Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage

[BayGBM]

Dick Cheney backs gay marriage
By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer
Monday, June 1, 2009

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday he supports gays being able to marry but believes states, not the federal government, should make the decision.

"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said in a speech at the National Press Club. "I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."

Cheney, who has a gay daughter, said marriage has always been a state issue.

"And I think that's the way it ought to be handled today, that is, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that," he said.

Cheney spent most of his speech, and during the questions and answers that followed, defending the Bush administration's wartime policies . . .

[tu_holmes]

Dick Cheney backs gay marriage
By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer
Monday, June 1, 2009

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday he supports gays being able to marry but believes states, not the federal government, should make the decision.

"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said in a speech at the National Press Club. "I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."

Cheney, who has a gay daughter, said marriage has always been a state issue.

"And I think that's the way it ought to be handled today, that is, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that," he said.

Cheney spent most of his speech, and during the questions and answers that followed, defending the Bush administration's wartime policies . . .

*blink blink*

WTF

Did I just miss something completely... When did Cheney start saying anything that makes sense.

Is this guy running for president?

[BayGBM]

*blink blink*

WTF

Did I just miss something completely... When did Cheney start saying anything that makes sense.

Is this guy running for president?

Don't kid yourself.  He only holds this position because he has a lesbian daughter, Mary.  He and his wife have accepted their "daughter-in-law" Heather Poe into the family.  And their grandchild born of Mary.

Even Bush gave them his blessing... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/washington/16cheney.html

[Straw Man]

Don't kid yourself.  He only holds this position because he has a lesbian daughter, Mary.  He and his wife have accepted their "daughter-in-law" Heather Poe into the family.  And their grandchild born of Mary.

Even Bush gave them his blessing... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/washington/16cheney.html

Weird. I wonder if Bush or Cheney read the Republican Party Platform in 2004 ( and I Cheneys older daughter worked on his campaign too)

Protecting Marriage

We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that
fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor
bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to
marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is
best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father
anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the
accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special
union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.
After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human
experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most
fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage.
Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences
throughout the country, and anything less than a Constitutional amendment, passed by the
Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges.
On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. The
Constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final decision will rest with the
American people and their elected representatives. President Bush will also vigorously
defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by
85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to
recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.

[MCWAY]

Weird. I wonder if Bush or Cheney read the Republican Party Platform in 2004 ( and I Cheneys older daughter worked on his campaign too)

Protecting Marriage

We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that
fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor
bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to
marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is
best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father
anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the
accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special
union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.
After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human
experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most
fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage.
Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences
throughout the country, and anything less than a Constitutional amendment, passed by the
Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges.
On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. The
Constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final decision will rest with the
American people and their elected representatives. President Bush will also vigorously
defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by
85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to
recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.

Kerry tried to use that against Cheney (and Bush) back then. However, that didn't fly.

Don't kid yourself.  He only holds this position because he has a lesbian daughter, Mary.  He and his wife have accepted their "daughter-in-law" Heather Poe into the family.  And their grandchild born of Mary.

Even Bush gave them his blessing... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/washington/16cheney.html

I thought Liz Cheney was the lesbian one.

Regardless, Cheney still believes that the states make the call. Thus far, the count remains at least 44 states define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, with 30 of them having state constitutional amendments to ensure that's the case.

The big issue now is whether that lawsuit by Team Olsen gets a Supreme Court look and, if it does, whether it actually BACKFIRES on gay "marriage" advocates (see my thread on the issue).

[Straw Man]

Kerry tried to use that against Cheney (and Bush) back then. However, that didn't fly.

didn't fly with people who are ok with hypocrisy

[MCWAY]

didn't fly with people who are ok with hypocrisy

What hypocrisy?

Cheney stated now, as he did back in 2004, that this is a state's issue. That particular year 13 states made their voices heard loud and clear. Since then, 13 more have done the same (most recently, California).

That's why we have 30 states that indicate, in no uncertain terms, that marrriage is a union between a man and a woman.

[BayGBM]

N.H. Legislature Approves Gay Marriage
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- New Hampshire's governor has signed legislation making the state the sixth to allow gay marriage.

Gov. John Lynch was Surrounded by cheering supporters of the move as he signed the three bills about an hour after the key vote on the legislation in the House.

The law will take effect in January, exactly two years after the state legalized civil unions. New Hampshire joins Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa in recognizing same-sex marriages, though opponents hope to overturn Maine's law with a public vote.

Lynch demanded -- and got -- language protecting the rights of religious opponents of gay marriage before signing the bills.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- New Hampshire legislators approved a measure Wednesday that would make the state the sixth to allow gay marriage, and Gov. John Lynch said he would sign it later in the afternoon.

He had promised a veto if the law didn't clearly spell out that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services.

The Senate passed the measure Wednesday, and the House -- where the outcome was more in doubt -- followed later in the day. The House gallery erupted in cheers after the 198-176 vote.

''If you have no choice as to your sex, male or female; if you have no choice as to your color; if you have no choice as to your sexual orientation; then you have to be protected and given the same opportunity for life, liberty and happiness,'' Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, R-Windham, said during the hourlong debate.

New Hampshire's law takes effect Jan. 1. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa already allow gay marriage, though Maine opponents hope to overturn that state's law with a public vote.

California briefly allowed gay marriage before a public vote banned it; a court ruling grandfathered in couples who were already married.

New Hampshire opponents, mainly Republicans, objected on grounds including the fragmented process that required three bills.

''It is no surprise that the Legislature finally passed the last piece to the gay marriage bill today. After all, when you take 12 votes on five iterations of the same issue, you're bound to get it passed sooner or later,'' said Kevin Smith, executive director of gay marriage opponent Cornerstone Policy Research.

Lynch, a Democrat, personally opposes gay marriage but decided to view the issue ''through a broader lens.''

Lynch said he would veto gay marriage if the law didn't address churches and religious groups.

The revised bill added a sentence specifying that all religious organizations, associations or societies have exclusive control over their religious doctrines, policies, teachings and beliefs on marriage.

It also clarified that church-related organizations that serve charitable or educational purposes are exempt from having to provide insurance and other benefits to same sex spouses of employees. The earlier version said ''charitable and educational'' instead of ''charitable or educational.''

The House rejected the language Lynch suggested two weeks ago by two votes. Wednesday's vote was on a revised bill negotiated with the Senate.

The vote was supporters' last chance this year in New Hampshire.

[BayGBM]

U.S. to Extend Its Job Benefits to Gay Partners
By JEFF ZELENY

President Obama will sign a presidential memorandum on Wednesday to extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, administration officials said Tuesday evening, but he will stop short of pledging full health insurance coverage.

Mr. Obama, in an Oval Office announcement, is expected to offer details about which benefits will be provided. It is the most significant statement he has made on gay issues, and it comes as he faces intense criticism from several gay rights leaders over what they suggest has been a failure to live up to campaign promises in the first months of his presidency.

Mr. Obama will be weighing in for the first time on one of the most delicate social and political issues of the day: whether the government must provide benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. While he will announce a list of benefits, officials said, they are not expected to include broad health insurance coverage, which could require legislation to achieve.

The initial reaction from some gay rights advocates was mixed.

“Extending benefits to partners of gay federal employees is terrific, but at this point he is under enormous pressure from the gay civil rights community for having promised the moon and done nothing so far,” Richard Socarides, an adviser to the Clinton administration on gay issues, said Tuesday evening. “So more important now is what he says tomorrow about the future for gay people during his presidency.”

The breadth and scope of the memorandum to be signed by Mr. Obama was being completed Tuesday evening, said administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid upstaging the president’s announcement on Wednesday.

As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama vowed to “fight hard” for the rights of gay couples. As a senator, he sponsored legislation that would have provided health benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

But President Obama and his advisers have been reluctant to wade deeply into divisive issues like overturning a ban on openly gay military members or extending benefits to partners of government employees, fearful that such moves could overtake the administration’s broader agenda.

He has sent private assurances, several activists have said, that he intends to do more in coming years. But some gay groups have grown impatient with the wary stance of the White House, particularly as a growing number of state legislatures have taken up the question of same-sex marriage and other issues important to gay men and lesbians.

In considering whether to extend health benefits to same-sex partners, Mr. Obama confronted divided legal opinions.

In California, two federal appeals court judges said that employees of their court were entitled to health benefits for their same-sex partners under the program that insures millions of federal workers. But the federal Office of Personnel Management has instructed insurers not to provide the benefits ordered by the judges, citing a 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act.

Joe Solmonese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, wrote an angry letterto the White House on Monday about a decision by the administration to file a legal brief supporting the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

“As an American, a civil rights advocate, and a human being, I hold this administration to a higher standard than this brief,” Mr. Solmonese wrote. “In the course of your campaign, I became convinced — and I still want to believe — that you do, too.”

The brief, filed in federal court last week, was in response to a lawsuit arguing that the marriage act is unconstitutional.

A White House spokesman said that it was standard practice for the administration to back laws that are challenged in court — even those it does not agree with — and that the president “wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.” Mr. Obama repeatedly backed repealing the act during his presidential campaign.

With the administration’s decision to stop short of extending full health insurance benefits or calling for legislation to do so, it remained an open question how significant the presidential announcement would be, Mr. Socarides said.

But administration officials said the timing of the announcement was intended to help contain the growing furor among gay rights groups. Several gay donors withdrew their sponsorship of a Democratic National Committee fund-raising event next week, where Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is scheduled to speak.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/politics/17gays.html?_r=1&hp

[drkaje]

Funny..... The president believes marriage is between a man and women but gets a free pass because Bush and the economy sucks balls. He extends federal benefits to same sex couples, further abusing taxpayers in an already fucked up economy, and that's still not enough for people.

Apparently the quest to legitimize aberrant behavior is more important than anything else going on in the world.

[Deicide]

Funny..... The president believes marriage is between a man and women but gets a free pass because Bush and the economy sucks balls. He extends federal benefits to same sex couples, further abusing taxpayers in an already fucked up economy, and that's still not enough for people.

Apparently the quest to legitimize aberrant behavior is more important than anything else going on in the world.

That's a strong word. Please clarify.

[Straw Man]

What hypocrisy?

Cheney stated now, as he did back in 2004, that this is a state's issue. That particular year 13 states made their voices heard loud and clear. Since then, 13 more have done the same (most recently, California).

That's why we have 30 states that indicate, in no uncertain terms, that marrriage is a union between a man and a woman.

it's a convenient way of dodging the issue but if he really believes in equal rights for gays then he shouldn't run on a platform to actually restrict the rights of gays.  That would be called hypocrisy

[drkaje]

That's a strong word. Please clarify.

Behavior that departs substantially from the norm of a group.

[Dos Equis]

Should we change the title of this thread?  It is continually bumped with items that have nothing to do with the original post (which isn't a problem). 

[MCWAY]

it's a convenient way of dodging the issue but if he really believes in equal rights for gays then he shouldn't run on a platform to actually restrict the rights of gays.  That would be called hypocrisy

He's not dodging the issue. He believes the states should decide the issue. So does Obama. But, as I've said, the BIG difference between the two is that Cheney would rather have the PEOPLE decide; whereas Obama wants state courts and left-winged Legislatures to do it.

Cheney is no more hypocritical than the Log Cabin Republicans are (who ALSO voted for Bush in 2004). Nor would he be any more hypocritical than John Kerry was. Kerry not only agreed that the states should decide, but he actually OPPOSED legalizing gay "marriage" in his very own home state (the one that started all this mess in this country).

Lest you keep forgetting, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, by and large, believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Why do you think that these marriage amendments (for the most part) keep passing by lopsided margins, even in "blue" states.

Look at the states Kerry won in '04, with marriage amendments (i.e. Michigan and Oregon) They passed easily. Obama flipped Florida "blue"; yet, Amendment 2 passed 62-38 which is a landslide by normal standards. However, it's a "slim" victory, because of Florida's supermajority requirement of at least 60%.

Then, there's the Defense of Marriage Act. It passed 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate. That's not just due to Republicans.

[BayGBM]

Group that spearheaded effort against Prop. 8 postpones push for amendment until 2012
Equality California says a delay until the presidential election year will aid fundraising in the campaign to legalize same-sex marriage. Other groups want voters to decide issue in 2010.
By Ari B. Bloomekatz and Jessica Garrison

One of the state's largest gay rights groups announced Wednesday it will wait until 2012 to push for an amendment to the California Constitution permitting same-sex marriage, but other organizations with the same agenda insisted they want to bring the issue back to voters in 2010.

Leaders of Equality California, which spearheaded the campaign against Proposition 8, said they planned to wait until the next presidential election and released a road map for repealing the 2008 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage.

"If we thought November 2010 was the best time to go, the time when we thought we could win back the freedom to marry, we would go . . . But we don't," said Marc Solomon, Equality California's marriage director.

In the analysis and plan titled "Winning Back Marriage Equality in California," the organization said it would wait until 2012 to allow more time for fundraising and outreach, among other reasons. Most of the group's top 100 donors to last year's No-on-8 campaign said they would be reluctant or unwilling to participate in a campaign in 2010.

Equality California estimates that a winning campaign would need between $30 million and $50 million.

Meanwhile, some organizations, including the Los Angeles-based Courage Campaign, which bills itself as a multi-issue advocacy group, have said they would try to bring an initiative to the ballot next year. The Courage Campaign sent an e-mail to its members Wednesday touting fundraising efforts that leaders say prove there is momentum in challenging the ban as soon as possible.

The e-mail said the group had raised $136,000 in the previous few days to "finance the research necessary" to go to the ballot in 2010.

"We're not going to let the calendar decide for us when we can win," said Courage Campaign Chairman Rick Jacobs. "This is an enormous issue for our members. A lot of our growth occurred in the post-Proposition 8 era. Our members have been adamant."

Opponents of same-sex marriage have said both dates are inappropriate, pointing out that California voters have twice in the last nine years said no to gay marriage.

Also Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker ordered all parties in a federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 to resubmit their case management statements because the originals failed "to get down to the specifics of how we are going to proceed," according to a copy of the legal order.

Walker ordered that the new statements be submitted by Monday.

[Tre]

I also told those fools that waiting until 2012 was a mistake. 

You strike while the iron is hot, while the issue is fresh and people still care enough to stay involved and to continue talking about it.. 

The cost for a 2010 campaign would be lower for BOTH sides, given the current state of the economy. 

You have to go in 2010, because the rules would allow you to get a prop passed with a simple majority, an option that may be gone by 2012. 

You don't 'wait' to tell people that bigotry in any form is not ok.  Let's get it on. 

[MCWAY]

Group that spearheaded effort against Prop. 8 postpones push for amendment until 2012
Equality California says a delay until the presidential election year will aid fundraising in the campaign to legalize same-sex marriage. Other groups want voters to decide issue in 2010.
By Ari B. Bloomekatz and Jessica Garrison

One of the state's largest gay rights groups announced Wednesday it will wait until 2012 to push for an amendment to the California Constitution permitting same-sex marriage, but other organizations with the same agenda insisted they want to bring the issue back to voters in 2010.

Leaders of Equality California, which spearheaded the campaign against Proposition 8, said they planned to wait until the next presidential election and released a road map for repealing the 2008 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage.

"If we thought November 2010 was the best time to go, the time when we thought we could win back the freedom to marry, we would go . . . But we don't," said Marc Solomon, Equality California's marriage director.

In the analysis and plan titled "Winning Back Marriage Equality in California," the organization said it would wait until 2012 to allow more time for fundraising and outreach, among other reasons. Most of the group's top 100 donors to last year's No-on-8 campaign said they would be reluctant or unwilling to participate in a campaign in 2010.

Equality California estimates that a winning campaign would need between $30 million and $50 million.

Meanwhile, some organizations, including the Los Angeles-based Courage Campaign, which bills itself as a multi-issue advocacy group, have said they would try to bring an initiative to the ballot next year. The Courage Campaign sent an e-mail to its members Wednesday touting fundraising efforts that leaders say prove there is momentum in challenging the ban as soon as possible.

The e-mail said the group had raised $136,000 in the previous few days to "finance the research necessary" to go to the ballot in 2010.

"We're not going to let the calendar decide for us when we can win," said Courage Campaign Chairman Rick Jacobs. "This is an enormous issue for our members. A lot of our growth occurred in the post-Proposition 8 era. Our members have been adamant."

Opponents of same-sex marriage have said both dates are inappropriate, pointing out that California voters have twice in the last nine years said no to gay marriage.

Also Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker ordered all parties in a federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 to resubmit their case management statements because the originals failed "to get down to the specifics of how we are going to proceed," according to a copy of the legal order.

Walker ordered that the new statements be submitted by Monday.

Roughly translated: "WE AIN'T GOT ENOUGH SIGNATURES!!!!!"

It's going to be REAAAAAAAAAALY interesting to see how they reach out to blacks, after all of the name-calling and racial slurs they dished out, upon learning that black voters voted overwhemingly for Prop. 8.

I also told those fools that waiting until 2012 was a mistake. 

You strike while the iron is hot, while the issue is fresh and people still care enough to stay involved and to continue talking about it.. 

That's the problem, Tre. The iron ain't hot; it's barely lukewarm. As stated earlier, they don't have the signatures. Otherwise, they'd put it on the ballot.

The cost for a 2010 campaign would be lower for BOTH sides, given the current state of the economy. 

You have to go in 2010, because the rules would allow you to get a prop passed with a simple majority, an option that may be gone by 2012. 

You can't go in 2010, if you don't have the 695,000 signatures submitted on time. And, experts state that, realistically, the gay "marriage" folks would need over a million signatures, to sift out that amount.

As mentioned in Ozmo's thread, Prop. 8 supporters spend $40 million; Prop. 8 opponents shelled out $43 million. Cali is strapped for cash and the last thing on the mind of many Californians is coughing up that much money, simply for the pleasure of watching gay activists get beat for the third time.

You don't 'wait' to tell people that bigotry in any form is not ok.  Let's get it on. 

You can't "get it on" without signatures. They don't have them....GAME OVER!!! (at least until 2012). Lost in all of this, the rationale for pushing for 2010 is that there won't be as many black folks (the contingent credited/blamed for putting Prop. 8 over the top), due to Obama not being on the card. But, there won't be as many young voters (touted as the largest supporters of gay "marriage"), either.

Contrast that with the folks in Maine (hardly a bastion of conservatism). In just one month, they've gathered nearly twice the amount of signatures needed to vote on using the "People's Veto" to void Maine's gay "marriage" bill. Even though the bill has been signed by the state's governor, it's not due to take effect until November. And Maine's constitution doesn't allow that to happen, until the people have had their say on the matter.

[drkaje]

I also told those fools that waiting until 2012 was a mistake. 

You strike while the iron is hot, while the issue is fresh and people still care enough to stay involved and to continue talking about it.. 

The cost for a 2010 campaign would be lower for BOTH sides, given the current state of the economy. 

You have to go in 2010, because the rules would allow you to get a prop passed with a simple majority, an option that may be gone by 2012. 

You don't 'wait' to tell people that bigotry in any form is not ok.  Let's get it on. 

I seriously doubt the average American cares, Tre.

Also, they've been so bad lately that a lot of people have turned their backs (not in a gay way) on the cause.

Personally, I believe the actual challenge by gays should be to the (sorry, I can't remember the actual number and this is a guess) 18,000 or so marriages allowed to remain in effect. In my mind, it seems other gays were denied equal protection under the law.

[MCWAY]

I seriously doubt the average American cares, Tre.

Also, they've been so bad lately that a lot of people have turned their backs (not in a gay way) on the cause.

Personally, I believe the actual challenge by gays should be to the (sorry, I can't remember the actual number and this is a guess) 18,000 or so marriages allowed to remain in effect. In my mind, it seems other gays were denied equal protection under the law.

That may not be a road on which the gays want to travel. As I said on another forum, the counter-challenge to that is those "marriages" should have never occured in the first placed. Based on California's constitution, the court's ruling in May 2008 isn't enough to make a de facto law. The Legislature or the electorate actually had to undertake the process and make a law, consistent with the court ruling.

That didn't happen. There is no law on California's books, past or present, that defines marriage as anything other than a union of one man and one woman. CA's constituion states there must be such.

I've stated in the past that the CA Supreme Court and the state's attorney general pulled this tactic, in hopes in influencing the vote on Prop. 8. If that's the case, that strategy didn't work.

If gays made the challenge and lost, those 18,000 "marriages" would be void, because they're unconstitutional. They might simply want to cut their losses and leave that alone.

Tre does bring up a good point about the majority issue. Back in 2006, the voters in my home state of Florida passed an amendment, requiring a supermajority of 60% for all future amendments to pass (I voted against that one). For all the press Prop. 8 received, FL's Amendment 2 ran more of a risk of not passing. But, in the end, Amendment 2 got over the hump, 62-38.

If CA's citizens, wearing of this and other amendment fightsw, do what Florida's citizens did, the gay-"marriage" supporters' geese may be cooked.

[Decker]

He's not dodging the issue. He believes the states should decide the issue. So does Obama. But, as I've said, the BIG difference between the two is that Cheney would rather have the PEOPLE decide; whereas Obama wants state courts and left-winged Legislatures to do it.

His daughter is gay but he has no position on the matter.  The viability of gay marriage should be decided by the states.

Those are two different matters.  Cheney is dodging the issue by conflating the two separate matters-1. his personal view and 2. society's view.

Cheney is no more hypocritical than the Log Cabin Republicans are (who ALSO voted for Bush in 2004). Nor would he be any more hypocritical than John Kerry was. Kerry not only agreed that the states should decide, but he actually OPPOSED legalizing gay "marriage" in his very own home state (the one that started all this mess in this country).

Log Cabin Reps are interesting.  They are social/economic darwinists at the bottom of the food chain.

I think they are masochistic fags.

How is Kerry acting hypocritically?

Lest you keep forgetting, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, by and large, believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Why do you think that these marriage amendments (for the most part) keep passing by lopsided margins, even in "blue" states.

Slave ownership, separate but equal and women as footstools were also popular ideas in the day.

...

[MCWAY]

His daughter is gay but he has no position on the matter.  The viability of gay marriage should be decided by the states.

Those are two different matters.  Cheney is dodging the issue by conflating the two separate matters-1. his personal view and 2. society's view.

That's not dodging the issue. He believes the states should decide. Whether they say "yes" or "no" makes no difference. How does his personal view and society's view clash with WHO should decide the issue?

That's the subject at hand, with regards to Cheney....WHO should decide, not WHAT the decision should be. And again, Cheney wants the people, not the courts or left-winged Legislature, to make the call.

Log Cabin Reps are interesting.  They are social/economic darwinists at the bottom of the food chain.

I think they are masochistic fags.

I hope you're not implying that they're "fags" now, because they're Republicans. Are you suggesting that all homosexuals should be Democrats? But, that would kill the stereotype that the GOP is just for mean ol' rich heterosexual white guys.

The point, of course, is that BOTH 2004 presidental candidates beleived that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and they believed that the states should have a say in the matter (though, Bush wanted to take it a step further with a Federal Marriage Amendment).

It's also interesting to note that, in 2004, Missouri passed its marriage amendment by a 71-29 margin. the largest margin ever at the time. SIXTY percent of the voters were Democrats. As stated earlier, this is hardly just a Republican issue (you don't get such lopsided margin with just GOP support).

How is Kerry acting hypocritically?

I never claimed that Kerry was acting hypocritically (at least, not on this issue). His view mirrors that of Cheney: The states should decide their own marriage laws.

Slave ownership, separate but equal and women as footstools were also popular ideas in the day.

None of which has to do with defining the institution of marriage. There is no moral imperative to change the definition of marriage to accomodate homosexuals, whatsoever.

[Decker]

That's not dodging the issue. He believes the states should decide. Whether they say "yes" or "no" makes no difference. How does his personal view and society's view clash with WHO should decide the issue?

You are conflating the issues as well.

Why can't the former most powerful man in the world answer a simple question as to what his opinion is of homosexual marriage?

Another great dodge would be, "I can't answer that question b/c I am not gay."  He's not giving his opinion on the matter at hand - What is YOUR opinion on gay marriage Mr. Vice President. 

That's the subject at hand, with regards to Cheney....WHO should decide, not WHAT the decision should be. And again, Cheney wants the people, not the courts or left-winged Legislature, to make the call.

The courts have the final say on what the law is.

I hope you're not implying that they're "fags" now, because they're Republicans. Are you suggesting that all homosexuals should be Democrats? But, that would kill the stereotype that the GOP is just for mean ol' rich heterosexual white guys.

I'm implying that they are like chickens belonging to the Col. Sanders party.

I never claimed that Kerry was acting hypocritically (at least, not on this issue). His view mirrors that of Cheney: The states should decide their own marriage laws.

None of which has to do with defining the institution of marriage. There is no moral imperative to change the definition of marriage to accomodate homosexuals, whatsoever.

Fine.

I would think that it is a moral imperative to the gays who are denied the benefits of marriage.

I just don't see what you or society has to gain by denying these people the right to marry.

[MCWAY]

You are conflating the issues as well.

Why can't the former most powerful man in the world answer a simple question as to what his opinion is of homosexual marriage?


Another great dodge would be, "I can't answer that question b/c I am not gay."  He's not giving his opinion on the matter at hand - What is YOUR opinion on gay marriage Mr. Vice President. 

When was CHENEY the most powerful man in the world?


"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."

How is that dodging the question? He believes that there should be something to accomodate homosexuals. But, ULTIMATELY, it's up to the states to decide the issue (one way or the other).

The courts have the final say on what the law is.

No, they don't. I refer you to what went down in California, less than a year ago.

California's Supreme Court said that defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman was "unconstitutional". The people of California trumped that by modifying their state constitution. So that ruling of the CA court is moot. The same thing happened in Alaska and Hawaii. The people changed their constitution to clearly spell out marriage's definition, after their respective state courts ruled it "unconstitutional".

Lest, you forget, the majority of the states that passed marriage amendments did so PROACTIVELY, to keep their respective courts from doing what the courts in Mass., Iowa, California, Alaska, and Hawaii did. Those amendments are in place, and there's not a darn thing the state courts can do about it.

The courts answer to constitutions; constitutions are ratified BY THE PEOPLE.

I'm implying that they are like chickens belonging to the Col. Sanders party.

Chickens about what? What Democratic presidental candidate came out and stated, point blank, that they support and believe in same-sex marriage? Obama? I DON'T THINK SO! Clinton? PLEASE!!! Kerry? GET REAL!!!

If Republicans were the only one opposing gay "marriage", the amendments wouldn't be passing by an average of 68-32. The reason you have such lopsided margins is simple: The lion's share of folks on BOTH SIDES believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

Go back to 2004. At least, two "blue" states that Kerry had little problem winning passed marriage amendments. In 2008, my home state flipped from "red" to "blue". Yet, Amendment 2 passed. From a sheer numbers perspective, it passed easily, 62-38. But, by Florida's constitution, it barely made it, because (as of late 2006/early 2007) amendments must pass by a supermajority of 60%.

I would think that it is a moral imperative to the gays who are denied the benefits of marriage.

I just don't see what you or society has to gain by denying these people the right to marry.

They're not denied the benefits or the "right" to marry. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If they don't want to play by those rules (because of their sexual "preference"), that's their issue. Someone may prefer to mess around with little kids; that doesn't mean that our age laws deny them the right to marry.

There's nothing for society to gain by changing marriage's definition to accomodate homosexuals.

[tu_holmes]

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If they don't want to play by those rules (because of their sexual "preference"), that's their issue. Someone may prefer to mess around with little kids; that doesn't mean that our age laws deny them the right to marry.

There's nothing for society to gain by changing marriage's definition to accomodate homosexuals.

There's nothing lost by society either.

As far as the "definition of marriage." That is such a load of crap. Who determines definitions?

People.

It could easily say a union between two of legal age consenting individuals. Just because that's not the definition today does not mean that can not be the definition in the future.

Look at the word gay. It used to simply mean happy, now it means homosexual. Definitions change. For someone to talk about what a word is defined to prove how they are right is akin to saying "I know you are, but what am I." to prove your point.

Anyone who throws little kids in with their point is even more insane. Marriages are about of age consenting adults... That's pretty cut and dried.

It's not about kids, or animals or any other far reaching ridiculousness that people try to make it out to be and it never will be. Because we're talking about OF AGE CONSENTING ADULTS.