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
An individual's civil rights are not subject to your approval. If we waited for the masses to vote for things like equal rights for african-americans, they'd still be in chains. Civil rights for minorities are rarely won by popular vote, and "mob rule" would be a horrible way to determine who gets what rights anyway.
Federal courts haven't been arbitrarily reading their own values into the constitution. The constitution has a pretty clear "equal protection" clause, and is pretty clear about separating ch
If a state super-majority were to decide to strip people of color of their right to vote, the Judiciary would have ever right to step in and say "no, that's wrong", and they'd be absolutely right to do so.
Their "right to do so" comes from the explicit language of the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution, and no where else. You are correct, of course, that there IS an equal protection clause. However, I do not think it means what you think it means. You might want to read up on the Fourteenth Amendment [wikipedia.org] a little, especially the part about "suspect classes."
I care not at all whether or not the Court's decisions match my preferences. I only care that they are appying the Constitution faithfully and objectively, and not relying on their own personal values and preferences.
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:5, Insightful)
Federal courts haven't been arbitrarily reading their own values into the constitution. The constitution has a pretty clear "equal protection" clause, and is pretty clear about separating ch
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Their "right to do so" comes from the explicit language of the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution, and no where else. You are correct, of course, that there IS an equal protection clause. However, I do not think it means what you think it means. You might want to read up on the Fourteenth Amendment [wikipedia.org] a little, especially the part about "suspect classes."
I care not at all whether or not the Court's decisions match my preferences. I only care that they are appying the Constitution faithfully and objectively, and not relying on their own personal values and preferences.