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."
He wanted to invade Iraq to free the homo's suppressed under Saddam ( LOL )
That leads to incrementalism. As states allow gay mariage it will slowly filter over to the federal gov't.
good grief. Even Cheney goes over to the dark side.
Even great men can be wrong on individual issues.
Application of the tenth amendment should not be a matter of cherry picking.
He’s big government gay rights.
No. He’s state’s rights.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Checkout: http://SilencingChristians.com
What about the full faith and credit clause?
So I was for it before I was against it?
I learn something new about myself every day.
I think you're promoting a common (and false) dichotomy: Libertarians say "anything goes" vs Conservative "impose my morals". The truth is a bit more complicated than that.
Conservatism is about learning the lessons of the past. Preserve the accumulated wisdom of generations past, both religious and social. Many times, those lessons overlap.
Frequently, the Conservative and Libertarian ideals overlap extensively as well.
While history shows that liberty generally leads to prosperity and widespread benefit, there are boundaries. It makes socialogical sense to shape the law according to lessons learned over the long term, regardless of their moral content.
Homosexuality is very bad for society in the long run. While it's easy to argue that there is nobody directly harmed by adult homosexuality, such arguments are also naive or disingenuous. There are long-term harms to others. The demographic consequences of unchecked homosexuality, for one example, would be devastating.
It's not an imposition of morals to apprciate these facts and legislate accordingly, IMO.
1856 Republican Platform
Resolved, That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism—Polygamy, and Slavery.
By the way, there are several states that were not allowed into the Union without forever swearing off plural marriage.
If Cheney said this he is full of crap. Since the beginning of time marraige has been between a man and a woman. Period!
Just because Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian is no reason to change that interpretation. Homosexuals have had the option of civil unions that assure their legal rights. They do not have a right to have a law proclaiming their abnormal sexual behavior to be normal.
I think that the tax code should not be structured around one being married or not. This is the only reason marriage has a civil component. That being the case this is really a question on how the government creates tax policy. Without it marriage is a purely religious institution. From a religious standpoint one cannot justify the practice
Can and will, if I get a turn. I live in Illinois and we don't always get a choice. My state denies me the right to keep and bear arms.
No, it was just different terminology.
“those twin relics of barbarism—Polygamy, and Slavery. “
No mention of buggery...
No He’s big FEDERAL government- gay rights so his daughter can get married.
How about the federal ban on partial birth abortion Bush signed with Cheney as VP? Wouldnt that violate states rights as Scalia said (it was not challenged on that) it did?
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.