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.
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.
Even more specifically, they're afraid that knowledgable and competent judges will rightly find their bigoted and pointless laws in violation of constitutional protections, and over-turn them. So they have to circumvent th
You make many interesting points, and a good thoughtful post, with the exception of generalizing all right-wingers as bigots... but I digress.
Anyway, what may be "bigotry" to you may be "preserving good morals" to someone else. And each person thinks the other wrong.
As long as two athiests who cannot have children (like my friends Mark and Jennifer) can go down to the justice of the peace and get a marriage license with nothing more than the required fee and two witnesses, then I can see no rational, reasonable, or ethical justification for denying the same exact right to a gay couple.
Well, just because you can't see a rational, reasonable, or ethical justification for it, doesn't mean other people can't. For starters, many people don't see it as an "equal rights" issue for many reasons.
Not all right-wingers are bigots, no. Just all the ones who are opposing equal rights bills.
You need to try to see the issue through their eyes. To them, it's not an equal rights issue. To them, a law allowing gays to marry would be as equally morally reprehensible as a law allowing rape or murder, since homosexuality is equally immoral in their eyes.
So go ahead and say they have screwed up morals if you like, but do NOT claim that they are against equal-rights, because that's not how they see it.
So go ahead and say they have screwed up morals if you like, but do NOT claim that they are against equal-rights, because that's not how they see it.
Yeah, and every racist I've ever met has told me they aren't racist. Just because they don't see themselves as racist (or against equal rights) doesn't mean they aren't.
Do you feel that being against affirmative action is racist? If you do, then hey, I'm a racist in your eyes, but that doesn't bother me one bit. Similarly, if thinking that homosexuality is immoral makes me a "homosex-ist" or whatever it's called, then fine, I am.
Homosexuality is no more inherently immoral than Heterosexuality is inherently moral.
It's not the state of being, at all, that is the moral issue.
And the issue of civil marriage licenses is a secular issue anyway... any specific religion's idea of its morality shouldn't really be relevant. Granting same-sexu couples a civil marriage license wouldn't compel a single church to change its marriage policies or to validate or accept any unions it did not wish to. Even today, many churches will not perform or
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:5, Insightful)
Even more specifically, they're afraid that knowledgable and competent judges will rightly find their bigoted and pointless laws in violation of constitutional protections, and over-turn them. So they have to circumvent th
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Anyway, what may be "bigotry" to you may be "preserving good morals" to someone else. And each person thinks the other wrong.
Well, just because you can't see a rational, reasonable, or ethical justification for it, doesn't mean other people can't. For starters, many people don't see it as an "equal rights" issue for many reasons.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
You need to try to see the issue through their eyes. To them, it's not an equal rights issue. To them, a law allowing gays to marry would be as equally morally reprehensible as a law allowing rape or murder, since homosexuality is equally immoral in their eyes.
So go ahead and say they have screwed up morals if you like, but do NOT claim that they are against equal-rights, because that's not how they see it.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Yeah, and every racist I've ever met has told me they aren't racist. Just because they don't see themselves as racist (or against equal rights) doesn't mean they aren't.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Depends on your reasons for being against it.
>>>Similarly, if thinking that homosexuality is immoral makes me a "homosex-ist" or whatever it's called, then fine, I am.
Glad you admit it.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
It's not the state of being, at all, that is the moral issue.
And the issue of civil marriage licenses is a secular issue anyway... any specific religion's idea of its morality shouldn't really be relevant. Granting same-sexu couples a civil marriage license wouldn't compel a single church to change its marriage policies or to validate or accept any unions it did not wish to. Even today, many churches will not perform or
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Anyone who has seen what gay couples have to go through, especially those with children, on a day to day basis can see this fact plainly.
It's not a moral issue at all. We're not discussing religious ceremonies, religion, or what churches should be required to do. At all.
This is about nothing more than a set of civil rights, responsibilities, and priveleges afforded to couples