PDA

View Full Version : Cheney on gay marriage: 'Freedom for everyone'



hazlnut
06-01-2009, 06:47 PM
Most people who follow politics closely are already aware that the former vice-president has this view on gay marriage, I only wish he would speak out more often:

Cheney on gay marriage: 'Freedom for everyone' (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gMy6C2AiBsrQQ-jwPliaZANmi7kQD98I36VO1)


WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday he supports gays being able to marry but believes states, not the federal government, should make the decision.
"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said in a speech at the National Press Club. "I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."
Cheney, who has a gay daughter, said marriage has always been a state issue.
"And I think that's the way it ought to be handled today, that is, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that," he said.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmF045dF33M

I am in total agreement with former vice-president. His wife has also spoken out against the DOMA.

Lars1701a
06-01-2009, 07:14 PM
Most people who follow politics closely are already aware that the former vice-president has this view on gay marriage, I only wish he would speak out more often:

Cheney on gay marriage: 'Freedom for everyone' (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gMy6C2AiBsrQQ-jwPliaZANmi7kQD98I36VO1)





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmF045dF33M

I am in total agreement with former vice-president. His wife has also spoken out against the DOMA.

No one is perfect.

Rockntractor
06-01-2009, 07:16 PM
No one is perfect.
Most conservatives say it should be decided by the states.

hazlnut
06-01-2009, 07:22 PM
Most conservatives say it should be decided by the states.

I just thinking hearing someone like Dick Cheney say I have a gay daughter and I accept her and I think she should be free to marry. -- This is a good thing for him to say.

It's good for conservatives to hear him say it.

lacarnut
06-01-2009, 07:26 PM
No one is perfect.

Correct. What I find ironic is that the same people that are saying "you go Cheney on this issue" are the same assholes that want to bring him up for trial, dispute his accounts of terrorism, hate everything about him but now want to prop him up as their guiding light concerning gay marriage. The retards in the Democratic party are a bunch of hypocrites.

lacarnut
06-01-2009, 07:30 PM
I just thinking hearing someone like Dick Cheney say I have a gay daughter and I accept her and I think she should be free to marry. -- This is a good thing for him to say.

It's good for conservatives to hear him say it.

You have a reading problem. He DID NOT say gays should be free to marry. A union yes, marriage no but let the states decide.

CueSi
06-01-2009, 07:34 PM
Correct. What I find ironic is that the same people that are saying "you go Cheney on this issue" are the same assholes that want to bring him up for trial, dispute his accounts of terrorism, hate everything about him but now want to prop him up as their guiding light concerning gay marriage. The retards in the Democratic party are a bunch of hypocrites.

Yeah, he was Evil Incarnate till now. :rolleyes:

Sorry guys, not buying it. I liked Cheney all along. There's a certain curmudgeonly charm to the guy. . .and compare that to the "I'm going to apologize ,even if we really didn't do anything wrong" milquetoast jackassery of the current POTUS, give me curmudgeon any day of the week. And twice on Sundays when you consider the current wonderful specimen we have as Veep. Website number indeed.

Many on the left pulled that two faced bullshit over Pat Tillman. The difference is, Cheney lives. And he will shoot yo' azz.

~QC

Rockntractor
06-01-2009, 07:40 PM
Yeah, he was Evil Incarnate till now. :rolleyes:

Sorry guys, not buying it. I liked Cheney all along. There's a certain curmudgeonly charm to the guy. . .and compare that to the "I'm going to apologize ,even if we really didn't do anything wrong" milquetoast jackassery of the current POTUS, give me curmudgeon any day of the week. And twice on Sundays when you consider the current wonderful specimen we have as Veep. Website number indeed.

Many on the left pulled that two faced bullshit over Pat Tillman. The difference is, Cheney lives. And he will shoot yo' azz.

~QC
I agree with you. Chenney is a good honest no bullshit guy. You can take what he says at face value.

lacarnut
06-01-2009, 07:57 PM
Yeah, he was Evil Incarnate till now. :rolleyes:

Sorry guys, not buying it. I liked Cheney all along. There's a certain curmudgeonly charm to the guy. . .and compare that to the "I'm going to apologize ,even if we really didn't do anything wrong" milquetoast jackassery of the current POTUS, give me curmudgeon any day of the week. And twice on Sundays when you consider the current wonderful specimen we have as Veep. Website number indeed.

Many on the left pulled that two faced bullshit over Pat Tillman. The difference is, Cheney lives. And he will shoot yo' azz.

~QC

Gay marriage will never take place in the deep south. Black folks have more sense than whites folks on this issue.

hazlnut
06-01-2009, 08:10 PM
Correct. What I find ironic is that the same people that are saying "you go Cheney on this issue" are the same assholes that want to bring him up for trial, dispute his accounts of terrorism, hate everything about him but now want to prop him up as their guiding light concerning gay marriage. The retards in the Democratic party are a bunch of hypocrites.

So, critical thinking on political issues, the forming of one's position's, it's an all or nothing proposition?

Either you totally agree with everythiing a candidate/politician says or totally disagree.

We are not allowed to consider things issue by issue--it's either all out dismissal of a person and his views or unconditional acceptance?

For me, that would a difficult way to live. I would feel like I was lying about my beliefs 50% of the time--intellectually dishonest.

hazlnut
06-01-2009, 08:18 PM
You have a reading problem. He DID NOT say gays should be free to marry. A union yes, marriage no but let the states decide.

Semantics.:rolleyes:


"I think that freedom means freedom for everyone," replied the former VP. "As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay, and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that ... historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. ... But I don't have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that."

Like I said, I agree with everything he said.

Rockntractor
06-01-2009, 08:21 PM
Semantics.:rolleyes:



Like I said, I agree with everything he said.
Are you anti-Semantic?

lacarnut
06-01-2009, 08:22 PM
So, critical thinking on political issues, the forming of one's position's, it's an all or nothing proposition?

Either you totally agree with everythiing a candidate/politician says or totally disagree.

We are not allowed to consider things issue by issue--it's either all out dismissal of a person and his views or unconditional acceptance?

For me, that would a difficult way to live. I would feel like I was lying about my beliefs 50% of the time--intellectually dishonest.

That is a crock of crap if I have ever heard any. You want conservatives and Repubs to be open minded but the same is not true on the other side of the fence. You do not even like the rule of law unless it suits your purpose. The voters put down homos getting married in CA. The will of the people is not good enough for you freaks. Then, you'll wind up taking it to court because you do not like the outcome. Hypocrisy to the max.

I would vote for Cheney over O. You would not. See the difference.

NJCardFan
06-01-2009, 08:37 PM
I just thinking hearing someone like Dick Cheney say I have a gay daughter and I accept her and I think she should be free to marry. -- This is a good thing for him to say.

It's good for conservatives to hear him say it.

The thing is unlike liberals, Conservatives think for themselves. We don't tow the party line 100%. I am a Libertarian yet I don't buy into 100% of their ideology. I'm not a robot.

Shannon
06-01-2009, 08:44 PM
I just thinking hearing someone like Dick Cheney say I have a gay daughter and I accept her and I think she should be free to marry. -- This is a good thing for him to say.

It's good for conservatives to hear him say it.

Eh. I imagine that you think somewhat differently on certain subjects when your child is involved.

hazlnut
06-01-2009, 08:47 PM
That is a crock of crap if I have ever heard any. You want conservatives and Repubs to be open minded but the same is not true on the other side of the fence. You do not even like the rule of law unless it suits your purpose. The voters put down homos getting married in CA. The will of the people is not good enough for you freaks. Then, you'll wind up taking it to court because you do not like the outcome. Hypocrisy to the max.

I would vote for Cheney over O. You would not. See the difference.

1. You're putting a lot of words into my mouth, and Dick Cheney's mouth.

I 'm right of center and can't speak for 'the other side of the fence."

2. maybe you're not up to speed on some current events:

Prop 8 is now being taken to federal to court by 1 very prominent Republican attorney and 1 very prominent liberal attorney.

BTW--the conservative attorney, Ted Olson, was solicitor general for Bush.

I would vote for Dick Cheney if I thought he was going to be a good president, but not just because he is Republican. I've stated many times on this board that I am a huge McCain fan and would have voted for him had it not been for Sara Palin.

Am I not allowed to evaluate candidates prior to voting for them??

Rockntractor
06-01-2009, 08:50 PM
Am I not allowed to evaluate candidates prior to voting for them?
No! We will gladly tell you what to do.

lacarnut
06-01-2009, 09:17 PM
1. You're putting a lot of words into my mouth, and Dick Cheney's mouth.

I 'm right of center and can't speak for 'the other side of the fence."

2. maybe you're not up to speed on some current events:

Prop 8 is now being taken to federal to court by 1 very prominent Republican attorney and 1 very prominent liberal attorney.

BTW--the conservative attorney, Ted Olson, was solicitor general for Bush.

I would vote for Dick Cheney if I thought he was going to be a good president, but not just because he is Republican. I've stated many times on this board that I am a huge McCain fan and would have voted for him had it not been for Sara Palin.

Am I not allowed to evaluate candidates prior to voting for them??

You are on the other side of the fence. So are wannaabbbeee (me too) Repubs like McCain and most of the Repubs in the northeast. The Repubs have lost their way because of their spending habits, growing the government but most importantly throwing their family values in the gutter. In the last 40 years, the Repubs have never won the Presidency with a Rockerfeller Repub. If a candidate has morals of an alley cat, I won't vote for him or her. Those that fit into that category favor legalization of drugs, gay marriage and are soft on crime, anti-religion, etc. Palin is against all of those stated policies.

hazlnut
06-01-2009, 09:24 PM
You are on the other side of the fence. So are wannaabbbeee (me too) Repubs like McCain and most of the Repubs in the northeast. The Repubs have lost their way because of their spending habits, growing the government but most importantly throwing their family values in the gutter. In the last 40 years, the Repubs have never won the Presidency with a Rockerfeller Repub. If a candidate has morals of an alley cat, I won't vote for him or her. Those that fit into that category favor legalization of drugs, gay marriage and are soft on crime, anti-religion, etc. Palin is against all of those stated policies.

Is it possible that the social conservative are the real RINO's??

Drugs, Soft on crime--lacarnut, you got me all wrong (or wrong on those 2 issues)...

FlaGator
06-01-2009, 09:48 PM
I have stated from the beginning that I thought this was a states rights issue but the sodomite crowd knows that the majority of states will never recognize a right for homosexuals to marry.

lacarnut
06-01-2009, 09:58 PM
Is it possible that the social conservative are the real RINO's??

Drugs, Soft on crime--lacarnut, you got me all wrong (or wrong on those 2 issues)...

You have got it ass backwards as usual (no pun intended). The RINO's in the Repub party are politicians like McCain, Spector, Snow, Powell, Arnold S., etc. These queer loving RINO's do not qualify as social conservatives. In my book, they give Repubs a bad name.

Rockntractor
06-01-2009, 10:01 PM
You have got it ass backwards as usual (no pun intended). The RINO's in the Repub party are politicians like McCain, Spector, Snow, Powell, Arnold S., etc. These queer loving RINO's do not qualify as social conservatives. In my book, they give Repubs a bad name.
They are brown nosing media hounds. They do everything to get attention. It's all about their careers not the country.

hazlnut
06-01-2009, 10:23 PM
You have got it ass backwards as usual (no pun intended). The RINO's in the Repub party are politicians like McCain, Spector, Snow, Powell, Arnold S., etc. These queer loving RINO's do not qualify as social conservatives. In my book, they give Repubs a bad name.

from your perspective, yes, I see how things might appear that way. But that does not make it so.

I only put it out there as something to consider. Are any of their current platforms mutually exclusive? And what does the majority of the party want?

lacarnut
06-02-2009, 12:49 AM
from your perspective, yes, I see how things might appear that way. But that does not make it so.

I only put it out there as something to consider. Are any of their current platforms mutually exclusive? And what does the majority of the party want?

Conservatives want what R.R. stood for. Plain and simple. Not social engineering like McCain, Powell and Ridge want. It is a fact that the Repubs have never won the Presidency in my lifetime on policies that are anti-family and anti-religion. RINO's will kill the party if they put up another candidate like McCain.

Rebel Yell
06-02-2009, 09:03 AM
"I think that freedom means freedom for everyone," replied the former VP. "As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay, and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that ... historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. ... But I don't have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that."



Like I said, I agree with everything he said.


Then by that rationale, you have no beef with Prop 8, is that what I'm hearing?

AlmostThere
06-02-2009, 09:22 AM
I agree with you. Chenney is a good honest no bullshit guy. You can take what he says at face value.
I've been a big fan since 91. As Sec of Def, he gave daily briefings on the progress of the war. A no-bullshit guy.

stsinner
06-02-2009, 11:38 AM
I agree with you. Chenney is a good honest no bullshit guy. You can take what he says at face value.

That's why the Libs hate him.. They hate honesty and facts.. Feelings are all that should matter according to these idiots.

hazlnut
06-02-2009, 01:06 PM
You have got it ass backwards as usual (no pun intended). The RINO's in the Repub party are politicians like McCain, Spector, Snow, Powell, Arnold S., etc. These queer loving RINO's do not qualify as social conservatives. In my book, they give Repubs a bad name.

I understand that.

But perhaps from their perspective, it's the extreme social conservative that are hurting the party. In fact, Powell has said as much.

It all depends on where you're standing.

Given the history of the party of Lincoln, who are the newbies-- fiscal or social?

hazlnut
06-02-2009, 01:12 PM
Then by that rationale, you have no beef with Prop 8, is that what I'm hearing?

Incorrect.

By that rational, I have no beef with any legislation in the state of Wyoming that attempts to restrict marriage rights. And Dick Cheney has no beef with Prop 8.


The U.S. Supreme court may or may not have a beef with Prop 8, we'll have to see.

Rebel Yell
06-02-2009, 01:16 PM
Incorrect.

By that rational, I have no beef with any legislation in the state of Wyoming that attempts to restrict marriage rights. And Dick Cheney has no beef with Prop 8.


The U.S. Supreme court may or may not have a beef with Prop 8, we'll have to see.

Gay marriage should be handled through the state. The state handled it.

hazlnut
06-02-2009, 01:17 PM
Conservatives want what R.R. stood for. Plain and simple. Not social engineering like McCain, Powell and Ridge want. It is a fact that the Repubs have never won the Presidency in my lifetime on policies that are anti-family and anti-religion. RINO's will kill the party if they put up another candidate like McCain.


lacarnut:

I think a person can be pro-family and pro-religion and not have to shoot anybody to prove it. I see myself as that type of person.

IMO Scott Roeder's actions are extremely anti-family and anti-religion.--and very un-American.

Lars1701a
06-02-2009, 01:54 PM
lacarnut:

I think a person can be pro-family and pro-religion and not have to shoot anybody to prove it. I see myself as that type of person.

IMO Scott Roeder's actions are extremely anti-family and anti-religion.--and very un-American.

I beg to disagree with you, the law is not changing so people have to take the law into their hands. God is going to ask us what we did to end the slaughter of millions of unborn babies.


I just cant believe this fracking scumbag killed 60000 unborn babies and could live with himself AND make millions off it.

hazlnut
06-02-2009, 02:45 PM
Conservatives want what R.R. stood for.

I'm pretty sure I know where Ronald Reagan would stand on the gay marriage issue.

The so-called social issues were a sideshow for Reagan. His priorities were a) cutting taxes, and b) defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War, and c) reducing the size of government.

Lars1701a
06-02-2009, 03:04 PM
I'm pretty sure I know where Ronald Reagan would stand on the gay marriage issue.

The so-called social issues were a sideshow for Reagan. His priorities were a) cutting taxes, and b) defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War, and c) reducing the size of government.

Please dont presume to speak for RR he was a devout Christian and I am sure he would have no truck with abortion and would stop it if he could have.

hazlnut
06-02-2009, 03:15 PM
Gay marriage should be handled through the state. The state handled it.

Yes, but the fed does have the duty to review the state constitution and see that the civil rights in the U.S. constitution are upheld.

I think Cheney's point was that any U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Prop 8 should be limited to California and not overreach like Roe v Wade. I'm fine with that.

Rebel Yell
06-02-2009, 03:49 PM
Yes, but the fed does have the duty to review the state constitution and see that the civil rights in the U.S. constitution are upheld.

How is that leaving it up to the state? Will they OK it in some, but not others?

lacarnut
06-02-2009, 04:09 PM
I'm pretty sure I know where Ronald Reagan would stand on the gay marriage issue.

The so-called social issues were a sideshow for Reagan. His priorities were a) cutting taxes, and b) defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War, and c) reducing the size of government.

Then why does Powell, Ridge, McCain run their mouths off about leaving R.R ideals and social polices behind? You can not have it both ways. R.R. would be against gay marriage and abortion. In your pea brain, social issues may have been a sideshow for Reagan but that's not how I see it .

You said you could not stomach Palin. Well now, you have the most anti-social, anti-religious, anti-business, anti-american, pro tax and spend politician in the W.H. that I have ever seen. It will be a miracle if we survive this socialistic tyrant.

hazlnut
06-02-2009, 04:38 PM
Then why does Powell, Ridge, McCain run their mouths off about leaving R.R ideals and social polices behind? You can not have it both ways. R.R. would be against gay marriage and abortion. In your pea brain, social issues may have been a sideshow for Reagan but that's not how I see it . .

I disagree and here are my reasons:

**Reagan's background as a Hollywood actor and President of SAG made him very tolerant and respectful of the privacy of others and not the sort of person who bothers about what people do in their own bedrooms.

**Reagan's larger philosophical commitment to individual liberty and limited government.

**During Reagan's presidency the first openly gay couple spent a night together in the White House. Interior decorator, Ted Graber, who oversaw the redecoration of the White House, spent a night in the Reagans' private White House quarters with his male lover, Archie Case, when they came to Washington for Nancy Reagan's 60th birthday party.

**In 1978, Reagan vigorously opposed a California ballot initiative sponsored by religious conservatives that would have barred homosexuals from teaching in the public schools. Reagan penned an op-ed against the so-called Briggs Initiative in which he wrote, “Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this.”

**Reagan's daughter, recounted on Time magazine's website (http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/reagan.html) that she and her father once watched an awkward kiss between Doris Day and Rock Hudson in a movie. Reagan explained to his daughter that the closeted Hudson would have preferred to kiss a man. “This was said in the same tone that would be used if he had been telling me about people with different colored eyes,” recalled Davis, “and I accepted without question that this whole kissing thing wasn't reserved just for men and women.”

I have great respect for the man and, based on his life experiences and the anecdotal evidence above, my belief is that Reagan would come down on the tolerant side of this issue as Cheney has.

hazlnut
06-02-2009, 04:42 PM
How is that leaving it up to the state? Will they OK it in some, but not others?

The supreme court can limit their written opinion to Prop 8 and the California state constitution. Which is what I believe Cheney was getting at.

Rebel Yell
06-02-2009, 04:46 PM
The supreme court can limit their written opinion to Prop 8 and the California state constitution. Which is what I believe Cheney was getting at.

In what way do you believe it to be OK for California to ban gay marriage?

hazlnut
06-02-2009, 05:05 PM
In what way do you believe it to be OK for California to ban gay marriage?

I voted no on Prop 8. It passed via a legal ballot measure process. The state constitution has been amended. I have to respect and abide by that. I'm not gay so it doesn't directly effect me.

I guess, I'm not sure I understand the question. By my vote, I don't want gay marriage banned in my state. As far as OK / not OK--that would be up to the state and federal courts to decide.

lacarnut
06-02-2009, 05:06 PM
[QUOTE=hazlnut;142013
I have great respect for the man and, based on his life experiences and the anecdotal evidence above, my belief is that Reagan would come down on the tolerant side of this issue as Cheney has.[/QUOTE]

Greta inverviewed Cheney and his daughter last night about this topic. She asked him point blank would he vote for gay marriage. His answer was that he was for freedom and civil unions. He would not give a yes or no answer. So your interpretation is way off base. Tolerance yes, marriage no.

Your strawman statement about Reagan allowing the 2 male interior decorators to spend the night at the W.H. is also a joke. Don't you think that the majority of male interior decorators are gay? Same is true of male hair stylist. BTW, Nancy picked out the decorators not Ronald.

hazlnut
06-02-2009, 05:19 PM
Greta inverviewed Cheney and his daughter last night about this topic. She asked him point blank would he vote for gay marriage. His answer was that he was for freedom and civil unions. He would not give a yes or no answer. So your interpretation is way off base. Tolerance yes, marriage no.

Your strawman statement about Reagan allowing the 2 male interior decorators to spend the night at the W.H. is also a joke. Don't you think that the majority of male interior decorators are gay? Same is true of male hair stylist. BTW, Nancy picked out the decorators not Ronald.

Re: Cheney -- was that a politcal answer given on Greta. I think we're getting down to semantics and trying to parse a statement into meaning what we want it to mean. Cheney, his wife, and their family have spoken out on gay marriage--but they are in no way outspoken on the issue. Fair enough?

Re: Stawman -- I'm not sure you understand what a strawman argument is. I clearly stated that I was basing my opinion on the above anecdotal evidence.

If you want to present some stories or facts about Reagan to support your opinion, feel free to do so.

hazlnut
06-18-2009, 12:18 PM
Has Cheney commented on Olson and Boies?