[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?

[aimhigh]

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

[y2k_free_radical]

emotion over intellect,maternal love over righteouness

[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.

[Not A Snowbird]

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

[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

[concerned about politics]

Lynne Cheney, the vice president's wife, said yesterday that states should have the final say over the legal status of personal relationships.

Sorry, Lynn, no one elected you, and it appears that's a good thing.
The queers are already suing to over ride state laws on the subject. An amendment is the only option.

[Claire Voyant]

Then Utah should be allowed to have polygamy again. Geesh....Gay Marriage Legalized will be the FINAL nail in our coffin. USA....RIP.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I wonder if Ms. Cheney thinks Utah should have been allowed to join the Union without being forced to ban polygamy.

[Huck]

Maybe Lynne needs to study her Constitution. If you look at the amendment process, it sure seems to me like it'll be up to the states one way or the other:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping - So Mrs. Cheney apparently doesn't agree with the Veep. Too bad. She's not an elected official so I don't care much what her opinion is. Hope Mr. Cheney doesn't care either.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.

P.S. Some things should not be states' rights issues. Homoseuxal marriage, abortion, slavery, murder - these are some.

[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.

[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.

[StoneColdGOP]

Exact same position as her husband four years ago.

[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

[fish hawk]

So Lynn wants her daughter to have the right to marry another gal, huh. Well, Dick is the man of the family and it's up to him to control the situation. Lynn is going on Emotion, that doesn't get it in the real world. (I love fames)

[Dan from Michigan]

Personally, I think govt should get out of marriage altogether.

It's a religious ceremony. If the Cult of Adam and Steve want to allow a gay marriage, that's fine by me, BUT my church won't recognize it, and neither will I.