Skip to comments.
Cheney Supports Gay Marriage
politicalwire.com ^
Posted on 06/01/2009 1:08:50 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-257 next last
To: Sub-Driver; rabscuttle385; djsherin; calcowgirl
I have been trying to tell Cheney-ga-ga freepers this for a while. Sure he is pro-WOT and pro-invade Iraq but he is also pro-’same sex marriage’ and pro-’run the government into debt’. He made his marriage views clear in 2004.
The Levin/Hannity WOT hawks have been going ga-ga over him, one freeper pinged me with Cheney for President. Imagine republicans taken over by Log cabiners
21
posted on
06/01/2009 1:16:05 PM PDT
by
sickoflibs
(Socialist Conservatives: "'Big government is free because tax cuts pay for it'")
To: Sub-Driver
Mr. Cheney is of course biased ,because he has a gay daughter. Of course he would rather see her in a stable relationship han cruising the gay bars. cant blame him for that.
She could have a stable relationship and call it anythig she likes, she can call it marriage if she wants to there is no law againt calling her relationship a marriage. It isnt of course, and even if it were acknowledged by the state it still wouldnt be a marriage. Just something called that.
A marriage is between a male and a female. You cannot marry a male and male electrical plug, or a female and female piece of garden hose, You can get some electrical tape and make it work , Just as they can get a strap on, and imitate sex, but it isnt a marriage.
22
posted on
06/01/2009 1:16:08 PM PDT
by
Venturer
To: TChris
No, it’s the classical conservative position.
(Ironically known as “classically liberal” back in the late 1700s.)
It’s only since 1950s or so has the “conservative” (as opposed to “classic conservative”) position morphed into a imposing-moralistic position.
23
posted on
06/01/2009 1:17:05 PM PDT
by
Jewbacca
(Yes, I am very hairy and good with small arms.)
To: Recovering_Democrat
24
posted on
06/01/2009 1:17:34 PM PDT
by
calex59
To: Sub-Driver
Homosexual sodomy is a crime. Merely because morally bankrupt legislatures removed the penalties for the acts involved does not make it less a crime. Cheny’s daughter is homosexual what do people expect the father to do or say? I feel sorry for the poor guy.
25
posted on
06/01/2009 1:17:43 PM PDT
by
AEMILIUS PAULUS
(It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
To: Recovering_Democrat
26
posted on
06/01/2009 1:18:06 PM PDT
by
Lilpug15
(The Forgotten Man: He works, he votes and he generally prays - but He Always Pays": Sumner)
To: KevinDavis
I agree it should be done on a state by state basis.Watch out, now. That's one of the criteria of the DHS Right-Wing Extremist report for being a trouble maker.
27
posted on
06/01/2009 1:18:14 PM PDT
by
rvoitier
(John Boehner--Neville Chamberlin of the 21st century.)
To: Venturer
A marriage is between a male and a female. You cannot marry a male and male electrical plug, or a female and female piece of garden hose, You can get some electrical tape and make it work , Just as they can get a strap on, and imitate sex, but it isnt a marriage.POST OF THE DAY!
28
posted on
06/01/2009 1:18:29 PM PDT
by
frogjerk
(C-NJ)
To: raven92876
29
posted on
06/01/2009 1:18:30 PM PDT
by
stylecouncilor
(The black man is keeping me down!)
To: trumandogz
So in California it IS a states right but what good does that do when an idiotic judge challenges it. Then the people vote against it again and it is already being challenged again. They keep doing this until they get their way. The voters have little say in this. So what difference does it make if it's the Feds or the State that is overriding us??
30
posted on
06/01/2009 1:18:30 PM PDT
by
fish hawk
(The trouble with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money.)
To: Sub-Driver
31
posted on
06/01/2009 1:19:55 PM PDT
by
rockrr
(Everything is different now...)
To: Sub-Driver
I agree that it should be up to the states.
...and nobody is perfect. ...not even Dick Cheney.
32
posted on
06/01/2009 1:20:05 PM PDT
by
TChris
(There is no freedom without the possibility of failure.)
To: Sub-Driver; rabscuttle385; djsherin; calcowgirl
Oh brother, now all the Cheney Hawks have become pro-same sex marriage on this thread. I guess they think the troops will be happier if they are married to the same sex on the NEXT invasion so they can serve together in Iran occupation. Talk about getting the muslim’s all disgusted with us.
33
posted on
06/01/2009 1:20:27 PM PDT
by
sickoflibs
(Socialist Conservatives: "'Big government is free because tax cuts pay for it'")
To: sickoflibs; All
No just pro states rights..
34
posted on
06/01/2009 1:22:40 PM PDT
by
KevinDavis
(http://governorpalin4president.blogspot.com/)
To: sickoflibs
Cheney is a neo-con. What do you expect?
35
posted on
06/01/2009 1:23:16 PM PDT
by
SandWMan
(Even if you can't legislate morality, you can legislate morally.)
To: KevinDavis
RE :”No just pro states rights..”
How about the federal ban on partial birth abortion Bush signed with Cheney as VP?
36
posted on
06/01/2009 1:23:50 PM PDT
by
sickoflibs
(Socialist Conservatives: "'Big government is free because tax cuts pay for it'")
To: Recovering_Democrat
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." THIS IS FEDERALISM, THE SYSTEM OUR FOUNDERS ESTABLISHED. CHENEY IS RIGHT.
The problem with that reasoning is this:
Once one state changes the definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriage, then homosexual couples from other states will go to that state and get married, then return to their home states and sue in federal court under the "full faith and credit" clause to try to force their home states to recognize their "marriage".
This has already been tried in several states, with the courts thus far ruling in favor of the states and against the activists trying to achieve through litigation what they can't through legislation and elections. In one case the homo couple sued the state to try to use the state's divorce courts to dissolve the "marriage" that doesn't exist in the home state.
No matter how many times the courts rule in favor of the states and against the lititious activists, all it will take is ONE ruling in favor of the activists to overturn all the "stare decisis" and create a new Constitutional right to homosexual marriage that trumps all state laws and even the federal Defense of Marriage Act. That is why Cheney is wrong about the "federalist" argument for a state-by-state basis for handling the issue. If we were still a nation of law, and were governed by the rule of law, and had a federal court system that would actually apply the Constitution, he would be correct. But unfortunately, in the age of courts of empathy rather than courts of law, that is not the case.
To: SandWMan
I heard a joke that went - yeah I support gay marriage - heck let them be as miserable as the rest of us....
38
posted on
06/01/2009 1:26:46 PM PDT
by
Sub-Driver
(Proud member of the Republican wing of the Republican Party)
To: Sub-Driver
I agree with Dick Cheney 100%. Gay marriage is no more a national issue than heterosexual marriage. It should be legislatively dealt with at the state level and given constitutional recognition under the privileges and immunities clause and the full faith and credit clause.
To: Graybeard58
I won't argue with that Dick but it also has always been a moral issue. Then you can vote NO, when it's your turn. And if your side has organized and promoted NO to defeat any initiative, then you have done your duty.
40
posted on
06/01/2009 1:27:09 PM PDT
by
Pistolshot
(The Soap-box, The Ballot-box, The Jury-box, And The Cartridge-Box ...we are past 2 of them.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-257 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson