Posted on 06/02/2009 3:47:57 PM PDT by Selkirk
In a word, yes.
Dick Cheney made his point today, offering some words in defense of states' rights to recognize gay marriage. In his words:
[Video, after the jump]
I think Cheney is partly right, but I have my own perspective. To the extent that the government has any control over marriage at all, it needs to remain with the states. That said, the federal government has no business (or constitutional authority) regulating the affairs of the family or defining the family unit.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.politicalcastaway.com ...
I’ve heard two arguments that some Conservatives get behind that could result in this (not saying I agree, just pointing them out.) One is Cheney’s Federalist approach, leaving it to the States and to the people (re 10th Amendment) to define their contract standards for this issue. The second is the privacy approach, removing the ‘sex’ field from the marriage license (ie, it isn’t Big Brother’s business what sex or sexual orientation anyone is).
None of these would be acceptable to the left because it isn’t really about making this particular contract more accessible but about forcing acceptance of the lifestyle.
Where Cheney isn’t conservative, he leans libertarian. Thats how I read it.
He’s wrong though. Using the law to re-define marriage is to use government to intrude where it doesn’t belong. People are free to live how they want, but using government to redesign the underlying social structure isn’t conservative.
So while I like and admire Cheney, he’s wrong. In fifteen thousand years of human history there has never been such a thing as gay marriage. It doesn’t exist. Passing a law will not make it so.
A fiscal conservative, yes. A social conservative, probably not.
Not sure a Conservative can, but a Libertarian surely should try to. Main thing is, like Cheney said, to keep it state-by-state and avoid a Roe-like regal edict from our Black-robed betters.
I’ll cut Cheney some compassionate slack.
I guess when you kid is gay, you still want then to be happy and to live a full life.
I can see his point.
I wasn’t aware that they needed to be asked. Who asked them? and Why? (flame suit on, first layer anyway)
The second is the privacy approach, removing the ‘sex’ field from the marriage license (ie, it isn’t Big Brother’s business what sex or sexual orientation anyone is).
I lean to states’ rights...but not with portablility. I think marriage between two same sexers is crazy...wildly anti-social...and destructive...but if a state says marriage is legal in your state, don’t move to one where it isn’t - or you are no longer married. Same would go for civil unions, or anything else that a state would sanely be able to regulate...then we could all find a home state with laws we like and let MA, CT, NY and CA go (further) to hell... “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
I agree that yes, a conservative could support gay marriage, on the grounds that government need not intrude into this issue either way.... it’s more of a libertarian position, perhaps.
Agreed, this is for states to decide, not the government.
Or to put simply, its DD up + DD down. (defining Deviancy up and defining Decency down)
Marriage is not a government institution, and it is no more in the govt perview to redefine marriage than it is to redefine white or black.
While I don’t care what two grown adults do with each other, don’t force me to call it something that it is not.
I don’t give a damn what Cheney may think of any of this. I love and respect him for what he has done and is still doing, in service to our country.
To focus and debate this garbage, is to do exactly what the lib’s want us to do.
To take Dick Cheney at his word, that could mean a lot of things. A guy could make his best friend his heir and dependent; an aunt could make her nephew her legal domestic partner with all the rights; two unrelated people could enter into a legal contract making one the other's legal beneficiary, etc.
If these were the case, anyone could support it. But these are NOT what homosexual "marriage" proponents want. They specifically want to force others into having to accept their lifestyle, and provide them with "extra rights" and protected a victim status class.
You mean, “Can a conservative support fake marriage?”
A guaranteed fact! - California voted overwhelmingly against it last november, for the third time.
Gay “marriage” is a push to overhaul social structure and values. It is a government assertion that homosexuality is normal, which is an absolute lie.
Social issues in general are none of the government’s business. The government can’t and shouldn’t control what two consenting adults do in private, but it’s absurd and ridiculous to change laws just so we can pretend an abnormal condition is normal, just so a tiny minority of deviants can feel good about themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.