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."
Guess what Judges cannot change the constitution. They cannot touch it. Not one little bit.
Thankfully State and federal Constitutions are beyond the reach of ANY court. And before I forget do you see the irony of your post? It was placed in the constitution their for it is constitutional by definition. Let some judge try to cross the constitution.... Watch happens...
State constitutions are not beyond reach of SCOTUS. State constitutions must be compliant with the US constitution, and the ultimate interpreter of the US constitution is the supreme court. You can argue about their interpretations, of course, but the fact remains that it is their call.
"State constitutions are not beyond reach of SCOTUS."
That's debatable at best. Article III Sec 2 enumerates the jurisdiction of the judicial branch of the Federal government. It specifically mentions the Federal courts (including the SCOTUS) as having jurisdiction over cases involving two states or citizens of two states, but never mentions cases between a citizen and their own state.
Of course, that won't matter to those who enjoy filling in lots of extra words in the Constitution so that it sings and dances and says/does whatever they want it to, but the fact remains that Constitution never gives the SCOTUS the authority to lay a hand on internal state matters.
While I am no fan of judicial activism, the 14th amendment does give the Federal government vastly greater power over the affairs of states than was originally enumerated in the Constitution.
"While I am no fan of judicial activism, the 14th amendment does give the Federal government vastly greater power over the affairs of states than was originally enumerated in the Constitution."
Indeed it does. However, the scope of the 14th is limited, and so long as you're not discriminating based on characteristics of a person like race or gender (though many instances of the latter are allowed), you're pretty much fine as per the simple and to-the-point wording of the 14th. Gays are allowed to enter int
If I want to marry my cell phone, the state does not allow that either. Why? Because my cell phone lies outside the legal standard for entering into this particular contract. Either the state may set the standards for the contract, or it may not.
Your cellphone isn't another person protected under the 14th amendment.
I'm not gay, but I'm not allowed to marry another man any more than a homosexual man would be.
Yet women are allowed to marry men. If everyone were excruciatingly literally equal under the la
"Right now the law says you can marry anyone, as long as you are the opposite sex. That is discrimination."
That's not discrimination because it doesn't matter what your gender is. What matters is that the combination of individuals entering into the marriage must be 1 man and 1 woman. Both men and women are allowed to enter the marriage contract on equal footing regardless of their gender, regardless of their race, and regardless of their sexual orientation. The state is merely defining conditions to ente
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:0)
Guess what Judges cannot change the constitution.
They cannot touch it.
Not one little bit.
Thankfully State and federal Constitutions are beyond the reach of ANY court.
And before I forget do you see the irony of your post?
It was placed in the constitution their for it is constitutional by definition.
Let some judge try to cross the constitution.... Watch happens...
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
That's debatable at best. Article III Sec 2 enumerates the jurisdiction of the judicial branch of the Federal government. It specifically mentions the Federal courts (including the SCOTUS) as having jurisdiction over cases involving two states or citizens of two states, but never mentions cases between a citizen and their own state.
Of course, that won't matter to those who enjoy filling in lots of extra words in the Constitution so that it sings and dances and says/does whatever they want it to, but the fact remains that Constitution never gives the SCOTUS the authority to lay a hand on internal state matters.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Indeed it does. However, the scope of the 14th is limited, and so long as you're not discriminating based on characteristics of a person like race or gender (though many instances of the latter are allowed), you're pretty much fine as per the simple and to-the-point wording of the 14th. Gays are allowed to enter int
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Your cellphone isn't another person protected under the 14th amendment.
I'm not gay, but I'm not allowed to marry another man any more than a homosexual man would be.
Yet women are allowed to marry men. If everyone were excruciatingly literally equal under the la
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
That's not discrimination because it doesn't matter what your gender is. What matters is that the combination of individuals entering into the marriage must be 1 man and 1 woman. Both men and women are allowed to enter the marriage contract on equal footing regardless of their gender, regardless of their race, and regardless of their sexual orientation. The state is merely defining conditions to ente