this eloquent rhetoric wasn't intended for Paul
alone!
bob
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Winona] Is it time for the discussion?
Polygamy
Paul...bless your heart for bringing for extending
the culture war discussion from hip hop to gay marriage...there will be more and
more attempts made as the election approaches to connect such disparate
contentious social issues, I think.
There has been some local impact from both
events. I saw WKBT had a letter to the editor in the WDN apologizing
profusely for broadcasting the incident...but they had no way of knowing it was
coming.
Gay marriage has, interestingly, produced very
little discussion generally...some letters in the paper, some statements from
local politicians (but not very many, you notice) and, of course, the Catholic
church...this is so far an issue that most folks think doesn't really affect
them one way or the other...
That's why there will be a concerted effort for the
next several years by social conservatives to vilify homosexuals and
compare their behavior to say, Janet Jackson...some early 19th century Utah
residents...or lonely shephards.
Then in a couple of years, when Minnesota courts
are considering the issue or the US SC does it, the groundwork will be
laid. They'll start running TV ads with Mardi Gras footage and say "look
at these people! Look at the cesspool!" We should examine the
tactics of southern Democrats when fighting The Civil Rights Act of
1964(?). I bet Karl Rove already has.
This is really a national issue, but I thank Paul
for bringing it up here...and reminding us not to allow specious arguments to
connect dissimilar issues.
Public lewd behavior, as was confirmed by Ms.
Jackson and Mr. Timberlake, is not confined to the gay and lesbian
comunity. A marriage can be a contractual relationship between
two people that is recognized by the state. By its nature it cannot
encompass polygamous relationships because it is a contractual relationship
between two people, and bigamy laws would apply, as well. It could not
include a bestialitive (is that what it would be called...I don't write about
these things very often)
relationship, because it is a contractual
relationship between two people.
If you can find it, read George Will's excellent
endorsement of gay marriage in The New Yor Times (does anyone have a
link?).
Vicki...as you can see I am still full of both "it"
and myself!
Bob Sebo
Winona
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 3:02
PM
Subject: [Winona] Is it time for the
discussion? Polygamy
[Winona Online Democracy]
Since Massachusetts same sex
marriage approval every aspect of the legal and fundamental rights of people
and the obligation of business and government on healthcare will be stretched
and discussed this year and beyond. The question becomes why stop the
discussion with such a limited perspective as same sex when the next expansion
of marriage or defense of it and related issues such as healthcare dependent
coverage could be the move and approval of polygamy or Polygyny.
Will the courts accept polygamy
but outlaw Polygyny? Will insurance forms need to be revised to read
spouse(s)? Will the first in line be entitled to inherit the entire
estate? Who gets to make critical health care decisions? Can they
be made with a simple majority or will it take 2/3�s
approval?
Will the Canadian�s accept our
wives or husbands or do we care?
Is this a local issue or national
on a cold winter day?
Paul Double
_______________________________________________
This message was
posted to Winona Online Democracy
All messages must be signed by the
senders actual name.
No commercial solicitations are allowed on this
list.
To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please
visit
http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona
Any problems or
suggestions can be directed to
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you
want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page
at
http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
