OT: State of the Union

[Barefoot In Kailua]

Laulena14 said:

What I didn't hear was who is his favorite volleyball team??

Probably a Texas Longhorn fan.

[IdahoBoy]

Barefoot said:

I always thought Hypocrisy was a perk of the executive seat.

I've always enjoyed that perk of being the top poster here.

[IdahoBoy]

Barefoot said:

Probably a Texas Longhorn fan.

Bik! C'mon, even the GWB haters would have to give him more credit than that!! Even if it is HIS state!

[StanfordFan]

Barefoot said:

What Bush are you talking about?

Actually I don't have to justify his policies, especially those that I'm in disagreement with. As noted in my response to you, I said I "assume". It seems like you are more versed on the matter than I.

I always thought Hypocrisy was a perk of the executive seat.

Ok, agreed. You don't have to justify those of his policies that you disagree with.

But I think it's hard for anyone to try and justify the Republican Party's social policy with the overall historical principles governing the Party. Frankly, the Republicans should be championing a live and let live philosophy. We don't care what the heck you do as long as you're working hard and contributing to the economy.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

Jar said:

Ok, agreed. You don't have to justify those of his policies that you disagree with.

But I think it's hard for anyone to try and justify the Republican Party's social policy with the overall historical principles governing the Party. Frankly, the Republicans should be championing a live and let live philosophy. We don't care what the heck you do as long as you're working hard and contributing to the economy.

Hey, don't expect the true Republican party to actually conform to it's reputation.

Smaller government? In what universe does that happen? Government programs are just as prevelant in repub lead administrations than democratic. In fact, even ignoring Iraq, Bush has increased spending on government programs by almost record amounts.

Fiscal conservative? See above

The republicans like to accuse democrats of being "tax and spend" democrats. They won't admit to being "borrow and spend" republicans, but that is what they do. They spend just as much. They just don't provide a means to pay for it.

Less government interference? Is a constitutional amendment against gay marriage less government interference? Anti-abortion laws are less interference? No, republicans may support less fiscal interference (i.e. deregulation of everything) but are big on government control of personal lives.

Nope, republicans are basically nothing like they proclaim to be.

(disclaimer: I'm not saying that democrats are what they proclaim to be)

[Lwood]

Jar said:

Here's another thought, why are the Republicans so gung-ho about state's rights unless it's an issue they don't like? Now, Bush is talking about the need for a federal constitutional amendment to stop "activist judges" from allowing gay marriage. Regardless of how you feel about the issue, marriage has always been an issue in the jurisdiction of the states. States issue marriage licenses. States issue divorce certificates. States define the limits of marriage (i.e., whether second, third, fourth, etc. cousins can marry). So where does G. Freakin' Bush get off suddenly federalizing the issue of marriage?

What a hypocrite.

This is not hypocritical. The Republicans would be hypocritical if they tried to defend marriage by using the Supreme Court to get their way, like the Left did with sodomy laws (and others). Not that I agree with sodomy laws, but that the state legislators should have resolved the issue. Most states had already removed sodomy laws from the books. Given enought time, all of the states would have followed suit. The federal amendment Bush is proposing puts the issue in the hands of the people to decide. The definiton of family is too important an issue to be left up to nine judges.

You are right that states issue marriage licenses, but what you are talking about is more complex than that. A marriage license issued in one state is valid in all forty-nine other states. Which means that it only takes one state in the union to legalize gay marriage and the other 49 would have to recognize the validity of that license, even if their state does not issue licenses of its own. Now that is the Democrats approach to government. Rule by the few, not the majority.

[StanfordFan]

You're simply wrong. Based upon the Defense of Marriage Act, a gay union recognized in one state is not recognized in another. So there's no federal basis for interfering in an individual state's right to recognize one relationship or another.

Second, your point regarding judicial powers versus legislative powers also fails. The purpose of the legislature is to make law. The purpose of the judiciary is to make sure those laws do not interfere with the rights of individuals.

So for instance, it is indeed up to the legislature to make law determining who is allowed to marry. But it is the role of the judiciary to determine whether that law interferes with another fundamental right, i.e. the right to equal protection under the law.

Put it this way. If the legislature of the State of Virginia passed a law that banned miscegenation (cross-racial marriage), whose role is it to ensure that the law, supposedly passed under popular demand, doesn't infringe on the fundamental rights of other individuals? The answer is the courts. And lest you think something like this would never happen, it did. Loving v. Virginia--Supreme Court case that overturned Virginia's law against miscegenation.

Also, you make a good point that states are slowly removing sodomy laws from the books. But that's not a reason for courts not to get involved. While Georgia may have overturned its sodomy law, Louisiana affirmed theirs shortly before the Supreme Court overturned it. It's a matter of principle.

Lwood said:

This is not hypocritical. The Republicans would be hypocritical if they tried to defend marriage by using the Supreme Court to get their way, like the Left did with sodomy laws (and others). Not that I agree with sodomy laws, but that the state legislators should have resolved the issue. Most states had already removed sodomy laws from the books. Given enought time, all of the states would have followed suit. The federal amendment Bush is proposing puts the issue in the hands of the people to decide. The definiton of family is too important an issue to be left up to nine judges.

You are right that states issue marriage licenses, but what you are talking about is more complex than that. A marriage license issued in one state is valid in all forty-nine other states. Which means that it only takes one state in the union to legalize gay marriage and the other 49 would have to recognize the validity of that license, even if their state does not issue licenses of its own. Now that is the Democrats approach to government. Rule by the few, not the majority.

[Lwood]

You are trying to make this simple which in turn makes you wrong. The defense of marriage act has yet to be tested in the supreme court. If the act were to be declared unconsitutional then the scenerio I described in my original post could occur. This is why a constitutional amendment is being sought to protect the institution of marriage.

Regarding the second point. Your explanation of checks and balances is excellent but doesn't fit with reality. Roe v. Wade is a high profile example of the court creating new law. In late November of 2003 the Massachusetts supreme court suddenly discovered the right to gay marriage in the state's 200+ year old constitution and ordered the state legislature to rewrite the law within six months. That is creating new law. There are many other examples at both the federal and state level. (That topic could get lengthy so I'm going to side step it - feel free to call me chicken ;D)

Comparing miscegenation and gay marriage is a poor argument. However, it is exactly how the left wants to frame the issue for the American public. The gay community wants this to be a civil rights issue instead of a moral issue. The problem they have is that scientists haven't found a gay gene yet. The gay community also wants to redefine the family from what nature and biology (some would say evolution) have set in place. Reproduction happens between a man and a woman. In addition, if you truly understand government and the history of law you would know that the foundation of law is the family. Self governance is taught through the institution of family. People who can govern themselves can then govern others. I'll give you a reading list if you need it, because most school don't teach this in civics classes anymore.

Jar said:

You're simply wrong. Based upon the Defense of Marriage Act, a gay union recognized in one state is not recognized in another. So there's no federal basis for interfering in an individual state's right to recognize one relationship or another.

Second, your point regarding judicial powers versus legislative powers also fails. The purpose of the legislature is to make law. The purpose of the judiciary is to make sure those laws do not interfere with the rights of individuals.

So for instance, it is indeed up to the legislature to make law determining who is allowed to marry. But it is the role of the judiciary to determine whether that law interferes with another fundamental right, i.e. the right to equal protection under the law.

Put it this way. If the legislature of the State of Virginia passed a law that banned miscegenation (cross-racial marriage), whose role is it to ensure that the law, supposedly passed under popular demand, doesn't infringe on the fundamental rights of other individuals? The answer is the courts. And lest you think something like this would never happen, it did. Loving v. Virginia--Supreme Court case that overturned Virginia's law against miscegenation.

Also, you make a good point that states are slowly removing sodomy laws from the books. But that's not a reason for courts not to get involved. While Georgia may have overturned its sodomy law, Louisiana affirmed theirs shortly before the Supreme Court overturned it. It's a matter of principle.

[Barefoot In Kailua]

I hereby declare the Conservatives the victors of this discussion. Once again the liberal point of view is wayward and out of touch with today's America.

[Deleted]

I hereby declare that I am the King of America. Bow down before me, peons.

First new law: from this day forward, everyone must wear their underwear OVER their outerwear. The new name is overundies.

(As long as we are expressing our delusions...)

Bonus points if you know what movie I am ripping off.

[Psychopotamus]

I don't like the whole quote on the bottom thing. When you click quote it is natural progression to type after the quote. It just makes sense. Otherwise it feels like you are speaking before anything was said. You are fighting nature. More importantly, you are bothering me by doing it. Stop!!!!

[Lwood]

OrFiF said:

I don't like the whole quote on the bottom thing. When you click quote it is natural progression to type after the quote. It just makes sense. Otherwise it feels like you are speaking before anything was said. You are fighting nature. More importantly, you are bothering me by doing it. Stop!!!!

My deepest apologies Off Topic Richee. I only did it once when responding to Jar Jar Binks. It will never happen again.

[Lwood]

Barefoot said:

I hereby declare the Conservatives the victors of this discussion. Once again the liberal point of view is wayward and out of touch with today's America.

Not only "today's" America, but yesterday's, and God help us tomorrow's.

[StanfordFan]

It never ceases to amaze me how little people understand about the law and the principles of democractic governance. I will also never understand how conservatives can stand up and claim that denying anyone the right to enter a committed relationship somehow degrades the principles of family and marriage. As far as I can tell, you conservatives aren't doing it all that well yourself. TEXTSeeTEXT Newt Gingrich's marriage, Rush Limbaugh's life generally, divorce rate amongst legally married heterosexuals, etc.

That being said:

1. You've criticized my comparison of miscegenation and the ban on gay marriage on the fact that there is no "gay gene." Maybe you should add to your reading list some books on constitutional law. Fine, no gay gene, no suspect class. That doesn't mean you can routinely discriminate against a class of people. If the state of X passed a law saying Democrats can get married and have all the benefits of marriage, but Republicans cannot, the fact that there is no "Republican gene" doesn't validate that law. According to the Supreme Court, gays and lesbians are enough of a discrete minority such that laws that target them specifically are subject to heightened review, if not the highest level of strict scrutiny.

2. The Massachusetts Supreme Court did not suddenly find a new "right of gay marriage" in the Massachusetts Constitution. Rather, they looked at the practice of allowing certain people to marry and not others, and determined that such a law discriminated against a specific group in violation of age-old constitutional principles. They then did the proper thing and told the legislature to find some way to fix the constitutional violation. If you deem this making new law, then you'd have to take issue with allowing women and African Americans the right to vote, because, guess what, those rights weren't expressly written into any constitution either.

3. The only way to justify the conservative view is to adopt a very specific interpretation of "morality." The constitution is there to prevent you from enforcing your individual sense of morality upon everyone else. Anyone can be personally racist or discriminatory. You can choose not to associate with African Americans, Asians, or gay people. But there's no inherent right, just because you and some others feel that way, to tread on the basic rights of others.

Anyway, have to run to a meeting. That's it for now.

Lwood said:

You are trying to make this simple which in turn makes you wrong. The defense of marriage act has yet to be tested in the supreme court. If the act were to be declared unconsitutional then the scenerio I described in my original post could occur. This is why a constitutional amendment is necessary to protect the institution of marriage.

Regarding the second point. Your explanation of checks and balances is excellent but doesn't fit with reality. Roe v. Wade is a high profile example of the court creating new law. In late November of 2003 the Massachusetts supreme court suddenly discovered the right to gay marriage in the state's 200+ year old constitution and ordered the state legislature to rewrite the law within six months. That is creating new law. There are many other examples at both the federal and state level. (That topic could get lengthy so I'm going to side step it - feel free to call me chicken ;D)

Comparing miscegenation and gay marriage is a poor argument. However, it is exactly how the left wants to frame the issue for the American public. The gay community wants this to be a civil rights issue instead of a moral issue. The problem they have is that scientists haven't found a gay gene yet. The gay community also wants to redefine the family from what nature and biology (some would say evolution) have set in place. Reproduction happens between a man and a woman. In addition, if you truly understand government and the history of law you would know that the foundation of law is the family. Self governance is taught through the institution of family. People who can govern themselves can then govern others. I'll give you a reading list if you need it, because most school don't teach this in civics classes anymore.

[Deleted]

I hated JJB in the Star Wars movies, but, you know, he makes some damned good points.