Dick Cheney Is a Great Man, but He Is Wrong on ‘Gay Marriage’

Americans for Truth ^ | June 2, 2009 | Peter LaBarbera

[DesertRenegade]

Folks, I agree with the statement below by my friend Regina Griggs of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays). I am a huge Dick Cheney fan in most respects. I think he is doing the nation a tremendous service by holding President Obama accountable on foreign policy. He and President Bush helped keep America safe for eight years — and anyone who has incurred as much wrath as he has from the Hateful, Hard Left is almost a hero by definition. (Or maybe I’m wrong: perhaps we would have been safer had ‘Vice President Olbermann’ had the President’s ear during the Bush years. After all, the MSNBC twit host has called Cheney “as insane as any terrorist.”)

But on homosexuality-related issues Cheney — father or openly lesbian Mary – is letting his emotions cloud his considerable intellect. I agree with some of my friends in the pro-family movement that he is likely a big part of the reason why President Bush never used his executive power to really push hard for a Federal Marriage Amendment. Bottom line: loving your son or daughter never means embracing everything they do, and homosexuality will always be immoral behavior no matter how many celebs and VIPs say otherwise. (Then again: I still haven’t read that fifth Gospel According to Ellen.)

If the GOP abandons the homosexual issue or does worse — by treating the appallingly decadent spectacle of sodomy-based “marriage” as a “freedom” issue — as so many libertarian and “money”-oriented Republicans are calling for — it could serve as a catalyst for the creation of a serious third party built in part on social issues. That party could enthusiastically take on the “Evil Trinity” (to quote the great pro-family attorney Jan LaRue): Abortion; Homosexual activism; and Pornography. Throw in a party that truly cuts government spending and taxes, and takes on radical feminism and illegal immigration, and you’ve got something that could draw enough support to become at least a “swing” player in major elections. The GOP must stop the hemorrhaging of good conservatives fleeing to more principled pastures, or the hemorrhaging will only get worse.

Homosexuality is a moral issue. It’s a God issue — not a “feelings,” tolerance or “identity” issue. And it certainly is not a freedom issue (any more than abortion is) — by which I mean principled freedom in the context of a healthy moral order as opposed to license and libertinism. I am a Republican, but I will never put party before God and His Truth. Please pray for Mary Cheney, that she will see the light as so many former lesbians have, and repent and leave the homosexual lifestyle.

[DesertRenegade]

We must never give up on our kids. If they fall into dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle practices, it is no excuse to just give in. I hope Cheney and his wife decide to give their daughter a message of hope and an opportunity to leave the homosexual lifestyle. If not for her, than at least for the innocent male infant they've brought into their home.

[cvq3842]

I agree - I respect Cheney on most issues but I can’t agree with him on this one.

[tired1]

I guess the issue to be decided is literally: who is to judge?

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

"...it could serve as a catalyst for the creation of a serious third party built in part on social issues."

Want to see the Dems and GOP unite as never before?

Put together a "serious third party" and watch the melee.
Never. Gonna. Happen.

[RinaseaofDs]

Sorry, he’s right on gay marriage. It ought to be an issue left up to the states, not the feds.

As for legalizing gay marriage, I’m not for it, but I can’t impose my will on everyone else. I’d live in a state where it wasn’t legal.

[hflynn]

If it is left up to the states as a referendum on the ballot I would agree otherwise no.

[penelopesire]

I agree with you. This is a perfectly legitimate conservative stance on the matter imho.

[DC Ripper]

“I guess the issue to be decided is literally: who is to judge?”

If it’s whether gay marriage is legal, this is best left to the American people.
They have voted “no” on gay marriage every single time it has been put to a vote.

But once the Supreme Court is stacked, the people will have no more voice.

[DesertRenegade]

“As for legalizing gay marriage, I’m not for it, but I can’t impose my will on everyone else.”

We have plenty of laws that are based on moral precepts or to protect the public’s best interests. That’s why we’ve outlawed polygamy and also pedophilia. If we allow homosexuals to form these fantasy ‘marriages’, who is to stop a man from ‘marrying’ a young boy, or two women and three men forming a “multi-marriage”?

[seekthetruth]

“Sorry, he’s right on gay marriage. It ought to be an issue left up to the states, not the feds.”

And you will notice that any state that has allowed the citizens to decide, the citizens say marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

[lonestar]

I agree.

[penelopesire]

How do you guys feel about referendums on other issues? I am kinda torn on the issue of referendums on ballots because of the ‘mob rule’ aspect of it. It works in our favor in this instance, but look at the damage it has done across the US on other issues like the environment and state spending. Just curious what other FReepers views are on the matter.

[mavfin]

Well, you can tell Dick Cheney he’s wrong, but you won’t change his mind. He supports his daughter, and that’s the end of it for him.

[DooDahhhh]

Exactly. I have a gay son and you would have to live it to understand it. And I would not fault anyone for not understanding it that hasn’t lived it. But I understand Cheney’s comments, too. He has lived it and he wants his child happy just like all of us do. I don’t know that gays are for the most part looking for “marriage” but want to have the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

[hflynn]

Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger might be on your side on this one.

[penelopesire]

It must be a very difficult position to be in and that’s why he gets a pass from me on the whole matter. It’s not like Cheney is making laws on gay marriage in the first place. It’s just one man’s opinion. A man who loves his daughter.

[DesertRenegade]

“He supports his daughter, and that’s the end of it for him.”

So now in order to be considered “supportive” or loving of your own child, you are expected to endorse the homosexual lifestyle and its practices? When a parent reprimands a child or rebukes them for being immoral, isn’t that considered real love? And when liberals coddle or ‘love’ the decadence of an alternative-lifestyle or drug addicted teen, is that ‘love’?

[penelopesire]

My side? You obviously did not read or understand my post. I stated that I am ‘torn’ on the issue of referendums...NOT that I was for or against them.

[RinaseaofDs]

“If we allow homosexuals to form these fantasy ‘marriages’, who is to stop a man from ‘marrying’ a young boy, or two women and three men forming a “multi-marriage”?”

It’s the beauty of the system of government that Madison conceived - States are where societies are defined and determined. No federal government could hope to provide a system of governance suitable for such different walks of people.

It works in MA, for them. Let them figure out how to continue to make family court unfair to white men when both parties are white men, or biased toward the wife, when there are two of those.

Let them figure out why the rates of pedophilic incest are through the roof with gay male couples vs. the rest of the world.

They can figure out alimony, division of property. They can figure out why Johnny’s making passes at other fourth grade boys in school and getting his crap kicked in.

Let MA, NH, and other places figure that out.

[lewisglad]

No man on this earth is perfect, but Dick Cheney comes close!

[DesertRenegade]

tired1: “I have a gay son and you would have to live it to understand it.”

Please don’t take this as a criticism. I truly want to understand. But aren’t you deathly afraid that your son will contract AIDS? So many studies show that they have a dramatically shorter lifespan than normal people. If thousands of former homosexuals have found the courage to leave the lifestyle, can’t your son? Don’t you want him to be able to form a stable household with a mother and a father for an innocent child? Who among us has the right to endanger a vulnerable baby by depriving it of a mother AND a father?

[mavfin]

I’m not getting into any of that. I’m just stating that Cheney made his choice, and you can call it wrong if you want, but he’s not changing anytime soon, I’m sure.

If you want to disown your grown child for his/her lifestyle, that’s your business, but he decided he was not going to do so, and let her live with her choices. Period.

[penelopesire]

Cheney is not doing this to be ‘considered’ supportive or loving..nor is he ‘endorsing’ her lifestyle. She is a grown woman. We have not been privy to their family discussions on the matter over the years, so your post is presumptive to say the least.

[tired1]

An addiction to sex is just that. The corruption to one’s persona is compounded by one’s associations; there is a tendency to hang out with people that agree with you.

The current grounds are the educational institutions beginning with grade school. It’s learned behavior. I’ve seen so much of this that I want to vomit.

as far as happiness goes, it’s overrated. Looking to anyone else for completion is a recipe for disaster.

[hflynn]

I don’t remember Torn on a referendum ballot.

[mavfin]

Correct. I doubt that Dick Cheney even cares what others think. He’s accepted his daughter as she is, as a grown woman, and if some of you want to say he’s wrong, that’s fine, but you’re not going to change his decision.

I doubt that he did it out of any need to ‘appear’ anything to anyone.

[okie01]

Since it is a personal family issue, I'll cut Cheney (and his wife) some slack on this particular issue.

Similarly, I thought John McCain's stance on torture was dead wrong (waterboarding ain't torture). But I'll cut him some slack because of his personal history.

All of us have some view that is uniquely colored by our own experience -- for better or for worse. Sometimes, it's benign. Sometimes, it gets in the way of sound judgment. Which is one reason why Sotomayor has no business being on the SCOTUS.

[penelopesire]

‘torn’; as in having ‘mixed emotions’ on ‘referendums’...not gay marriage. I am not in favor of gay marriage.

[BufordP]

It’s kind of hard for Cheney to resist with the Log Cabin Republicans all the time chanting, “WE WANT DICK!”

[DesertRenegade]

“Let them figure out why the rates of pedophilic incest are through the roof with gay male couples vs. the rest of the world.”

I would rather not allow such social experimentation to take place and injure an innocent child for the rest of his/her life.

Don’t forget Jesse Dirkhising: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29026

[hflynn]

You sound Torn.

[fish hawk]

And that might be the end of him for many of us. A few weeks ago Cheney was a 12 on a scale of one to ten. Now, to me, he is a two and a half.

[mavfin]

That’s your prerogative. If that one issue defines you that much, then it’s a free country, and you can do as you wish.

[DesertRenegade]

“If you want to disown your grown child for his/her lifestyle, that’s your business, but he decided he was not going to do so, and let her live with her choices.”

On the contrary. Phyllis Schlafly loves her homosexual son John. I believe he even works for her. But she would never support his lifestyle choice and she isn’t afraid to speak out against the homosexual agenda. The DemRats constantly try to perpetuate the myth that you are “disowning” your child if you don’t approve of their lifestyle choice. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mrs. Schlafly both loves her son and hates his sinful lifestyle of homosexuality.

[penelopesire]

Ok...I give up. Have a nice evening.

[OpeEdMunkey]

The GOP must stop the hemorrhaging of good conservatives fleeing to more principled pastures...

Politically I don't see a lot of available 'principled pastures—though I do appreciate the turn of the phrase and wish I'd written it. Behaviorally I don't think that conservatives and neo-conservatives can simply sit by and not participate in an election.

Homosexuality is a moral issue.

For some. I'm betting if we could actually study it we'd find that there are two kinds of homosexuals: those who are born that way (i.e. a birth defect) and those who are born normal but chose to engage in homosexual actions (i.e. perverts).

Since we cannot distinguish one from the other we have to err on the side of treating them all as if they had birth defects—a bad line in their genetic code that tells them to attempt reproduction with their own gender.

The problem IMAO isn't really the normalization or tolerance of their bizarre behavior. Americans are a tolerant people. The problem is the constant attempt to avoid labeling the problem as the birth defect that it is. To say that it is somehow normal.

There are plenty of disabled kids who have been mainstreamed into public school classes. The normal kids tolerate their behavior, but for sure none of them think it's normal. And when it comes to kids, no one wants to be abnormal.

[mavfin]

Agreed. It’s his personal family issue, that he’s made his decision on, and indeed, made no secret of it even in 2004. He’s not going to change it now for anyone.

If someone wishes to toss out a good man over this one issue, then they can do so. It’s a free country. But they won’t convince me that loving his daughter as she is makes him a bad man.

[Gay State Conservative]

Of course he's wrong on homosexual “marriage”.He's certainly in a tough situation regarding the subject.I guess the natural inclination of parents is to support a child no matter how depraved he/she turns out to be.

[DesertRenegade]

“He’s accepted his daughter as she is, as a grown woman”

It’s disingenuous to suggest that he only ‘discovered’ she was a lesbian after she was an adult, and therefore has no choice but to accept that agenda. I believe the daughter has made comments in the past that the family knew about her homosexuality when she was a young teen. At that age, parents still have a great responsibility to steer the morality of their children and not just abandon them to some liberal alternative lifestyle.

[mavfin]

I’m sure he’s known for some time. I don’t see anywhere that I suggest what you just said. I’m just saying that he’s accepting her as she is now, or as she was in 2004, a grown woman. How she was as a teenager I have no information on, so I’m not going to suggest anything about it.

[MortMan]

The problem IMAO isn't really the normalization or tolerance of their bizarre behavior. Americans are a tolerant people. The problem is the constant attempt to avoid labeling the problem as the birth defect that it is. To say that it is somehow normal.

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely NO evidence of a genetic defect that causes homosexuality. Even the homosexual lobby has backed away from pushing this as a talking point.

It clearly isn't a physical birth defect, and there is also no evidence of a chemical defect in homosexuals. In short, I firmly believe that the "defect" argument is specious, the same as the genetic argument.

[nathanbedford]

I am ambivalent about gay marriage.

First, I am acutely sensitive to the maintenance of the family because I have a hobby horse which I ride ceaselessly on these threads: the left is attacking every institution which holds our society together and which holds back the advance of socialism/communism/statism. The attacks on the family were fashioned originally by The Frankfurt School which delivered a 1-2 punch, attacking the family and destroying the father's role as an authority figure within the family. That means That The Frankfurt School and its misbegotten spawn have long aimed to destroy the institution of marriage.

Therefore, I am reflexively hostile to any threat to the institution of marriage because I see it as part of the crimes of cultural marxism arising out of The Frankfurt School. If I am to err, let it always be on the side defending the world against The Frankfurt School.

Let me clear away some of the underbrush. There has been much equating of abortion and homosexual marriage. The objection to abortion is profound and it need not be grounded in religion. Abortion is the killing of a human being not yet born and as such it is indefensible. Moreover, the practice involves the infliction of harm on an innocent victim who in this case cannot defend himself. That certainly is not true of adult homosexuals desirous of entering into a marriage. There cannot be said to be a victim. To the degree that opponents of homosexual marriage are seen to be invoking the law to impose their objections to private conduct, without a victim, the political party which supports them will not be supported by an increasing number of Americans. To the degree that the opponents of homosexual marriage are seen to be invoking the law to punish activity done in private which subjectively makes them squirm, the political party which supports them will not be supported by an increasing number of Americans.

The Question for me becomes, does the very fact of the law sanctioning marriage between couples of the same sex inevitably undermine the institution of marriage between heterosexual couples? I know that the social conservatives are emphatic in holding that the institution of heterosexual marriage will be mortally compromised. But I have never understood exactly why this should be so. I think the belief is that sodomy is such a grotesquerie that to equate it with the God ordained sacrament is to defile marriage. To sanctify sodomy with a solemn and legal marriage certificate is an outrage which defiles marriage.

It seems to me that this reaction is a subjective one and that means that one man's subjective reaction is as valid as another man's. Some people are troubled by this and some people are not. I have trouble declaring that one reaction ought to be elevated in the law over the other.

There is also the problem that sodomy between consenting adults done in private has been awarded by the Supreme Court the status of constitutional protection. Therefore, no state may prohibit homosexual sex done by adults in private. Evidently, they have a constitutional right of privacy to bugger each other as much as they want.

Parenthetically, it is important to note that almost nobody objects to civil unions or civil contracts which give gays the right of inheritance, custody and visitation, hospital access, and burial rites etc. I am inclined to think that society ought to grant these rights to gays as a matter of course. On the other hand, conservatives rightly reject the notion that someone can declare himself married and thereby obtain benefits from the government to which he would not otherwise be entitled. I am very much in sympathy with this position. Hence one source of my ambivalence.

So opponents of homosexual marriage are being forced onto an ever narrowing land bridge. On one hand the activity sanctified by marriage, homosexual sex, has already been sanctified by the Supreme Court and is therefore perfectly legal. On the other hand the majority of Americans agree that virtually all the benefits of marriage should be accorded homosexuals by virtue of their choosing to enter into a civil contract. So the narrow land bridge says that homosexuals can do everything else married couples can do except go through a ceremony which is acknowledged by the state. The problem with this remaining remnant of dry land from which to object to homosexual marriage is that homosexuals can easily find some church which will conduct the ceremony. So opponents of homosexual marriage are reduced to maintaining the hollow position that the church ceremony, which practically can be done at will, may not be acknowledged by the state.

As the ground under the feet of those who object to homosexual marriage continues to erode, it is becoming clearer that they are on the wrong side of history. That is not necessarily a good thing. Not a good thing for our society and, unfortunately, not a good thing for the conservative movement.

There is an argument which weighs on behalf of the opponents of gay marriage. The historical fact is that marriage is and always has been inextricably bound up in religion and it is a deep tradition in our culture that marriage is done according to the precepts of our Judeo Christian heritage. Clearly, homosexual marriage is explicitly and provocatively contrary to those faiths. Religion has given birth to the concept of marriage and as such it has a claim on the concept. It is a claim that says if you want a make a marriage you must do it according to our precepts, if you want to behave contrary to our precepts you must call it something else: a "civil union" would be a good name.

This argument says that it is important to protect the sanctity of marriage from degrading it by associating it with sodomy. I am sympathetic to this view because as I stated at the beginning, if you destroy the family you have gone a long way toward destroying any resistance to the kind of society people like Barak Obama would like to impose on us.

But I am not so sympathetic as to go to the wall to protect the institution of marriage from a threat which I see to be attenuated and probably inevitable when to do might compromise other important precepts of conservatism resulting in the very real sacrifice of real victims- like unborn babies.

[hflynn]

I apologize and really do not want to antagonize you in anyway. When I read the word torn in the context of our conversation to me it means - disrupted by the pull of contrary forces; “torn between love and hate”. Apparently this is far from your intended meaning. Again, my apologies

[DesertRenegade]

“he practice involves the infliction of harm on an innocent victim who in this case cannot defend himself. That certainly is not true of adult homosexuals desirous of entering into a marriage.”

In fact, children are precisely part of the agenda of the homosexual ‘marriage’ advocates. The whole point of achieving a legal acknowledgment of same-sex marriage is so they can legally parent children etc. The homosexual militants are actually quite open about that goal. Should we just stand by and allow them to abuse young children like that and deny them a mother AND a father? I think one of the worst things we could do would be to just turn over babies and infants to the homosexual lobby.

[penelopesire]

No biggie. I probably should not have brought up ballot referendums in general, in a thread specific to one issue. I am just wary of the way ballot initiatives have been used across the country to usher in all sorts of dubious liberal agenda items like taxes, environmental laws, and runaway state spending.

[tired1]

You’ve made many good points, please let me simplify:

marriage in the US is a joke, it’s been destroyed by the vagina monologue movement of the 60’slawyers, psychologists and anyone else (including abortionists) that can make a quick buck. It also like selling real estate with many repeat customers.

Just follow the money. Put another way: check your body for blood-sucking ticks.

[CaptainAmiigaf]

I disagree with just about everyone. The issue ivolving Dick Cheney is NOT is one FOR or AGAINST. The issue is the continued existence of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA as it has been for over two hundred years.
Those of us who decide our vote SOLEY on the issue of Gay Marriage are as foolish as those on the left who decide their vote SOLEY on the issue of abortion.
There is a country that is swirling around the bowl of the toilet, and it will require a massive effort to save it. For intelligent people to get side-tracked on a personally important issue, while ignoring the peril bringing down their homeland is idiotic.
I, too disagree with Cheney on the issue of SameSex marriage..however when I hear the wisdom, the experience, the firmly rooted beliefs in America I take heart that maybe, just maybe there is a future for our country.
If I was a Democrat operative, I would rejoice as Republicans tore themselves apart over what is a puff of wind compared to the hurricane heading our way. I’m reminded of the passengers on the Titanic who refused to enter the lifeboat because they could bear to look at the color of the paint.

[Repeal The 17th]

YOU DON’T KNOW DICK!

[nathanbedford]

But just as in securing the benefits of a civil union, or in undertaking a religious ceremony not sanctioned by the state, homosexuals can adopt and are adopting children without the benefit of unauthorized homosexual marriage. So the evil to be suppressed simply will not be suppressed by withholding the right to homosexual marriage. Homosexuals are doing what they are doing but without the imprimatur of the state. The behavior is not modified, it is simply not sanctioned.

Similarly, lesbians are having babies left and right and raising them in a homosexual unit. What does a ban against the marrying have to do with preventing that practice?

If we want to protect children against the evils of being raised in a one parent home, we would be better advised to agitate for the rescission of no-fault divorce which marital law reform has caused more children to be brought up in a single-parent atmosphere that all the homosexual unions combined.

I just do not see how prohibiting homosexual marriage prevents homosexuals from getting kids and raising them if they want to.

[Repeal The 17th]

Is there a reader’s digest version of your post?