Posted on 07/27/2013 3:00:56 PM PDT by WilliamIII
There are few policy differences between Wyoming Republican Senate candidate Liz Cheney and the incumbent she's trying to oust in 2014, Sen. Mike Enzi. Except for one issue: Gay marriage.
Unlike Enzi, the 46-year-old daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney supports the right for states to legalize gay marriage. At least that's what she said in 2009, in an interview with MSNBC, of all places. At that was a time when the notion of same-sex marriage had considerably less support.
(Excerpt) Read more at politix.topix.com ...
Liz would not have my vote. Too much a Rino, too liberal.
Wyoming has elected some pretty bad Senators in the past such as the New Dealer Joseph O'Mahoney and the welfare stater Gale McGee.
It is amazing how they have engineered a system that keeps good people from even thinking of running.
How many GOP senators do you think would vote against homosexual “marriage” if they were the 51st vote?
Not more than ten, I would say.
No shock. There are still defending Romney here and he got the same pass on his far more considerable gay support.
Beware of the pro-gay media sidestepping the following points concerning Liz Cheney’s support for gay marriage. Not only did pro-gay activist justices sidestep one of the basic reasons for recently finding DOMA unconstitutional, that the states have never delegated to Congress the specific power to regulate marriage, the 10th Amendment clarifying that the Constitution’s silence about such issues means that marriage is a unique state power issue, but also consider this.
DOMA was arguably a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition on religious tests for federal public servants, Clause 3 of Article VI, DOMA associated with the Christian faith.
Again, who cares about federal lawmaker’s stances on gay marriage since the states have never delegated to the feds, via the Constitution, the specific power to address marriage issues.
I’m with Enzi. Internet taxes aren’t nearly as bad as amnesty and the homo agenda, both of which Liz supports. Enzi gets an A+ from NumbersUSA, which is enough for me.
This is the same things as Caroline Kennedy presuming to become Senator from New York based solely on the experience of her relatives.
It bears repeating because some people refuse to listen. God invented marriage, not man. God designated marriage, not as a contractual agreement, but as a covenant. Governments may be able to regulate contracts, but a covenant is based on the laws of God and not man. Thus marriage is an institution outside of the bounds of government.
Government was happy to intrude into the marriage because when we gave tax exemptions based on marital status, or when we taxed a person’s estate upon their death, or when the State stepped in to direct the disposition of an estate, or when we used the State to enforce marital fidelity or grant divorces, we had to allow the State to define who was “married” and who was not.
As with all things Statist, the secular State’s definition of marriage and divorce has come to have more weight in society than God’s definition.
God defines marriage as being between men and women. While many men whom God called righteous in the Bible practiced polygamy, Jesus is quoted in Matthew chapter 19 that from the beginning of humanity, it was God’s intent that marriage would only be one man and one woman. In Mark chapter 10, Jesus stated that God, not man, joins the husband and wife and the two are “one flesh”, an act that by its very nature is only heterosexual.
God defines sexual relations between people of the same sex as against His law, that is immoral. In Revelation 22:15, a book dictated to John by Jesus, God tells us that anyone who practices sexual immorality will not be granted eternal life.
These are ecclesiastical considerations that are outside of secular government, that is unless we want government to police sexual behavior between consenting adults based on the standards of the Bible, assuming we can agree what those are. Do we want Congress to have that debate?
Maybe it is time to get government out of the marriage business and to return it to the private sphere. The problem for me today is that people who want to call themselves “married” against God’s law (as I read it) are willing to use the State to force me to recognize that marriage, which I cannot do. The want to have the State’s public education system indoctrinate my children that homosexual marriage is “normal”. They want to force me to subsidize the homosexual marriage in the tax code just like the godly marriage is subsidized, and they will use state agencies to punish me for “discrimination” if I decline to accept their status in any way.
If the State must force me to acknowledge its power to declare two men to be “married”, then I must support efforts to remove that power from the State. If people who don’t want God defining their personal morality demand a separation of church and State then let us also have separation of marriage and State as well. If those people don’t want any displays of the Ten Commandments in government buildings, they cannot hide behind the Commandments that protect marriage when it comes marriage that God cannot sanction.
Correct. Women living together are friends. Men living together are friends. Marriage is between one man and one woman regardless of what a transient popular culture may claim!
If some Republican senators support same sex “marriage”, let us examine the counter-factual case. What should the law be with respect to people who decide to live together without being married as the State would define it?
The answer clearly is that citizens have the right to form whatever private relationships they please and the State has now power over them. This is a basic liberty and one that is also protected by the Tenth Amendment (”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”)
In other words, the State is powerless to regulate marriage as much as it attempts to claim and act otherwise. My reasoning is simple: States commonly forbid marriage under some circumstances such as people who are related too closely such as cousins. But they are free to live together anyway. It is just that they will not be considered to be “married” as the State defines it.
So, what exactly is going on when two people who otherwise do not qualify to be married by the State, and who could live together, demand that the State marry them? I think that such people are far more interested in destroying the institution of marriage as God defined it than they are in forcing their way into the institution.
As I stated in my previous post, because forces hostile to God’s institution of marriage have seized control of the State mechanisms for defining, defending and enforcing marriage, for the sake of marriage it is time to remove the regulation of it from the State and return it to being a private matter.
Aye, she has a homosexual sister...
Although it is silly to waste time on fantasies like yours, I will still point out that a marriage has been legal or illegal for thousands of years.
From Greece to Rome, to Europe, to the Apache and New Guinea headhunters, authority had to decide if a marriage was legal or not, recognized or not, that is why two men couldn’t just get married.
If you oppose homosexual marriage and polygamy, then you need to oppose them being made legal.
Could it be all this “gay” rights stuff is to get everyone used to the idea then Hillary can come out and marry Huma?
You can hold that personal belief, but now the United States government recognizes marriage benefits for military and federal employees, and immigrants, and gay marriage is legal in America, legally "marriage".
I don't think that many of us cared that 40 or 50 years ago a couple of homosexuals kept claiming they were married at the local gay bar, because we knew that it wasn't legally "marriage".
The federal government has ALWAYS had to have it's definition of legal marriage for using among it's own employees.
Today the military and federal government accepts homosexual marriage for itself, and as we can see, all states will recognize it, whether they allow the actual ceremony within their borders or not.
Liz Cheney, another RINO in waiting.
Try to find out what Liz Cheney’s abortion position was before the last week or two.
During her years of promoting the homosexual agenda, she NEVER came out as pro-life.
Crouching Cheney, hidden RINO
Please reference the oldest federal code defining legal marriage for federal employment purposes. Also please explain why the feds established DOMA if the code was already in the books.
Also please explain why such codes don't violate Clause 3 of Article VI, the prohition of religious tests to be a public servant, since such marriages are associated with the Christian faith.
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.