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."
Sorry if the truth hurts.
I dont especially dislike Cheney but I think the hero worship, driven by many on talk radio, is misguided. He caused many political problems for republicans (with GWB in charge obviously) . The past republican leadership has to go, McConnall and Bayner need to go. The voters will need hope and the same old losers that helped screw things up wont do it.
I was a a regular talk radio follower listening to Levin and Hannity up to early last year, started with Rush in 1992. But with the economy crash and the loss of two elections I am tired of simpleton talking points that are not true. Talk radio wants to keep their Christan listeners but at the same time promote Cheney hero worship (neo-con worship may be the right term) and so they are telling listeners Cheney is not pro-homo rights, he is pro-libertarian, like the title of Levin's book ‘Liberty’. This is non-sense, How can listeners believe such non-sense?
Sometimes I think they are as bad as the libs that believe Keith Olbermann.
Same sex marriage is not about liberty and Cheney is no where close to a libertarian, even at the federal level.
If true, then I no longer support Cheney. Up to this point, he’s been at the top of my list.
The truth is, though, that if “marriage” is not the word used to describe the union of a potentially procreative couple, then they’ll come up with another word for it, because it is of critical interest to everyone that that unique social couple be carefully nurtured.
In terms of the future of the society, they do the hard work of health, welfare, education, character building, loving, enhancing self-esteem, training in righteousness, etc., that no one else can accomplish.
The potentially procreative couple already owns the word “marriage.” They should be the ones to keep it.
Personally, the manner in which any homosexual gets his jollies is of no concern to me, and it does not rise to the level of government recognition. Except, of course, in the cases of spread of disease or depression. But that’s not something to celebrate, is it?
Homo-phobe! You are driving away gays from the republican party. They just want to be happy like you. (that's my Megn McCain imitation.)
This recast of Cheney as a libertarian is laughable. He is for homo-marriage like in CA with CA courts imposing it. You hear him repudiating his administration on socialist big government acts? How about the federal ban on partial birth abortions? How about Terri Shivo? How about the federal ban on guns near schools ?(that one was thrown out by SCOTUS) How about Bush vs Gore? How about No Child left Behind ? How about TARP? How about campaign finance? These are just off the top of my head and I know three of them are popular here.
Of course Cheney doesnt repudiate the adminstrations big government stuff. Cheney is a big government/big business guy. Cheney States rights? libertarian ?? What crap!
I agree with Cheney. I also think it’s hard for the rest of us to defend traditional marriage when so many heterosexuals make a mockery out of it. Straight people easily divorce and remarry, have ‘starter marriages’, cheat on each other, etc. Can we defend the sanctity of traditional marriage when we don’t practice it? I think live and let live is a good policy.
So in your world, should older couples who cannot procreate be banned from marriage?
Cheney is correct on this issue and is clearly in support of federalism, something conservatives used to support
“Absolutely. Somebody could wright a lengthy and probably interesting book about the position swaps the competing political ideologies have taken the last 300 years.”
Ah, thank you. Someone who has read about US History. Everyone else was calling me a nut.
“Polygamy was never condemned in the Bible.”
I don’t know about the Christian Testaments, but the Torah sure speaks poorly about it, with innumerous examples of poor results from polygamy.
Please give examples.
Just google “Rabbi Gershom ben Judah” for the explaination. His writing are the most clear on the subject.
In EXTREME brief, there are numerous statements in the Torah that polygamy was a bad idea, available in special circumstances only, and numerous examples of the trouble it caused in general, from murder to inter-sibling jealousy, rape, and sibling murder.
Contrary to popular belief, polygamy is never “sanctioned,” merely tolerated (under specific circumstances), even under strict Karaite reading of the Torah.
Gay marriage, one large step closer to communism.
out of the park!
basically that spouses have certain rights specifically granted to them that aren’t available to “partners” of either sex. in most states spouses have a statutory right to a percentage of the decedant’s estate where life partners or the like do not. also in calculating the gross estate for tax purposes spouses are treated different in granting exceptions and exemptions than are others. Another is that personal property immediately goes to the spouse unless it is otherwise disposed of, its considered joint property. Another thing is that something owned together, like real estate, is assumed to be by “tenants by the entirety”, which means if one dies, the interest in the property goes to the other rather than to heirs. lots of others too.
I think you mistake "conservative" for "religious zealot". The two have nothing to do with each other.
Which is why I don’t support Cheney for any political office. He can’t think straight on the homo issue because of his personal problem.
i forgot the part re whether gay marriage is the only way to assure rights. I think not. For me personally, I’d rather reserve the institution for the traditional man/woman. But that excludes some from enjoying the same benefits even though they have chosen to engage in a committed relationship. If the law is changed to allow one to designate another person to receive spousal benefits, then “marriage” is not necessary. My own personal opposition to gay marriage is I didnt want them to adopt children as I think that is unfair to the child. But thats allowed already. Other than that, the fact that their behavior gives me the creeps doesnt seem suficient to deny them rights that others enjoy.
Your question is the same question Democrats always ask. The answer: There are many younger heterosexual couples who cannot have biological children together, too. But, they DO fit the model of procreation: one man, one woman.
Cheney is correct on this issue and is clearly in support of federalism, something conservatives used to suppor
Cheney is wrong, and I suspect his logic is being clouded by emotion on this issue.
I DO support the right of states to define marriage. That's why I support DOMA and, if possible, more importantly, a constitutional amendment stating the federal government recognizes only marriages between one man and one woman. Without DOMA or an amendment, one state alone could dictate to all the others. If only one state alone redefined marriage, all the others would have to accept that one state's definition.
The federal government has a stake in marriage, too, because entitlements such as social security extend to a person's spouse.
I don’t believe Cheney is religious in any meaningful way. You evidently see religious faith as something entirely private — fine, as long as it’s kept to oneself and off the streets lest it frighten the horses. Such beliefs are more a matter of sentimentality than faith, and are entirely alien to conservatism.
You think a living faith is something for the silly and the weak? You put your trust in power and the force of will? Bah. The enemy will have you for breakfast and s*** you out before lunch.
Whatever. Just stop knocking on my door and telling me i'm going to hell if i don't join your church, ok?
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.