Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cheney's Gay Marriage Comments Draw Fire
Yahoo News ^ | 8/24/04 | TODD DVORAK/AP

Posted on 08/24/2004 5:25:14 PM PDT by wagglebee

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last
To: annyokie

I like 60-70% of all Americans oppose the concept of gay marriage. People can do whatever they like in their homes, but marriage is what marriage is and always has been. I think the real crime is what the courts are doing in usurping legislative powers, and something must be down to stop it. Our whole system of checks and balances is way out of whack. Judges with life appointments and no acccountability can not be allowed to just make up laws. I would support a Constitutional Amendment to correct this problem, but see it only a band-aid to a bigger problem.


21 posted on 08/24/2004 5:52:43 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
He probably made these comments as an appreciation gesture to Lynn for the work she does for the Bush campaign.

Nonsense. He could have easily thanked her in a private telephone call instead of in front of a campaign rally, if this was truly the case. The last thing Bush/Cheney want to do is get bogged down in the gay marriage issue when Kerry is withering from the Swiftboats attacks and his nonexistant Senate record. Now liberals are going to whine that Bush is intolerant because his own VP is in favor of gay marriages (he's not but the lib media will spin it this way), and far-right whackjobs like Pat Robertson will make more inflammatory statements on how Bush/Cheney isn't doing enough to protect traditional marriages.

22 posted on 08/24/2004 5:54:37 PM PDT by 12 Gauge Mossberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Cheney nailed it. Gay marriage is a state's rights issue. That is the conservative (non-dictatorial) perspective.


23 posted on 08/24/2004 5:56:05 PM PDT by NCPAC ((Live without Fear: Don't worry about what may happen. Concentrate on what must be done.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ItsOurTimeNow

One for the list.

:-(


24 posted on 08/24/2004 5:57:07 PM PDT by little jeremiah (I am a proud pervertophile-phobe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Bush and Cheney have much the same position.

Neither wants judges to decide.

The constitutional process lets humans, not oligarch judges decide.


25 posted on 08/24/2004 5:58:36 PM PDT by adam_az (http://blogspirator.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: irishlass
Cheney's daughter is 35 y.o. or older.

She's made her bed, so to speak, and her parents can maintain a relationship with her or adopt a stand that will assure alienation from their daughter.

I hope I'd be able to do the same thing. I wouldn't be willing to lose my daughter no matter what misguided, ill-advised lifestyle choice she might make.

Parents have only so much influence over grown children. We all have stories to tell in that regard I'm sure.

26 posted on 08/24/2004 5:59:36 PM PDT by billorites (freepo ergo sum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
VPs aren't supposed to yap about how they disagree with the President on any subject and are supposed to advocate the President's positions not their own.

VPs (and Cabinet Secretaries) are normally expected not to contradict the President on major Administration bills or policies. But in a well-run and non-paranoid Administration, they should have leeway to express differing views on other matters.

Bush has expressed an opinion in favor of a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriages, but that's all it is: Bush's personal opinion. The Executive Branch has nothing whatsoever to do with Constitutional Amendments. That is purely a function of Congress and the States.

Hence Cheney is not breaking any tradition or unwritten rule in expressing an opinion different from Bush's on this matter. And if Cheney expressed his honest opinion irrespective of the potential political positives and negatives (which I suspect he has), then he has gone up in my estimation.

27 posted on 08/24/2004 6:00:33 PM PDT by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
I love Cheney but he should have kept his fat mouth shut on this. VPs aren't supposed to yap about how they disagree with the President on any subject and are supposed to advocate the President's positions not their own.

He said 'freedom neans freedom for everyone' - he didn't say anything about them getting gov't recognition, marriage licenses, handouts, and special laws protecting them. President Bush also shares this same mainstream position.

Folks - there are BIGGER FISH TO FRY (And I'm dreaming of some nice beer-battered perch from the Wisconsin Northwoods right now washed down with some Leinenkugel's) than to worry about the gays.

28 posted on 08/24/2004 6:00:43 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 12 Gauge Mossberg

Well, you can stay awake at night worrying over what Cheney said.


29 posted on 08/24/2004 6:02:40 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Comment #30 Removed by Moderator

To: adam_az
I would still like anybody to show me which article of the Constitution empowers the judiciary to be the arbiter of what is and isn't Constitutional. I know all about how they assumed the power with Marbury vs. Madison; however, it is never granted. Logic would provide that the executive branch would have the authority.

Nevertheless, the courts have this power. But what has happened in the last 50 years is the most outrageous power steal in history. Interpreting laws and adjudicating laws are two very different things. When the majority of the people in a state and the legislature are in agreement on a law that should remain, unless it can be shown where such a law is explicitely prohibited by the Constitution.

31 posted on 08/24/2004 6:04:00 PM PDT by wagglebee (Benedict Arnold was for American independence before he was against it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

I don't agree with gay "marriage" either. The whole idea of a constitutional amendment is a non-starter though.


32 posted on 08/24/2004 6:05:40 PM PDT by annyokie (Now with 20% More Infidel!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NCPAC

I guess you and I are the few here who get it. Thanks for posting and for the stones to do so!


33 posted on 08/24/2004 6:08:54 PM PDT by annyokie (Now with 20% More Infidel!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
I don't agree with gay "marriage" either. The whole idea of a constitutional amendment is a non-starter though.

Why? Every state agrees what marriage is. Only the Socialist Republic of Mass is under a court decree, but the people and legislature said otherwise. If all states and people agree what marriage is, why not do so with an amendment? Although it is a sad that we must do so.

34 posted on 08/24/2004 6:09:42 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Cheney said, "at this point, save my own preference, as I have stated, but the president makes policy ...". He was wrong to open his mouth and state his personal preference on a policy issue and publicly disagree with the President. I'm not hyperventialiating over it. I love the guy. I think he's great. But he screwed up on this one, he should be called on it and the President should chew his ass out. He's just the friggin VP.


35 posted on 08/24/2004 6:19:59 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
Apparently, so. It never ceases to amaze me how many folks worry so much about that which does not directly affect them. A true conservative does not want the federal government dictating what is best left for the states to decide.

Thanks for the word-up!
36 posted on 08/24/2004 6:24:00 PM PDT by NCPAC ((Live without Fear: Don't worry about what may happen. Concentrate on what must be done.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; EdReform; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; stage left; Yakboy; ...

- Homosexual Agenda PING -

Oh brother.

Just out of curiousity...is there a conservative, religious politician in the ENTIRE WORLD who has the GUTS to stand up and call homosexuality for what it truly is? What's with all this walking-on-eggshells-around-the-issue BS?

Good grief...grow a pair, stand up, expose this sin for what it is, and call a spade a spade! Unreal - all this pandering and namby-pamby language over a group that makes up only roughly 5% of the entire US population.

Being weak-kneed and half-asleep is what got us into this mess in the first place.

WAKE UP!

If we're soldiers in His army...why aren't we marching?

(If you want on or off this ping list, please Freepmail me.)

*For personal and non-commercial use only*


37 posted on 08/24/2004 6:24:46 PM PDT by ItsOurTimeNow (I have the right to remain silent....but not the ability.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dpwiener

Baloney. It is NOT just Bush's opinion. The President of the U.S. has stated he supports a constitutional amendment. That is the administration's policy on this issue. All laws are written by Congress. So I'm not following your logic.

The VP publicly disagreed with the President on an important public policy issue. Not good form. Hopefully Bush will give him an earful and redirect Cheney to areas he can handle more appropriately like beating up on Kerry.


38 posted on 08/24/2004 6:29:42 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: NCPAC

You are very welcome! Nice to find the TRUE conservatives here on FR. So many are too welded to their own truths. IMO.


39 posted on 08/24/2004 6:30:20 PM PDT by annyokie (Now with 20% More Infidel!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Always Right; NCPAC
Why? Every state agrees what marriage is. Only the Socialist Republic of Mass is under a court decree, but the people and legislature said otherwise. If all states and people agree what marriage is, why not do so with an amendment? Although it is a sad that we must do so.

Because, as I have already said, it is a non-starter. I want a constitutional amendment against abortion with some very few exceptions, since it is already Federally protected. I could give a damn about my gay accountant and her partner who have lived together for 20+ years. Let's worry about genocide and not screwing.

40 posted on 08/24/2004 6:34:38 PM PDT by annyokie (Now with 20% More Infidel!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson