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
as far as I am concerned wrong is wrong... even if the supermajority disagrees.
What if Utah passed a state constitutional amendment that let the authorities run roughshod over your rights... tap your phones, put cameras in your house, break in at any time to search and seize your property.
that would be unconstitutional and I would expect the federal courts to overturn the beliefs of the supermajority in Utah.
as far as I am concerned wrong is wrong... even if the supermajority disagrees.
But what if your definition of wrong is itself wrong? If there a better way of resolving these disputes than by conservative (in the sense of "change-resistant") but democratic institutions, I'm all ears.
A constitutional representative democracy is not the same thing as a plebiscite democracy. Thus the US has a hierarchy in our legal system:
federal Constitution
federal statutes
state constitutions
state statutes
local/country statues
Really important, core believes are up at the top such as what rights are "inalienable" (not subject to majority vote!) or how should our federal government be organized or what is the relationship between the federal and state governments.
The structure is designed to make
Thanks, but I already took Con Law I, Con Law II, and Advanced Con Law. I strongly believe in a structure like what we have, because by requiring supermajority powers for certain things, the institutions at the top are very conservative (by which I mean, resistant to change.) This is a Good Thing.
THAT is why I am so very much against placing controversial issues, even the ones that people feel extremely strongly about, in those higher levels. Let them stay below! People will not change by being forced from above. They will change by accepting the reality that exists around them.
I was assuming we were talking about "equal application of the laws" and so your comment seemed out of place. Sorry for the Constitution 101 but it seems like lots of people here can understand kernel vs. library but not Constitution vs. Statute.
To clarify my point, the legal questions aren't about the myriad of state laws associated with a marriage certificate. If the legislature had simply gotten rid of marriage all together there would be no raison detre for the lawsuits.
The legal analysis hinges on t
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:3, Insightful)
I dont have a problem with that...
as far as I am concerned wrong is wrong... even if the supermajority disagrees.
What if Utah passed a state constitutional amendment that let the authorities run roughshod over your rights... tap your phones, put cameras in your house, break in at any time to search and seize your property.
that would be unconstitutional and I would expect the federal courts to overturn the beliefs of the supermajority in Utah.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
But what if your definition of wrong is itself wrong? If there a better way of resolving these disputes than by conservative (in the sense of "change-resistant") but democratic institutions, I'm all ears.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1)
Really important, core believes are up at the top such as what rights are "inalienable" (not subject to majority vote!) or how should our federal government be organized or what is the relationship between the federal and state governments. The structure is designed to make
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
THAT is why I am so very much against placing controversial issues, even the ones that people feel extremely strongly about, in those higher levels. Let them stay below! People will not change by being forced from above. They will change by accepting the reality that exists around them.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1)
To clarify my point, the legal questions aren't about the myriad of state laws associated with a marriage certificate. If the legislature had simply gotten rid of marriage all together there would be no raison detre for the lawsuits.
The legal analysis hinges on t