Posted on 08/24/2004 1:43:08 PM PDT by ambrose
Posted on Tue, Aug. 24, 2004
Cheney Backs Freedom for Gay Relationships
TODD DVORAK
Associated Press
DAVENPORT, Iowa - Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter Mary is a lesbian, spoke supportively about gay relationships on Tuesday, saying "freedom means freedom for everyone."
At a campaign rally in this Mississippi River town, Cheney was asked about his stand on gay marriage - an issue for which his boss, President Bush, has pushed for a constitutional amendment to ban such unions.
"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with," Cheney said. "With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.
"The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage," he said.
Bush backs a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, a move Cheney says was prompted by various judicial rulings, including the action in Massachusetts that made gay marriage legal.
"I think his perception was that the courts, in effect, were beginning to change, without allowing the people to be involved," Cheney said. "The courts were making the judgment for the entire country."
That stand put Cheney at odds with his wife. Last month, Lynne Cheney said states should have the final say over the legal status of personal relationships, a comment that came just days before the Senate failed to back the ban.
Cheney said the amendment did not have the votes to pass, but he also said the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which President Clinton signed into law in 1996, may be sufficient to resolve the issue.
The Cheneys have two daughters, both of whom are working on the campaign. Mary Cheney is director of vice presidential operations for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. She held a public role as her father's assistant in the 2000 campaign and helped the GOP recruit gay voters during the 2002 midterm elections.
During the 2000 campaign, vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney took the position that states should decide legal issues about personal relationships and that people should be free to enter relationships of their choosing.
While Bush and Cheney back the proposed constitutional amendment, their Democratic rivals, Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina, oppose the amendment.
The Democrats also oppose gay marriage, but defend a gay couple's rights to the same legal protections as those conferred in marriage.
I know I won't win this argument. I think that many good hearted people (I used to be one) really want to just ignore this and live and let live. I have changed my mind on the subject because I have realized that in this case, it is impossible. When the SCOTUS made sodomy a constitutional right, they took away the logical foundation for many things we value. The courts will keep equating their constitutionally protected sex act with normal sex in any way they can. If they can't get the word "marriage" then they will get everything but. If someone has a mind to, they can sue and demand constitutional protection for other bedroom behaviors. And who is to say that age matters. It doesn't in abortion. It likely won't regarding sodomy (see Kansas Matthew Limon case).
Gay activists have been at this a long time. They know that they must first establish legal precedents and foundations. They package these things in pretty liberty language, but don't kid yourself. You'd better not be for anything on their side until you get an attorney to look at the full ramifications.
I agree with you. Dump Cheney's rump!
Bush/Miller in 2004!
...she not gay. She's a lesbian.
&&&
She may be gay about being a homosexual. One may be gay about many situations. I refuse to give up the word "gay" by allowing it to describe a personality disorder.
They've been saying the same thing since 1999; it's their daughter, FGS.
For this? I hope you're kidding.
BTW, how do you derive a tree of descent from a turkey baster baby whose birth certificate acknowledges only two mommies or two daddies?
Until you have walked in their shoes, don't cast stones. They love the sinner, but do not approve of the sin.
...you'll say to your buddies that you are feeling very gay that they all could join him for a beer?
**
No, that probably wouldn't happen. (BTW, I'm a female.) I really mean that I refuse to call them anything but homosexual. Have to admit that I really don't use the word "gay" at all any more.
Seriously, I would like to see the man take a firmer stand against his daughter's lifestyle. As we all know, give the liberals an inch, and they'll take miles and miles and miles...
NOW We know why you're so adamant that everyone else is sick, liberal, muslim, or inbred.
I certainly wouldn't take a national stand on my children's relationship, would you?
This may or may not have occurred to you, but what if he doesn't care? What if he doesn't mind whom she brings home at Thanksgiving? What if he is just happy that she is happy? Does he need the approval of FReepers on what he thinks of his daughter?
If your children committed a crime (a lifestyle choice) and you wanted to uphold the law, my guess is that you would take a "national stand" against them for the greater good of society...would you not?
This is a debate i would rather not get into.
All these acts that you mentioned are sick and against basic human nature or accepted social norms.
But then we do believe in individual liberties and keeping the state out of our individual lives.
I would rather that peer and social pressure be used to condemn these issues rather than drag the state into it.
Christianity is for our own good. Every sin has a logical explaination and is there to prevent turmoil and the disintegration of the society.
But then christ himself was very tolerant of others.
Sex with a child or animals would be no different than rape, and as such extremely abusive towards and harming another life.
It just can't be allowed to take place.
Sex within the family ,not only leads to genetic abnormalities, it deeply destroys the reltionships within the basic building unit of a family, that our society is weaved out of.
Again, it can't be allowed to take place.
Sex with another person of the same sex is against basic human nature and the reproductive cyle. It is revolting and could ultimately put a strain on the society.
But what about individual liberties and how far does the state intrude into a person's personal life.
these practices have in the past been held in check more so by social taboos than state control.
i don't want to get into this debate, yet.
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.