[Vision2020] Choices

[Joe Campbell]

Yes 33 years is something to be proud of, gay or straight, liberal or  
conservative!

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 25, 2009, at 12:41 AM, Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com 
 > wrote:

> 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 -----
> ======
> =======================================================
> 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/20090725/0a1c9d2d/attachment.html