[Vision2020] Gay Marriage benefits for Gary

Sat Aug 15 11:33:10 PDT 2009

Hmmm, lets try that again.

"... 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...

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-417582/Vicars-sued-refusing-bless-gay-weddings-fears-Church.html

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: "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>
To: "Glenn Schwaller" <vpschwaller at gmail.com>; "vision2020" 
<vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gay Marriage benefits for Gary

> "... 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
>
> =======================================================
> 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