|
Definitions of Political Terms
|
Wyoming Constitution: Article 1, Section 14...All
persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses
when the proof is evident or the presumption great. Excessive bail shall not
be required, nor excessive fines imposed, not shall cruel or unusual
punishment be inflicted.
(special note...if anyone is interested in
becoming involved with this issue, send me a note.)
Greetings Fellow Citizens!
Of course the sponsors of HB# 184 do not call
it an attack on marriage, they call it the 'Defense' of Marriage Act',
although I suppose it would most accurately be called the 'attack on the
rights of individual states and countries to do their own thing' act.
See the text and the sponsors here....
There are two aspects of this same sex
marriage thing to consider. The first one is whether or not an individual
state will allow same sex marriage or civil unions or whatever legal
interpersonal contract might be created. Wyoming does not allow such an
atrocity to occur. Imagine, letting two people who love each other establish a
binding legal obligation! Why...the nerve!!
The other aspect is whether or not Wyoming
will recognize any such legal contracts from other states or countries, and
that is the issue within HB #184.
The same concept was introduced last year as
Senate File #85, but hit an iceberg in the Senate Judiciary Committee and sank
without a trace. I was proud to be a part of that iceberg.
The main problem I see with this little bit of
intolerance is this...Wyoming is a destination for tourists from all over the
world, we spend a lot of tax money to try to get them to come here. So same
sex married couples from Canada or Holland are here doing the tourist thing,
and there is an emergency, a car crash or heart attack. Who would have the
power to make health care decisions?
Usually it would be the other half of the
marriage, but not if this bill passes. The other person, a partner of perhaps
30 years, would not be recognized as having any kind of a special relationship
with the injured party. Is that fair, right and just? I think not.
Civil marriage is a bundle of legal contracts
rolled up into one phrase, and available to the right couples for $20.00 or
whatever. Other couples are not deemed worthy by the religious dogma of
traditional thinkers, and so they must be persecuted. Burn the witch!!
This is also a states rights issue in the
sense that if another state wants to recognize same sex marriage, why is it
that we want to do our part to put the screws to that decision? What if other
states were to go down the same path and refuse to recognize man-sheep
marriages from Wyoming?? That would be an intolerable interference in our
affairs...wouldn't it?
And besides...gays and lesbians should be able
to get married because they have should have the same right to be miserable as
everyone else!!!
Well anyways, that's the deal.
Keith 'live and let live' Goodenough
|
|
Contact us...HERE
|