Skip to comments.Liz Cheney Would Be Fourth Republican Senator To Back Gay Marriage
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 won’t win.
Simply not worth supporting someone with a screw loose.
>> Unlike Enzi, the 46-year-old daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney supports the right for states to legalize gay marriage.
Then she’s dead to me. Glad to find out sooner than later.
It sounds so simple. Just let the states decide. It’s all about freedom right?
But as the Supreme Court just interpreted the law, gay states can force traditional states to recognize their gay marriages. The feds are forcing gay marriage down our throats. Liz Cheney apparently thinks that’s OK.
Stay outa da Bushes!(and Cheneys)
Ms. Cheny is absolutely wrong on this issue.
There is no such things as gay marriage. There are perverts who like to pretend they are married but marriage is between a man and a woman.
Cheney also opposes a constitutional amendment to stop homosexual marriage, so it isn’t about states.
Cheney also has promoted for years federal homosexualizing of the military and State dept.
While Cheney was promoting the homosexual agenda for these many years, and earning a reputation as out spoken, blunt, courageous, she never uttered anything pro-life until a week or so ago.
The free pass she’s been getting on this issue is nothing short of amazing. There are still conservatives who don’t know where she stands. How is that possible? She and her father think that every state should enact gay marriage. Limbaugh? Levin? They sure don’t want to talk about it. Rush even modified one of his stock statements for Liz. He said “Racist, sexist, bigot” when talking with her about how the media portrays conservatives. Notice what he left off?
Dead to me too.
She grew up in Virginia, went to college in Colorado and Illinois, then has lived in DC establishment world ever since.
Love these political families. Presto* she’s suddenly the perfect hack to represent Wyoming.
The TEA Party needs a candidate to run against her.
Kind of like Robert Kennedy and Hitlery Rotten Clinton(oops!) Hilary Rodham Clinton were the perfect hacks to represent NY in the Senate.
Yep. Wyoming can do so much better than these people.
Liz Cheney has some supporters on this board. I’ve always liked her commentaries on Fox, but I didn’t know about the same-sex marriage issue until it was brought up on FR.
If she hasn’t said anything about amnesty, which is the most important issue, bar none, facing the GOP, that’s a pretty good indication that she’s pro-amnesty.
Is Liz the daughter who is a lesbian or is it her sister?
her sister is a lesbian apparently
I will never support anyone who’s in the tank for sodomite marriage or amnesty......which means the pool is shrinking quickly.
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 persons 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 States definition of marriage and divorce has come to have more weight in society than Gods 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 Gods 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 Gods 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 States 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.
“There is no such things as gay marriage. There are perverts who like to pretend they are married but marriage is between a man and a woman.”
All true, but to the state in the modern era marriage is simply whatever judges, pols, or the voting majority thinks it is at any one time. And that’s it. It was always a danger, Pope Leo XIII warned about it 130 years ago.
Not true. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and in sane minds it will remain so.
The date was 1780, the Continental Congress ""The first national pension legislation for widows was a Continental Congress resolution of August 24, 1780"".
The 1780 Act was enlarged in 1794, 1798, 1802, and so on.
You post that constantly, and it is irrelevant, he didn't anything for America and marriage, in fact he was decades behind the republican party already having been founded partly to protect marriage, and having already passed legislation in 1862 to do just that.
And she probably puked backstage afterward after having done so.
Is the GOP in the market for pro-homo marriage, pro-homo military, pro-choice, pro-illegal immigration, pro-NSA chickenhawk-statist Senators?
I don't think so.
I agree with you. The state doesn’t define marriage for me, but many have been conditioned to believe marriage comes from and is defined by the state.
But the state disagrees with us. And it is willing to punish those who disagree.
I wonder what the state will be considering marriage 100 years from now, probably something as impossible as ‘gay marriage’ seemed to be 30 years ago.
The state doesn’t define something, but when the state does something like that they give it official sanction of the society for many.
Her sister is a lesbian. That explains it.
The Republicans should have found a third way (civil unions, or better, taking government out of marriage).
Passing the Fair Tax would eliminate 90% of the legal challenges which will force gay marriage on America.
All of her ultra-conservative yapping on TV is as phony as a
all of the rest of the Republicans, save for but a very few! Vote wisely, Wyoming! Don’t be fooled.
I remember when the VP was forced to declare his stand on gays because of his daughter’s lifestyle. That’s when I lost all respect for him, too.