Wow, who would've thunk this?

Cheney on gay marriage: 'Freedom for everyone'
http://www.comcast.net/ar...US.Cheney/

This is pretty interesting. The man liberals decry on a daily basis has taken up a very liberal issue. I agree that they should be allowed to marry if the State says that they are able to do so. I don't think this an issue for the Federal Courts.

Strange bedfellows indeed.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (6/1/2009)]

I wonder what his take was when he was running for re-election.

Kyle.just goes to show that blood is thicker than water. Every daddy wants their child to be happy.

Yeah, "Dick," you were part of an administration that was anti-gay and used the homos as a wedge issue in 2000 and 2004 to rile up the mouth breathers and maintain power.

GFY, "Dick." Also.

His daughter is gay. He did not have the guts to speak up for her then, it is disingenuous now.

Perhaps as Vice President he felt it wasn't appropriate to do so at the time. It doesn't instantly equate to a double standard or disingenuousness.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (6/1/2009)]

I'm not a fan of Cheney by any means but I'm sure he said this same thing in the VP debate back in 2004. It is about the only thing I like about him so it is easy to remember he said it before but I'm not 100% on if it was the debate or not.

Check out Cheney's voting record when he was a Senator.

Kyle said: The man liberals decry on a daily basis has taken up a very liberal issue.

Actually Kyle, the only thing we Liberals "decry" about Cheney is the gawdawful mess he left. Most Liberals aren't single-issue voters, so Cheney's position for or against equality at the altar changed my view of him not one bit. He was bad for the country as VP, and he's bad for the country as the ex-VP. He should shut up and exit the stage like his two previous bosses did - well, like his previous boss (41) and his puppet (43) did.

And if you think favoring gay marriage is a "liberal" position, you're wrong. Barry Goldwater (GRHS) and other "true" conservatives favor gay rights because they believe that government should not control private interests, and what is more private than who you love and share your life with?

It is the Christian conservatives (previously known as the Moral Majority - gee, no pride or vanity in THAT label, eh?) who get all veklempt over gay issues. Boy, the R's sure knew what they were doing when they hitched their bandwagon (oh, excuse me = big tent) to that horse....

Steve, Gay Marriage isn't an issue that Conservatives champion is it? At least not in a "Pro" position.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (6/1/2009)]

Well, Kyle - I don't know what conservatives champion these days. Do you? Does anybody? All I know is, someone whose political ideology is truly based upon the concepts of limited government and individual freedom, those being the supposed bedrocks of conservatism in the USA, would find it impossible to advocate a Constitutional Amendment limiting the rights of individuals to marry whomever they choose. And I think it is that type of "conservatism" that Dick Cheney (and before him Barry Goldwater) is voicing.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (6/1/2009)]

"And if you think favoring gay marriage is a "liberal" position, you're wrong. Barry Goldwater (GRHS) and other "true" conservatives favor gay rights because they believe that government should not control private interests, and what is more private than who you love and share your life with? "

Ironically, I spent a couple hours this afternoon reading about Barry Goldwater. Seems like his views on this issue evolved over time. As a Presidential candidate in '64 he was socially conservative. His voting record also supports this contention. He likely took to favoring gay-rights because he grew tired of the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and he had a couple of grand-kids who were gay.


~~~~~
I am going to hijack this thread for a different but related question. It seems to me that the real issue behind gay-rights is not about "the marriage", but more about obtaining a legal status to obtain benefits such as group healthcare, transfer of property, and other associated legal issues. Is this an accurate assessment?

You heard right, Richard. Financial repercussions are one reason that some people oppose extending legal benefits to gay and lesbian couples. Federal, state and local government budgets are impacted in terms of increased insurance coverage, survivor benefits, etc. because you have more eligible parties.

When I was in Austin, the City Council approved amending the City Charter to extend benefits to the same-sex partners of its gay and lesbian employees, as well as to common-law straight couples (it was known as Amendment 2). The initiative was narrowly defeated by the voters, and the financial issue was the main reason for opposition cited by most of those who voted against it. Of course, that could have been a cover for anti-gay sentiment - we'll never know.

The fact is, should some form of universal health care coverage be established, the main crux of this argument will evaporate into thin air.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (6/1/2009)]

Ricardo:

Have your views "evolved" to the point where economic issues are the basis of your opposition to gay marriage?

Excuse me if I'm skeptical.

"Have your views "evolved" to the point where economic issues are the basis of your opposition to gay marriage?

Excuse me if I'm skeptical."

Right now I am simply thinking about things. When/if I "evolve", you will be the first to know.

I wonder how Dick would feel if vampires were denied the right to marry.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (6/1/2009)]

I agree that they should be allowed to marry if the State says that they are able to do so. I don't think this an issue for the Federal Courts.

I'm all for States' rights but that argument in this case bothers me.

The problem with it is that a conflict is created when one state says Yes and another says No. What happens when a legally married gay couple moves to the No state? The rule of comity usually requires that states respect each other's laws about this stuff. For instance, if a couple is considered married under the common law of one state but then moves to a state that doesn't recognize common-law marriages (or requires different criteria be met) that state still recognizes the marriage.

Also, the same States' rights argument was made to justify miscegenation laws that prevented people from marrying someone of another race. States said, "We don't want blacks and whites mixing it up and that's our right!" I suspect that the Supreme Court will be hearing this issue within the next few years.

It has been barely 40 years since interracial marriage became legal nationwide after a Supreme Court ruling. The arguments used then were identical to the anti-gay marriage arguments used now. Against God. Ruin marriage for all. Just plain offensive to folks.

I don't know if I'll be around in 40 years but I am quite certain, folks in 2050 will look back on the gay marriage folderol the way we look back on the "mixed" marriage folderol--amazed at how bigoted people were in the olden days.

Not all people who oppose gay marriage are bigots Amorette.

Well, said Amorette. I completely agree.

It has been barely 40 years since interracial marriage became legal nationwide after a Supreme Court ruling.

--------------

Damn "activist judges!"

Right, Ricardo?

Kyle said: Not all people who oppose gay marriage are bigots

I can understand why nobody wants to think of him or herself as bigotted, especially those who base their opposition on religious grounds. But the fact of the matter is that opposition to inter-racial marriage was a based on bigotry and ignorance, and we now look back on that position with either disgust or, at best, sympathy for those who held such views.

I think Amorette's point, which I agree with, is that at some point in the future (hopefully much sooner than 40 years), people who currently oppose gay marriage will be viewed the same way - that is, as holding bigotted views. Whether those views were based on religious beliefs, twisted "science" or just plain ignorance won't really matter.

I can understand why nobody wants to think of him or herself as bigotted, especially those who base their opposition on religious grounds

Steve,

Let me explain what I mean. Even though I'm only 35 I guess I'm a little old fashioned and think of/believe that marriage is/should be between a man and a woman. This isn't based on any moral or religious grounds. I'm just old fashioned I guess.

However, as I have stated repeatedly on this topic, my own beliefs notwithstanding, I am a believer in the law and if the law says that GLBT people can get married, then by all means they should be able to do so.

Period.

And Kyle, if your statement was amended to read "between a WHITE man and WHITE woman or between a BLACK man and a BLACK woman," you would have been relating a commonly held sentiment in say, 1939 - before a segregated Army forced many Americans to face their previously bigotted attitudes. Period.

Steve, I never said they shouldn't be able to get married. I just said that I believe marriage to be between a man and a woman. I also said that they should be allowed to marry if the law says they can.

Big difference.

I love how you've got me suddenly riding with Klan in the 1950's or Fred Phelps today.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (6/2/2009)]

And if you were to get the opportunity to vote one the question Kyle... which way would you vote?

You know what, I would vote in favor of legalizing gay & lesbian marriage.

What? Please explain this apparent contradiction.

What contradiction would that be Wendy?

Kyle - I never ever equated you with "riding with the Klan" or with Fred Phelps. You're pulling a Rick on me and taking something to the ridiculous extreme. So, please come on back down here to earth, mi amigo.

Look, back in the 40s and 50s many good and decent people held a firm belief that the races should not marry. Not all of these people felt that Blacks and Latinos (and even Italians in some parts of the country!) were an inferior to Whites - they simply didn't feel it was "right" for different races to mix. My own grandmother was against interracial marriage because she felt the "poor children of those couples" would be subjected to cruelty and ridicule.

Then in the late 60s my sister dated a Black student at our high school (who happened to be a standout athlete, honor society student, and all around great guy). For a short time, my grandmother had to face the possibility that she might someday have Mulatto grandchildren.

Then in the mid 70s, I became close friends with a guy who was the son of a Black man and French woman who had met and then married after WWII. Again, top athlete, smart, polite - and very popular. My grandmother saw that "mixed race" children weren't ostracized, and she eventually changed her attitude.

Now, was my Grandmother a bigot? NO WAY! Was her attitude bigotted? I would say "yes" because by believing what she did - even with a "good" justification - she fostered the continuation of bigotry.

My grandmother was a good person. You are a good person. But her attitude about inter-racial marriage was bigotted, and your attitude now (but apparently not your vote) about same-sex marriage is bigotted -- even though she and you are NOT bigots.

I hope that makes sense.

I can see that Steve. Times change & so do viewpoints. Perhaps mine are as well.

"Pulling a Rick" that's a good one

Congratulations, Kyle. You've taken your first step into a larger world.

I hope you've noted the reference.

Word.

"Damn "activist judges!"

Right, Ricardo?"

Every once in a while if you want to hook a fish you need to use different bait. I'm not biting.