<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><DIV> Kai,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If the popular vote is to determine all things, including the special treatment and basic human rights of a select group of people, why have a Constitution at all?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Native Americans were once determined by the popular vote not to be "persons" as were Black Americans. It was courts that overruled those systems. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Popular vote is not always appropriate in every selection and decision made. Sometimes the Constitution is best, sometimes one person who is an expert is best, and sometimes a group of elected representatives is best. To suggest we use the wrong decision making vehicle for each kind of decision is to state you support bad government. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best Regards,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Donovan</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>--- On <B>Thu, 11/20/08, Joseph Campbell <I><josephc@wsu.edu></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid">From: Joseph Campbell <josephc@wsu.edu><BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage<BR>To: "Kai <SPAN>Eiselein</SPAN>, Editor" <editor@lataheagle.com>, kjajmix1@msn.com, vision2020@moscow.com, "Tom Hansen" <thansen@moscow.com><BR>Date: Thursday, November 20, 2008, 12:37 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV id=yiv1646628012><FONT face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">That is not the issue. The issue is who decides whether gay marriage is OK? The general CA public, by popular vote? Or the California Supreme Court? I think that the latter is a better judge. Why? Let’s ask the same question about your right to free speech, or mine. I don’t want the general CA public to decide whether or not I have that right, and I’m sure you would agree. What makes marriage different? I don’t want them to tell me who I should marry either. Do you? Tell me that you don’t see a problem with letting the public decide who you can and cannot marry?<BR><BR><BR>On 11/20/08 12:23 PM, "Kai <SPAN><SPAN>Eiselein</SPAN></SPAN>, Editor" <editor@lataheagle.com> wrote:<BR><BR></SPAN></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">Let's then.<BR>The issue is gay marriage, not free speech. <IMG src="cid:1.2465616038@web38108.mail.mud.yahoo.com"><BR><BR><B>From:</B> Joseph Campbell <A href="mailto:josephc@wsu.edu" target=_blank rel=nofollow><mailto:josephc@wsu.edu></A> <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:20 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Kai Eiselein, Editor <A href="mailto:editor@lataheagle.com" target=_blank rel=nofollow><mailto:editor@lataheagle.com></A> ; kjajmix1@msn.com ; vision2020@moscow.com ; Tom Hansen <A href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com" target=_blank rel=nofollow><mailto:thansen@moscow.com></A> <BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage<BR><BR>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 P<SPAN>M, "Kai </SPAN>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" target=_blank rel=nofollow><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" target=_blank rel=nofollow><mailto:editor@lataheagle.com></A> ;
kjajmix1@msn.com ; vision2020@moscow.com ; Tom Hansen <A href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com" target=_blank rel=nofollow><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> <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/" target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://www.fsr.com/</A><BR>> <BR>><BR>Kai Eiselein<BR>Editor, Latah Eagle<BR><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/" target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://www.fsr.net</A> <BR> <A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target=_blank rel=nofollow>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>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><PRE>=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
=======================================================</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table><br>