RE: Rumor Control and Sunil's Quibble

["Tom Hansen" <thansen@moscow.com>]

Greetings Visionaires -

 

It is my opinion (correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Dickison) that the reason so many unenforced laws remain "on the books" (and there are thousands of them across this country) is because of the time, money, and effort it would take to have these laws removed properly through judicial and/or legislative channels.  Simply put, "Why bother removing a law when you can simply choose not to enforce it?"

 

Just my view from the masthead.

 

Tom Hansen

***********************************
Work like you don't need the money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching.

- Author Unknown
***********************************

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory Dickison [mailto:gdickison@moscow.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 4:19 PM
To: Vision 2020
Subject: Re: Rumor Control and Sunil's Quibble

My thanks to Daniel and Sunil for their responses. However, they miss the point. Maybe it was my use of metaphor and hyperbole (Sunil, I know the frat boys could have been charged with felonies; I am not quite as dumb as I may look). That's okay, though. I went to the government schools, too, and even back in the good 'ol days, they were weak on that sort of thing.

 

My point was, bluntly speaking, this: there are laws on the books prohibiting homosexual sex, as well as burglary and theft. Why is it acceptable to prosecute one category of crime, but not the other? Why is the one seen as a good law, and the other as bad (or discriminatory, old-fashioned, etc.)?

 

Daniel comes close to an answer when he says, "we all get to decide." But, and I suspect he knows this, that is not really true. In spite of the claim of tolerance, there are certain points of view that are not seriously considered. Instead, they are "tolerated" in the same way that a 2-year-old is tolerated, labled as bigotted or homophobic, or are simply ignored (witness the recent e-mails assuming that this is not part of the legitimate community discussion of Moscow's future, and reminding us that we all know how to use the delete key). But I do not understand that. Is not my truth-claim just as valid as your truth-claim, and worthy of equal discussion? And when we are discussing it, is there no ultimate standard against which our truth-claims can be measured? Or do we just go on fighting it out until one of us either convinces the other, quits, or implements his point of view by force?

 

By the way, Daniel, in response to your last questions: I can assume that the Gay Straight Alliance advocates acceptance of homosexual sex the same way that I can assume that McDonald's advocates eating Big Macs. Sometimes those pesky labels actually communicate something true.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to take part. I do appreciate it.

 

Gregory C. Dickison
Lawyer & Counselor at Law
Post Office Box 8846
312 South Main Street
Moscow, Idaho 83843
(208) 882-4009