<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><DIV>Joe and Scott, you are both very correct.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Consider this as well;</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Gay and Lesbian marriage brings no harm economically or physically to the individuals or society. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Polygamy only works in a society that isn't gender equal. Because if men can marry as many women as they want, then women could also marry as many men as they want. Then we could have an endless web of men and women married to each other. There is also real harm to a spouse that is sleeping with others, both economically and physically.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Incest is different too because each partner in the relationship is not equal. A father has a great deal of social and economic power over his daughter. As does the mother over the son, or an elder sibling over the younger. This is of course in addition to the actual harm that comes to an individual offspring born with a genetic mutation and the society having to care for the individuals born with genetic defects. There is real harm done here to society and individuals in cases of incest. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Animals, the sick and far fetched comparison, that is also incomparable because animals cannot give consent, nor are they equal to humans on the social level in our society. Animals and pets are property not persons, and you cannot marry property, only persons. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best Regards,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Donovan<BR><BR>--- On <B>Fri, 11/21/08, 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: "Scott Dredge" <scooterd408@hotmail.com>, editor@lataheagle.com, kjajmix1@msn.com, "viz" <vision2020@moscow.com>, thansen@moscow.com<BR>Date: Friday, November 21, 2008, 6:49 AM<BR><BR>
<DIV id=yiv1553943337><FONT face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">This is great, Scott, and I agree! Especially with the issue of polygamy, which is a non-issue. The fact is NO ONE has the legal right to marry as many people as they would like whereas SOME folks do have the legal right to marry the one person that they want to marry, whereas others do not. Likewise, no one has the legal right (currently) to marry their sister. Laws banning same-sex marriage are discriminatory in the way that polygamy laws and laws banning brothers from marrying their sisters are not, for they allow some folks to do things that other folks cannot do.<BR><BR>Of course, I make this point nearly every time it comes up and it doesn’t stop these slippery slope arguments from coming up!<BR><BR>Joe<BR><BR>On 11/21/08 12:55 AM, "Scott Dredge" <scooterd408@hotmail.com> wrote:<BR><BR></SPAN></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">Kai,<BR><BR>Here's my answer's to your questions and my questions back to you...<BR>> 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>> 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>> 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 <SPAN>unbeknownst</SPAN> 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?<BR>> 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><BR><BR>
<HR align=center width="100%" SIZE=3>
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>Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage <BR>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></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>
<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>
<HR align=center width="100%" SIZE=3>
Proud to be a PC? Show the world. Download the “I’m a PC” Messenger themepack now. Download now. <A href="http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119642558/direct/01/" target=_blank rel=nofollow><http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119642558/direct/01/></A> <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>