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."
Cheney’s lesbian daughter has a baby. Condi Rice doesn’t. Who is following God’s command better to “...be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth.”?
I'm curious what your thoughts are on heterosexual sodomy.
Actually, no. The Constitution actually would make abortion illegal, as in it's entire premise, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The 5th and 14th amendments also negate the "right" to an abortion.
This of course assumes you believe life begins at conception and the fetus is a person
I would like to know where in the Constitution there is a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
I have no objections to that in the abstract (it will never happen) as I am a Scalia fan.
GWB/Cheney were the ‘big federal government do everything take over everything all things to all people including federal pro-life laws ’administration and so the defense of Cheney's ‘pro-gay rights’ positions by claiming he was just being ‘states rights’ is laughable.
And no I wont swallow that it was Bush that wanted big government and Cheney was against it.
results differ by state, but most have laws, either statutory or court-made, that state that the state does not have to give full faith and credit to the laws of another state that violate the public policy of that state.
Not by Genesis II 24 He didn’t. Every polygamous marriage in Torah was unhappy in some way.
Care to explain that? A crime is an act (or if leftards get their way - a thought) that is against law. Perhaps, you meant to say that homosexuality is morally repugnant to you. No problem there, but let's not conflate one's personal opinion (one that I generally agree with) with legality.
The reason I’m against legalizing same sex marriage is because in inevitably leads to the legalization of plural marriage. Many legal scholars have come forward and more or less conceded this point.
Huh? Please explain. I don't think it says that in the Bible. It was Adam & Eve, not Adam & Eve, & Sarah, & Mable, etc., etc.
http://www.scripturessay.com/article.php?cat=&id=605
I've got estate law books that say otherwise.
Bush, I’m sure, saw that as a way to promote marriage over single life promiscuity. I understand the reasoning but I think that the government tries to focus on too many priorities and as a result ends up getting into areas of society which it has no place
Well the Declaration of Independence is just letter telling England go frack yourself.. It did not setup our form of Government. THE CONSTITUTION DID.
But the point is, it's something that can be adjudicated. And that means that all 50 state could end up with something only a handful want thanks to the full faith and credit clause. The state's rights thing, to my mind anyway, is a cop out. It oughta be legal in all fifty, or none of 'em.
Surely Dick doesn’t mean that a BROTHER and SISTER enetr into a MARRAIGE....or TWO MEN and WOMEN, even if they all want that....I know he’s a loving father and wants his daughter, the lesbian to be happy, but he’s NOT STUPID.
The Preamble, or as it would be better described, the Statement of Purpose, which lists the document's reason for being, the crowning purpose of which is "to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY."
You could check out the Fifth Amendment as well, which at the heart of the Bill of Rights protects all persons from being killed without a fair trail and conviction on a capital offense. The Fourteenth Amendment reiterates this guarantee of the protection of the most fundamental of unalienable, God-given natural rights.
In order to even attempt to refute this, you have to reject the most fundamental premises of our form of government, in their entirety.
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.