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.
The rational behind most conservative's (myself included) view of what is right and wrong stems from ideals have been set fourth from the Bible.
It's not a coincidence that the most fundamental laws in society (not only here in the U.S. but throughout the world) are similar to those established in the Bible.
What you're asking is for an absolute or different (different because we already have an absolutely definition in the Bible) means to establish right and wrong. The problem with that is that everybody is likely to have an opinion of what defines that.
The primary problem with this is that the very definition of right and wrong must be an absolute. It can not change for us to be able to adopt it. It can't change with the times because that would make things that were deemed absolutely wrong at one time absolutely right during another.
So we must look back to the moral authority... the source which was given to us to make these complicated right vs wrong decisions. Of course I'm talking about the Bible.
Whether or not you disagree with the Bible is irrelevant at this point as it set the precedent by which we define what is moral and what is not.
Ask yourself this... if you find yourself disagreeing with the Bible and its definitions of morality is it because it happens to contradict your own lifestyle or possibly also because you don't like to live with the possibility that you might be in violation of a moral authority?
Nobody likes to think they're wrong. That respons is a natural (though incorrect) one.
It doesn't matter if you don't believe in God. He believes in you.
So... since you are proposing that the Bible is the ultimate arbiter of what is right... then the clearest laws should be the 10 commandments, yes? So...
only Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions are allowed (first commandment... and there are good arguments saying that only Judaism qualifies, since the latter two put others in front of God)
You can't have a crucifix with the image of Jesus (since he is somewhat God... commandment 2)
People should be arrested for saying "Oh God" (third commandment)
Working on
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:2)
It's not a coincidence that the most fundamental laws in society (not only here in the U.S. but throughout the world) are similar to those established in the Bible.
What you're asking is for an absolute or different (different because we already have an absolutely definition in the Bible) means to establish right and wrong. The problem with that is that everybody is likely to have an opinion of what defines that.
The primary problem with this is that the very definition of right and wrong must be an absolute. It can not change for us to be able to adopt it. It can't change with the times because that would make things that were deemed absolutely wrong at one time absolutely right during another.
So we must look back to the moral authority... the source which was given to us to make these complicated right vs wrong decisions. Of course I'm talking about the Bible.
Whether or not you disagree with the Bible is irrelevant at this point as it set the precedent by which we define what is moral and what is not.
Ask yourself this... if you find yourself disagreeing with the Bible and its definitions of morality is it because it happens to contradict your own lifestyle or possibly also because you don't like to live with the possibility that you might be in violation of a moral authority?
Nobody likes to think they're wrong. That respons is a natural (though incorrect) one.
It doesn't matter if you don't believe in God. He believes in you.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)