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
I DO have a problem with federal courts arbitrarily reading their own values into the Constitution and overriding the decisions of even state supermajorities.
See, there's this pesky document called the federal constitution, which overrides state constitutions, even when those state constitutions have been written by supermajorities. It prevents states from doing obnoxious things such as, oh, re-implementing slavery.
Now let me guess. If the federal constitution were amended to define marriage as between
If at any point you want states to be able to override the federal constitution, then what's the point of a federal constitution?
Where did I ever say that? I absolutely agree the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That said - where it is silent, that silence should NOT be presumed to be space for federal judges to fill up with their own concepts of good and bad policy. For example, the Constitution states nowhere that prisoners must be over the age of 18 to be eligbile for execution. But
They specifically ruled, not because of personal likes and dislikes, but because the constitution says no cruel and unusual punishments. It may or may not be cruel, but it has been getting more and more unusual as the years have gone by. What are they supposed to do, interpret "cruel" and "unusual" by 1780 standards?
Whether or not you think it cruel or unusual is irrelevant unless you are one of the nine. If you don't like it, tough. They didn't just decide arbitrarily, they based it on logic and reaso
but it has been getting more and more unusual as the years have gone by.
Except for the inconvenient fact that this isn't true. Between 1990 and 2003, 123 of 3,599 death sentences, or 3.4%, were given to individuals who committed crimes before reaching age 18. By contrast, only 2.1% of those sentenced to death between 1982 and 1988 committed the crimes when they were under 18. As for actual executions of under-18 offenders, they constituted 2.4% of the total executions since 1973. Thus, the numbers of under-18 offenders subjected to the death penalty, though low compared with adults, have either held steady or slightly increased. Furthermore, additional states have explicitly allowed for such punishment in recent years.
The court has previously held that in determining the meaning of "unusual," that this determination should be based on whether or not there exists a "national consensus" on the matter, as determined by "objective indicia that reflect the public attitude toward a given sanction"-namely, "statutes passed by society's elected representatives." How can the view of less than a simple majority of the states that permit capital punishment be a national consensus? How are the views of foreign governments relevant to this question?
Don't presume that because I disagree with the court, that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Don't presume that because I disagree with the court, that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Don't presume that because you disagree with the court, that you are right. You aren't the legal scholar. If they defined "unusual" once, they can define it again. If they defined "national consensus", they can redefine it. They allowed segregation once, they disallowed it later. If you don't like it, tough. You aren't the legal scholar.
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
Only a problem when it's your ox, I imagine (Score:2)
See, there's this pesky document called the federal constitution, which overrides state constitutions, even when those state constitutions have been written by supermajorities. It prevents states from doing obnoxious things such as, oh, re-implementing slavery.
Now let me guess. If the federal constitution were amended to define marriage as between
Re:Only a problem when it's your ox, I imagine (Score:2)
Where did I ever say that? I absolutely agree the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That said - where it is silent, that silence should NOT be presumed to be space for federal judges to fill up with their own concepts of good and bad policy. For example, the Constitution states nowhere that prisoners must be over the age of 18 to be eligbile for execution. But
Wrong wrong wrong (Score:2)
Whether or not you think it cruel or unusual is irrelevant unless you are one of the nine. If you don't like it, tough. They didn't just decide arbitrarily, they based it on logic and reaso
Re:Wrong wrong wrong (Score:2)
Except for the inconvenient fact that this isn't true. Between 1990 and 2003, 123 of 3,599 death sentences, or 3.4%, were given to individuals who committed crimes before reaching age 18. By contrast, only 2.1% of those sentenced to death between 1982 and 1988 committed the crimes when they were under 18. As for actual executions of under-18 offenders, they constituted 2.4% of the total executions since 1973. Thus, the numbers of under-18 offenders subjected to the death penalty, though low compared with adults, have either held steady or slightly increased. Furthermore, additional states have explicitly allowed for such punishment in recent years.
The court has previously held that in determining the meaning of "unusual," that this determination should be based on whether or not there exists a "national consensus" on the matter, as determined by "objective indicia that reflect the public attitude toward a given sanction"-namely, "statutes passed by society's elected representatives." How can the view of less than a simple majority of the states that permit capital punishment be a national consensus? How are the views of foreign governments relevant to this question?
Don't presume that because I disagree with the court, that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Presumptions (Score:1)
Don't presume that because you disagree with the court, that you are right. You aren't the legal scholar. If they defined "unusual" once, they can define it again. If they defined "national consensus", they can redefine it. They allowed segregation once, they disallowed it later. If you don't like it, tough. You aren't the legal scholar.