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."
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
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.
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.
Ditto..
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.
I agree...
Watch out, now. That's one of the criteria of the DHS Right-Wing Extremist report for being a trouble maker.
POST OF THE DAY!
ping
Good for him. I don’t.
...and nobody is perfect. ...not even Dick Cheney.
No just pro states rights..
Cheney is a neo-con. What do you expect?
RE :”No just pro states rights..”
How about the federal ban on partial birth abortion Bush signed with Cheney as VP?
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.
I heard a joke that went - yeah I support gay marriage - heck let them be as miserable as the rest of us....
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.
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.