Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

By Marc Kaufman and Mike Allen
WATERFORD, Mich., Aug. 24 - Vice President Cheney on Tuesday spelled out his differences with President Bush on the volatile issue of same-sex marriage while for the first time discussing the sexual orientation of his gay daughter in a public setting.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5811621/

Wow, I'm surprised that he was allowed to say this in public. Usually a disagreement like this will just be kept quiet. If they can find a way to not make the Massachusetts Supreme Court force its will on the entire country, I totally agree with Cheney. States should be able to decide for themselves.

"One week later President Bush repeats Cheney's sentiments." chuckles. ;-)

Nudge, nudge.

Just FYI, Cheneys daughter is gay.

I think all of the hate going around is really offending him, because I think he respects his daughter.

Ehh it doesnt matter I just read they are usin a ban on gay marriage in the constitution as a big platform at the RNC.

OMG HE FLIP FLOPS!!!111!!!

naw, I'm not going to play that card like so many people do with kerry. But I wonder how many times bush is going to be asked if he supports Chenney's position and if it will be a conflict of interest. I really want to see what Bush has to say about this comment.

Sounds like Cheney didn't get his Kool-Aid today.

Haven't most republicans been pro-state anti-big government on most issues?

Originally Posted by gamefreak Haven't most republicans been pro-state anti-big government on most issues?

He doesn't know anything about the party he supports.

Originally Posted by elprincipe Wow, I'm surprised that he was allowed to say this in public. Usually a disagreement like this will just be kept quiet. If they can find a way to not make the Massachusetts Supreme Court force its will on the entire country, I totally agree with Cheney. States should be able to decide for themselves.

Maybe you should read the Constitution and then speak.



Bush and him both said in 2000 it was a State issue, then it was a Federal one, then we must protect marriage, then it's a State right, then it's not.

Here's a hint, he will say it's a State right when his daught isaround, and when she is not he will be equal rights.

I wish his daughter would get married here in Mass soon. hehe

Originally Posted by David85 Maybe you should read the Constitution and then speak. Bush and him both said in 2000 it was a State issue, then it was a Federal one, then we must protect marriage, then it's a State right, then it's not. Here's a hint, he will say it's a State right when his daught isaround, and when she is not he will be equal rights. I wish his daughter would get married here in Mass soon. hehe

I'm not sure what your argument is here. I don't know what Bush said in 2000 and frankly I don't really care. I just said IMO ideally we should allow states that want it have it while protecting the rights of other states not to have it. It's a difficult question because what if someone gets "hitched" in Massachusetts and then moves to another state? Can that state then say they are no longer "married"? Tough thing, but I think if the people of a state don't want to sanction it they shouldn't have to.

Honestly this shouldn't even be an issue and I wish people would just ing accept it. I was reading this one article and the man got down to the crux of it, that some people don't want to recognize gays as human beings or something like that. I can't remember it off the top of my head but it was in Time.
Also I think Bill Maar nailed the Republican stance of it on Tavis Smiley last night or at least most Republicans on it. Some Republicans don't give a shit about this being accepted and big ups to them.
Yes I did say the Civil Union but I said that Marriage thing because I wish people would just ing accept it and we wouldn't have to come down to it but in the same concept of this whole thing the term in a way HAS to change to create the final "Separation Of Church and State" in the Constitution.

Originally Posted by elprincipe I'm not sure what your argument is here. I don't know what Bush said in 2000 and frankly I don't really care. I just said IMO ideally we should allow states that want it have it while protecting the rights of other states not to have it. It's a difficult question because what if someone gets "hitched" in Massachusetts and then moves to another state? Can that state then say they are no longer "married"? Tough thing, but I think if the people of a state don't want to sanction it they shouldn't have to.

Easy we should follow the Constitution.

*Pauses for gasps from Conservitivesd....*

I know it's hard to believe but the Constitution said that they must be in every State. The problem is the Congress and White are full of old white guys that hate gays and the modern age so they pass laws saying that gays have no right and that they will take away even more rights. Then when Bush is re-elected he will fill the Supreme Court with assholes like himself that rather follow their religoin and not the Constitution. When that happens the country will be in deep shit for the next 40-50 years, and I'll be in Canada.

Originally Posted by David85 Easy we should follow the Constitution. *Pauses for gasps from Conservitivesd....* I know it's hard to believe but the Constitution said that they must be in every State. The problem is the Congress and White are full of old white guys that hate gays and the modern age so they pass laws saying that gays have no right and that they will take away even more rights. Then when Bush is re-elected he will fill the Supreme Court with assholes like himself that rather follow their religoin and not the Constitution. When that happens the country will be in deep shit for the next 40-50 years, and I'll be in Canada.

The problem really is that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts is attempting to make law for the entire country, as if a court making law for Massachusetts isn't bad enough.

David, interesting question: would you support bigamists' or polygamists' arguments that they should be allowed to have multiple marriages? Would you support anyone getting married? What about (not trying to get too offensive, but just make a point) a brother and a sister that wanted to get married? Would that be okay? You get into some pretty strange territory.

Do you read the laws?

Brother and sisters got married a lot in the olden days, and frankly who they marry is not any of my bissiness.

Mass isn't making a law for the whole country, it ruled on the issue and said there is no reason why gays shouldn't, the Constitution said all the other States have to recinize it. I'm sorry if you don't like the Constitution but that is how it is.

How do you think interracail coubles got the right to marry? One couble in Virginia fought for the right \, and because the Virgina Supreme Court at the time was racists it went to the US Supreme Court where they said that interracial marriage had to be legal.

I like how Conservitives always like to try to forget history. "It's not the courts place to deside", ummm.... yeah it is, and it's not the first time either.

Originally Posted by Sarang01 Yes I did say the Civil Union but I said that Marriage thing because I wish people would just shaq-fuing accept it and we wouldn't have to come down to it but in the same concept of this whole thing the term in a way HAS to change to create the final "Separation Of Church and State" in the Constitution.

I wish people like you would have a clue that the Bill of Rights never demands as you say "Separation Of Church and State".

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now tell me where that says seperation of church and state.

Originally Posted by David85 Do you read the laws? Brother and sisters got married a lot in the olden days, and frankly who they marry is not any of my bissiness. Mass isn't making a law for the whole country, it ruled on the issue and said there is no reason why gays shouldn't, the Constitution said all the other States have to recinize it. I'm sorry if you don't like the Constitution but that is how it is. How do you think interracail coubles got the right to marry? One couble in Virginia fought for the right \, and because the Virgina Supreme Court at the time was racists it went to the US Supreme Court where they said that interracial marriage had to be legal. I like how Conservitives always like to try to forget history. "It's not the courts place to deside", ummm.... yeah it is, and it's not the first time either.

1. I am not conservative.

2. No, it's not the courts' place to make law. That is reserved for the legislatures of the states and for Congress. The courts merely interpret laws, not decide that one law is unfair or needs to be changed. If courts make law that is judicial authoritarianism because they are not elected.

Originally Posted by David85 Do you read the laws? Mass isn't making a law for the whole country, it ruled on the issue and said there is no reason why gays shouldn't, the Constitution said all the other States have to recinize it. I'm sorry if you don't like the Constitution but that is how it is.

David I don't get what you're saying. The Mass. court's ruling doesn't mean that the whole country has to follow suit, nowhere in the constitution does it say the entire nation has to follow the ruling of one state supreme court.. It's not the US Supreme Court.

HAHAHAHA

Agrue with the gay guy on civil rights, that's smart. I did a seven page paper, and a graded debate on gay marriage, plus countless other debates. It's in Article Four Secyion One.

Once again, read the thing, you might learn something of use.


Love the internet........

Section 1. 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.


This is why Congress broke the law and passed an Unconstitutional bill saying that if it deals with gay marriage the other States don't need to listen.

Then this year they topped themselves and passed a law saying gays have no right to go to court.

And Bush said he was going bring us together.