<!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>Wellll,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Let's see.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>First of all, free speech is already guaranteed under the U.S.
Constitution, (The Patriot Act, aka the "Fear Law" has already assaulted it)
there is no mention of marriage that I'm aware of in that document.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Sooo, that leaves it up to the states how to
decide.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Apparently, California law allows for a vote by referendum to
make amendments, so it would seem the first logical step would be to have a
referendum to make an amendment to require that amendments be made by a vote of
legislators only. It would make it less expensive for proponents/opponents of
any given amendment by narrowing down who's pockets they need to line with cash
to purchase a vote in their favor.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>But I digress, the fact is voters, at least under
California law, have the right to decide. This isn't a moral issue, it's a
legal issue. Boiled down, all that marriage does is help clarify who is entitled
to what within estates of decedents. It's not about "family" or "romance" or
"love" or "children", it's about a contract and who can and cannot sign
that contract.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If it wasn't a legal issue, then parties wouldn't need
marriage licenses from the state, they wouldn't need to note whether they were
married or single on tax forms or any number of other documents. All they would
need is find the appropriate religious institution to marry them with no
interference from the state.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Ideally, marriage would come under the "separation of
church and state" statement mentioned so often here... under the
"church" side. But that ain't gonna happen cuz there's too many lawyers and too
much money for them to make at stake.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Joe, you could marry a seven legged space alien for all I
care.</FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<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 12:37 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="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> ; <A
title="mailto:thansen@moscow.com CTRL + Click to follow link"
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">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 Eiselein, 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:FB57E77C4D1D44E7A7977C181E503F50@KaiPC"><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 12:20 PM<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>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> <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> <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>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>