Posted on 06/02/2009 10:46:45 AM PDT by Mozilla
He has a funny way of showing it.
Why is it necessary for the government to license marriage or any other relationship? People are married civilly, how are they not in the business. Siblings can live together, support each other and bequeath property to the other, but they don’t need a license.
Just because the government recognizes order as your see it and “has your best interest at heart” doesn’t mean they should be involved in the slightest.
I’m not sure he is idealistically FOR it. I really believes he wants his daughter to have the freedom to live her life as she wishes.
Yes he does for one. I was quick to pounce on him. Then realized the mistake. I am surprised he was right for once.
STEELE = YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSS!
MARRIAGE is only between a MAN AND A WOMAN.
ALSO, NO HOMOXESUALS IN THE MILITARY. When you are putting your life on the line, you should not have to worry about degerates watching your a--
There are laws. Siblings don’t get to file their tax returns jointly (and receive a benefit in doing so). If one sibling dies intestate, his estate doesn’t pass on automatically to the other sibling. If one sibling serves in the military and dies, the other sibling doesn’t get veteran’s benefits. I could go on . . . .
Community arbiters. If they are probate judges, so be it. Assume two people live together for years, share money and property and then split, how is that any different?
She already has the same freedoms everyone else does, so I can't sympathize.
Marriage is a unique relationship. Brothers and sisters or other relatives don’t have the same rights as a married couple, nor should they. A married couple is a unique union of two people, and has always been treated as such, by nearly every society and government in history.
The term marriage license is a bit of a misnomer. It is more of a registration. Unless one of the individuals is inelgible to be married (too young, already married, etc.), marriage licenses are never denied.
Why does the government register corporations, trademarks, copyrights, deeds to real property, etc.? These things, like marriage registration, are all part of the government’s legitimate function of facilitating a civil society.
Tax returns and the income tax are another discussion, but you could establish a sibling as a dependent. What if they are handicapped and have no other living relatives? Does the state kick them to the curb?
If people put this in writing and have it witnessed, how can the wishes of someone that has died, be ignored?
It shouldn't be an either/or -- he should do both. Publicly correct Cheney for his ill founded opinion, and YES, he should have attacked Obama for the LGBT Pride declaration. For starters he could have asked what the "T" stands for.
We need GOP officials to start holding accountability for themselves and representing those whom they seek support: US. If they aren't willing or able to do so, they should get the hell out and allow others to step in.
I don’t contend that marriage is a sacred relationship only shared by a man and women; however, but the government shouldn’t be declaring relationships.
I don’t either, really, but I’ve not been in Cheney’s place as a parent, so I’m hesitant to venture what my response would be in that case.
I have not heard Cheney state what he means by leaving it to the states. From his words of calling this an “equal rights” issue and saying that “everyone should have the freedom to make any union they want” I get the impression that Cheney is saying that he wants the Courts to decide and dictate it to the people. Someone should get him to clarify his position on this.
I’ll guarantee you that the libtard media is pitting conservative voice against conservative voice, and specifically asked Steele about Cheney’s comments, so Steele was put in the position of answering. I like his answer (and don’t always like what he says).
I truly do not believe Steele came out, unprovoked, and disagreed w/ Cheney.
Our representatives in government are there to speak for the people. Why should “We the People” not have the right to representation on what is right and wrong in regards to sexuality in public, and issues of raising children?
The People have every right to be in the business of determining right and wrong in regards to these issues.
The people who claim that the government should just get out of the marriage business are basically just calling for anarchy in regards to public sexuality and the raising of children.
Cheney should say he loves his daughter and grandchild, but favors traditional marriage.
If Cheney has let his love for his daughter overrule real principles, then he is no different on this issue than all the libs, or for that matter, all the homosexuals.
I never argued against representation. They should be there to fight off those that would infringe upon the sovereignty of their community, not to impose their community’s beliefs on others.
Is your argument that government or “The People” should be telling you how to raise your children?
People these days are trying to rule from the top down, rather than the bottom up. You are responsible for yourself and your family, first, no one else. Then you have the community, etc. You argue for mob rule at the national level. That argument will get you exactly the opposite of what you want.
Dare I say:
Cheney = RINO?
For some reason I see Cheney as a puppet master and part of an elite class. People should be weary of him being in front of the cameras and contradicting conservative principles.
Then you want government in the marriage business. We are just arguing about the degree of involvement.
Like everything else, the federal government should leave it to the states, but the Supreme Court won’t allow that. What do we do now?
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.