Posted on 06/02/2009 10:46:45 AM PDT by Mozilla
A day after former Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his support for the idea of same-sex marriage, Republican party chairman Michael Steele publicly disagreed with him, suggesting that Cheney's position was influenced by his lesbian daughter.
"My personal view is that marriage is between a man and a woman," Steele said Tuesday on CNN's American Morning, "very much in line with what the president [Barack Obama] has said."
"…The vice president brings a very personal perspective to this issue," he also said. "I think his comments are an appropriate reflection of his family and his situation with his daughter."
At an appearance at the National Press Club Monday, Cheney reiterated his long-standing position that individuals should be able to choose the type of relationship they wish to enter into. Citing his own family's experience with the issue, he said the question of same-sex marriage was best left to the states, not the federal government.
"I think freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said Monday, when asked whether some form of legalized same-sex marriage is inevitable in the United States. "As many of you know," told the audience, "one of my daughters is gay – something that we've lived 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
I’m making mistakes now....I meant in my second post that Steele supported traditional marriage. Dammit. Sorry all. Was quick to bash Steele when he was in favor of traditional marriage. Then realized I was wrong.
Cheney is wrong on this. Letting his personal relationship overrule his principles is wrong.
Cheney should say he loves his daughter and grandchild, but favors traditional marriage.
Can someone point out to me exactly where Cheney says he's for legalizing same sex marriage? I've highlighted the key word.
As much as I like Cheney, I’m with Steele on this one.
Huh?
You’re suggesting that Steele is “failing to stand up for his base” by opposing same-sex marriage??
That makes no sense at all.
The determination to eat our own among conservatives just astounds me.
And, frankly, I don’t care about who-thinks-what about gay marriage right now.
This country is in a heap of trouble. All we should be doing is banding together to disarm Obama and his minions and get control of Congress next year.
Instead, off you go with this crap.
I disagree. As the former Vice President and 2nd-in-Command of the party, Cheney carries a lot of influence over the party. Steele needs to correct him before he leads some astray. Cheney made the issue public.
I had to read the beginning of the article twice. I can’t believe I agree with something Steele said. I usually always agree with Cheney! I adore Cheney! Just hearing his voice makes me feel like everything is gonna be OK again someday.
And by the way, I don’t buy the BS that Obama supports only real traditional marriage. He is a libtard of the lowest creepy order. Obama is for gay fake marriage, he just isn’t saying it publicly. He himself, is gay as the day is long. He had his “gay” lover killed in Chicago in Dec of 2007 before that man went public with their relationship, which would have ruined O’s chances for the presidency. Any curious readers can find info at Larry Sinclair’s website. It’s been a while since I read about it, I think the dead man’s name was Donald Young, but not sure. It was Obamacide. Do a search of “Barack Obama, Donald Young” and the old news articles from the Chicago area should come up. Young was choir director at O’s black power church.
"As many of you know," told the audience, "one of my daughters is gay – something that we've lived 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."
Read the article...
Yes, Michael Steele agrees with Cheney on marriage—which is to say, both men oppose preserving marriage through a federal marriage amendment.
GQ MAGAZINE, MARCH 11, 2009
GQ: Let’s talk about gay marriage. What’s your position?
Michael Steele: Well, my position is, hey, look, I have been, um, supportive of a lot of my friends who are gay in some of the core things that they believe are important to them. You know, the ability to be able to share in the information of your partner, to have the ability to—particularly in times of crisis—to manage their affairs and to help them through that as others—you know, as family members or others—would be able to do. I just draw the line at the gay marriage. And that’s not antigay, no. Heck no! It’s just that, you know, from my faith tradition and upbringing, I believe that marriage—that institution, the sanctity of it—is reserved for a man and a woman. That’s just my view. And I’m not gonna jump up and down and beat people upside the head about it, and tell gays that they’re wrong for wanting to aspire to that, and all of that craziness. That’s why I believe that the states should have an opportunity to address that issue.
GQ: So you think it’s a state issue?
Michael Steele: Absolutely. Just as a general principle, I don’t like mucking around with the Constitution. I’m sorry, I just don’t. I think, you know, in a pluralistic, dynamic society as the one that we have, every five years you can have a constitutional convention about something, you know? I don’t think we should be, you know, dancing around and trying to amend it every time I’ve got a social issue or a political issue or a business issue that I want to get addressed. Having said that, I think that the states are the best laboratory, the best place for those decisions to be made, because they will then reflect the majority of the community in which the issue is raised. And that’s exactly what a republic is all about.
GQ: Do you think homosexuality is a choice?
Michael Steele: Oh, no. I don’t think I’ve ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there’s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”
>>>Government couldn’t “discriminate” if they got out of the marriage business, but that makes too much sense.<<<
Government is not in the “marriage business”. For centuries, governments have almost universally recognized that the natural order of things is marriage between one man and one woman.
Recognizing that a special and unique relationship exists between a husband and wife, goverments have passed various laws that allow the man and wife to basically be treated as one entity, for certain purposes. Government only licenses marriage, in order to keep track of who is married to whom, and who is subject to the legal benefits and responsibilites of marriage.
I am so embarrassed after I read yesterday that Vice President Cheney supported gay marriage. I am against gay marriage. I had supported Dick Cheney with his stand on national security against zero’s stand. And I said here on Free Republic that I could accept Cheney as leader of the Republican party. Sigghhhhhh Why can’t our leaders do right in the sight of God?
Agree on this - the states can likewise enter into bilaterial or multilateral reciprocity agreements with eachother, or not. Unlike abortion, this is mostly a fight over symbolism - how many homos are actually going to get "married" when the "stick it to those damn breeders" angle is blunted? It is easy to explain to children too, so that aspect does not bother me - I already tell the kids that the modern state views marriage as a civil contract, while holy matrimony is separate from marriage and is not the domain of the civil authorities. Homosexuals are not "married" in the eyes of [fill in your church].
In those places the federal government must decide, chances are the 10th Amendment is being otherwise violated, but I digress. If possible, the federal government should harmonize its decisions individually for the residents of each state as applicable. Patchworks of laws don't bother me - I relish them actually (so long as they are transparent).
0bama claims to oppose gay marriage. But I tell you, I'd rather have Cheney running things any day, even if he does indeed support gay marriage in one form or another, than having 0bama.
If you wish, you can hit “abuse” and ask the mods to remove your opening comment.
Maybe I missed something, which is entirely possible, but I don’t see Steele in your light. Did he attack Cheney? What was the context? I also don’t see Cheney making Steel look bad. I know that he’s more outspoken and I’m glad Cheney is. However, I don’t think the chair of the RNC needs to be as outspoken on everything. It’s a hard call. If Steele jumps on everyone with whom he disagrees, the Republican party will shrink so that we will never win another election. However, I DO want the plank of the party to remain very strong with conservative principles. I do understand the arguments to the contrary. This is just MHO.
Who would handle property settlement and child support issues after divorce?
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, Mikey. Yet I can’t escape the feeling that this is just your effort to come off more “conservative” so the howling for you to be replaced will stop.
Then we’d just have another Obama after Cheney was gone.
Absolutely! That's why we need to be so careful. We're never going to be a major national party if everyone has to think alike. We need to be big enough to accept errant thinking, as long as we don't get confused and accept it as the party plank. If my daughter, who I obsolutely adore, was a lesbian, I may well agree with Cheney. She's not and I don't, but I really like and respect Cheney otherwise.
Steele sounds good here.
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.