Cheney On Gay Marriage: Freedom For Everyone

[oldguystudent]

Allow states to decide

Knowing that he has a gay daughter, I can't say I'm entirely surprised by this, but was he a supporter of Bush's attempts at a constitutional marriage amendment?

[hickoryhouse]

IMO Ceney is exactly right on this isue, the gay marriage issue is a perfect example of states rights, it should beup to the state to decide what is best for their state based upon the will of those governed by that state. The federal government has no reason to get involved such things, this is a states rights issue.

As far as the otherthings are concerned in the article, I think that Cheney might have a good point with the FOIA requests that are being spurned by the administration. Lets let all of the information out and then have an intelligent discussion based on facts and not conjecture and biased information.

Edited June 1, 2009 by hickoryhouse

[UNTflyer]

Allow states to decide

Knowing that he has a gay daughter, I can't say I'm entirely surprised by this, but was he a supporter of Bush's attempts at a constitutional marriage amendment?

He never publicly supported or opposed it until now.

"Let 'em marry. Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us?"

-Jack McCoy, Law & Order

Edited June 1, 2009 by UNTflyer

[UNTflyer]

IMO Ceney is exactly right on this isue, the gay marriage issue is a perfect example of states rights, it should beup to the state to decide what is best for their state based upon the will of those governed by that state. The federal government has no reason to get involved such things, this is a states rights issue.

Actually the Full Faith & Credit clause does give Congress the authority:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

[oldguystudent]

He never publicly supported or opposed it until now.

OK. I honestly didn't recall him ever speaking on it.

[Shuke-D]

He never publicly supported or opposed it until now.

"Let 'em marry. Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us?"

-Jack McCoy, Law & Order

He did give a very nuanced version of this in the 2004 Vice Presidential debates:

Link

Q: You said four years ago at this very setting: "Freedom means freedom for everybody." You said it again recently when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you used your family's experience as a context for your remarks. Can you describe then your administration's support for a constitutional ban on same-sex unions?

A: That's a separate question from the issue of whether or not government should sanction or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will, to these relationships Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference. In effect, what's happened is that in recent months, especially in Massachusetts, but also in California, but in Massachusetts we had the Massachusetts Supreme Court direct the legislature of Massachusetts to modify their constitution to allow gay marriage. Bush felt that it was important to make it clear that that's the wrong way to go, as far as he's concerned.

Source: Edwards-Cheney debate: 2004 Vice Presidential

[UNT90]

Another example of justification. Because it affects him, he doesn't take a strong position on the issue. Does anyone really think that he wouldn't be anti-gay marriage if not for his daughter? Simple human nature. Because one of my family members is affected, well, I guess it's OK. This society is on this slippery slope in so many ways.

Really, what would be wrong with saying to your daughter "I accept you for who you are, but don't accept the lifestyle you choose to lead" if that's the way you really felt (and he may have done this in private, who knows).

Into the abyss we slide. (Feeling a little over-dramatic).

[Censored by Laurie]

affected

Hmm...

[UNTflyer]

Another example of justification. Because it affects him, he doesn't take a strong position on the issue. Does anyone really think that he wouldn't be anti-gay marriage if not for his daughter? Simple human nature. Because one of my family members is affected, well, I guess it's OK. This society is on this slippery slope in so many ways.

Really, what would be wrong with saying to your daughter "I accept you for who you are, but don't accept the lifestyle you choose to lead" if that's the way you really felt (and he may have done this in private, who knows).

Into the abyss we slide. (Feeling a little over-dramatic).

Newt Gingrich opposes gay marriage and gay adoption. His sister is a lesbian, and they are openly hostile towards each other.

To answer your question, no I don't his stance would be different if he didn't have a gay daughter.

[hickoryhouse]

Actually the Full Faith & Credit clause does give Congress the authority:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

To me article iv says that the states get to determine the way in which they are governed and in the case of dissenting opinions the federal government can step in and provide guidance. "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other state" The second portions states that the congress can create legislation that determines the way in which other states must abide, or disregard that legislation that a particular state might disagree with " Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof" No where in the article does it say that the government can go against the will of the majority.

We still live in a majority rules environment . That being the case, if we decide to use the full faith and credit clause of the constitution to determine the legallity of same sex marriage it would seen to me that the five states that have legalized it, Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut, or Maine have little ground to stand on when it comes to the 30 statesthat have passed "mini - DOMA's" or amendments to the state constitution, or laws, that mirror the intent of the Defense of Marriage act signed by Bill Clinton in 1996.

It is counter intuitive to say that the choice of five states gets to overcome the choice of the majority of states under the basis of an article of the constitution that seems to protect the decisions of the states in how they run their government against minority held positions. If more states decide to reverse their already established constitutional amendments and established laws then perhaps the situation will reverse itself and article iv can be interpreted a different way.

[hickoryhouse]

Additionally, just to clarify, I don't feel strongly about gay marriage either way.

[UNT90]

Hmm...

af⋅fect1  /v. əˈfɛkt; n. ˈæfɛkt/ Show Spelled [v. uh-fekt; n. af-ekt] Show IPA

–verb (used with object)

1.to act on; produce an effect or change in: Cold weather affected the crops.

2.to impress the mind or move the feelings of: The music affected him deeply.

Just in case you were being a word snob.

[UNTflyer]

To me article iv says that the states get to determine the way in which they are governed and in the case of dissenting opinions the federal government can step in and provide guidance. "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other state" The second portions states that the congress can create legislation that determines the way in which other states must abide, or disregard that legislation that a particular state might disagree with " Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof" No where in the article does it say that the government can go against the will of the majority.

We still live in a majority rules environment . That being the case, if we decide to use the full faith and credit clause of the constitution to determine the legallity of same sex marriage it would seen to me that the five states that have legalized it, Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut, or Maine have little ground to stand on when it comes to the 30 statesthat have passed "mini - DOMA's" or amendments to the state constitution, or laws, that mirror the intent of the Defense of Marriage act signed by Bill Clinton in 1996.

It is counter intuitive to say that the choice of five states gets to overcome the choice of the majority of states under the basis of an article of the constitution that seems to protect the decisions of the states in how they run their government against minority held positions. If more states decide to reverse their already established constitutional amendments and established laws then perhaps the situation will reverse itself and article iv can be interpreted a different way.

Full Faith and credit means that if you are married in one state, you are married in all states. Just like if you have a driver's license in one state, it is good in all states.

In terms of gay marriage, this hasn't been tested yet in the courts, like with child custody or inheritance of a partner's assets. When it does, the FF&C clause will be put to the test.

[UNT90]

Newt Gingrich opposes gay marriage and gay adoption. His sister is a lesbian, and they are openly hostile towards each other.

To answer your question, no I don't his stance would be different if he didn't have a gay daughter.

Would be interesting to know who caused the friction with Gingrich. Was it because he was outspoken in his opposition and refused to accept his sister? Or, was it because his sister was outspoken and refused to accept a family member who wouldn't confirm her feelings about herself?

But each would probably say it was the others fault.

[Censored by Laurie]

af⋅fect1  /v. əˈfɛkt; n. ˈæfɛkt/ Show Spelled [v. uh-fekt; n. af-ekt] Show IPA

–verb (used with object)

1.to act on; produce an effect or change in: Cold weather affected the crops.

2.to impress the mind or move the feelings of: The music affected him deeply.

Just in case you were being a word snob.

No...it wasn't an affect/effect "hmm..."

Lets try this:

Your sentence - "Because one of my family members is affected, well, I guess it's OK." Tell me, "affected" by what?

[hickoryhouse]

Full Faith and credit means that if you are married in one state, you are married in all states. Just like if you have a driver's license in one state, it is good in all states.

In terms of gay marriage, this hasn't been tested yet in the courts, like with child custody or inheritance of a partner's assets. When it does, the FF&C clause will be put to the test.

How does the FF&C clause apply to other hot topics such as slavery in the 1800's or Medical Marijuana now? Just because they were/are legal someplace doesn't make them legal everyplace.

Not that they are equal in scope or importance by the way...

AdditionallyI am also very interested in seeing how the FF&C is going to play out in the next several years, the courts are going to have a doozy of a time with it, and I think that it is going to end up being determined by the state in which the law is challenged.

[UNT90]

No...it wasn't an affect/effect "hmm..."

Lets try this:

Your sentence - "Because one of my family members is affected, well, I guess it's OK." Tell me, "affected" by what?

A lifestyle that is in the extreme minority in our society. And actually, I should have said all of his family members, because living that lifestyle does affect/effect your entire family.

[UNTflyer]

How does the FF&C clause apply to other hot topics such as slavery in the 1800's or Medical Marijuana now? Just because they were/are legal someplace doesn't make them legal everyplace.

Not that they are equal in scope or importance by the way...

AdditionallyI am also very interested in seeing how the FF&C is going to play out in the next several years, the courts are going to have a doozy of a time with it, and I think that it is going to end up being determined by the state in which the law is challenged.

Well, the second part of the clause was dealt with by Congress, designating some states as free and some as slave. Medical marijuana, I would think, does not apply because possession laws do not fall under "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

IMO Ceney is exactly right on this isue, the gay marriage issue is a perfect example of states rights, it should beup to the state to decide what is best for their state based upon the will of those governed by that state. The federal government has no reason to get involved such things, this is a states rights issue.

As far as the otherthings are concerned in the article, I think that Cheney might have a good point with the FOIA requests that are being spurned by the administration. Lets let all of the information out and then have an intelligent discussion based on facts and not conjecture and biased information.

-- I do not agree completely about the states rights issue.. .. To start with what about Federal programs such as Social Security or Veterans benefits that makes payment to spouses. Since the U.S. Governemen is involved... it at least on those items should get to determine how it defines a spouse a or beneficiary is. The Federal Gov. also collects income tax and there is a marriage issue there as well.

---To have a dual definition of marriage (state and federal) seems to create a night-mare. Also what if a "couple" decides to move to another state... now what.??? married in one state but not another... big nightmare.

---Personally I do support the idea of some type of domestic partnership but don't call it a marriage (maybe not with full legal rights and privileges). That partnership could be a lot of things: two sisters, two cousins, two brothers, or two about anything of similar age.... with out implying anything is going on in a bedroom. I have known of two sisters and even a brother and a sister that had never married but lived together most of their lives. They too should have the same rights as a "gay" couple.

Edited June 2, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[hickoryhouse]

Well, the second part of the clause was dealt with by Congress, designating some states as free and some as slave. Medical marijuana, I would think, does not apply because possession laws do not fall under "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

Isn't that similar as saying some states allow gay marriage and some don't?

And as far as I remember the only federal declaration of free vs slave states was the Northwest Ordinance (i hate to use Wikipedia by the way...) passed on July 13th 1787, before the constitution was ratified. Other than that the separation of the two sides was chosen by the states. Congress was unable to actually say anything about the issue, especially after the British failed to end the institution during the war of 1812, because states were admitted into the union 2 at a time with the exact purpose of maintaining a balance of slave vs. free states. The issue was such a hot issue and the sides in congress were so eaqually split that Maine was not going to be allowed into the union with out admitting Missouri as a slave state, the Missouri Comprimise.

I digress,

[UNT90]

-- I do not agree completely about the states rights issue.. .. To start with what about Federal programs such as Social Security or Veterans benefits that makes payment to spouses. Since the U.S. Governemen is involved... it at least on those items should get to determine how it defines a spouse a or beneficiary is. The Federal Gov. also collects income tax and there is a marriage issue there as well.

---To have a dual definition of marriage (state and federal) seems to create a night-mare. Also what if a "couple" decides to move to another state... now what.??? married in one state but not another... big nightmare.

---Personally I do support the idea of some type of domestic partnership but don't call it a marriage (maybe not with full legal rights and privileges). That partnership could be a lot of things: two sisters, two cousins, two brothers, or two about anything of similar age.... with out implying anything is going on in a bedroom. I have have two sisters and even a brother and a sister that never married but lived together most of their lives. They too should have the same rights as a "gay" couple.

Completely agree with this, as long as this is not a thinly veiled attempt to eventualy get to marriage.

[Green Guy Bass]

In what way would our glorious society bust at the seams if gays were allowed to be married? Please check your religious beliefs at the door to answer this question if you can. Being gay is a genetic thing, not a choice. Why would so many gay people put themselves through the crap they have to deal with if it were a choice? My grandmother lives in one of the more well-to-do neighborrhoods in the metroplex and the gays make up half the population. And to be honest I would rather have them as neighbors than many straight people who can squirt out kids and continue to be a drain on our system. Just sayin'.

Dick Cheney is right here. The states should decide on what they want to do. However, I think it is kind of shitty that he is speaking up about it now, well after he is out of office and the elections are long over. But for some people to openly want certain people's rights in this country to be suppressed just makes me wonder about what idea they are living under. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should apply to everyone - gay or straight. Gay people pay the same taxes that you and I do, so why are those that do not acdcept their lifestyle want so desperately for there to be legislation that holds these people down? The founding fathers that helped compsose that great line I mentioned above, and oh by the way they didn't care too much for religion if you actually do some research on the issue. Yet they came up with a great framework for our country to function and adapt to the way we evolve as a society (Oh my god I said evolve) even though they had their own negative practices in a different time.

I do hope that one day when my children are grown, they can see a gay couple that is married and not second guess what is going on. Hopefully my kids will be accepting of people with some slight differences, and not cast a judgmental eye on them. I have a hard time thinking that everyome here can do that.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Green Guy Bass

[UNTflyer]

Being gay is a genetic thing, not a choice.

Absolutely no evidence of this. One study was done years ago, commissioned by a gay rights group, and it has morphed into gospel.

Why would so many gay people put themselves through the crap they have to deal with if it were a choice?

Remove "gay people" and insert any of a number of bad personal choices (criminals, alcoholics/drug addicts, Cubs fans). Doesn't make it a genetic thing.

[Green Guy Bass]

Absolutely no evidence of this. One study was done years ago, commissioned by a gay rights group, and it has morphed into gospel.

Remove "gay people" and insert any of a number of bad personal choices (criminals, alcoholics/drug addicts, Cubs fans). Doesn't make it a genetic thing.

My girlfriend is a theatre teacher in middle school. Some of those kids are gay. I don't think it is a 'bad choice' - it's who they are. They can't help it. If you want to wish something away. Go ahead. But it is not at all a choice. However, as a Cardinals fan I am on board with you about Cubs fans.

[Censored by Laurie]

My girlfriend is a theatre teacher in middle school. Some of those kids are gay. I don't think it is a 'bad choice' - it's who they are. They can't help it. If you want to wish something away. Go ahead. But it is not at all a choice. However, as a Cardinals fan I am on board with you about Cubs fans.

I didn't know you grew up in Missouri/Western Illinois.

Oh...you didn't...but then you went to school there right?

Ohh...really...I know, you have family up there and when you visited you went to a lot of Cards games.

Ohhh...hmmm.

Well, at least your favorite football team is in the Midwest...

Ohhhh...