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
OK but what is your opinion on judicial review and the concept that state statutes can't conflict with state constitutions and the state laws, state constitutions, and federal laws can't conflict with the federal constitution?
Judges aren't having monthly meetings and creating a top-10 evil law list. They are responding to citizens who are claiming that some statutes are in conflict with state and/or federal constitutions. They are then ruling on whether there is indeed a conflict, this is judicial review.
Well okay. I agree with you. So let's stop beating around the bush, because we both know what everybody is talking about: does the U.S. Constitution require states to permit homosexual marriages?
I cannot see how it does. Homosexuals are not a protected class under 14th amendment analysis, and I certainly don't see a rationale for adding them under the Carolene Products footnote. Thus, the states need only a rational basis for the exclusion, and there are certainly many; for example, promoting child socialization, promoting responsible childbirth in general, and so on. As to specific legal privileges, the SCOTUS may or may not determine that deprivation of that privilege has no rational basis, but as to the marriage license itself, there are plenty.
My fear, of course, is that the court will dismiss all this and simply hold that some emanance of a penumbra of a right means that could not have been guessed at means that one side wins and one side loses, for ever and ever.
I guess I might be missing other possible constitutional attacks. Suggestions?
Actually I think the question is does the Federal Constitution permit states to allocate statutory rights based on gender and/or sexual orientation? Marriage, from a legal point of view, is really a collection of lots (over 500 in Connecticut) of statutes. Each one could be individually challenged using the "rational basis" approach.
Even if the Federal Constitution permits such allocation. The court rulings in VT and MA were based on the state constitutions, which they concluded did not permit such restri
You are making the rational basis analysis stricter than it really is. A rational basis doesn't even have to be why the law is actually enacted, it just has to be a rational basis for believing it promotes some legitimate government interest that could possibly be claimed by the state. It also can be over- or under-inclusive. It doesn't have to be the best way to promote the legitimate interest. It doesn't even have to be logical, just rationally related to a legitimate government interest (which for th
Interesting comments re: rational-basis analysis. I'll admit to being in deeper-legal water that I'm used to. It is a bit disturbing, if accurate, that the "rational-basis" analysis doesn't have to be logical. Seems like "rational-basis" is a bit of a misnomer in that case.
Looking back at your original post I see you were commenting on federal courts re: the federal Constitution. I made, perhaps the incorrect assumption, that you were also directing your critique at the MA and VT state courts but your
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:1)
that state statutes can't conflict with state constitutions and the
state laws, state constitutions, and federal laws can't conflict
with the federal constitution?
Judges aren't having monthly meetings and creating a top-10
evil law list. They are responding to citizens who are claiming
that some statutes are in conflict with state and/or federal
constitutions. They are then ruling on whether there is indeed a
conflict, this is judicial review.
It fa
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
I cannot see how it does. Homosexuals are not a protected class under 14th amendment analysis, and I certainly don't see a rationale for adding them under the Carolene Products footnote. Thus, the states need only a rational basis for the exclusion, and there are certainly many; for example, promoting child socialization, promoting responsible childbirth in general, and so on. As to specific legal privileges, the SCOTUS may or may not determine that deprivation of that privilege has no rational basis, but as to the marriage license itself, there are plenty.
My fear, of course, is that the court will dismiss all this and simply hold that some emanance of a penumbra of a right means that could not have been guessed at means that one side wins and one side loses, for ever and ever.
I guess I might be missing other possible constitutional attacks. Suggestions?
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1)
Each one could be individually challenged using the "rational basis" approach.
Even if the Federal Constitution permits such allocation. The court rulings in VT and MA were based on the state constitutions, which they concluded did not permit such restri
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1)
Looking back at your original post I see you were commenting on federal courts re: the federal Constitution. I made, perhaps the incorrect assumption, that you were also directing your critique at the MA and VT state courts but your