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
American democracy has a long tradition of protecting the minority from the majority. I guess that no longer sits well with you? When can I expect the death camps to begin?
Blah, blah, blah. Way to flame, even though I tried to be as civil as possible. If you are correct, why even have elections? Why not just have philospher kings? What minority protections are at stake here, anyways? The protection from hurt feelings? Uncomfortable situtations? Disapproval of others?
Honestly. Have we really gone so far, that the mere suggestion that citizens ought to have some say in the laws that govern them implies death camps in your min
What minority protections are at stake here, anyways?
Just because you are ignorant of the more than 1000 rights granted by a civil marriage license (among them are rights that cannot be obtained through any other means like rights of immigration and the right to not be compelled by the state to testify against your partner), that does not mean such rights don't exist.
Your whole rant was completely ignorant, I have to say. We're talking about the civil rights of individuals and equal protection under the
Just because you are ignorant of the more than 1000 rights granted by a civil marriage license
These are not minority protections. They are legal privileges. Desirable things, understandably, but it is nothing like the right to speak, or vote, or have due process. You do not help your case by pretending that it is.
Your whole rant was completely ignorant, I have to say. We're talking about the civil rights of individuals and equal protection under the law. Such things should never be put to public vote,
These are not minority protections. They are legal privileges. Desirable things, understandably, but it is nothing like the right to speak, or vote, or have due process. You do not help your case by pretending that it is.
The right to not be compelled by the state to testify against your spouse, and the right to not have your spouse deported because they are not a citizen are very much liek the right to speak or vote or have due process. You do not help your case by pretending that they are not.
Unless and until you can provide a compelling reason for the state to be able to come in and break up my relationship, but to NOT be able to do the same to YOUR relationship, you have not proven your case.
Look, I'm not opposed to you, in policy. In other contexts I would very much support your points of view. But in the constitutional context, I'm afraid I don't. The state does not need a "compelling" reason to pass a law. All of these things we are talking about, important to you though they may be, are questions of policy. Policy questions deserve to be hashed out in legislatures, by means of argument and persuasion, which you are effective at, trust me!
I don't think that your argument for constitutionalizing this issue is cogent. I sympathize with your personal feelings and hardship; I don't disagree it is backwards not to at least have these legal rights by civil union. But consider this: I also don't enjoy the rights that you talk of. Why? Because I'm single! The state has certain rights and priviliges for married people that single people do not have. Is this to be unconstitutional as well? The state takes money from the rich and provides certain benefits to poor people. Is this not unequal treatment? The state provides low-interest loans to college students. The state provides huge tax incentives for home owners. Is this not discrimination? I agree, more or less, with the Supreme Court's current distinction between suspect and non-suspect classifications. I guess I wonder what rationale you think is appropriate to determine who can and cannot be discriminated against by law. Simply adopting the position of "never" is warm and fuzzy, but plainly silly in practice, for law by its very nature classifies and distinguishes.
The issue here, to my mind, is equal protection under the law.
It's not about things you don't have as single that someone else does have as married.
It's about treating two equivalent situations different based on some irrelevant issue. In this case, it is treating two relationships as different under the law based on the sex of one of the members of the couple. THESE couples get rights, but THOSE couples don't, for an arbitrary reason that is not under the control of either party (we don't "control" who
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:5, Insightful)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1)
Blah, blah, blah. Way to flame, even though I tried to be as civil as possible. If you are correct, why even have elections? Why not just have philospher kings? What minority protections are at stake here, anyways? The protection from hurt feelings? Uncomfortable situtations? Disapproval of others?
Honestly. Have we really gone so far, that the mere suggestion that citizens ought to have some say in the laws that govern them implies death camps in your min
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Just because you are ignorant of the more than 1000 rights granted by a civil marriage license (among them are rights that cannot be obtained through any other means like rights of immigration and the right to not be compelled by the state to testify against your partner), that does not mean such rights don't exist.
Your whole rant was completely ignorant, I have to say. We're talking about the civil rights of individuals and equal protection under the
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Interesting)
These are not minority protections. They are legal privileges. Desirable things, understandably, but it is nothing like the right to speak, or vote, or have due process. You do not help your case by pretending that it is.
Your whole rant was completely ignorant, I have to say. We're talking about the civil rights of individuals and equal protection under the law. Such things should never be put to public vote,
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
The right to not be compelled by the state to testify against your spouse, and the right to not have your spouse deported because they are not a citizen are very much liek the right to speak or vote or have due process. You do not help your case by pretending that they are not.
I put it
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Look, I'm not opposed to you, in policy. In other contexts I would very much support your points of view. But in the constitutional context, I'm afraid I don't. The state does not need a "compelling" reason to pass a law. All of these things we are talking about, important to you though they may be, are questions of policy. Policy questions deserve to be hashed out in legislatures, by means of argument and persuasion, which you are effective at, trust me!
I don't think that your argument for constitutionalizing this issue is cogent. I sympathize with your personal feelings and hardship; I don't disagree it is backwards not to at least have these legal rights by civil union. But consider this: I also don't enjoy the rights that you talk of. Why? Because I'm single! The state has certain rights and priviliges for married people that single people do not have. Is this to be unconstitutional as well? The state takes money from the rich and provides certain benefits to poor people. Is this not unequal treatment? The state provides low-interest loans to college students. The state provides huge tax incentives for home owners. Is this not discrimination? I agree, more or less, with the Supreme Court's current distinction between suspect and non-suspect classifications. I guess I wonder what rationale you think is appropriate to determine who can and cannot be discriminated against by law. Simply adopting the position of "never" is warm and fuzzy, but plainly silly in practice, for law by its very nature classifies and distinguishes.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
It's not about things you don't have as single that someone else does have as married.
It's about treating two equivalent situations different based on some irrelevant issue. In this case, it is treating two relationships as different under the law based on the sex of one of the members of the couple. THESE couples get rights, but THOSE couples don't, for an arbitrary reason that is not under the control of either party (we don't "control" who