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]

biblewonk wrote: "I'd say this is definitely an R vs D issue. I visited gay pride in CR Ia a few years ago and a local democrat politician was warning the gays about those politicians that wanted to dictate to them who they slept with."

Wasn't someone saying on here a week or so ago that the head of one state's Republican party (was it Illinois? My brain is fried today from lack of sleep! LOL) rode in the Gay Pride parade there? I mean, ok, you can call that person a RINO, but at what point do we have to admit that some issues cross party lines? Is it just that we're trying to make it easier for our brains to be able to say Republicans = This and Dems = That? I find that oversimplifying. Someone else pointed out that 93 out of 100 senators voted to confirm Ginsberg. Does that mean that there are no Republicans? I mean come on. Is there this ONE Republican way to think? And if we keep saying that, are we eventually going to just become so disgruntled when reality slaps us in the face that this is simply not how it is?

This is why I'm an independent. If I like a Republican, nobody's going to tell me I can't vote for him and the same holds true with a Dem, and independent, or whoever. Personally, I wish they'd get rid of political parties. I think they encourage laziness because the individuals running for office don't have to really think about their issues in any great depth.

[CSM]

If we leave it to the states, we should allow the states to not recognize the marriage liscenses issued in other states. As the constitution is written today, each state must recognize all official documents issued by the courts of other states.

Let the ammendment say that no marriage liscense is to be issued by a state court.

[concerned about politics]

At the end of his speach he said "What ever it is that you people do when your out tonight..just enjoy yourself".

Ew. Eating bile. Ew!

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I'm not impugning the entire state of Utah. But if the left is going to argue that 4 justices in Massachusetts can decide this issue for the entire state under the guise of "states' rights," then I think it is a fair question to ask them if they think polygamy should be legal in Utah since some of their citizens want to live that lifestyle. Utah had legal polygamy when they wanted to join the Union. They were federally forced to ban it. The current crowd espousing states' rights must think that was an atrocity or be completely ideologically inconsistent.BTW, I believe the first Republican platform wanted to bring to an end the sins of polygamy and slavery.

[RavenMoon]

little jeremiah wrote: It's a cut and dried issue for conservatives. Not all Republicans are conservatives, unfortunately.

Is it even that simple, really? One of my close friends is extremely conservative in most areas and not at all in others. Is her conservatism defined by the ten issues she's conservative on or the two on which she isn't? Pat Buchanan might argue you're not conservative if you support the war. Is he right? At what point do we say that labels can often become unreliable identifiers, and instead decide each issue on its own merit?

[Brookhaven]

"that states should have the final say over the legal status of personal relationships. "

But that isn't what is happening currently. The legalization of gay marriage in one state would have the effect of legalizing it in every state.

Gay couples will get married in say Mass., then move to another state (say Montana). Montana would then be forced to recognize the gay marriage due to the full faith and credit law in the constitution.

Gay couples can't get married in every state, but their marriages must be recognized by every state. Essentially stripping each state of the ability to decide this issue for themselves.

[HenryLeeII]

Actually, I don't disagree with your position. I think its outrageous that unelected judges in MA can make a law for that state, and even worse if its forced to stand throughout the whole country. That's why I'm not opposed to a Defense of Marriage amendment; I wouldn't necessarily like it in a purist's sense, but reality dictates why its being discussed. What we need to do, but it won't happen, is to impeach the judges and make sure others like them don't get appointed to the bench. As long as there are idiots like Dem'Rats we'll have activist judges!

The point of my earlier reply is that both V.P. and Mrs. Cheney have a valid point.

[annyokie]

I believe the first Republican platform wanted to bring to an end the sins of polygamy and slavery.

I am no scholar of Abraham Lincoln, but Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus column today has glowing reviews of a biography about the great man. He mentions slavery, but not polygamy. I am more familiar with Samuel Clemens satire about polygamy in the late 19th century.

[StoneColdGOP]

Exact same position as her husband four years ago.

[little jeremiah]

You said:

"Personally, I have no problem with gay marriage but then I'm obviously biased. I'd rather see that than promiscuity, to be honest, and men in general, gay or straight, seem to have such a propensity to towards that."

Right, once moral absolutes are rejected and sex becomes an orgiastic free for all, with abandoned children, deserted wives, cuckolded husbands, people deciding they are "gay" after years of marriage and children, sexual predators looking for young victims to rape or seduce [keep in mind that roughly one third of all child molestation is same sex], countless promiscuous homosexuals having anonymous sex in public establishments - yes, I would say that issues relating to sex have become VERY complex.

It's important to note that the promiscuity rates for homosexuals are drastically, wildly higher than those for heterosexual people. They can't even be compared. The reason homosexual activists want "gay" marriage has zero, nothing to do with the desire to promote monogamy. How do I know? I accept what these homosexual spokespeople say about it:

From LA Times of March 12, 2004...
"Divided over gay marriage"
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.

One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to "push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society." ... [snip]

An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):

"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely."

"Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.

Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)

Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit." [Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]

[free100]

I think a lot of Republicans are not anti-gay personally (love the sinner, hate the sin). I also think I don't want people tinkering with the Constitution! I just don't see why the state needs to get involved with marriage period, it should be for religions to decide. The state should give everyone a civil union, and then each church could give or deny a religious ceremony as they please. Otherwise it just focuses people's attention to this one, relatively minor social issue, instead of larger issues of national security, budget, etc.

[ishmac]

What we need to do, but it won't happen, is to impeach the judges and make sure others like them don't get appointed to the bench.

I agree, it would be much easier all around if we could gin up support to dump rogue judges.

[biblewonk]

I was pretty disgusted too.

[concerned about politics]

See #50. It's not about marriage. It's about destroy it.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

1856 - The new Republican party selected for its national platform a call to abolish the “Twin Relics of Barbarism, Slavery and Polygamy.” 47

Abraham Lincoln signed the first anti-polygamy law in, I think, 1862.

[RavenMoon]

little jeremiah wrote: Right, once moral absolutes are rejected and sex becomes an orgiastic free for all, with abandoned children, deserted wives, cuckolded husbands, people deciding they are "gay" after years of marriage and children, sexual predators looking for young victims to rape or seduce [keep in mind that roughly one third of all child molestation is same sex], countless promiscuous homosexuals having anonymous sex in public establishments - yes, I would say that issues relating to sex have become VERY complex. It's important to note that the promiscuity rates for homosexuals are drastically, wildly higher than those for heterosexual people. They can't even be compared. The reason homosexual activists want "gay" marriage has zero, nothing to do with the desire to promote monogamy. How do I know? I accept what these homosexual spokespeople say about it:

Um, when you accept the Reverend Fred Phelps as the spokesperson for Christianity, then these people can become mine. Until then, nobody is my spokesperson. I didn't vote for these people to speak for me. And I can go out there and dig up just as many quotes to the contrary and would have just as much [or, in fact, as little] legitimacy as the people you cite. Hell, I've gone on enough media (CNN, VH1, Travel Channel, and hundreds of others) where I've spoken as the Witches of Salem. Do I speak for all of them? No. Do they all think I speak for them? No. The reality is, in this day and age, it's just a matter of getting out there and you can speak for anyone and I take advantage of that loophole in the system the same way that these sources you cite do. The difference is that I don't expect the truly intelligent people to buy it. *snicker*. I could declare myself a Christian tomorrow and can almost guarantee you, with my media contacts, I could be speaking for most of you. But the fact is, it's all smoke and mirrors just as these people you cite. They don't represent my views in every respect.

I am attending a reception for two of my best friends in the world who are, like me, homosexual (I figure you like that word better and I like controversy, so what the heck, I'll indulge you). I personally don't care if I ever get married so the issue isn't *that* important to me, though neither am I promiscuous, just very focussed on my career. What I can say, however, is that these two friends of mine take their marriage *very* seriously. They aren't doing it because of some silly agenda. They are doing it because they've been together for many years and they love each other. I've never met a couple, gay or straight, who gets along better, who treat people better, and who are more liked, by a rather broad cross-section of people to boot. If anything, I support the issue for them and I'm happy to see them fulfill such a long goal.

Furthermore, I'm always seeing you on here trying to link up gay people with child molestation as if somehow we're all that way. I resent it. Heck, when I do deign to date someone, they're usually older than me. Anyone can take some wacko and try to paint a picture of a whole bunch of other folks with that one reject, but those kinds of generalizations will almost always marginalize the people who do it in the end because smart people know that this is just crap. It's like my personal favorite, something done on BOTH the left and the right ... comparing anyone you don't like to Nazi's. It has to be one of the most intellectually weak tactics I've ever seen and people on both ends of the political spectrum do it including, I might add, you.

I will end by saying ... thank you for your vitriol. It makes my job of convincing decent, rational people that much easier when I have this kind of filth to compare my statements to.

[little jeremiah]

Social conservatives agree on traditional moral absolutes, which are essentially the same throughout the history of civilized human society. What has been considered virtuous and moral in sexual behavior have been amazingly consistent throughout history, and every monotheist religion as well as many that aren't such as Buddhism all share the same values. None have accepted same sex acts as anything other than unnatural and immoral.

Here's a statement by John Adams about virtue:

"We ought to consider what is the end of government before we determine which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all divines and moral philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man. ... All sober inquirers after truth, ancient and modern, pagan and Christian, have declared that the happiness of man, as well as his dignity,
consists in virtue." --John Adams

Now that's conservatism in a nutshell. It's not just the RTKBA, or lower taxes, that is the foundation of conservatism. It's that social stability and progress has to be founded on public virtue. Many of the founders expressed that very explicitly.

[joesnuffy]

Conservative pro sodomites....State's rights.....Activist Judges.....
Woe unto those who call good...evil and evil....good.....
America R.I.P indeed
imo

[Sandy]

Gay couples will get married in say Mass., then move to another state (say Montana). Montana would then be forced to recognize the gay marriage due to the full faith and credit law in the constitution.

That's nonsense. If Montana doesn't issue (for example) drivers licenses to anyone under 25, then no one under 25 drives, and that includes anyone under 25 from another state who moves there with a valid license from the other state. The license from the other state is useless in Montana. A license for any imagined activity, illegal in Montana, legal elsewhere, isn't going to hold any weight in Montana. The full faith and credit clause was never intended to force a state to permit illegal behavior just because that behavior is legal in some other state.

This whole idea of preemptively amending the Constitution is hysterical madness. The federal courts are going to decide this matter before this stupid amendment ever gets passed anyway. Sheez, the things people worry about.

[concerned about politics]

Did you know homosexuals were considered mentally insane until the '80's? They were considered a danger to normal society.
They were let out to save money, because they weren't considered dangerous, but that was before they killed all those people with AIDs.
They should be put back in. Look at the lawlessness and diseases they've created. Our ancestors were right. They are a danger to society.