Lynne Cheney differs with VP on Gay Marriage

The Baltimore Sun ^ | July 12, 2004 | Associated Press (no author listed)

[RavenMoon]

WASHINGTON - Lynne Cheney, the vice president's wife, said yesterday that states should have the final say over the legal status of personal relationships. The Cheneys have a lesbian daughter.

That stand puts her at odds with the vice president on the need for the constitutional amendment now debated in the Senate that effectively would ban gay marriage.

"I think that the constitutional amendment discussion will give us an opportunity to look for ways to discuss ways in which we can keep the authority of the states intact," Cheney told CNN's Late Edition.

The Senate began debate Friday on an amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

[RavenMoon]

It's refreshing to see Lynn Cheney having the courage to state her mind on this subject, proving that there isn't a monolithic mindset on this issue for conservatives. Though, her quoted statement is [perhaps intentionally] vague. I might wonder what she meant and how much the AP took out of context (having been taken out of context by the AP myself).

[Paradox]

Hey, I am all for states rights. I think it should be up to the States, but the fact is, we ALL KNOW what would happen then. On the other hand, I am uncomfortable with amending the Constitution for such a thing. G*D D*MN courts force ones hand however..

[plain talk]

Sounds like Lynne Cheney differs from the VP, not on gay marriage, but on the gay marriage constitutional amendment. There's a difference.

[oceanview]

you can't give states this right, while at the same time having the SCOTUS toss the federal defense of marriage act (which they will do when given the chance).

so what do you do, absent a constitutional amendment?

[sarasota]

Exactly, but don't you hear the spin: Mrs. Cheney sides with Democrats on gay marriage issue.

[aimhigh]

Interesting. The press has had a blackout on this woman for the last three years, and now she's newsworthy.

[ICX]

Considering that the media has all the subtlety of GWAR on an acid trip, this will no doubt be played up as a 'major rift in high level GOP circles.'

[Always Right]

Sounds like Lynne Cheney differs from the VP, not on gay marriage, but on the gay marriage constitutional amendment.

Yeah, the difference seems is on method to ban gay marriage not on the principle of gay marriage itself.

[y2k_free_radical]

emotion over intellect,maternal love over righteouness

[ken5050]

If you're inclined for a research project..suggest you look up the quotes of Dem Senators who were in the senate when the ERA last came up for a vote..

[HenryLeeII]

At the risk of sounding like a fence-sitter, I think they're both right. States should have the final say in something like this (an issue not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution by the states), but with the militancy of the homosexual lobby (and the left in general), this will eventually end up in the Supreme Court when some state refuses to acknowledge a Massachusetts or California same-sex "marriage" certificate.

[george wythe]

I'm in favor of amending the composition of the US Supreme Court, not the US Constitution. I would fire a few justices who are out of control.

If Republicans don't have the sack to clean up the SCOTUS, they will never have the spine to pass any amendment. That's my humble prediction.

[RavenMoon]

sarasota wrote: Exactly, but don't you hear the spin: Mrs. Cheney sides with Democrats on gay marriage issue.

Is this really a Democrat vs. Republican issue? I know more than a few registered Republican gay people, and, here in Massachusetts, an amendment defining marriage as a man and a woman was approved by a legislature made up mostly of Democrats. Isn't Rudy Giuliani, a speaker at the upcoming RNC Convention, rather supportive of gays himself? If I remember correctly, he even lived with a couple of them during his separation from his wife. I'm not sure this is a cut and dry issue for the Republican party.

[Not A Snowbird]

Yes, it is refreshing. The wives are certainly entitled to have their own opinions about issues.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

There is no point in amending something that is utterly ignored in the first place.

If anyone had the guts to impeach the activist judges and vacate their unconstitutional travesties, that would be enough.

[OneTimeLurker]

First her torrid lesbian novel and now this....sheesh.

[annyokie]

I hear ya; look what I started a day ago:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1168934/posts

[js1138]

If it is left up to the states, then it is up to the states to honor other states' marriages or not. The problem is the Constitution,. for good reasons, requires all states to honor each other's contracts. So it is not up to the individual states.

[Outlaw76]

OK, for all of you out there who feel that discussion and a possible constitutional amendment is some how in opposition to states rights, please let me know how?

In the end, the states DO decide with a constitutional amendment. It MUST be ratified by the several states in order for it to become a part of the constitution.I simply hate the fact that education of how our government works is so poor that even the VP's wife doesn't understand the process.

Constitutional Amendments

[conserv13]

so what do you do, absent a constitutional amendment?

Nothing. Let them get married. This country has more important things to worry about.