The Stranger has learned that last month the $37-billion Redmond-based software behemoth quietly withdrew its support for House bill 1515, the anti-gay-discrimination bill currently under consideration by the Washington State legislature, after being pressured by the Evangelical Christian pastor of a suburban megachurch.
You mean it's that easy? I got an idea...Let's all march on Redmond and threaten to boycott Microsoft...unless they fix all of these unnecessary s
Would that be the same consumer market that passed anti-gay marriage laws in 11 different states last November?
More specifically, those were state CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS not just state laws. The whole reason for that is because they're afraid that activist judges would overturn laws already in the books. Currently 39 states have "Defense of Marriage Acts" as laws, as well as the federal DOMA.
If I'm not mistaken, all of these state constitutions can be reworked with a 50%+1 share of the vote. That kind of mob mentality scares me. I don't have a problem with local issues being decided by majority vote, but when it comes to the state constituion, there should be more protection from mob rule.
Its like the fact that we could have the 1st amendment repealed with 66% of the vote and 75% of the states in agreement. Things like that should be set in stone.
In Arkansas, it must first pass both houses by a simple majority in order for the general public to be given a chance to vote on it. It must pass the general public by a simple majority.
In Georgia and Mississippi, it must first pass both houses by a 2/3 vote in order for the general public to be given a chance to vote on it. It must pass the general public by a simple majority.
In Kentucky, it must first pass both houses by a 3/5 vote, and then a simple majority in the general public.
In Montana, it can be put in front of the general public by either passing both houses with a 2/3 vote OR a petition of 10% of the registered voters. From there, a simple majority is all that's required.
The point being is that, it varies by state. I have simplified the process somewhat (and might have inadvertently left off alternative scenarios), so for more information see Cornell's web-site [cornell.edu] on all things legal.
What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:4, Interesting)
You mean it's that easy? I got an idea...Let's all march on Redmond and threaten to boycott Microsoft...unless they fix all of these unnecessary s
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would that be the same consumer market that passed anti-gay marriage laws in 11 different states last November?
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2, Informative)
More specifically, those were state CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS not just state laws. The whole reason for that is because they're afraid that activist judges would overturn laws already in the books. Currently 39 states have "Defense of Marriage Acts" as laws, as well as the federal DOMA.
http://www.domawatch.org has good information.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Its like the fact that we could have the 1st amendment repealed with 66% of the vote and 75% of the states in agreement. Things like that should be set in stone.
It varies by state (Score:2)
- In Arkansas, it must first pass both houses by a simple majority in order for the general public to be given a chance to vote on it. It must pass the general public by a simple majority.
- In Georgia and Mississippi, it must first pass both houses by a 2/3 vote in order for the general public to be given a chance to vote on it. It must pass the general public by a simple majority.
- In Kentucky, it must first pass both houses by a 3/5 vote, and then a simple majority in the general public.
- In Montana, it can be put in front of the general public by either passing both houses with a 2/3 vote OR a petition of 10% of the registered voters. From there, a simple majority is all that's required.
The point being is that, it varies by state. I have simplified the process somewhat (and might have inadvertently left off alternative scenarios), so for more information see Cornell's web-site [cornell.edu] on all things legal.