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?
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?
I read a phrase in the Times entertainment section that piqued my curiosity: "jump the shark". Curious, I did a Google search and found that the phrase refers to the "Happy Days" episode where Fonzie, on waterskis, literally jumps over a shark. The point was that the show was never quite credible, never really as good as it had been, after this moment. And it suddenly hit me that the re-election of George W. Bush marked something similar.
The U.S. decided it hated gays and feared Muslim extremists more than it valued freedom and liberty. That moment showed that all you had to do in this country to fuck the poor and hand over the country to the rich was talk like an honest Texas Good Ol' Boy and not a spoiled millionaire's son educated at Yale. We've embraced fear in the name of security, hate in the name of Christ, lies in the name of justice. The spectre of Al Qaeda is invoked whenever the people question the government, yet the government is curiously unconcerned with capturing Osama bin Laden. We preach freedom while locking up people without trial; we invoke Jesus while arrogantly abusing our power. In short, the country has jumped the shark.
We've got some good years in the country yet, and I still love it in many ways. But it will never be the same for me. I feel like America is a love who has betrayed me, and I still love her, still care about her, still want the best for her. But I'll never completely trust her, ever again.
... exactly like it is now, and has been since.... oh, pick a date, 1492...
Interesting that you should pick that particular date [wikipedia.org]. While to you it may represent a shining moment in history, the beginning of America... to me it recalls the Spanish Inquisition [wikipedia.org] and the Expulsion [wikipedia.org] of Jews from Spain. Which ties in nicely with what I'm getting the impression you'd enjoy doing to those who support gay marriage rights.
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:2)
I read a phrase in the Times entertainment section that piqued my curiosity: "jump the shark". Curious, I did a Google search and found that the phrase refers to the "Happy Days" episode where Fonzie, on waterskis, literally jumps over a shark. The point was that the show was never quite credible, never really as good as it had been, after this moment. And it suddenly hit me that the re-election of George W. Bush marked something similar.
The U.S. decided it hated gays and feared Muslim extremists more than it valued freedom and liberty. That moment showed that all you had to do in this country to fuck the poor and hand over the country to the rich was talk like an honest Texas Good Ol' Boy and not a spoiled millionaire's son educated at Yale. We've embraced fear in the name of security, hate in the name of Christ, lies in the name of justice. The spectre of Al Qaeda is invoked whenever the people question the government, yet the government is curiously unconcerned with capturing Osama bin Laden. We preach freedom while locking up people without trial; we invoke Jesus while arrogantly abusing our power. In short, the country has jumped the shark.
We've got some good years in the country yet, and I still love it in many ways. But it will never be the same for me. I feel like America is a love who has betrayed me, and I still love her, still care about her, still want the best for her. But I'll never completely trust her, ever again.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Interesting that you should pick that particular date [wikipedia.org]. While to you it may represent a shining moment in history, the beginning of America