<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6001.18148" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=MailContainerBody
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
bgColor=#ffffff leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT size=2>Let's then.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The issue is gay marriage, not free speech. <IMG
title="Smile emoticon" style="FLOAT: none; MARGIN: 0px; POSITION: static"
tabIndex=-1 alt="Smile emoticon"
src="cid:6D0C4E4FEF724C1BA7DBE312564E0D20@KaiPC"
MSNNonUserImageOrEmoticon="true"></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=josephc@wsu.edu
href="mailto:josephc@wsu.edu">Joseph Campbell</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:20 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=editor@lataheagle.com
href="mailto:editor@lataheagle.com">Kai Eiselein, Editor</A> ; <A
title=kjajmix1@msn.com href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">kjajmix1@msn.com</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> ; <A
title=thansen@moscow.com href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">Tom Hansen</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay
Marriage</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">The question is who should decide matters of law: the
people, by popular vote, or judges, who have knowledge of the Constitution and
legal precedent? I think the latter. Personally, I feel that most of the things
below that you find absurd are in fact absurd. More the reason not to leave the
vote up to the general public.<BR><BR>Notice you did not answer whether or not
you think that your right to free speech hinges on their opinion. Do you? And if
not that right, why others? Let’s stick to one issue at a time, and deal with
the others later.<BR><BR>Joe<BR><BR>On 11/20/08 12:05 PM, "Kai Eiselein, Editor"
<editor@lataheagle.com> wrote:<BR><BR></SPAN></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">Do societies not have the right to decide what is
acceptable and what isn't?<BR>Why not make polygamy legal? <BR>Why not let
brothers marry sisters or first cousins marry first cousins? (Other than the
inbreeding issue) <BR>Why not just make an amendment stating a marriage can be
between ANY consenting adults? That would be the best way, wouldn't it?<BR>I
can just hear the champagne corks popping as divorce lawyers celebrate the
thought of multiple wives divorcing a husband.<BR><BR><B>From:</B> Joseph
Campbell <A href="mailto:josephc@wsu.edu"><mailto:josephc@wsu.edu></A>
<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, November 20, 2008 11:57 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Kai
Eiselein, Editor <A
href="mailto:editor@lataheagle.com"><mailto:editor@lataheagle.com></A>
; kjajmix1@msn.com ; vision2020@moscow.com ; Tom Hansen <A
href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com"><mailto:thansen@moscow.com></A>
<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up
Gay Marriage<BR><BR>According to Wikipedia, “</SPAN></FONT><FONT size=4><FONT
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><B>Due
process</B> (more fully <B>due process of law</B>) is the principle that the
government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person
according to the <FONT color=#002bb8>law of the land</FONT>, instead of
respecting merely some or most of those legal rights.” <BR><BR>Do you think
that rights are better served by allowing the general public to decide who has
the right to speak, to vote, to wed? If to wed, then why not to speak? Why
shouldn’t the general public be allowed to determine whether or not you have
the right to speak?<BR><BR>I’m trying to bring the issue home to something you
might relate to personally. Something to engage your empathetic
imagination.<BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12px"><BR><BR>On
11/20/08 11:37 AM, "Kai Eiselein, Editor" <editor@lataheagle.com>
wrote:<BR><BR></SPAN></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">I'm going to play Devil's advocate for a moment, and
to be clear I don't give a rip about gay marriage one way or another.
Hey, if if gay couples want to keep divorce lawyers in business by
forking over thousands of dollars in fees and spend months going to
hearing after hearing after hearing, well, welcome to the hetero
world. Toss in a child or two and becomes even more fun. <BR><I>...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; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws."<BR></I>Doesn't a referendum come under
"due
process"?<BR><BR>--------------------------------------------------<BR>From:
"Tom Hansen" <thansen@moscow.com><BR>Sent: Thursday, November
20, 2008 11:16 AM<BR>To: <editor@lataheagle.com>;
<kjajmix1@msn.com>; <vision2020@moscow.com><BR>Subject:
Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay
Marriage<BR><BR>>>From Article 6 of the US Constitution
-<BR>> <BR>> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United
States which shall be made <BR>> in Pursuance thereof; and all
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under <BR>> the Authority of
the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; <BR>> and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
<BR>> Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding."<BR>> <BR>> -------------------<BR>>
<BR>>>From the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution -<BR>>
<BR>> "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the <BR>> jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State <BR>> wherein they reside. No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall <BR>> abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
<BR>> shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without <BR>> due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the <BR>> equal protection of the
laws."<BR>> <BR>> -------------------------------------<BR>>
<BR>> Now, which part of the US Constitution are you struggling
with, Kai?<BR>> <BR>> Tom Hansen<BR>> Moscow,<BR>>
Idaho<BR>> <BR>>
---------------------------------------------<BR>> This message was
sent by First Step Internet.<BR>>
<A
href="http://www.fsr.com/">http://www.fsr.com/</A><BR>> <BR>><BR>Kai
Eiselein<BR>Editor, Latah Eagle<BR><BR> <BR>
<HR align=center width="95%" SIZE=3>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT size=2><FONT face="Monaco, Courier New"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10px">=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================<BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT
size=2><FONT face="Monaco, Courier New"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10px"><BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">Kai
Eiselein<BR>Editor, Latah Eagle<BR><BR></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT
face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12px"><BR></SPAN></FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Kai Eiselein<BR>Editor, Latah Eagle</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>