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."
see post 160. :) I should’ve pinged you, too on that. :)
I'm not a subject.
In America, we the people are sovereign.
“There is not a thing vague about the fact that our rights to life and liberty come from our Creator, and not from any man, that those rights are unalienable, and that the protection of the same is the primary reason for being of human government.”
There is a whole lot vague, as you well know. None of us is conversant with the Creator, nor do we know exactly what rights he has given us. I could just as easily argue that our God-given rights precludes the type of government that issued the Declaration altogether. Anarchists, which is not a synonym for atheist as some seem to believe, certainly do.
“These Declaration principles are in fact the basis of American liberty.”
The principles may or may not be the basis of our liberty. There are more principles endemic to the American soul than the Declaration could possibly name, I think. But let’s say the Declaration principles are fundamental. Fine. But the Declaration itself isn’t. It was just one place for the principles to be expressed.
“You’re arguing against the only firm foundation for American republican self-government and liberty.”
There is no firm foundation for liberty. Eternal vigilence is the price. Can’t fall back on pieces of paper. That’s idolatrous.
Your political/legal/constitutional philosophy, as stated on this thread, is typical of the modern era. Ungrounded in principle. Amorphous. Vague.
I don't think you and I have much more to discuss.
“In America, we the people are sovereign.”
And yet you are subject to its laws, even the ones you believe violate our fundamental principles.
We are called citizens, not subjects, I realize. It makes little difference to me. You can be subject to the laws without being a citizen, and citizenship brings its privileges unrealted to being subject to the laws.
In America, we are subject to a government mostly not of our choosing. Insofar as we are sovereign, it is because we have a small part in choosing some government officials. Big deal. Hardly rises to the level described in the Declaration. We very well may have the rights therein described, but you never know until you revolt, and even then you’re only successful if you win by force of arms. And even if you win, you’ll probably immediately turn around and institute a new government to make you its subject.
Popular sovereignty is outside reality. The airy principles of the Declaration may or may not be true, but in any case have little or no relation to our lives. It never existed anywhere ever, but if it can be used to scare the government into leaving us alone, I’m for it.
“I don’t think you and I have much more to discuss.”
Did that hit too close to home? Because if the Declaration is a firm foundation for liberty, I’m sure you’d like to know why we’re worse off now, natural rights-wise, than under the British.
“Your political/legal/constitutional philosophy, as stated on this thread, is typical of the modern era. Ungrounded in principle. Amorphous. Vague.”
On the contrary, your trust in Positive Law (i.e. the Declaration) is thoroughly modernistic. I adopt the rather old habit of holding philosophy apart from the real world, with which it has little to do.
Oh, also, I don’t recall saying it was a good thing that the principles of the Declaration aren’t really part of the law.
Indeed, IIRC it was John Locke and was called "enlightenment period" and was penned by him in the 1100's
The Declaration's main intent of course was to separate from the King of course but it did imo lay the foundation of our Country. As far as being taught what the founding documents meant, it didn't happen to me in school, I learned from reading what the framer had in mind by their own writing and of course the DOI and Constitution.
I graduated in 79 and the years I attended was only taught superficial history.
I wouldn't necessarily describe the wording in the DOI as flowery, I'd say it was eloquent. Flowery sounds a bit pejorative to me, don't get me wrong, I'm not nit picking your words but feel that the words used to describe the fundamental principles are every bit as important as the separation from Britain. I don't think either reason it was written is more or less important than the other. The fact that it hasn't been taught is indeed the reason for the downfall of our culture, if we do not teach who we are, how we got here and the basis of the whole thing, then we have no culture, that's why we are where we are, imho
Sadly, I believe you are right.
The reality is that the anti-federalists lost, the civil war pretty much set that in stone.
“But you’re arguing against the statements in our founding documents that iterate the natural law, upon which any and all positive law must be based to be truly legitimate.”
No, I’m not. I’m just saying those principles never can become part of positive law. It’s impossible. If you need proof, look what happened to our freedom-loving nation—girded as it was by what you mistake as positive natural rights law—in its short 200 year history.
Go back to Aristotle. For all his faults, he was masterfull at knowing you have to define your terms. And he knew positive law and natural law are opposites.
“Indeed, IIRC it was John Locke and was called ‘enlightenment period’ and was penned by him in the 1100’s”
Well, 1600s, but it preceeds Locke as well.
What Cheney means is that his daughter is a lesbian. And who is stopping her daughter from conducting whatevever life style she wants?... I don't give a sh** what she does as long as she does not try to impose her style on the rest of us. And who is stopping her from getting a lawyer and writing up an HCC (Homesexual Cohabitation Contract)?
No, the issue is not that homosexuals can NOT persue their lifestyle (Have you ever seen a fag-"pride" parade? This is about pushing their lifestyle in our faces, against the principles of SOCIAL-CONSERVATIVES.
So, let's vote accordingly for now until a new party or something develops. I did not vote for the presidency, because I would never vote of McCaca as I promised as far as two years ago. I will not for Cheney or Romey.
I will not vote for anyone who supports the homosexual agenda on the GOP side, including homosexuals in the military, which can not be decided state-by-state, can it?
SOCIAL-CONSERVATIVES must follow their convictions. period!
“Flowery sounds a bit pejorative to me, don’t get me wrong, I’m not nit picking your words but feel that the words used to describe the fundamental principles are every bit as important as the separation from Britain. I don’t think either reason it was written is more or less important than the other.”
Whatever adjective you use, it was abstract and had little to do with the matter at hand. The important thing is that, whether or not the philosophy or the declaration of independence within the declaration of independence was more important to history, as a legal document, the seperation part was the only thing that mattered. The rest was rhetoric. If Jefferson had included the words in a tract, we might remember it no more than we remember “Common Sense”.
“Common Sense,” for that matter, wouldn’t be positive law if it had been included in the Declaration. It wouldn’t have established the natural rights theory embeded (though less explicit) in Paine’s propaganda any more than it did Jefferson’s ideas. Neither would have been a part of American law any more than the long list of wrongs committed by the king had anything to do with the law.
Both the historical wrongs and Jefferson’s philosophy were intended to convince people. They were rhetorical flourishes. They were propaganda. If they also were good history or good philosophy, all the better to convince people.
“The fact that it hasn’t been taught is indeed the reason for the downfall of our culture, if we do not teach who we are, how we got here and the basis of the whole thing, then we have no culture, that’s why we are where we are, imho”
It would be nice if children were taught the principles of the Declaration. I’d also have them read “The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin,” “Common Sense,” “The Federalist Papers,” “The Anti-Federalist Papers, selections from the political philosophy of John Adams, Fisher Ames, and all the literary classics of young America. None of them have anything to do with the law, and that was all I was getting at.
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.