<pre><tt>"An employer has two employees. Both do the same job. One gets more <br>money <br>spent by the employer, pays less tax on his wages and gets more <br>benefits <br>from the government than the other employee. That is discrimination in <br>a <br>nut shell."--Phil Nisbet<br><br>But Phil, don't you know that married heterosexual couples are<br>more important than anyone else? So naturally they should get<br>all the benefits. That's why they do not need to shop at Wal-Mart;<br>everybody else subsidizes them. <br><br>_DJA<br></tt></pre> <br><br><b><i>Phil Nisbet <pcnisbet1@hotmail.com></i></b> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> Saundra<br><br>If the U of I was giving child benefits to single parents in lieu of spousal <br>benefits, I applaud them. Why the heck would I condemn a policy that levels <br>the playing field?<br><br>An employer has two employees. Both do the same !
job. One
gets more money <br>spent by the employer, pays less tax on his wages and gets more benefits <br>from the government than the other employee. That is discrimination in a <br>nut shell.<br><br>A single does not get health insurance for a spouse. A single dies and <br>there is no residual passing on of a retirement check. The single pays a <br>higher tax rate to secure lesser benefits.<br><br>And Saundra, I am celibate and would concur that health insurance policies <br>that hand out free condoms are just plan wrong. If somebody wants to do the <br>bump and grind, let them freaking well pay the price themselves.<br><br>If I decided that I wanted to hire a monthly hooker, why should you pay for <br>my predilections? Because as far as I am concerned, a single paying a <br>marital benefit is nothing more than hiring hookers for somebody else.<br><br>I do not care who you love. I do not care who you marry. I do not care <br>what financial things you do with your spouse or !
what you
do in your <br>bedroom. I just do not see why I have to pay for it.<br><br>I mean, clue me in, what benefit do I get. I can make the case that paying <br>for kids by all members of society builds a better society and will devolve <br>to all, including singles without kids, because the kids will become <br>productive and pay taxes to carry on the society.<br><br>But if I pay out to marrieds, why not to shack jobs, to folks who hire a <br>hooker or just to that old standby, my right hand.<br><br>And with that let me break into a chorus of<br><br>Stand by your hand<br>'cause it will never leave you<br>Or practice to deceive you<br>In the night<br>When you’re sad and lonely<br><br>Phil Nisbet<br><br><br><br>>From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund @adelphia.net=""><br>>To: "'Phil Nisbet'" <br>><pcnisbet1 @hotmail.com="">,<privatejf32 @hotmail.com="">,<vision2020 @moscow.com=""><br>>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] love and marriage<br>>Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 16:30:43
-0800<br>><br>>Hi Phil,<br>><br>>To bring a local perspective back . . .<br>><br>>I've pointed this out to you before, but I think perhaps you've forgotten.<br>><br>>Where is/was your outrage when the *spouse* portion of employee (with and<br>>without children) health insurance premiums are used to subsidize the<br>>benefits *single parents* receive? This was the practice for some time at<br>>the UI, as I pointed out to you back in June, 2005 (IIRC). Is this the<br>>practice of other employers? I don't know . . . but I seriously doubt the<br>>UI dreamed up *that* funding scheme in a vacuum.<br>><br>>And, of course, those who *chose* to remain childless could complain -- and<br>>complain loudly -- about the huge cost including maternity care adds for<br>>everyone.<br>><br>>And, how about those who choose to remain celibate: there is a cost from<br>>including contraceptive benefits (and maternity benefits and
adoption<br>>benefits and optional sterilization and . . . ) in health insurance plans.<br>>Why should they have to subsidize those who choose a lifestyle that <br>>includes<br>>"rubbing genitals together" (your phrase)?<br>><br>>It seems to me much depends on your personal perspective . . . and to which<br>>special interest group you belong.<br>><br>>One question, though: when ripping on those DINKs you apparently find<br>>objectionable, you wrote, "They receive extra health insurance . . . "<br>><br>>Please clarify what you mean because it's contrary to my understanding of<br>>the current (and disturbing, IMHO) trends in employer-provided health<br>>insurance benefits.<br>><br>><br>>JMHO,<br>>Saundra Lund<br>>Moscow, ID<br>><br>>The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do<br>>nothing.<br>>- Edmund Burke<br>><br>>***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 20!
05,
Saundra Lund.<br>>Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum<br>>without the express written permission of the author.*****<br>><br>><br>>-----Original Message-----<br>>From: vision2020-bounces@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com]<br>>On Behalf Of Phil Nisbet<br>>Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 3:18 PM<br>>To: privatejf32@hotmail.com<br>>Cc: vision2020@moscow.com<br>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] love and marriage<br>><br>>Keely, J and Joe<br>><br>>That being the case, your assumption falls upon its sword. I find the very<br>>idea repugnant.<br>><br>>Why is it that I have to grant a financial benefit from my pocket to two<br>>people simply because they happen to sleep in the same bed and have sex <br>>with<br>>each other? And I find it as repugnant for Heterosexuals to receive those<br>>benefits as I find it for gays.<br>><br>>As a single parent, why is it that !
I have to
pay extra when two people<br>>without kids decide that they want to contract not to have sex with <br>>somebody<br>>else? What sacred right do they have to take from me because they chose to<br>>have sex exclusively with just one other person?<br>><br>>There are rafts of double income no kids couples, DINKs, who line up for <br>>the<br>>gravy train of benefits granted for people who chose to marry. They <br>>receive<br>>extra health insurance, cheaper taxes, special privileges and they do it on<br>>the backs of the singles of this country.<br>><br>>So congratulations that all of you want to extend the numbers of people who<br>>receive benefits for this act. The trouble is that it’s not universal,<br>>since it clearly discriminates against those of us who carry out the same<br>>work without any extra benefits and hands out the benefit solely for the <br>>act<br>>of rubbing genitals together.<br>><br>>So it’s not !
about
LOVE, its all about money, benefits for having exclusive<br>>sex paid for by those who do not chose that particular lifestyle. It is<br>>inherently unfair to those of us who are gay, heterosexual or celibate and<br>>remain single.<br>><br>><br>>Phil Nisbet<br>><br>><br>> >From: "J Ford" <privatejf32 @hotmail.com=""><br>> >To: vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] love and marriage<br>> >Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 14:10:34 -0800<br>> ><br>> >Absolutely agree(just thought I'd get that outa the way, though.)<br>> ><br>> >And thanks to Miss Saundra for her input...well said!<br>> ><br>> >Your first sentence is what needs to be heard over, over & over & <br>>over.....<br>> ><br>> >"My criteria for ANY law is that it be based on principles of morality<br>> >that appeal to us ALL"<br>> >(my emphasis.)<br>> ><br>> ><br>> >J :]<br>>
><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> >>From: joekc@adelphia.net<br>> >>To: J Ford <privatejf32 @hotmail.com=""><br>> >>CC: vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] love and marriage<br>> >>Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:15:31 -0500<br>> >><br>> >>Good point, J!<br>> >><br>> >>My criteria for ANY law is that it be based on principles of morality<br>> >>that appeal to us all -- such as do no harm -- as opposed to ones that<br>> >>appeal only to some -- such as those based on some religious text. The<br>> >>laws against marriage of children, for instance, are have lots of<br>> >>reasons in their support; others do not. This is the basis for<br>> >>stopping the slippery slope.<br>> >><br>> >>--<br>> >>Joe Campbell<br>> >><br>> >>---- J Ford <privatejf32 @hotmail.com=""> wrote:<br>>
>><br>> >>=============<br>> >>I hate to tell you this, but we ARE told whom we can/cannot marry - no<br>> >>first cousins, no siblings, no children under a certain age, no<br>> >>multiple partners, etc. This law would just be adding to that list.<br>> >>If you are going to protest one, you're gonna have to protest them<br>> >>all. Slippery slope, to say the least.<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >><br>> >>J :]<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> >From: joekc@adelphia.net<br>> >> >To: Bill London <london @moscow.com=""><br>> >> >CC: vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] love and marriage<br>> >> >Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:17:11 -0500<br>> >> ><br>> >> >Thanks for posting this, Bill.<br>> >> ><br>> >> >I think it is importan!
t to note
that the harm is done to us all, not<br>> >>just<br>> >> >gays and lesbians. (Which is not to suggest that a greater, more<br>> >> >direct harm is done to gays and lesbians specifically.)<br>> >> ><br>> >> >The Idaho Legislature seems to think that they are allowed to say<br>> >> >who<br>> >>can<br>> >> >or cannot marry whom. If this is true in the case of gays and<br>> >> >lesbians, then it applies to the rest of us, as well. At least, I<br>> >> >can't see why<br>> >>this<br>> >> >slope is not slippery.<br>> >> ><br>> >> >One can muster up abstract arguments based on some religious text to<br>> >> >suggest a difference, but that only means that the right to marry<br>> >> >the person of your choice is subject to the philosophical and moral<br>> >> >whims of the majority. If you thin!
k the
right to marry the person of<br>> >> >our choice<br>> >>is<br>> >> >not subject to public opinion, then you should disagree with LAWS<br>> >>against<br>> >> >same-sex marriage. You may continue to refrain from the practice<br>> >>yourself,<br>> >> >but you should not tell anyone whom to marry unless you're willing<br>> >> >to extend to them the same privilege.<br>> >> ><br>> >> >I'd like to see one principle upon which this recent decision is<br>> >> >based<br>> >>that<br>> >> >would not have disastrous consequences were it applied universally.<br>> >> ><br>> >> >--<br>> >> >Joe Campbell<br>> >> ><br>> >> >---- Bill London <london @moscow.com=""> wrote:<br>> >> ><br>> >> >=============<br>> >> >The Idaho Legislature has now decided that w!
e will be
able to vote<br>> >> >to<br>> >>add<br>> >> >an anti-gay marriage provision to the state constitution. What does<br>> >>this<br>> >> >mean to our gay neighbors? Please read Rebecca Rod's essay from the<br>> >>Friday<br>> >> >Daily News.<br>> >> >BL<br>> >> ><br>> >> >--------------------------------<br>> >> ><br>> >> >Daily News, Friday, February 17, 2006<br>> >> ><br>> >> > COLUMN: To have and to hold: Rites and<br>> >> > rights<br>> >>of<br>> >> >gay marriage<br>> >> ><br>> >> ><br>> >> > Rebecca Rod<br>> >> ><br>> >> > In the midst of this year's Hallmark hubbub<br>> >> >of hearts and flowers and other symbols of love and commitment for<br!
>>
>> >sale, I found myself reflecting back on Valentine's Day of February<br>>2004.<br>> >> > My partner, Theresa, and I spent most of<br>> >> >that weekend glued to the TV, watching reports of breaking news<br>> >> >showing some 2,000 gay and lesbian couples making history by getting<br>> >> >legally married<br>> >>in<br>> >> >San Francisco. We saw pairs of men and men, and women and women<br>> >> >lined on the grand granite stairs of City Hall, their numbers<br>> >> >spilling onto the<br>> >>open<br>> >> >plaza and stretching down the walkways for blocks. Old and young,<br>> >>dressed<br>> >> >up and dressed down, holding hands, holding the hands of their<br>> >> >children, their friends and families, all ages, colors, sizes, and<br>> >> >shapes - all looking so naturally "normal" l!
ike
anyone and everyone,<br>> >> >that even some protesters in the crowd seemed taken aback enough to<br>> >> >stop and have to remind themselves now, who were they protesting<br>>against, and for what?<br>> >> ><br>> >> > One man with a protest sign who was<br>> >> >interviewed said he'd actually changed his mind once he'd gotten<br>> >> >down there and seen all these regular happy people who just wanted to<br>>get married.<br>> >> ><br>> >> > Then the camera showed us inside City Hall<br>> >>where<br>> >> >the marriages were taking place. Mayor Gavin Newsom's first act was<br>> >> >to marry two 80-something-year-old women who'd been "together"<br>> >> >already for more than 50 years - and not far off, another city<br>> >> >official was "tying<br>> >>the<br>> &g!
t;>
>knot" for a male couple decked out in twin tuxedos, pronouncing them<br>> >> >"spouses for life" - with everyone beaming and crying at the same <br>>time.<br>> >> ><br>> >> > Meanwhile, Theresa and I were beaming and<br>> >>crying<br>> >> >right along with them from our couch in front of the TV, bearing<br>> >> >witness with the rest of the world to these historic marriages.<br>> >> ><br>> >> > Of course, now we know the rest of the<br>> >> >story, don't we? Those few thousand people (more than 4,000<br>> >> >marriages were registered in San Francisco from February to March)<br>> >> >and other gay and lesbian couples who got married during that same<br>> >> >time in cities west and east, had their marriages revoked or voided<br>>within about six months.<br>> >> ><br>!
>
>> > Then, in desperate efforts to guard against<br>> >>future<br>> >> >bouts of marital terrorism, individual states began crafting<br>> >>constitutional<br>> >> >amendments to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, by <br>>God.<br>><br>> >>In<br>> >> >fact, a group of worried Idaho legislators (worried about votes in<br>> >> >an election year) have brought this amendment idea up yet again in<br>> >> >our Statehouse. The amendment passed both the House and Senate and<br>> >> >will be placed on the ballot to be voted on in November.<br>> >> ><br>> >> > Why does extending this right to marry pose<br>> >>such a<br>> >> >threat to some people? As humans, we celebrate so many of the most<br>> >> >meaningful times of our lives in the presence of our lo!
ved
ones.<br>> >> >Family<br>> >>and<br>> >> >friends gather around us for these special "rites" - namings,<br>> >> >baptisms, confirmations, graduations, and yes, marriages. We are<br>> >> >held up and<br>> >>blessed,<br>> >> >congratulated, kissed, and wished well with plenty of hugs and tears<br>> >> >all around - as well it should be. During these times, the love of<br>> >> >our<br>> >>family,<br>> >> >friends, and community is not only most evident, but most wanted and<br>> >>needed<br>> >> >to help guide us through life's passages from one landmark to the <br>>next.<br>> >>We<br>> >> >not only gain meaning and direction for our lives from these events,<br>> >> >but the outpouring of love and support we receive gives our lives a<br>> >> >certain shape and quality. And what quality is !
of more
importance in<br>> >> >the life of<br>> >>a<br>> >> >human being than his or her capacity to give and receive love? Why<br>> >>anyone<br>> >> >would want to intentionally de!<br>> >> > ny his or her son or daughter, relatives, friends, or e<br>> >> ><br>> >> ><br>> >> > ven strangers the legal human right to live<br>> >> > a<br>> >>full<br>> >> >life of open, supported commitment to a loved one is beyond my<br>> >> >understanding. Talk about a basic "Right to Life" issue!<br>> >> ><br>> >> > Well, I have faith that our day will come.<br>> >> > Love<br>> >>is<br>> >> >gaining ground in cities and states and countries here and there<br>> >> >every<br>> >>day.<br>> >> >Like water wins over rock w!
ith a
steady trickle over time, or<br>> >> >sometimes<br>> >>in<br>> >> >the fury of a flash flood, love will find its way. Weak and<br>> >> >self-serving constitutional amendments will not block the power of<br>> >> >love. And history will be made again.<br>> >> ><br>> >> > * Rebecca Rod has lived in Moscow for more<br>> >> > than<br>> >>20<br>> >> >years, the past 14 of them with her life partner, Theresa. She has a<br>> >> >master's degree in library science but has been self-employed as an<br>> >> >artist/potter for more than 10 years. Last fall she was hired as a<br>> >>program<br>> >> >advisor for the University of Idaho Women's Center.<br>> >> ><br>> >> ><br>> >> ><br>> >> ><br>> >> ><br>> >> ><br>> >> ><br>>
>> >_____________________________________________________<br>> >> > List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> >> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>> >> > http://www.fsr.net<br>> >> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >> ><br>> >><br>> >>_________________________________________________________________<br>> >>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's <br>>FREE!<br>> >>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/<br>> >><br>> >>_____________________________________________________<br>> >> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> >> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>> >> http://www.fsr.net<br>> >> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>>
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯<br>> >>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯<br>> >><br>> ><br>> >_________________________________________________________________<br>> >Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®<br>> >Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963<br>> ><br>> >_____________________________________________________<br>> >List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the<br>> >communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net<br>><br>> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯<br>><br>>_________________________________________________________________<br>>Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN
Search!<br>>http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/<br>><br>>_____________________________________________________<br>> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>> http://www.fsr.net<br>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯<br>><br>><br><br>_________________________________________________________________<br>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! <br>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/<br><br>_____________________________________________________<br> List services made available by First Step Internet, <br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br> http://www.fsr.net <br>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯<br></london></london></privatejf32></privatejf32></privatejf32></vision2020></privatejf32></pcnisbet1></sslund></blockquote><br><p>
<hr size=1>Brings words and photos together (easily) with<br>
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/PMall/*http://photomail.mail.yahoo.com">PhotoMail </a> - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.