Cheney approves of gay marriage

[BMW540I6speed]

I can only assume Cheney supports same sex marriage is because he sees marriage as a form of torture.

Seriously though, Cheney's reasoning is quite simple. State's issue marriage licenses. States determine the rules as such, unless they fall afoul of federal equal protection or other federal civil rights statutes. Dick Cheney clearly does not see it as a civil rights issue, in the strictest sense and therefore perceives that the states get to decide. It is unfortunate that he does not see it as a civil rights issue, but nonetheless, he is not opposed to it. If asked about DOMA he might think it is stupid, but I don't know of comments he made regarding DOMA.

It's a civil rights issue. And it took the federal government a LONG ass time to get around to passing civil rights legislation from the top down. We are already ahead of the game on this issue. Minorities languished for decades (over a century really) before the government got it's act together. I doubt that by the end of THIS decade that most if not all states will already have passed SSM legislation, and at that point I can see that there will be movement at the federal level.

I'd love the people trying to pin Obama down on this topic. "He's against SSM". Ridiculous. He's made it clear that he's no great supporter of federal-level SSM protection, and with his lack of action on DADT and DOMA so far. However, he hasn't commented on any of the state-level actions regarding SSM that have occurred during his term so far, and I'm not sure we actually know how he'd act if he were voting or govering at the state level.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
So now that even Cheney has seen the light, when is Obama going to chance his bigoted position on gay marriage?

Do you mean the same bigoted position every POTUS has had on this issue? Cheney's position would have mattered had he done something about it when he was in office. His 'coming out' now only proves him a fuckwad coward and I'll say the same about Obama if he doesn't follow through during his term.

He said this many years ago. Nothing new.

It's nothing new that he did nothing about it when he had the power many years ago.

 

[Mani]

Funny thing is, if this were common knowledge, the "Cheney approval rating" republicans keep bragging about (in the 30s by the way - guess that's enough to get them excited these days) would drop to zero.

 

[coloumb]

Cripes - wasn't he on his deathbed when he was pushed out of the white house?

Nothing significant from him for 8 years and now he's all over the fkn news acting like an idiot.

 

[Shuxclams]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
I can only assume Cheney supports same sex marriage is because he sees marriage as a form of torture.

LMAO - True - True

Again, it isn't any of the Gov't business who is fvcking who... We need to take away the Tax incentives to getting married and let churches decide who is 'married' according to their own beliefs. That would mean that we would all have civil unions in the eyes of the gov't... for whatever that means, it shouldn't be an issue anyway.



SHUX

 

[Lemon law]

Although BMW540I6speed notes, " Seriously though, Cheney's reasoning is quite simple. State's issue marriage licenses. States determine the rules as such, unless they fall afoul of federal equal protection or other federal civil rights statutes." , marriage is a far more serious issue than mere States rights. Because each State automatically recognizes the validity of a marriage performed in another State. Making it more of a nationwide issue for the Federal government, and or SCOTUS. And could we have the paradox of a given gay or lesbian couple legally married in one State moving to another State where the marriage is not regarded as valid?

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: loki8481
wait, so Cheney's more progressive than Obama?

/headasplode

Does it matter if he didn't fight for it politically at all?

When Obama does something tangible let me know, as of now it looks like he paid just enough attention to the gay rights issue to secure the votes and doesn't actually plan on doing anything.

When did I say Obama did anything? You fail at reading.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

You'll get no disagreement on that part, but politics is politics. If Obama moves too aggressively on the gay marriage issue, he'll burn through his political capital and might even lose the 2012 election. You saw how Rove manipulated the fundie bigots in 2004 and if that happens, say goodbye to any hope of any progressive policy.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: loki8481
wait, so Cheney's more progressive than Obama?

/headasplode

Does it matter if he didn't fight for it politically at all?

When Obama does something tangible let me know, as of now it looks like he paid just enough attention to the gay rights issue to secure the votes and doesn't actually plan on doing anything.

When did I say Obama did anything? You fail at reading.

It's the obvious comparison, Cheney didn't fight for it politically but I'd consider him less opportunistic than Obama as far as dancing with the issue for political gain during the election then dropping it like a bad habit once he made it to office.

Democrats on the federal level don't hesitate to sell the gays down the river the second it looks like the going might get tough.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: loki8481
wait, so Cheney's more progressive than Obama?

/headasplode

Does it matter if he didn't fight for it politically at all?

When Obama does something tangible let me know, as of now it looks like he paid just enough attention to the gay rights issue to secure the votes and doesn't actually plan on doing anything.

When did I say Obama did anything? You fail at reading.

It's the obvious comparison... <cut>

No, it was obvious diversion. I asked if it matters if Cheney is more progressive if it doesn't show in his politics and your response is about Obama.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31066626/

'I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone,' says former veep

Didn't expect this one. I wonder what those people who buy the GOP hook, line, and sinker will say to this? Some GOP members/supporters practically have Cheney's balls in their mouths.

Is Cheney a RINO now too?

You should include in your OP that he's in favor of it insofar as the issue is left to state legislatures.

My position is no different. If 50 states approve gay marriage, I've no objection, even though I oppose the practice. What will seriously piss me off is a Roe v. Wade of gay marriage.

Like it or not, it is inevitably going to go down like Roe v. Wade...better start preparing your bigoted fundie emotions now.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: loki8481
wait, so Cheney's more progressive than Obama?

/headasplode

Does it matter if he didn't fight for it politically at all?

When Obama does something tangible let me know, as of now it looks like he paid just enough attention to the gay rights issue to secure the votes and doesn't actually plan on doing anything.

When did I say Obama did anything? You fail at reading.

It's the obvious comparison... <cut>

No, it was obvious diversion. I asked if it matters if Cheney is more progressive if it doesn't show in his politics and your response is about Obama.

He supported the Bush Admin's policy stances even though he didn't share all of them, as was his job. I think his personal politics are fairly clear on this particular issue.

That Obama does fight for it politically is implied in your response to that statement.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: loki8481
wait, so Cheney's more progressive than Obama?

/headasplode

Does it matter if he didn't fight for it politically at all?

When Obama does something tangible let me know, as of now it looks like he paid just enough attention to the gay rights issue to secure the votes and doesn't actually plan on doing anything.

When did I say Obama did anything? You fail at reading.

It's the obvious comparison... <cut>

No, it was obvious diversion. I asked if it matters if Cheney is more progressive if it doesn't show in his politics and your response is about Obama.

He supported the Bush Admin's policy stances even though he didn't share all of them, as was his job. I think his personal politics are fairly clear on this particular issue.

That Obama does fight for it politically is implied in your response to that statement.

No, that isn't implied at all actually. I only asked if Cheney being more progressive than Obama mattered. See my previous statement about you having reading problems.

 

[jonks]

Given opposition to gay marriage is almost 1:1 correlated with religiosity, I don't think it's very surprising he's not opposed to gay marriage. He doesn't strike me as very, um, christian.


As to the Obama comparison, Obama also has no problem with states legalizing gay marriage, and he opposed Prop 8, opposes and promised to repeal Doma and DADT. Guess we'll see if he moves on those.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: jonks
Given opposition to gay marriage is almost 1:1 correlated with religiosity, I don't think it's very surprising he's not opposed to gay marriage. He doesn't strike me as very, um, christian.


As to the Obama comparison, Obama also has no problem with states legalizing gay marriage, and he opposed Prop 8, opposes and promised to repeal Doma and DADT. Guess we'll see if he moves on those.

I measure the extent of Obama's caring in the fact that he can't even be bothered to stop DADT persecutions in the interim while working on a more formal policy revision (and last I read, no one inside the white house was giving any thought whatsoever to DOMA)

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: jman19
No, that isn't implied at all actually. I only asked if Cheney being more progressive than Obama mattered. See my previous statement about you having reading problems.

Re-read your middle sentence and ask yourself if you're serious.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Shuxclams

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
I can only assume Cheney supports same sex marriage is because he sees marriage as a form of torture.

LMAO - True - True

Again, it isn't any of the Gov't business who is fvcking who... We need to take away the Tax incentives to getting married and let churches decide who is 'married' according to their own beliefs. That would mean that we would all have civil unions in the eyes of the gov't... for whatever that means, it shouldn't be an issue anyway.



SHUX

It seems to me that 'church clergy' are the agents of the state so far as marriage goes. It is Freedom that Cheney speaks to... that all folks are or ought to be free to choose to do what under the law is available for them to do.
Ya see ... He is saying nothing at all really... only that all folks ought to enjoy freedom... and the state and federal government decides what folks are free to do...

 

[sportage]

I posted this (below) in another thread. Meant to post it in this thread. Damm the drugs...

Isn?t it funny how any issue that effects someone personal is an issue they can agree with?
Cheney supporting same sex marriage, Nancy Reagan supporting stem cell research.
How would you explain opposing an issue, until it hits home?

Allowing ballot votes on civil rights issues should never be allowed unless
the voter has been there, done that. Like with Cheney, only if you have
someone in your family you can relate to for reality and not information
mostly from paid negative ad's.

"Will of the people" should never decide legal and civil rights issues.
The public are too easily fooled into believing non truths.
And they don't know law.

It?s time for same sex to be addressed on a federal level by the US supreme court, and passed on a federal national level, all states from shore to shore.
And thus put the matter, just as with civil rights in the 1960's, to a final rest.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: sportage
I posted this (below) in another thread. Meant to post it in this thread. Damm the drugs...

Isn?t it funny how any issue that effects someone personal is an issue they can agree with?
Cheney supporting same sex marriage, Nancy Reagan supporting stem cell research.
How would you explain opposing an issue, until it hits home?

Allowing ballot votes on civil rights issues should never be allowed unless
the voter has been there, done that. Like with Cheney, only if you have
someone in your family you can relate to for reality and not information
mostly from paid negative ad's.

"Will of the people" should never decide legal and civil rights issues.
The public are too easily fooled into believing non truths.
And they don't know law.

It?s time for same sex to be addressed on a federal level by the US supreme court, and passed on a federal national level, all states from shore to shore.
And thus put the matter, just as with civil rights in the 1960's, to a final rest.

So far, we seem to lack the bold moral leadership we had in the 60's on the civil rights bill.

*However*, note that leadership was not bold the first two years - not until the third year.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: sportage
I posted this (below) in another thread. Meant to post it in this thread. Damm the drugs...

Isn?t it funny how any issue that effects someone personal is an issue they can agree with?
Cheney supporting same sex marriage, Nancy Reagan supporting stem cell research.
How would you explain opposing an issue, until it hits home?

Allowing ballot votes on civil rights issues should never be allowed unless
the voter has been there, done that. Like with Cheney, only if you have
someone in your family you can relate to for reality and not information
mostly from paid negative ad's.

"Will of the people" should never decide legal and civil rights issues.
The public are too easily fooled into believing non truths.
And they don't know law.

It?s time for same sex to be addressed on a federal level by the US supreme court, and passed on a federal national level, all states from shore to shore.
And thus put the matter, just as with civil rights in the 1960's, to a final rest.

:thumbsup:

 

[WhipperSnapper]

What we really want to hear is breaking news that reveals that Cheney has had a secret hunky male lover for years and that he's a "bottom".

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

What we really want to hear is breaking news that reveals that Cheney has had a secret hunky male lover for years and that he's a "bottom".

When Rumsfeld was offered the position to be Ford's chief of staff, his one and only condition was that he could bring Cheney. They must have chuckled, 'chief of staff.' He he.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
So now that even Cheney has seen the light, when is Obama going to chance his bigoted position on gay marriage?

Do you really seriously think Obama is against gay marriage? He needed to get the Christian fundie vote. So like every other politician...he LIED.

True... he IS a politician. Lets see how it play out by the end of his 8th year =)

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: sportage
I posted this (below) in another thread. Meant to post it in this thread. Damm the drugs...

Isn?t it funny how any issue that effects someone personal is an issue they can agree with?
Cheney supporting same sex marriage, Nancy Reagan supporting stem cell research.
How would you explain opposing an issue, until it hits home?

Allowing ballot votes on civil rights issues should never be allowed unless
the voter has been there, done that. Like with Cheney, only if you have
someone in your family you can relate to for reality and not information
mostly from paid negative ad's.

"Will of the people" should never decide legal and civil rights issues.
The public are too easily fooled into believing non truths.
And they don't know law.

It?s time for same sex to be addressed on a federal level by the US supreme court, and passed on a federal national level, all states from shore to shore.
And thus put the matter, just as with civil rights in the 1960's, to a final rest.

In other words, it's time for a change. We need to ruled by a benevolent dictator, who will protect us. Not give the people what they want, but what they ought to want.

Is that right?

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: sportage
I posted this (below) in another thread. Meant to post it in this thread. Damm the drugs...

Isn?t it funny how any issue that effects someone personal is an issue they can agree with?
Cheney supporting same sex marriage, Nancy Reagan supporting stem cell research.
How would you explain opposing an issue, until it hits home?

Allowing ballot votes on civil rights issues should never be allowed unless
the voter has been there, done that. Like with Cheney, only if you have
someone in your family you can relate to for reality and not information
mostly from paid negative ad's.

"Will of the people" should never decide legal and civil rights issues.
The public are too easily fooled into believing non truths.
And they don't know law.

It?s time for same sex to be addressed on a federal level by the US supreme court, and passed on a federal national level, all states from shore to shore.
And thus put the matter, just as with civil rights in the 1960's, to a final rest.

In other words, it's time for a change. We need to ruled by a benevolent dictator, who will protect us. Not give the people what they want, but what they ought to want.

Is that right?

I wonder if you would have been this upset at the Civil Rights Act or the 19th Amendment.