Posted on 05/14/2006 5:03:17 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
The lesbian daughter of US Vice President Dick Cheney hit out at President George W. Bush's support for a constitutional amendment proscribing gay marriage.
Mary Cheney, 37, told Fox News Sunday that the idea, which was backed strongly by Bush's Republican Party during his 2004 re-election campaign and continues to be promoted by many conservatives today, was "a bad piece of legislation".
"I think that is what the federal marriage amendment is, it is writing discrimination into the constitution.
"It is writing discrimination into the constitution and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong."
"I would also hope that no one would think about trying to amend the constitution as a political strategy," she added.
Cheney, who worked on her father's campaign staff in 2004, said she very nearly quit the reelection effort over the issue.
In the wake of controversial moves to make same-sex marriage legal in California and other states, conservatives pushed strongly to have the constitution amended to define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman.
The effort failed in mid-2004, but a number of individual states passed their own initiatives to restrict marriage to traditional male-female couples.
Cheney, who has just published a book, "It's My Turn", covering in part her experience during the campaign, said she was troubled by the stance of the party she was backing.
"President Bush obviously feels very strongly about this issue ... Quite honestly, it was an issue I had some trouble with, as I talk about in the book. I came very close to quitting my job on the re-election campaign over this very issue."
But she said she was also "very angry" when Bush and Dick Cheney's opponents in the campaign, Senators John Kerry and John Edwards, challenged the Bush stance by publicly pointing out that Mary Cheney was a lesbian.
"It was a cheap and blatant political ploy" when Edwards used her as an example in debating the issue with her father, Mary Cheney said.
Speaking separately on Fox News Sunday, Bush's wife Laura noted the issue of gay marriage still sparked debate across the country.
"I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously," she said.
"But I do think it's something that people in the United States want to debate. And it requires a lot of sensitivity to talk about the issue, a lot of sensitivity."
Well you just woke up everybody in my house making me LOL at the visual of these 80 something folks as Special Ops team. Thanks durasell, I'll remember you. :o)
There are ways to quiet those little motorized scooters...
“Fair,” another misused, socialist twist of words... Nature is not fair...
How about logical???
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made "separation of church and state" a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.
Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.
“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices...”Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).
- - See also:
Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).
Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.
All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" argument about "privileges and immunities" for homosexual marriage is invalid. Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right.
Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy with anatomical function and desperately pursuing esoteric absolution to justify their guilt-ridden egos. This has no secular standard; it is an idolatrous fetish. Why not properly apply the adjudicated Reynolds 'separation of church and state' here?
No person can logically say that carnal practices engaged by homosexuals are consistent with human anatomical function. It is obvious, and an impervious secular argument to say that biology is a standard by which we can measure. The hormonal drive to mate is biologically heterosexual. Either homosexuality is a choice, a birth defect, or it is a mental illness. Take your pick....
No, you don't and you never intend to either... see #101 about HOW AN AMENDMENT IS RATIFIED!
I am just trying to get a handle on exactly how having elected representatives changes my basic point which is simply that the further from home the government is, the less effective and out of touch it is. I am willing to be wrong...but you haven't convinced me yet. ; ).
I am just trying to get a handle on exactly how having elected representatives changes my basic point which is simply that the further from home the government is, the less effective and out of touch it is. I am willing to be wrong...but you haven't convinced me yet. ; ).
That is why laws pertaining to "social issues" are most effectively created by local governments. It's only recently that folks have called on Federal and State powers to set a social agenda...and, of course, the lawmakers were only too happy to take up the cause. It's easier legislating social issues than crunching budget numbers.
Sigh.
Well, now that you are questioning my motives it is going to be hard to be clear. I completely understand how an amendment is ratified. I just disagree that this is the place of the federal government.
I really did want to understand your position. I am genuinely sorry I didn't get it. One thing is certain: We both think gay marriage is a ridiculous notion and will lead to the complete degradation of the family. It is how we take care of it that is in question.
I hope you have a terrific evening.
I get a little nervous whenever they start fiddling with the Constitution. Remember the 18 Amendment...
I'm not in disagreement with you on gay "marriage". I'm just pointing out that a federal marriage amendment would restrict states' behavior after ratification. I'm willing to support that, though, because no state's voters want to sanction gay "marriage" anyway. It thus restricts states only in the same way that limiting coinage of money to the federal government restricts the states. No state wants its own currency anyway. Plus, the federal marriage amendment will pre-empt REAL robbery of the rights of the people and the states by activist judges.
No, you tried to obscure them in dark and erroneous doctrine...
Yes, it's always the well-meaning people who screw things up.
I don’t care what pedophiles have to say, I’m not interested in the opinions of folks who enjoy necrophilia, or bestiality…or homosexuality. They are either all perversions.... or none of them are.
I’m not going to be nice about it. I am no longer going to be tolerant. The culture war is hot and there is no longer civil discourse or a middle ground.
Measure twice, cut once. The road to hell...and all that. I think almost all of the best maxims are about the agony of unintended consequences. My mother and grandmother drilled those into me.
I have just recently learned to appreciate them. ; D.
I'm afraid to respond...
This is one of the greatest parts of beng conservative, disagreeing and yet, not kicking each other around.
While I totally disagree with Mary Cheney, she can state her position in disagreement with President Bush and still show respect for him.
If a Liberal came out against the stand of a Democrat President, you can bet they would be symbolically tarred and feathered.
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.