Official 2004 State of the Union Address Thread

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-01-21 12:19am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote:
Joe wrote:Whatever. I'm still convinced he's not ready to force an amendment. I'd like to see what Andrew Sullivan has to say about it.

Also, interesting slip by Kerry "...we must protect the marriage penalty..."
Read his statement. He said that if state courts continue legalizing gay marriage, he said that the "only alternative" was a Constitutional amendment. To define the Sanctity of Marriage. Appearantly, the "necessary" condition from his previous statement is if state courts keep going again DoMA.
Fucker replaces "me and John Ashcroft and our buddies at the First Christ..." with "The People." Fuck that.

I was screaming, cursing, and foaming at the mouth when he mentioned that...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-21 12:19am

You know, I'm really fucking tired of the term "activist judges". The judges are called upon to interpret the law. If their interpretation is clearly bullshit, then say so. But simply decrying their decisions because they're "activist" (God forbid they ... I dunno ... render judgement when called upon to do so, even though that is their job) is completely absurd.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-01-21 12:20am

Well mike, you see they are activist judges if they render a decison hat is actually in-line with the constitution.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-21 12:23am

That's the accepted lingo. Hell, many activists proudly accept the label.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-01-21 12:27am

Kinda funny how he claimed in his 'faith-based charity' part that religious groups have been discriminated against.

Plus, that was a good job those speechwriters did of writing a speech condemning gay marriage without actually using the terms "gay marriage" or "homosexuality". Beating around the Bush, I would say.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-01-21 12:39am

"Appeal to popularity" fallacy.

But in this case, popularity is what matters. When the government issues assistance, the intention is to get that aid to the greatest number of people possible. If more people are drawn to religious institutions than non-faith based community centers, then that money should be spread among churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples. It’s only logical.

Why do you think he did it on purpose, rather than doing it because he can't speak English?

Because he has advisers who tell him those things.

He equates America to civilization? What are the rest of the first-world nations, then?

He cites the United States as its standard-bearer. A common invocation among leaders, but entirely unnecessary and potentially provocative.

What about the fact that his free-spending ways make Bill Clinton look like Scrooge?

As long as the economy continues to do well, traditional channels of government revenue will reap the windfall – and thus, so too will the federal government.

What about the fact that his free-spending ways make Bill Clinton look like Scrooge?

No. Most Americans really do oppose gay marriage. He’s right in that. The counter-argument is that those interpretations are invariably based on Biblical text, and are thus irrelevant.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-01-21 12:43am

No. Most Americans really do oppose gay marriage. He’s right in that. The counter-argument is that those interpretations are invariably based on Biblical text, and are thus irrelevant.

The results of polls are usually within the margin of error... And frankly, in a constitutional republic, majority rule does not override minority rights, we have the 14th amendment for that.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-21 12:44am

14th Amendment doesn't protect minority sexual orientations.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-01-21 12:48am

Joe wrote:14th Amendment doesn't protect minority sexual orientations.

No, but it does guarantee equal protection under the law. Seeing as Marriage is a civil contract and entails certainlegal protections, it covers the marriage issue.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2004-01-21 12:59am

Speech wrote:Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process.

He actually said "constitutional process" not "amendment." The emphasis of the statement is split between the issue at hand (gay marriage), and the bad behavior (so to speak) of the judges. I see two ways to view this, the first is the straight up view that everyone seems to be taking--meaning he is planning some constitutional amendment to rule on this particular issue. The second is that he's going to pursue some other constitutional process, such as by removing the judges for bad behavior when they overstep their bounds. Or perhaps simply ignoring the rulings altogether. Technically, judicial review is a power that the courts took for themselves, not one they were granted by the Constitution. Ignoring judicial review decisions would essentially over turn 200 years of tradition, and replace it with the original "constitutional process" of how laws are created and enforced.

I necessarily believe that he really meant it that way. I merely thought I would point it out to see what the rest of you thought.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-21 01:02am

Axis Kast wrote:As long as the economy continues to do well, traditional channels of government revenue will reap the windfall ? and thus, so too will the federal government.

*choke*

I'll remind all of my unemployed friends that the economy is doing just fine. They'll thank you for the clarification.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-01-21 01:06am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
No. Most Americans really do oppose gay marriage. He’s right in that. The counter-argument is that those interpretations are invariably based on Biblical text, and are thus irrelevant.
The results of polls are usually within the margin of error... And frankly, in a constitutional republic, majority rule does not override minority rights, we have the 14th amendment for that.

And you would be reading into the 14th amendment what it does not explicitly state and for many on the bench that is an issue. We have a movement among some judges who are legislating from the bench and that is not what they were intended to do. The Judicial branch is not there to fix what the legislature fucked up or is unwilling to do. They are there to make sure that the laws are carried out correctly.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-01-21 01:08am

How about the fact that there is no reason for a gay marriage ban that isn't religious? I believe the Establishment Clause should cover that.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-01-21 01:10am

Axis Kast wrote:But in this case, popularity is what matters. When the government issues assistance, the intention is to get that aid to the greatest number of people possible. If more people are drawn to religious institutions than non-faith based community centers, then that money should be spread among churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples. It’s only logical.

I wouldn't have a problem giving money to faith-based charities, under a few conditions.

1. They are not allowed to incorporate their religion into their charity work at all.
2. They cannot discriminate who they hire as workers based on religious grounds.
3. They cannot discriminate who they help based on religious grounds (the Salvation Army, for example, does not give aid to single mothers).

If they're going to take government money, they'd better damn well play by government rules.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-01-21 01:12am

Stravo wrote:And you would be reading into the 14th amendment what it does not explicitly state and for many on the bench that is an issue. We have a movement among some judges who are legislating from the bench and that is not what they were intended to do. The Judicial branch is not there to fix what the legislature fucked up or is unwilling to do. They are there to make sure that the laws are carried out correctly.

I hate to argue with a lawyer on what the Judicial branch exists for ... but isn't the one of the reasons they're there to serve as a part of the checks and balance system? Isn't that why they decide whether or not a law is constitutional when called upon to do so?

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-01-21 01:15am

But it doesn't matter if you regulate how the churches use that money. If you give money to a church and they use it for charity, they have more left for their evangelism. The rules don't matter, because every dollar that goes to a church ends up funding their religious agenda anyway.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-01-21 01:18am

Durandal wrote:
Stravo wrote:And you would be reading into the 14th amendment what it does not explicitly state and for many on the bench that is an issue. We have a movement among some judges who are legislating from the bench and that is not what they were intended to do. The Judicial branch is not there to fix what the legislature fucked up or is unwilling to do. They are there to make sure that the laws are carried out correctly.
I hate to argue with a lawyer on what the Judicial branch exists for ... but isn't the one of the reasons they're there to serve as a part of the checks and balance system? Isn't that why they decide whether or not a law is constitutional when called upon to do so?

Sure, and being a lawyer does not grant me special powers of interperation, I have never had to deal with Consitutional law issues since law school. There are a few folks here more up to date on it than I am. But anyway, yes it does, the Judicial exists to make sure that the legislature does not enact laws that are unconsitutional or that the Executive does not establish powers beyond its scope or policies that are also unconsitutional.

If the Adminstration said tomorrow that no Arabs could serve in the CIA or NSC the judicial branch is there to say no. And even then it is a delicate power because as Andrew Jackson showed us when the SCOTUS ruled for the Cherokee tribes he told the court to go fuck itself. If Congress enacts a law saying the same thing, the court is there to deal with it.

Now in this instance, Bush is using his own check on the Judicial, enacting legislation that is Consitutional thus beyond the Court's power to interpret.
As well as the implied power that he gets to place judges on the bench, the check there that they need congressional 'advise and consent' which has been interpretted to mean that the Coingress must approve any federal judicial nominee.

Please keep in mind that I am not arguing that gay marriage is wrong, but I do happen to agree that the courts tend to do too much legisalation and not enough interpretation. There are many lawyers who would disagree with me.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-01-21 01:22am

The Judicial branch in Australia sometimes fixes legislative fuckups, most often interpreting vague laws and such in accordance with what they know about the intentions of the legislature in passing it- for example, the reading speeches in the houses of parliament are often instructive.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-21 01:30am

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of gender discrimination. Think about it:

Man + Woman = OK
Man + Man = Not OK?

What is the only difference between those two arrangements? Oh yeah ... the gender of partner #2. Therefore, if gender discrimination is outlawed, then discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is also outlawed. Of course, this assumes that gender discrimination is prohibited by the constitution.

This is a perfectly valid interpretation of existing laws AFAIK, and in fact, I believe the Vermont court came to precisely this interpretation when they ruled for gay marriages (and were promptly overruled by Howard Dean IIRC).

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-01-21 01:32am

Darth Wong wrote:Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of gender discrimination. Think about it:

Man + Woman = OK
Man + Man = Not OK?

What is the only difference between those two arrangements? Oh yeah ... the gender of partner #2. Therefore, if gender discrimination is outlawed, then discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is also outlawed. Of course, this assumes that gender discrimination is prohibited by the constitution.

This is a perfectly valid interpretation of existing laws AFAIK, and in fact, I believe the Vermont court came to precisely this interpretation when they ruled for gay marriages (and were promptly overruled by Howard Dean IIRC).

If you interpret marriage to be a man and a woman for the function of having families as some of the marriage is sacred crowd then you have an argument against the gender discrimination tact. Not a particularly strong one but it has been used before.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-01-21 01:33am

He did? I saw a report on FNC (of course) detailing Dean's support for a gay marriage bill following a decision by the Vermont court (typically, the RNC-network was using it as a veiled platform for which to attack him).

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-21 01:35am

Vympel wrote:He did? I saw a report on FNC (of course) detailing Dean's support for a gay marriage bill following a decision by the Vermont court (typically, the RNC-network was using it as a veiled platform for which to attack him).

IIRC, he supports "civil unions" but not gay marriage. This has become the "reasonable middle ground" in the minds of most American voters: separate but equal.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2004-01-21 01:38am

On a different note, the tone and emphesis of this speech (national security, rogue states, military) reminded me of the speeches from 9/11 to May 1, 2003. Did anyone else feel that way as well? And I hadn't realized until today how much that tone had quietly disappeared since May 1, persumably because it wouldn't play well with the general clusterfuck that post-war Iraq was (is?).

I wonder if Bush will bring that back during the campaign, and how the people would respond to it again.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-01-21 01:41am

I'll remind all of my unemployed friends that the economy is doing just fine. They'll thank you for the clarification.

There are other indicators aside from employment. The stock indexes are again climbing, as is productivity. Remember that recent quarters have been growth quarters.

The results of polls are usually within the margin of error... And frankly, in a constitutional republic, majority rule does not override minority rights, we have the 14th amendment for that.

Have you any of those polls? And I agree with your take on the civil nature of marriage.

How about the fact that there is no reason for a gay marriage ban that isn't religious? I believe the Establishment Clause should cover that.

More or less. The strongest argument I’ve ever heard against it really involves adoption – and that’s the argument that society is so intolerant, children would suffer excessive harassment just for being brought up by a homosexual couple.

I wouldn't have a problem giving money to faith-based charities, under a few conditions.

1. They are not allowed to incorporate their religion into their charity work at all.
2. They cannot discriminate who they hire as workers based on religious grounds.
3. They cannot discriminate who they help based on religious grounds (the Salvation Army, for example, does not give aid to single mothers).

If they're going to take government money, they'd better damn well play by government rules.

Are those official conditions? As far as I know, faith-based organizations that accept government contracts or funds can never turn anybody away, although they are permitted to discriminate in hiring practices.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-21 01:41am

On a different note, the tone and emphesis of this speech (national security, rogue states, military) reminded me of the speeches from 9/11 to May 1, 2003. Did anyone else feel that way as well? And I hadn't realized until today how much that tone had quietly disappeared since May 1, persumably because it wouldn't play well with the general clusterfuck that post-war Iraq was (is?).

I didn't notice much difference between his recent rhetoric, personally.

And of course we'll hear more of the same rhetoric, and some voters it will resonate with, other voters it won't. Just like always.