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."
RE :”I’ve kicked Cheney out of my party. It’s down to just me and Rush now. Maybe Marco Rubio from Florida too. “
You have ? I think he is spokesman for it still. It’s a bad sign that there is none new to step up. One thing about Obama’s appeal, he was new. Kerry couldnt have won. Cheney couldnt get elected dogcatcher but he is the party spokesman. You need new conservatives that can repudiate everything done in DC, meaning they were against TARP for one.
Ever notice how those who’re allergic to religion can’t resist bringing it up?
actually, no.
Cheney is awesome.
Thank you for your response. My understanding is that civil unions allow exactly what you said. On July 1, 2000, civil unions became law in the state of Vermont. A partil quote of a definition of civil unions is “....a comprehensive legal status parrallel to civil marraige for all purposes under Vermont state law.”
Imitially I supported civil unions, probably for the same reasons you mentioned. Unfortunately homosexual activists view civil union as nothing more than an incremental step toward their objective. That objective is same sex marraige.
They intend to force society to accept homosexual marraige as being as normal as hetero-sexual marraige. There are some homosexuals who do not want same sex marraige. They get no recognition from the media and certainly none from the homosexual political lobby.
The fact is that homosexuality is not normal and they know it. That knowledge is frustrating and contributes to the rage you see in the recent attacks by homosexuals in California over Prop.8. They know that the overwhelming number of people in America oppose same sex marraige. They are counting on the Judiciary to force that unnatural aggangement into the law of the land.
Homosexual marraige under law will be just another sign of the degradation of our society. I hope that it never becomes legal in America.
He has his good points. I know it’s fun to watch him beat up on Obama since no one elected seems to be able to/
LOL. One reason people agree with Cheney is that they dare not do otherwise.
“So in your world, should older couples who cannot procreate be banned from marriage?”
Don’t be so glib. Governments are set up to deal with general problems. Men and women are the ones that reproduce, so those are the couples that are treated as a special class. If not all men and women reproduce, well, at least we tried.
To be frank, marriage does not exist for childless couples. They might as well have private commitments, the same as gays. It’s just too complicated to be worth it to root them out of the system. If they’re physically able but choose not to, they could change their minds at some point. If they’re physically unable, they could still adopt. Gay people can adopt, too. But that’s another thing most people aren’t in a hurry to promote.
The institution of marriage isn’t about individuals, who are free to marry and divorce, reproduce or not reproduce, at will. It’s about the class of people known as “breeders,” whether or not individual members of that class actually breed. What matters is that most, or almost all, people marry in order to start a family. And that’s the sort of thing that religion, society, governments, tradition, etc. have decided is important to promote.
“Other than that, the fact that their behavior gives me the creeps doesnt seem suficient to deny them rights that others enjoy.”
What “rights” are these of which you speak?
Thanks.
I was beginning to wonder if I had gone too far, ‘cause it seemed like a small point (which grew into a bigger point), and I love the language of the Declaration as much as anyone. But this “organic law” stuff creeps me out for reasons I can’t fully articulate.
Wait, I think I can put my finger on it. Reminds me of Plato’s “noble lies,” if you know what I’m talking about.
The Government should support what is good. According to God, Homosexuality is bad. The Government should not support what is bad.
Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
we don’t have leaders in the GOP with enough courage to quote the BIBLE.
In the Mosaic Law if you were married, but your brother died and his wife had no offspring yet, you were comanded to marry your sister in law and bring forth children in your brother’s name. Also, if you were married, and you were caught cheating with an unmarried woman, you had to take her as an additional wife and you were not allowed to divorce her.
From my understanding, Jews teach that the 10 Commandments forbid a man from coveting another man’s wife but that an unmarried woman can covet a married man because she has the possibility of marrying him.
In all these cases one has to admit that God endorsed polygamy. Also, when Nathan condemned David for sending a man to his death so he could gain his wife he told David that God (yes, God) had blessed David with 6 wives but that David had done wrong in stealing another man’s wife and causing him harm.
the rights under federal and state estate planning law.
If you googled as requested, the teachings of the Rabbi on this issue are very clear.
“the rights under federal and state estate planning law”
Don’t gays have the same rights of every other non-married person as regards their estate? What gives them the “right” to have the same privileges as marrieds?
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.