<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=4>A marriage contract between two people is a legal, government
enabled act. Hence, any two people are entitled to the
protection/application of the law. At present neither polygamy nor
bestiality is legal. Just like thieves, murderers, and others those
who practice such are not entitled to equal protection of those acts but they
are entitled to due process under the 14th Amendment.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The point of equal protection is if an act such as marriage,
property ownership, voting, etc. is legal for one group of persons (notice the
lack of racial, gender, economic language) then it is legal for all
persons.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The 14th Amendment is the legal basis for almost all U.S.
Supreme Court Civil Rights Cases, including the right to non-segregated school,
bus seats, inter-racial marriages, the rights of religious groups to be treated
the same as non-religious groups when renting public facilities, the right to
vote regardless of race or gender, etc. The 14th Amendment prevents
discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin,
etc. of "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The 14th Amendment does not sanction crime. It does,
however, prevent the federal, state and local governments from making an act a
crime solely based on gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>If multi-person marriages were made legal, then the 14th
Amendment would prevent laws that would allow a two man, one woman marriage but
not allow a two woman, one man marriage. Until multi-person marriages are
legal, then its practitioners are not entitled to equal protection for that
institution.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>If sex acts between persons and Herefords were made legal,
then the 14th Amendment would entitle sex acts between persons and anguses to be
legal.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><BR>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<BR><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=dave@davebudge.com href="mailto:dave@davebudge.com">David M.
Budge</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March 14, 2005 11:17
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] California
Gay-Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Your answer is non-responsive. Answer my question
please.<BR><BR>"So explain to me why, under your argument of the 14th
Amendment, polygamists and animal sodomists are not deserving of equal
protection."<BR><BR>I agree with your point. I can't agree with your
logic. It fails.<BR><BR>db<BR><BR>Art Deco wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid00c601c528fa$e00a17a0$6401a8c0@opalpeakkiosk
type="cite"><META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=GENERATOR>
<DIV><FONT size=4>You cannot be arguing seriously.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>If a man and a woman can enter a marriage contract which
insures the application/protection of certain civil laws, the applying the
language of the 14th Amendment below, then a man and man or a woman and
woman deserve the same protection of the laws. Marriage is a legal,
civil union in law. Pedestry is not.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><BR>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<BR><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,0) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: rgb(228,228,228) 0% 50%; FONT: 10pt arial; moz-background-clip: initial; moz-background-inline-policy: initial; moz-background-origin: initial; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none"><B>From:</B>
<A title=dave@davebudge.com href="mailto:dave@davebudge.com">David M.
Budge</A> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none"><B>To:</B>
<A title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none"><B>Cc:</B>
<A title=vision2020@moscow.com href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision
2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none"><B>Sent:</B>
Monday, March 14, 2005 9:35 AM</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none"><B>Subject:</B>
Re: [Vision2020] California Gay-Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Sure I've read it. We can obviously take the
implication to your point to ridiculousness. Does a bigamist require
equal protection, or pedophiles, animal sodomists, or those who
practice incest require the same? The implications of morality are
cause for public consensus. That consensus thereby made under the
legislative process of a democratic republic. It does not hold
to reason that we cannot legislate morality. We do it all the time -
murder, theft, child abuse, spousal abuse, rape, incest, polygamy,
pornography.... So explain to me why, under your argument of
the 14th Amendment, polygamists and animal sodomists are not
deserving of equal protection.<BR><BR>So when the time comes, as
now, that the good argument can be made that the morality of
homosexual partners fits the larger set of morality of the public,
laws should be passed, amended, or repealed. If they are not,
legislatures may, with the support of popular opinion, change
constitutions so the the rights that should be afforded will be become
constitutionally unattainable. Ergo - blowback. That is exactly what
the Federal Marriage Amendment is about. <BR><BR>Listen, I'm pro gay
marriage, as I've said. But the 14th Amendment argument does not
pass intellectual scrutiny. <BR><BR>The proper argument is that these are
good members of society that do not harm others in their practices and do
not threaten a deleterious effect on society. They should be
afforded the rights and privileges that others have as to property
succession and custodianship. Simple as that.<BR><BR>If, however,
the government would get out of the marriage business this would all
become moot and spousal rights could be afforded in a construct of
contract law.<BR><BR>db<BR><BR><BR>Art Deco wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid008d01c528ef$caba50f0$6401a8c0@opalpeakkiosk
type="cite">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT size=4>David,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Have you not read the 14th Amendment to the United
States Constitution? I thought this amendment was one of the
cornerstones of libertarian philosophy.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<H4 class=nav><FONT size=4>Amendment XIV</FONT></H4>
<P><EMP><FONT size=4><FONT size=3>Section 1.</FONT></FONT></EMP><FONT
size=4><FONT size=3> All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; <FONT
size=5><STRONG>nor deny to<FONT size=6> <FONT color=#0000ff>any
person</FONT></FONT> within its jurisdiction <FONT color=#0000ff
size=6>the <FONT color=#ff0000>equal protection</FONT> of the
laws</FONT></STRONG></FONT>...</FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4><BR>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<BR><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR></FONT></P>
<P>--- Original Message ----- </P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,0) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: rgb(228,228,228) 0% 50%; FONT: 10pt arial; moz-background-clip: initial; moz-background-inline-policy: initial; moz-background-origin: initial; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none"><B>From:</B>
<A title=dave@davebudge.com href="mailto:dave@davebudge.com">David M.
Budge</A> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none"><B>To:</B>
<A title=thansen@moscow.com href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">Tom
Hansen</A> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none"><B>Cc:</B>
<A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none"><B>Sent:</B>
Monday, March 14, 2005 7:20 AM</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none"><B>Subject:</B>
Re: [Vision2020] California Gay-Marriage Ban Ruled
Unconstitutional</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Hail Machiavelli! But I warn all that think the
ends justify the means of the potential blow-back of judges
over-ruling legislation may just disable judges from doing just
that. The CA statute that makes marriage between one man and one
woman is an issue of democracy by legislation. Legislatures have
the upper hand and can change constitutions. Hence the notion of
of "three equal legs of government" is false. One's reliance on
judicial interpretation may some day come back and bite one on one's
ass.<BR><BR>Listen, I'm for love and equal rights. The
libertarian in me says that government should stay the hell out of the
marriage business (to which I have the concurrence of Nick
Gier.) <BR><BR>But just as the Supreme Court made
unconstitutional the practice of executing minors (the outcome with
which I approve as I approve of the outcome of the decision in
question) the upshot is a loss of democracy for residence of the
states. Preferably the law should be changed by democratic
process. In other words, the day will likely come when a law
that you favor and is mandated by majority representation will be
overturned by judicial fiat. This is the wrong way to run a
democracy or a republic.<BR><BR>Justice Brandies may be rolling over
in his grave.<BR><BR>db<BR><BR>Tom Hansen wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid200503142119.j2ELJ6KN019334@mail-gw.fsr.net
type="cite"><PRE wrap="">Alas! A reason to be proud to be from California.
It is a simple matter of equality. Nothing more, nothing less.
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/14/gay.marriage.ap/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/14/gay.marriage.ap/index.html</A>
Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho
"What is objectionable, what is dangerous, about extremists is not that they
are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say
about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."
-- Robert F. Kennedy
_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A>
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR>
_____________________________________________________<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR> <A
class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=""><HR width="90%" SIZE=4>
_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A>
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=""><HR width="90%" SIZE=4>
_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A>
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>