tomorrow and I had to fight her family to stay in the
>>> home
>>> she and I are buying would you feel any empathy for me as your neighbor?
>>> The
>>> fact that I would undoubtedly have to shut down the store would mean UPS
>>> would have to drop off your packages elsewhere. There's a concrete way
>>> that
>>> you might be inconvenienced.
>>>
>>> What I don't understand is how you can be willing to help me catch my 
>>> dog
>>> or
>>> lock up my store if it is left unsecuredaccindently but you don't give a
>>> rat's ass about my ability to see the woman I love and have made a life
>>> with
>>> for the last 18 years if she is hospialized. Write supporting gay 
>>> marriage
>>> off as being neighborly. Think about all the extra money liberal lawyers
>>> are
>>> making off of gay couples that want to insure they can inherit already
>>> shared property. That's money they should be spending on other things 
>>> and
>>> stimulating the economy. If Tabitha and I could marry we would be paying
>>> the "marriage penalty" in taxes thus putting more money into the
>>> collective
>>> pot.
>>> When one group faces additional hurdles to living the American dream and
>>> the
>>> remedy is so simple why put so much effort into denying them that help?
>>> I have a question for you Gary, what harm will come to you personally if
>>> the
>>> Lesbians two doors down are allowed to marry? No church will ever be
>>> forced
>>> to perform the religious ceremony if we are given a civil marriage
>>> license.
>>> They will maintain their freedom OF religion. I am asking for freedom 
>>> FROM
>>> their religion.
>>> And for the record I think the smoking ban is ridiculous.
>>>
>>> Kathy Sprague
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> 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: 270.13.56/2302 - Release Date: 
>> 08/14/09
>> 06:10:00
>>
>> =======================================================
>> 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
>> =======================================================
>>
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
>

=======================================================
 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: 270.13.58/2304 - Release Date: 08/15/09 
06:10:00