<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Kai,<br><br>Here's my answer's to your questions and my questions back to you...<br><font style="font-size: 10pt;" size="2">> Do societies not have the right to decide what is acceptable
and what isn't?<br>I don't know if they have the right to decide, but they seem to have the power to enforce. In terms of gay marriage bans, I look at past history to see how good / bad for society previous marriage bans have been. In terms of bans on interracial marriages, I see only negative effects on both individuals as well as society as a whole. What's your take on interracial marriage bans? Good or bad? If bad, why did these bans exist in the first place and are these the same reasons why gay marriages are banned? I think so.<br><br></font>
<div><font style="font-size: 10pt;" size="2">> Why not make polygamy legal?<br>You tell me why not since you asked the question. Make your case? Extending identical rights to same sex couples that married couples are afforded neither helps not hinders the case for multiple marriages. The rights already exist for married couples. How would you go about extending these same rights for married couples to married groups of people. You asked the question, so I'd like to hear if you have a coherent logic process for extending married couples right to married groups. Good luck.<br><br></font></div>
<div><font style="font-size: 10pt;" size="2">> Why not let brothers marry sisters or first cousins marry
first cousins? (Other than the inbreeding issue)<br>Are these marriages banned? If so, how? State Constitutions across the country are being amended to strictly define marriage as between one man and one woman. This would not preclude an adult brother from marrying his adult sister or prevent adult first cousins from marrying. If this is such a societal ill, than why has this not also been included in these state constitutional marriage definition amendments. The answer is that is not required since the only goal of these amendments is to slam the door on gay marriage. For some reason unbeknownst to me, incestial marriage is more societally acceptable than gay marriage. Please explain that since again you brought it up.<br><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?</font></div>
<div><font style="font-size: 10pt;" size="2">> I can just hear the champagne corks popping as divorce lawyers
celebrate the thought of multiple wives divorcing a husband.<br>I'm not sure what problem you're trying to solve here Kai. At issue is that there are benefits (health, tax, property transfer, rights of survivorship, etc.) that are granted to married couples. same sex couples are denied those rights for no logical reason. Couples benefits must have a positive effect on society otherwise why not just ban those benefits altogether? And yet, when these same benefits that have a positive effect for married couples are granted to same couples, this is deemed as negative for society. Why? <br><br>-Scott<br></font></div><br><br><hr id="stopSpelling">From: editor@lataheagle.com<br>To: josephc@wsu.edu; kjajmix1@msn.com; vision2020@moscow.com; thansen@moscow.com<br>Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:05:19 -0800<br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage<br><br>
<title>Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage</title>
<div><font size="2">Do societies not have the right to decide what is acceptable
and what isn't?</font></div>
<div><font size="2">Why not make polygamy legal? </font></div>
<div><font size="2">Why not let brothers marry sisters or first cousins marry
first cousins? (Other than the inbreeding issue) </font></div>
<div><font size="2">Why not just make an amendment stating a marriage can be
between ANY consenting adults? That would be the best way, wouldn't
it?</font></div>
<div><font size="2">I can just hear the champagne corks popping as divorce lawyers
celebrate the thought of multiple wives divorcing a husband.</font></div>
<div style="font-family: Tahoma; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none;">
<div><br></div>
<div style="background: rgb(245, 245, 245) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;">
<div style=""><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 11:57 AM</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;">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>
<hr size="3" width="95%" align="center">
</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>
<div><font size="2">Kai Eiselein<br>Editor, Latah Eagle</font></div><br /><hr />Proud to be a PC? Show the world. Download the “I’m a PC” Messenger themepack now. <a href='http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119642558/direct/01/' target='_new'>Download now.</a></body>
</html>