Let states decide, says Cheney

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Sixpence
I think this helps Bush, imo. It casts Cheney in a whole new light, it brings him down to an everyday person who deals with the same type of situations that everyone else does. It also shows that he stands by his family, no matter what lifestyle they choose. I do not see how this can be taken in a negative way.

And it separates him from far right conservatives who think he must stay in line

 ''We support President Bush's commitment to a constitutional amendment on marriage, but we are left to wonder why the vice president is allowed to depart from this position when the top of the ticket is unified on all other issues."

Good for him

Yet another examply of why I feel the republican ticket diserves my vote.

[rpm]

Originally posted by Lizking
Wow, RPM, it is a bad thing for the Gov of a state to actually support the laws of that state until they are changed by the appropriate authority?  You are a piece of work, let me tell you.

Yes it is, when the law is clearly wrong and needs to be revoked. He WAS the appropriate authority and failed to act.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by rpm371
Yes it is, when the law is clearly wrong and needs to be revoked. He WAS the appropriate authority and failed to act.

Let me ask you this RPM

(keep in mind I'm trying to take a different approach to people on this board and I'm being genuin in most of my posts)

Knowing that you support Gay Marraige If a states populus does not support Gay Marraige by a margin of 70% or better does that mean they are all wrong and we go against our wishes in our current system of govt?

[Lizking]

Uh, I must have missed the part in Texas Civics where the Gov can make or rescind laws just 'cause he wants to.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Lizking
Uh, I must have missed the part in Texas Civics where the Gov can make or rescind laws just 'cause he wants to.

what about that part in civics class about the "popular vote"  IE items on the ballot?

[Horn]

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
So he supports the President.  Thats what a Vice President does.

It doesnt mean he agrees.

Support = disagreement. OK, gotcha.

h
rofl

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Horn
Support = disagreement. OK, gotcha.

h
rofl

now you're putting your head in the sand.  You can support Bush's stance on an issue without supporting the method.  You can comprimise on the issue because you dont support the method.  

Cheny doesnt support a constitutional ammendment but doesnt see much alternative if law is going to be written from the bench.

I think bush feels just about the same way.

[rpm]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Let me ask you this RPM

(keep in mind I'm trying to take a different approach to people on this board and I'm being genuin in most of my posts)

Knowing that you support Gay Marraige If a states populus does not support Gay Marraige by a margin of 70% or better does that mean they are all wrong and we go against our wishes in our current system of govt?

Substitute "gay marriage" with "segregation" and ask the same question. Just because the majority wants it does not make it right. This issue will ultimately be decided as either constitutional or not by the courts, as it should. That's the job of the judicial branch under our form of government.

My personal opinion is if they want to screw up their relationships and lives by making them legally binding, it's their own fault.

Lizking, all he had to do was say "Gentlemen let's repeal this archaic law." He could have called a Special Session, he could have done a lot of things, but he didn't.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by rpm371
Substitute "gay marriage" with "segregation" and ask the same question. Just because the majority wants it does not make it right. This issue will ultimately be decided as either constitutional or not by the courts, as it should. That's the job of the judicial branch under our form of government.

My personal opinion is if they want to screw up their relationships and lives by making them legally binding, it's their own fault.

Lizking, all he had to do was say "Gentlemen let's repeal this archaic law." He could have called a Special Session, he could have done a lot of things, but he didn't.

Yes but the catch to the question isnt right or wrong but the part that says "with the current govt systsem"

Seriously I'm not trolling here I'm actually curious.

In our country with the current system....slavery or segragation w/ as awfull as they were.....if the majority wanted them who then decides the laws?

do the judges then say "all men are created equal" means all men.....sure they do.

Now in this instence (to me) all men are still equal, a gay man has the same rights to marry a woman as me.

So here we are back to the judges again......the people elect the officials who elect the judges.....

I dont know I'm trying to formulate a question here with out referencing gay marriage as right or wrong....but I'm too tired going to bed  

[lazs2]

rpm... I believe that segregation is a human rights issue and that gay marriage is not.

This is a huge difference.   especially if marrige is defined to mean a union between two people of the oppossite gender.   Until marriage is defined there is no way to make anything stemming from it a human right.

it makes no difference what people vote on or how it comes out  if they are voting on human rights issues.   They have no right to vote on human rights...or have their vote count.

lazs

[-MZ-]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yes but the catch to the question isnt right or wrong but the part that says "with the current govt systsem"

Seriously I'm not trolling here I'm actually curious.

In our country with the current system....slavery or segragation w/ as awfull as they were.....if the majority wanted them who then decides the laws?

Because we live in a liberal democracy, certain rights are guaranteed by our Constitution against a tyranny of the majority.

 'One of the greatest dangers, therefore, of democracy ... lies in the sinister interest of the holders of its power: it is the danger of class legislation; of government intended for the immediate benefit of the dominant class, to the lasting detriment of the whole.'  - John Stuart Mill

The gay marriage thing is actually a little bit convoluted.  The fear of the fundies is that IF a state allows gay marriage, then the Supreme Court MIGHT hold that 'Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act' is Unconstitutional based on Article 4, which states, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State".  This could make a gay marriage in a place like Mass. or Hawaii valid in every other state.