Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sixpence on August 25, 2004, 10:47:24 AM
-
Cheney splits with Bush on gay marriage ban
By Marc Kaufman and Mike Allen, Washington Post | August 25, 2004
WATERFORD, Mich. -- Vice President Dick Cheney yesterday spelled out his differences with President Bush on the volatile issue of gay marriage while for the first time discussing his daughter's homosexuality in a public setting.
Asked his position on the subject at a town hall meeting in Davenport, Iowa, Cheney replied: ''Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with. . . . With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to free -- ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."
Cheney went on to reiterate the position he first outlined in the 2000 campaign -- that same-sex marriage should be left to the states to decide. He noted, however, that Bush has endorsed a constitutional amendment preventing the states from recognizing such marriages.
''At this point . . . my own preference is as I've stated," Cheney said. ''But the president makes basic policy for the administration. And he's made it."
The remarks were the farthest Cheney has gone in laying out his differences with Bush's position, and they took leaders of the GOP conservative base by surprise. Although Bush has rarely discussed his support for the amendment, conservatives viewed his stance as one of the most important social statements of his term. Republican strategists said it would motivate Christian voters to the polls even though it risks alienating swing voters.
The Family Research Council, a conservative group with close White House ties, called Cheney's remarks disappointing. ''Unfortunately protection of our values is made more difficult when mixed messages emanate from the White House," said Tony Perkins, the group's president. ''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."
The Human Rights Campaign, the leading gay rights lobbying group, issued an enthusiastic statement after Cheney's remarks. ''President Bush must be feeling the heat," said the group's president, Cheryl Jacques. ''Millions of Republican families, like the Cheneys, have gay friends and family members and are offended by President Bush's efforts to put discrimination in the Constitution."
Bush officials said Cheney has such deep and longtime goodwill among conservatives that the White House is not worried about the political fallout from the exchange.
Cheney's remark was the first time the vice president has taken note of his daughter's sexual orientation in public, officials said. Mary Cheney works for the Bush-Cheney campaign as director of vice presidential operations, responsible for her father's political travel and appearances
-
"Splits with Bush?"
Hes never supported an amendment banning gay marraige. This isnt new.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
"Splits with Bush?"
Hes never supported an amendment banning gay marraige. This isnt new.
"Both Bush and Cheney have voiced their support this year for the proposed constitutional amendment."
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0704/158538.html
It's all over google.
Do try to keep up.
h
-
(http://www.pacifier.com/~mpatters/archive/baby/waffle.JPG)
-
rpm, what does a picture of a stack of John Kerrys have to do with this thread? :)
-
Hopefully this will take some of the heat of his daughter from the gay community.
-
Originally posted by Horn
"Both Bush and Cheney have voiced their support this year for the proposed constitutional amendment."
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0704/158538.html
It's all over google.
Do try to keep up.
h
I dont see anything other than that line whic is pretty vague. Lets use his words instead of the words of a reporter:
"I think that the constitutional amendment discussion will give us an opportunity to look for ways to discuss ways in which we can keep the authority of the states intact," Cheney told CNN's "Late Edition."
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
I dont see anything other than that line whic is pretty vague. Lets use his words instead of the words of a reporter:
"I think that the constitutional amendment discussion will give us an opportunity to look for ways to discuss ways in which we can keep the authority of the states intact," Cheney told CNN's "Late Edition."
OK, let's do that. You didn't look very hard:
"What I said in 2000 was that the question of whether or not some sort of status, legal status or sanction ought to be granted in the case of a relationship between two individuals of the same sex was historically a matter the states had decided and resolved, and that is the way I preferred it," Cheney said.
But "at this stage, obviously, the president is going to have to make a decision in terms of what administration policy is on this particular provision, and I will support whatever decision he makes."
or:
"The president's taken the clear position that he supports a constitutional amendment," Cheney said in an interview with MSNBC. "I support him."
h
-
So he supports the President. Thats what a Vice President does.
It doesnt mean he agrees.
-
Yes cheney does support him even without agreeing with them.
The only reason the adminstrations policy is to amend the constitution is becuase Judges were decided what the law was from the bench instead of giving people a say in the matter.
I'm not sure what the point of this thread is????? are trying to accuse Cheney of waffling on this issue? He's had the same opinion the entire time and it hasnt changed. He was quoted the other day saying that he thinks this is a "state issue and has always been historically a state issue"
Bush agrees that it is also a state Issue but doesnt want to allow activist judges to make laws via inturpretation from the bench.
I dont see anything wrong with the states deciding and would not like to see a constitutional amendment.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I dont see anything wrong with the states deciding and would not like to see a constitutional amendment.
That's not the way GWB see's it. He supported Texas' sodomy laws until that bunch of liberals on the supreme court stuck it down. Let him put a couple of the right people on the bench and we can throw 'em all in jail again before it's too late! Landslide BUSH!
-
"support" when used in context like this always seems to me like politico-doublespeak.
What does this "support" actually entail. Presenting arguements against a position is undermining it, not supporting it. :confused:
-
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.
-
Follow, yes. Support, not necessarily.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Uh, I must have missed the part in Texas Civics where the Gov can make or rescind laws just 'cause he wants to.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
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
-
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.