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.
Thanks for the clarification. What I should have said was "legislation". I know where I live it was a consitutional amendment, but I wasn't entirely sure about the other 10 states.
At least they are making it easy for when they all get overturned for being unconsitutional. Rather then have to jump through hoops trying to undo laws and rewritting consitutions, we can hit all 11 in one fell swoop.
At least they are making it easy for when they all get overturned for being unconsitutional. Rather then have to jump through hoops trying to undo laws and rewritting consitutions, we can hit all 11 in one fell swoop.
Are you just dying to get the federal constitution amended or something? Because I promise you that if the SCOTUS had the arrogance to do this, all hell would break loose and the US Constitution would have the 28th Amendment in record time.
If by an amendment to the federal constitution you mean something that says "The government can't and shouldn't define marriage to be the union of one man and one woman" then yes. However, I don't see why any reason for that to be necessary. Why does the government need to be involved with this on any level?
Why does the government need to be involved with this on any level?
No, obviously I am talking about an amendment that removes the issue from the juridiction of the federal courts, and allows the little people to make the laws that govern themselves through the democratic processes. I have no problem whatsoever with gay-friendly legislation passing through democratic processes. Even if I disagree with it, at least I have a voice in the process. I DO have a problem with federal courts arbitrarily reading
American democracy has a long tradition of protecting the minority from the majority. I guess that no longer sits well with you? When can I expect the death camps to begin?
Blah, blah, blah. Way to flame, even though I tried to be as civil as possible. If you are correct, why even have elections? Why not just have philospher kings? What minority protections are at stake here, anyways? The protection from hurt feelings? Uncomfortable situtations? Disapproval of others?
Honestly. Have we really gone so far, that the mere suggestion that citizens ought to have some say in the laws that govern them implies death camps in your min
What minority protections are at stake here, anyways?
Just because you are ignorant of the more than 1000 rights granted by a civil marriage license (among them are rights that cannot be obtained through any other means like rights of immigration and the right to not be compelled by the state to testify against your partner), that does not mean such rights don't exist.
Your whole rant was completely ignorant, I have to say. We're talking about the civil rights of individuals and equal protection under the law. Such things should never be put to public vote, as they are in herent in the whole idea of the constitution, and to the very idea of what it means to be free.
Of course citizens should have a say in the laws that govern them, but they should not have any say in which people should be targeted by punitive denials of civil liberties just because they don't like them.
Just because you are ignorant of the more than 1000 rights granted by a civil marriage license
These are not minority protections. They are legal privileges. Desirable things, understandably, but it is nothing like the right to speak, or vote, or have due process. You do not help your case by pretending that it is.
Your whole rant was completely ignorant, I have to say. We're talking about the civil rights of individuals and equal protection under the law. Such things should never be put to public vote,
These are not minority protections. They are legal privileges. Desirable things, understandably, but it is nothing like the right to speak, or vote, or have due process. You do not help your case by pretending that it is.
The right to not be compelled by the state to testify against your spouse, and the right to not have your spouse deported because they are not a citizen are very much liek the right to speak or vote or have due process. You do not help your case by pretending that they are not.
I put it to you that you disagree with me precisely because you are ignorant. Ignorant of the impact on gay people of these punative laws that deny them, their spouses, and their children the same rights and protections that you and others take for granted.
You talk about freedom as though it means being able to feel good about yourself.
Nowhere have I said anything that would lead any reasonable person to that conclusion. That is your invention and your attempt to inject motivations and words into me that you have prepared talking points to tear down.
I talk about freedom as it is, or at least should be: equal treatment under the law for all individuals. I think that I should have, just like you, some say in every single aspect of my governance, period. But I also think that just because you don't like who I love and share my life with, that you cannot and should not be able to deny me the same rights you enjoy, in the same way you enjoy them. Similarly, I should not be denied the same rights you enjoy becuase the color of my skin is different than yours.
And as to your last point, marriage is most definitely a civil liberty. It is a civil license that grants rights that can be obtained in no other way, such as the aforementioned rights of immigration and the right to not be compelled to testify against your spouse. Those are very obviously civil rights, limiting the government's ability to meddle in my personal relationship and partership without any valid reason for doing so. Unless and until you can provide a compelling reason for the state to be able to come in and break up my relationship, but to NOT be able to do the same to YOUR relationship, you have not proven your case.
And the burden, dear friend, is on you and those who would try and deny me equal rights and equal protection... not for me to prove I am somehow worth of being treated equally.
Unless and until you can provide a compelling reason for the state to be able to come in and break up my relationship, but to NOT be able to do the same to YOUR relationship, you have not proven your case.
Look, I'm not opposed to you, in policy. In other contexts I would very much support your points of view. But in the constitutional context, I'm afraid I don't. The state does not need a "compelling" reason to pass a law. All of these things we are talking about, important to you though they may be, a
But you're forgetting that gay people CAN get married! See, marriage is, by definition, a union of a man and a woman. Gay people can marry all they want. They just can't marry someone of the same sex. There's no discrimination here. Things just are what they are. Shall we argue that men can't have babies, and call that a "civil right?"
Let's try this version of it: Banning interracial marriage is not discriminatory becuse everybody is allowed to marry, as long as thier partner is of the same race. That
Everyone knew that was coming, but interracial marriage is still marriage (ie, man/woman: the very definition of the thing).
Gay marriage means changing the meaning of marriage. It's not a civil right, it's a social change, and more of a lateral change.
Listen, if you can convince a majority of people to accept this change as necessary and prudent, then I'll be tolerant of it.
And truly, let's not compare the "gay rights" movement to the civil rights movement. They're not in the same universe. Gay p
The issue here, to my mind, is equal protection under the law.
It's not about things you don't have as single that someone else does have as married.
It's about treating two equivalent situations different based on some irrelevant issue. In this case, it is treating two relationships as different under the law based on the sex of one of the members of the couple. THESE couples get rights, but THOSE couples don't, for an arbitrary reason that is not under the control of either party (we don't "control" who
See, marriage is, by definition, a union of a man and a woman.
That is your very narrow definition of the word, it is true. But it's not the only definition that has ever been used in history.
Marriage is constantly evolving. Marriage used to be one man and as many women as he wanted. Marriage used to be about property, not love. Marriage wasn't always considered 'sacred' either.
Today, marriage is generally about love and life-time partnership. By this definition, gay people most certainly cannot get
Everyone knew that was coming, but interracial marriage is still marriage (ie, man/woman: the very definition of the thing).
It is now, but only a few decades ago, 90% of the American population would have disagreed with you. See how the definition of marriage changes fluidly over time? It always has, and it always will.
Gay marriage means changing the meaning of marriage.
No, it really doesn't. At least not the definition of civil marriage. Many civil marriage laws are even written today without reg
Everyone knew that was coming, but interracial marriage is still marriage (ie, man/woman: the very definition of the thing). Gay marriage means changing the meaning of marriage.
Yes, and allowing interracial marriage was changing the definition of marriage at the time as well.
It's not a civil right, it's a social change, and more of a lateral change.
The same thing could have been said about interracial marriage. That's why I brought it up.
Listen, if you can convince a majority of people to accept
May Euell Gibbons eat your only copy of the manual!
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:1)
Thanks for the clarification. What I should have said was "legislation". I know where I live it was a consitutional amendment, but I wasn't entirely sure about the other 10 states.
At least they are making it easy for when they all get overturned for being unconsitutional. Rather then have to jump through hoops trying to undo laws and rewritting consitutions, we can hit all 11 in one fell swoop.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Are you just dying to get the federal constitution amended or something? Because I promise you that if the SCOTUS had the arrogance to do this, all hell would break loose and the US Constitution would have the 28th Amendment in record time.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1)
If by an amendment to the federal constitution you mean something that says "The government can't and shouldn't define marriage to be the union of one man and one woman" then yes. However, I don't see why any reason for that to be necessary. Why does the government need to be involved with this on any level?
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1)
No, obviously I am talking about an amendment that removes the issue from the juridiction of the federal courts, and allows the little people to make the laws that govern themselves through the democratic processes. I have no problem whatsoever with gay-friendly legislation passing through democratic processes. Even if I disagree with it, at least I have a voice in the process. I DO have a problem with federal courts arbitrarily reading
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1)
Blah, blah, blah. Way to flame, even though I tried to be as civil as possible. If you are correct, why even have elections? Why not just have philospher kings? What minority protections are at stake here, anyways? The protection from hurt feelings? Uncomfortable situtations? Disapproval of others?
Honestly. Have we really gone so far, that the mere suggestion that citizens ought to have some say in the laws that govern them implies death camps in your min
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Just because you are ignorant of the more than 1000 rights granted by a civil marriage license (among them are rights that cannot be obtained through any other means like rights of immigration and the right to not be compelled by the state to testify against your partner), that does not mean such rights don't exist.
Your whole rant was completely ignorant, I have to say. We're talking about the civil rights of individuals and equal protection under the law. Such things should never be put to public vote, as they are in herent in the whole idea of the constitution, and to the very idea of what it means to be free.
Of course citizens should have a say in the laws that govern them, but they should not have any say in which people should be targeted by punitive denials of civil liberties just because they don't like them.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Interesting)
These are not minority protections. They are legal privileges. Desirable things, understandably, but it is nothing like the right to speak, or vote, or have due process. You do not help your case by pretending that it is.
Your whole rant was completely ignorant, I have to say. We're talking about the civil rights of individuals and equal protection under the law. Such things should never be put to public vote,
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
The right to not be compelled by the state to testify against your spouse, and the right to not have your spouse deported because they are not a citizen are very much liek the right to speak or vote or have due process. You do not help your case by pretending that they are not.
I put it to you that you disagree with me precisely because you are ignorant. Ignorant of the impact on gay people of these punative laws that deny them, their spouses, and their children the same rights and protections that you and others take for granted.
You talk about freedom as though it means being able to feel good about yourself.
Nowhere have I said anything that would lead any reasonable person to that conclusion. That is your invention and your attempt to inject motivations and words into me that you have prepared talking points to tear down.
I talk about freedom as it is, or at least should be: equal treatment under the law for all individuals. I think that I should have, just like you, some say in every single aspect of my governance, period. But I also think that just because you don't like who I love and share my life with, that you cannot and should not be able to deny me the same rights you enjoy, in the same way you enjoy them. Similarly, I should not be denied the same rights you enjoy becuase the color of my skin is different than yours.
And as to your last point, marriage is most definitely a civil liberty. It is a civil license that grants rights that can be obtained in no other way, such as the aforementioned rights of immigration and the right to not be compelled to testify against your spouse. Those are very obviously civil rights, limiting the government's ability to meddle in my personal relationship and partership without any valid reason for doing so. Unless and until you can provide a compelling reason for the state to be able to come in and break up my relationship, but to NOT be able to do the same to YOUR relationship, you have not proven your case.
And the burden, dear friend, is on you and those who would try and deny me equal rights and equal protection... not for me to prove I am somehow worth of being treated equally.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Look, I'm not opposed to you, in policy. In other contexts I would very much support your points of view. But in the constitutional context, I'm afraid I don't. The state does not need a "compelling" reason to pass a law. All of these things we are talking about, important to you though they may be, a
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Let's try this version of it: Banning interracial marriage is not discriminatory becuse everybody is allowed to marry, as long as thier partner is of the same race. That
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
It's not about things you don't have as single that someone else does have as married.
It's about treating two equivalent situations different based on some irrelevant issue. In this case, it is treating two relationships as different under the law based on the sex of one of the members of the couple. THESE couples get rights, but THOSE couples don't, for an arbitrary reason that is not under the control of either party (we don't "control" who
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
That is your very narrow definition of the word, it is true. But it's not the only definition that has ever been used in history.
Marriage is constantly evolving. Marriage used to be one man and as many women as he wanted. Marriage used to be about property, not love. Marriage wasn't always considered 'sacred' either.
Today, marriage is generally about love and life-time partnership. By this definition, gay people most certainly cannot get
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
It is now, but only a few decades ago, 90% of the American population would have disagreed with you. See how the definition of marriage changes fluidly over time? It always has, and it always will.
Gay marriage means changing the meaning of marriage.
No, it really doesn't. At least not the definition of civil marriage. Many civil marriage laws are even written today without reg
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Yes, and allowing interracial marriage was changing the definition of marriage at the time as well.
It's not a civil right, it's a social change, and more of a lateral change.
The same thing could have been said about interracial marriage. That's why I brought it up.
Listen, if you can convince a majority of people to accept