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."
it will need to be a historical change, because for centuries the state sanctioning marriage was to secure the family unit and promote the family for the raising of children.
I still believe that a family unit is basically essential for rearing children and we need to tread carefully here...having said that, it is time with all the “single” people to change some financial and other laws to make things more fair for all single persons.
I am also reluctant for the state to get into too many social issues...but all in all, its a tough call. A totally secularized state is not healthy either.
You’re defending the continued propagation of gays “marrying” each other. Stop and think about that.
Libertarians don’t even know how liberty is defined in the worldview of the founders of this republic.
They believe in licence, some imagined “right” to do whatever the hell they want, no matter how wrong - not true liberty, which is the right to do what is right.
Thread filed under *one more vivid demonstration of why the Republican Party is dead*
Thank you, I’d like to study more on the subject.
The idea that government should have no civic role in marriage is the libertarian contribution to the Left’s goal of destroying the institution.
I think the reason there are more singles in this world today is because while people are looking more and more to the government to solve the (their term) “big issues”, they are turning more and more to the individualistic lifestyle in their personal situations.
Society has changed, for better or worse. The GOP has failed to change with it and the Democrats play it up both with zeal and, I’m afraid, alacrity.
And I think the government should be secularized as a whole. Whatever principles the individuals that hold office is fine and dandy, but the intent of the founders was for there to be a distinct line.
And I’m not saying there shouldn’t be oaths on a bible or that kind of stuff, but until The GOP and conservatives as a whole get the message that resonates with people (personal freedom, individual liberty) out and out strong we are just sealing the Democratic majority.
Rabidly supporting this type of governmental ban on something is as bad as gun-grabbing IMO and especially to the point of demonizing those that say otherwise (EV did that as usual, you didn’t). It’s THEIR choice just like it was my and my wife’s choice to get married and have kids.
Complete bunk. The founders, were they here, would make me look moderate on this subject. The idea that they would be putting up with this nonsense is ludicrous.
Little children know the difference between right and wrong. It’s only folks like you who have grown so sophisticated that you can’t tell the simple difference. It’s the death of common sense, that which always occurs when a people abandon God and morality.
Exactly. No one is stopping consenting adults of the same sex from committing to each other for life.
Agreed. I think that everyone, gay or straight, should suffer the same!
This is not about banning anything. So-called "same-sex" marriage hasn't been banned. Don't fall for the spin. No one is stopping consenting adults from committing to each other. They want to change the legal definition of marriage from one man and one woman to "two people of any sex."
There's no reason to change it. There's no point in it. The institution of marriage is intended for a biological family to stay intact. Any other definition makes no sense whatsoever. Only a man and a woman can produce children together
I do agree with this statement, though:
until The GOP and conservatives as a whole get the message that resonates with people (personal freedom, individual liberty) out and out strong we are just sealing the Democratic majority.
It's all about rhetoric and PR. The GOP and Republicans are terrible at it, imho. But, the marriage issue has nothing to do with personal freedom or individual liberty. (Since when is there freedom in marriage, anyway? Who marries to "be free?" Freedom is being single; marriage is all about responsibility.)
“But, the marriage issue has nothing to do with personal freedom or individual liberty.”
Exactly. There was this great legal historian, Henry Sumner Maine, who contrasted the Society of Status (think ancient Rome) with the Society of Contract (think modern America). Gay rights activists use the language of Contract, yet marriage is clearly a holdover from the Society of Contract. They all too often get away with it. I’d like to say with unthinking people, but almost as often with those who should know better.
Whoops, I meant, “marriage is clearly a holdover from the Society of Status”
Meaning the marriage we’re talking about is a privilege the government gives to you, not something you decide for yourself.
Defending the moral foundations of civilization against degeneracy and subversion doesn’t strike me as forcing morality on anybody. It’s the anything-goes crowd of the left that is cramming *amorality* doen *our* throats. If defending ourselves against this disgusting agenda is “imposing” morality,then so be it.
Absolutely. Somebody could wright a lengthy and probably interesting book about the position swaps the competing political ideologies have taken the last 300 years.
Just think, less than 50 years ago, Jack Kennedy campaigned on a platform of the (nuclear) missile deficit. By today's standards in the Democratic party, Kennedy was an ultra-hawk - and a supply-sider, but that's another conversation.
Thanks for the information. I just looked up Maine and read a little bit about him.
Jesus was condemning divorce — not polygamy. Polygamy was never condemned in the Bible. Male homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments, and lesbian sex is condemned in part in the New Testament (more a condemnation of birht control though — check Romans 1). However, divorce is condemned MANY times more than homosexuality.
Yep. Sometimes I wish that the descendants of William Jennings Bryant would have stayed in the Democratic Party. Even worse is they brought “rural populism” with them, which is as unconservative an idea as you will find.
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.