Cheney backs "Freedom" for same-sex marriage
 

LINK

This is an example of what Bush/Cheney should be doing to win their re-election campaign, not proposing constitutional amendments to cater to the 2% of the US that thinks defining marriage is a role for the federal govenrment. I think it's nice to hear about what Cheney thinks, rather than what four-letter word he happens to use when attacked. :P

i agree that this is a positive statement, but i'm awfully surprised to hear it coming form an administration that has repeatedly worked to limit access to marriage for homosexual couples. it's a nice thing to say -- i'd like to see a little back-up in the form of action.

With Cheney backing gay marriage and Ron Reagan, Jr. backing stem cell research, I find it odd how conservative values get tossed out the door when it's their own family member who has something riding on the line.

Remember boys and girls, the Bush adminstration is hoping to bank on the Evangelical Jesus vote. Gay marriage is just a pawn to get the Jesus vote in Bush's corner. I would imagine that most of the people in the Bush adminstration really don't care what people do sexually in their private lives.

Edit: Except for Ashcroft, he's an ass in this regard.

Maybe they are banking on the fact that more then 60% of the country is opposed to homosexual marriage, perhaps not solely in amendment form. Some of us disagree with homosexual marriage, that doesn't make us bible thumping fundie's.

Although the position Cheney takes sounds reasonable, it rings somewhat hollow to me when I consider what other efforts to erode civil rights took place under the guise of "states' rights." I just can't see any reason that people should be denied simple common law rights, such as inheritance, because of their sexual orientation.

Wait a second, what happened to all the experts who claimed that Cheney was controlling the administration and pulling the strings of George Bush's marionette?

Bush has his beliefs and he's standing up for them. Cheney has his and he's standing up for them. In the end it's Bush's administration and he determines policy just like Cheney said.

If anything this is a positive that shows the administration is open to other points of view.

or it's lip service.

if Cheney *really* is pro gay unions he should be doing something to make it happen. if, as vice president, he can't work to further issues that he cares about then he is ineffectual.

As stated, it's President Bush's administration. They have a fundamental disagreement over it and nothing Cheney does is likely to sway administration policy on this.

I think the only reason Cheney is changing is tune is because his daughter is gay. Now that the issue actually effects him in a personal way he is standing up for gay rights.

brianna, it just isn't the role of the vice-president to campaign for issues that run against the President's platform. Thank goodness we have at least one leader in Washington who realizes that it isn't all about his own agenda and recognizes the institutional limits placed on his position.

Nothing odd about it. Sometimes that's what it takes...getting knocked up alongside the back of the head to shake the blinders loose.

he is not changing his tune about it, he was asked a personl question, not what the administation feels, but what he feels. He has had this opinion since the first election in 2000. He is the VP and can have opinoins that are different then some others. But from what I can tell by reading what he said was that he feels that gays could get married but never actually said they should be recognized by the government. I don't know if that was just implied, but I did not see him actually say that.

because blinders are the only thing keeping conservatives from being liberals... is that right? :rolleyes:

I agree with a lot of what has been said here on neutral non-threatening terms.

He is VP, he realizes he's not the President and does not publically scrutinize Bush, though I'm sure he does behind closed doors. This is pivital that leadership does not scruitinize their upper level officials. Disagreeing is different than scrutinizing.

I think we should get less defensive about the gay marriage argument. A friend of mine was VERY against abortion until she had an accient. She was on both the pill and using condoms and still managed to get pregnant. So suddenly it wasnt just loose women who thought about it in her eyes. To have the child she would have had to drop her full scholarship to Notre Dame and ruin her bright future. Life changing events isnt taking the blindfolds off and see'ing the light, nor is it betraying what you once believed. It's taking a new perspective based on life events which are unique to every individual. Simplifying that is doing a disservice to the impact it truely has on a person.

I'm not interested in marriage of any kind. However, the fact is that the courts will override states' rights on this one. That is the reason the Constitutional process is being proposed.

The states have no right to violate the US constitution. As I read it, the equal protection clause in the constitution doesn't allow states to deny simple common law rights to same sex couples, hence the "need" for a constitutional amendment. Even now, as gay marriage has become a major issue, the US Congress has rejected such an amendment. If I was a betting man, I'd bet that no such amendment will ever pass.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html

Hey,irateplatypus!! Long time no see. I've missed our little sparring matches. :thumbsup:

Of course blinders aren't the only thing keeping conservatives from being liberals. You have to learn the secret handshake, as well. J/K

Now...as usual, you're reading more into what I wrote than is really there. The wearing of "blinders" is not a trait that is exclusive to conservatives. They're just, in my opinion, utilized a little more often, by them. You can't solve problems by ignoring them, and hoping that they'll go away, any more than you can by throwing money at it.

Scipio, I don't think it will pass either.
It's just not an important issue to me.
I figured I'd at least lay out the "justification" for the Constituional process advocates' position.

Billy,

Yeah, I was playfully making a hyperbolic twist on your words... should've added a laughing emoticon as well. Good to be back and thanks for the warm welcome.

I really think that civil unions are the answer. I disagree with the idea of marriage being available to a non-heterosexual couple, but I do recognize that people can be committed to each other regardless of gender.

I definitely believe in the sanctity of marriage being between a man and a woman, and I am far from a bible thumper.

Fair enough. It's basically a time wasting wedge issue that's been brought up by both republicans and democrats. I suppose we've strayed from Cheney's comments though, and just started talking about gay marriage generally.

http://www.lesbians4fun.com/sample1_g.jpghttp://www.mladina.si/tednik/200032/...la1_inline.jpg

"they can do that, but they can't get married"

Actually Congressional law afforded through DOMA, and through that DOMA protection act that is being proposed affords the states to override that EPC. Everything is completely "legal" ( I say it with quotations because I'm banking on it being over turned at some point) as of right now.

Quick question. Federal law supercedes state law unless it affords the right to the state, or if there is no standing federal law correct?