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."
ROFL. You have a point there. LOL.
Uh, just so I'm clear on this -- what side of the culture wars are you on?
Prediction: no good will come of that last post?
I do not care what Dykes think!
1.) Marriage is contract law from ancient Summeria.
It is over 6,000 years old. To change the meaning of marriage means that all words in LAW can be changed.
Freedom can be changed. Rights can be changed. The Right of a Free Press can be changed. The Right to Assemble can be Changed. The Right to Due Process can be changed.
If MARRIAGE can be changed, all words unlining our FREEDOMS can be changed. The RIGHT to SUE in court can be changed. The RIGHT of Religous Freedom can be changed.
ALL Things can be changed because the meaning of MARRIAGE is founded in CONTRACT LAW with 6,000 years of precedence!
Now, who was it that during the Supreme Court Hearings kept asking about some arcane legal thought about PRECEDENCE?
"stare decisis"....
MARRIAGE CONTRACT defines "stare decisis"!
Marriage is not really the issue, it is biology, which is an impervious secular argument... two homosexuals cannot be “monogamous” because the word denotes a biological procreation they are incapable of with each other. (I would support a very pointed amendment to nullify any appearance of homosexual monogamy. But, first, I want the Congress to vote on a statute and have the president sign it into law.)
Today, "morals" are defined by a quasi-religious pagan philosophy based on esoteric hobgoblins. A greater number of "atheists" and "pagans" adopt the same hackneyed tenets of a false Judaic-Christian ideal (golden calf). They also subscribe to the Judaic fetishism of "sin," but will fight to their death in denial of it. Most of them are so wrapped up in their own polemics that they have become nothing more than pathetic anti-Christians with the same false hypocritical philosophy. They just slap a new label on it hoping nobody will notice - - they replace the idea of "avoiding sin" with "morals."
Morality and all of its associated concepts are from the belief some higher power defines what is correct in human behavior. Today, "morals" are a religious pagan philosophy of esoteric hobgoblins. Transfiguration is a pantheon of fantasies as the medium of infinitization. Others get derision for having an unwavering Judaic belief in Yahweh or Yeshua, although their critics and enemies will evangelize insertion of phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law.
Mosaic Law (of which the Ten Commandments is just a part) is the foundation of Western Civilization. Genesis is the primary focus of the Declaration of Independence, from where our Constitutional rights are derived. The Ten Commandments are the foundation of our judicial system.
Moses wrote Genesis. This is why such people will jump up and down screaming when the Ten Commandments are displayed or the Creationist idea of monogamy from the book of Genesis is introduced.
The latter (Genesis) also ruins the illogical and non-biological arguments of homosexual monogamy. In a secular sense, homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion. It is in no way an anatomical function of the human organism, but a phantasmagoric creation from within the mentally disturbed human mind, a social psychosis, naked and on full exhibitionist display.
This is the whole crux of their attack on creationism - - they are really frustrated by Genesis, but cannot destroy the axiomatic state of procreant human biology, it does not fit their religious agenda.
Homosexual monogamy advocates seek ceremonious sanctification of their anatomical perversions and esoteric absolution for their guilt-ridden, impoverished egos.
Neither of those will satisfy their universal dissatisfaction with mortality or connect them to something eternal. With pantheons of fantasies as their medium of infinitization, they still have nothing in them of reality, any more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream.
Homosexual deviancy is really a pagan practice (and a self-induced social psychosis) at war with the Judaic culture over what is written in the book of Genesis (1:27, 2:18).
This is exactly what the National Socialists were at war with... so, when someone uses the term "Gaystapo," they might not realize how close to the truth they really are.
Many will seek ceremonious sanctification and esoteric absolution in some type of marriage rite, but that still fails to give them a connection to the eternal in both a religious and temporal, procreant sense - - the union does not produce offspring.
Dissatisfaction with inevitable mortality only feeds the impoverishment of the ego further. Homosexuals really hate human life; their whole desire is rooted in the destruction of it...
Yikes. Do you really want to know?
Don't know what came over me.
There's are big differences between the alcohol issue and the gay "marriage" issue. When prohibition was imposed, the other side wasn't trying to engineer a judicial fiat to impose a national "wet" policy on the whole country. Thus, when prohibition was repealed, the issue went back to states and localities, where it remains to this day.
The gay "marriage" issue is very different. It isn't a case of moral crusaders trying to stamp out a centuries' old popular evil. Rather, the federal marriage amendment (FMA) is a defense against a growing and impending threat of a federal judicial obliteration of our state marriage laws and our traditions and institutions which pre-date those laws by thousands of years.
Then, there's the ideological baggage that comes with gay "marriage". Wet laws don't come with such baggage. No one suggests teaching kids in school that drinking booze is great, that alcoholism is a lifestyle choice, or perhaps a genetic condition that should be considered equal to not being alcoholic. Nominees for judgeships aren't raked over the coals for belonging to a church which forbids alcohol consumption. Leftist politicians aren't planning to require textbooks to teach the kiddies about the contributions of famous drunkards. Nor is there a kiddie book called "Heather Has A Drunken Mommy" which teaches that being a drunk mommy is a cool lifestyle choice. DisneyWorld doesn't have a drunkards' day. There are no "hate speech" laws against calling drunkenness a sin. No one has yet suggested booting the Boy Scouts from public facilities unless they agree to have alcoholic scoutmasters.
When it comes to the gay agenda, we're in an ideological war. Opposition to an FMA is akin to agreeing not to send one's troops into another country, even of they send theirs into ours.
Exactly the place I am in...
(“Peace, or I guess war, if given no other option...”) Good tagline...
Please re-read the passage that started all this. All I said was that a federal marriage amendment WILL subsequently restrict state actions. Not only is that true, it's axiomatic.
I was only noting that it's preferable to restrict the states with the permission of the states themselves (FMA), as opposed to doing so against the states' wishes (judicial fiat).
I'm fully against the homosexual lifestyle and agenda, as anyone here who knows me can attest.
When it comes to the gay agenda, we're in an ideological war..
...and shooting metaphorical bullets.
My opinion is to send it down to the states or municipalities. Let them decide according to community standards. In reality, gay guy/gals are being married every day by ordained clergy. If states or local governments want to recognize those marriages, then they should.
I'm afraid to respond...
Then it's only a matter of time until the issue is taken awat from the states and gay "marriage" is imposed on the entire nation by judicial fiat.
Homosexuality is just an unnatural sex fetish. The reason I use quotes when even discussing this issue (gay "marriage") is because there can really be no marriage between people of the same sex, anymore than there can be a marriage between a horse and water tank.
Yes, I know but that did not stop many states from having a vote on the issue during the last election anyway.
...and Gloria Gaynor's disco hit I Will Survive will experience an unexpected surge in popularity.
"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...."
Very well and concisely put. Thanks for that.
So far I've not seen any unbiased studies that indicate that. Most believe that whatever causes it is either a genetic, or a pre-born cause. If so, then of course, environmental issues can have an impact, but only if the physiological or psychological causal factors are present. while none of this is proved yet, most medical professionals believe it.
Key point. For people who started their activism by telling government to stay out of the bedroom, now they insist that government endorse what they do in their bedroom. Two siblings or friends (of any combination of sexes) who live together can not get the "benefits" that the Gay Lobby is demanding through Marriage of single sex couples. Why the discrimination? What is the difference?
The sole difference is what goes on in the bedroom!
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.