[Vision2020] Choices

[Sunil Ramalingam]

Gary,

It's incorrect for any of us to pretend that a gay couple that finds someone to marry them enjoys the same rights that you or I do as married heterosexuals.  You want to deny the state's recognition to them, which denies them rights that are automatically accorded to us.

Yes, they can go to a lawyer and pay that person to draft legal documents that accomplish for them what is automatic for us.  Now you and your wife have chosen to have a lawyer draft your wills, as did my wife and I.  But without that step Idaho still has a system that would ensure that your wife and child/children would inherit your property.  No such default system exists for gays in Idaho who want to marry.

Because you insist on denying state recognition for their relationships, you force gays to spend money that they would not otherwise have to spend, just to try to approach enjoying the same rights we have.  

I can't see how my marriage is diminished by allowing gays to marry.  I happen to agree with you on the smoking ban, but in that case, non-smokers actually do suffer harm from second-hand smoke.  I am not afraid of the effect on my marriage of 'second-hand gayness.'

But I certainly have no reasons to cast aspersions on your marriage.  33 years?  Good for both of you, and congratulations, and I mean that.

Sunil

From: jampot at roadrunner.com
To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com; lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:29:29 -0700
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Choices








If you had read my post a little more carefully you 
might have noted that I did not ask anyone to explain why their actions are not 
harmful to society. I have to justify nothing to anyone, much less you and 
neither does Moe.  I have been asked for, and given explanation for my 
views on this and numerous other topics on this forum frequently over the years, 
that I should ask someone else for the same is arrogance? When it comes to 
inconsistency  (to say nothing of belligerence) I can't hold a candle to 
you.
 
Just for the sake of mindless repetition, I have 
said repeatedly that I don't care if homosexuals run out and have some sort of a 
little ceremony and call themselves whatever they like. They can go to an 
attorney, in the same way that my wife and I did, and have drawn up the same 
wills, durable powers of attorney, living wills, revocable living trusts, etc. 
that will in effect give them all the same rights and privileges that my wife 
and I enjoy and I'm fine with it. They in effect already have everything 
they claim they want. And yet it's not enough, my simple and apparently 
"arrogant" question is why? I don't wish Moe and her pal any ill or unhappiness, 
I just want to know why they require me  via the power of the state to play 
along before their lives are complete. I don't think that this is an 
unreasonable question to ask.
 
g
 

  ----- Original Message ----- ======
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090724/023fdcfe/attachment.html