Thanks....have some??????
Posted on 06/01/2009 1:08:50 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Cheney Supports Gay Marriage It's not surprising when Vice President Dick Cheney disagrees with President Obama. But it is surprising when he takes a more progressive position than the president.
Said Cheney: "I think that freedom means freedom for everyone. As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay, and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that... historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis... But I don't have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that."
Thanks....have some??????
One hesitates to say a tongue in cheek comment in these charged times.....but, let’s say unintended consequences.
...Shall not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law wouldn't make abortion unconstitutional in your view? You would have to accept the false premise that a fertilized egg implanted in the womb of it's mother is not life to rationalize your argument. You also may want to read the 14th again, especially the equal protection part.
Furthermore, it is the absolute responsibility of the Government to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of it's citizenry, I wouldn't exactly call that a "busy busy government", in fact I wish they would get back to where they're supposed to be
Cheney describes same-sex marriage as state issue ... means freedom for everybody,” said Cheney, who took the same stand during the 2000 presidential race. ...
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/24/cheney.samesex/index.html
I don’t but I understand why he is torn and might support it. His daughter is a lesbian and one of them recently had a baby. It’s tragic ... .
Misleading headline of the day.
Cheney is not and never has been a conservative. His unmasking has now proceeded so far that only the willfully blind cannot see it.
You’ve said this several times on different threads without giving your own opinion on the issue. I find that curious.
Also, it all depends on who is on the SCOTUS when they consider the issue. The current Court might very well split 5-4 in support of that position, but if it doesn’t come up for a few years, then neither you nor I can know how much support a liberal reading of the EPC will get before some future SCOTUS. The current 4-justice “conservative” bloc is the strongest the Court has seen in years. There are no Powells in that group. Those justices will not be swayed like Kennedy, so their positions are their positions. If we have a different prez in a few years and one of the libs goes, all bets are off.
I'm curious what your thoughts are on remarriage after a divorce? As a Christian, I think homosexuality is a moral issue, but hardly a crime as long as it is between 2 consenting adults.
“She could have a stable relationship and call it anythig she likes, she can call it marriage if she wants to there is no law againt calling her relationship a marriage.”
____________
I believe that Mary Cheney did “marry” her partner or enter into some sort of “domestic partnership” and they have a son.
What I find funny, ironic, what have you is here is a very good man, a Reaganite who has been a stanch defender of our nation and because he has an issue here he is now the devil incarnate to some and needs to be run out of town..
I like and admire Chaney and I don't support gay marriage of any stripe. Those who don't, well whatever...
God did not endorse Polygamy, according to Jesus in the New Testament.
During his public teaching ministry Jesus is recorded telling his listeners that “from the beginning it was not so” (multiple wives), but God “suffered it because of the hardness of their hearts” in the old days.
He made it clear such was not acceptable under Christianity.
There is a huge difference between sadly and regretfully putting up with something and “endorsing” it.
I was kidding. I've been more or less touting him for president, as soon as he gets that bionic heart working.
But he just reminded me that while he is great on foreign policy and military policy, he is considerably to my left on social issues. I still like him, but maybe he makes a better VP, or Secretary of State, or Defense, or whatever.
“You have, as Frederick Douglass said, lost the ‘ring-bolt to our nation’s destiny.’ His simile was a nautical one: you’ve lost the connection to the mast that keeps you safe in the severe storm.”
The Constitution does not express itself through similes, metaphors, or broad philosophical concepts. It is a legal document, which was written to have a very specific meaning (though, as it dealt with a large subject matter, and language is not perfect, it has led to countless interpretations). It is all well and good to say that the protection of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” was the foundation for the type of government the Constitution sought to establish.
When it comes to what the Constitution doesn’t say, you can imagine reasonable people agreeing on what is on the side of liberty. But that’ll never happen in reality. Mutually exclusive worldviews rise up. You have people who say affirmative action is on the side of liberty and people who diagree, people who say outlawing abortion is liberty and people who disagree.
And when these disagreements arise, people are arguing about abstractions and feelings. They’re arguing about those basic principles buried deeply within the American tradition, predating the Declaration. In short, they are arguing about things that have nothing to do with the Constitution, or the law. That the Constitution doesn’t address fundamental philosophical issues is a problem without solution.
Douglas can say we lost sight of something, but the simple truth was, a lot of people didn’t consider negroes deserving of natural rights protection, and we can say they were wrong, but they’d disagree. The law couldn’t do anything about it, for a long while, so long as it didn’t explicitly declare that humans could not be enslaved. That was a problem with how the law was written, and may have been a problem with basic principles, but what I’ve been trying to say is we don’t all agree about said principles, not before the Civil War and not now, in a supposedly modern and progressive era.
The beautiful thing about liberty and natural rights is that none of us ever has to agree with the law, agree with what the government has recognized as constituting true liberty. And we can forever resist everyone else’s opinion, if only inside our own heads. As for the law, it will go on in the practical world, solving practical problems. If I hate what our country has become, hate that it has betrayed its founding principles (or hate that it has betrayed principles it never historically had, but are yet legitimate), I can damn the law, say it is not good. But I’d be more honest, I’d like to think, than Lincoln and Douglas, two politicians for pete’s sake, who were speaking out one side of their mouths.
“The DOI is the fundamental basis for our Country as well as the Constitution, all historians as well as Constitutional scholars recognize that.”
So are a million other documents and principles. Not to say that the DOI isn’t more famous and more important than most. But it has no legal standing, if much historical standing. Of course there would be no U.S. if the colonists had not declared their independence. However, the Constitution, which is the fundamental law of our land, did not grow out of the Declaration. There was no gradual constitutional evolution as in Britain. The Constitution (illegally) replaced the preceeding form of government all at once.
Cheney never said he supported gay marriage....
“Cheney never said he supported gay marriage...”
Fine. Good for him.
ahh but it is a federal issue because states are forced to recognized, notwithstanding the 1996 DOMA, the marriages of other states.
For example, if one state has common law marriage that is recognized for its residents, when those residents move to another state that common law marriage is recognized for purposes of death and divorce.
In fact the homosexuals are using Full Faith and Credit in order to attack marriage as a whole.
Wow. All that confusion is strange, in the context of the Founders. They said these truths are “self-evident.”
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.