OMG!! Dick Cheney supporst gay marriage...

[Ebenezer]

I bet this is the beginning of the end of Cheney being the VP on the Rep ticket!! Guess his family is more important than a bigoted platform.

Cheney's statement from the heart

8/28/2004

By E.J. DIONNE

Vice President Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter who matters more to him than ideology. So on Tuesday, he said that people "ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to" and that states ought to make their own decisions on marriage laws.
Cheney made his pro-gay statement on the same day that the Republican Platform Committee contradicted him, endorsing President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

"Attempts to redefine marriage in a single city or state could have serious consequences throughout the country," the platform plank read, "and anything less than a constitutional amendment, passed by Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges."

That was pretty strong language. But social conservatives were so outraged by Cheney's statement that on Wednesday, they hardened the platform to be even more anti-gay, insisting not only on the amendment, but that same-sex couples not receive the legal benefits set aside for married couples. The platform writers urged that federal courts be stripped of any authority to overturn state laws banning gay marriage.

First, please forgive me a certain skepticism. Cheney's pro-gay comments made the front pages, burying the news of the hard-line platform. In light of the Republicans' strategy at their convention next week - to put up one moderate speaker after another by way of pretending that their party is far less right-wing than it is - Cheney's comments would seem to be perfectly on message. Distracting attention from this administration's commitments to the right is essential to Bush, who has been performing rather badly in the polls among independents and moderates.

So, no, I won't swoon over Cheney's dissent from Republican orthodoxy on gay marriage. But there is a more benign explanation of what Cheney did, and I offer an example from my own family to suggest that if you care deeply about someone who is gay or lesbian, you simply have to reject anti-gay bigotry, just as Cheney did.

Cheney backs gay marriage (http://buffalonews.com/editorial/20040828/1061249.asp)

[FTG]

They are not replacing him this late.

[chernobylwraiths]

Doesn't Cheney have a gay relative? A sister or daughter or something?

[ArcticWildMan]

I think this statement by him is dead on:

"Attempts to redefine marriage in a single city or state could have serious consequences throughout the country," the platform plank read, "and anything less than a constitutional amendment, passed by Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges."


:up:


Let the people of the entire nation decide the issue instead of extremists in a few states. Then the issue is settled once and for all.

[FTG]

Doesn't Cheney have a gay relative? A sister or daughter or something?
daughter

[FTG]

I bet this is the beginning of the end of Cheney being the VP on the Rep ticket!!.

Why do you suggest Cheney has to agree exactly with the Republican platform to be on the ticket?

Kerry said a couple weeks ago that he believes life begins at conception. Should the Dems drop him from thier ticket?

[Đ²]

Let the people of the entire nation decide the issue instead of extremists in a few states. Then the issue is settled once and for all.
That's fine, except this issue will always run into a problem called the US Constitution. The only way around it is a Constitutional Amendment, but that's naive because...


You need a two-thirds vote (of a quorum) in each house of the US Congress for a proposed amendment
Alternately legislatures of two-thirds of the states may ask Congress to call a national convention to discuss and draft amendments, (then you still have to go back to step 1) to get it through the house
You must have the approval of the legislatures or conventions of three-fourths of the existing states before an amendment becomes part of the Constitution
To be successful in taking a same-sex marriage amendment through Congress would require huge expenditures of political capital to get an amendment through in a reasonable period of time before the proposed amendment expires. It's unrealistic to expect that you could get an amendment like this passed within a four-year administration term and with the alternating (every 2 years) Congressional elections, it's even more unrealistic. The proposers would be voted out of office way before you could realistically get it through congress and the states' legislatures.

The Senate, the House and the State Legislatures have much more important things to blow their political loads on than whether or not Harry can marry Larry.

And even then, this proposed amendment will face constant legal challenges (i.e. the Constitution could be declared unconstitutional) if the wording of the amendment abridges or violates any rights accorded in other articles of the constitution, so you would be right back to square 1.

The "extremists in a few states" have got you by the balls on this issue, because getting over 1/4 of state legislatures to oppsose a constitutional amendment of this nature would be pretty easy, IMHO. With the population distribution from state to state being what it is (i.e. small population vs large population states), theoretically 4 % of the US population can stop an Amendment that 90% of the American public is in favour of.

Then again, you could always propose a constitutional amendment to amend the 2/3rds, 3/4's formula, but that would have even less chance of success.

Could you imagine the tack-ons to any proposed amendments of this nature ?
This would start out being the "Harry/Larry Amendment" and wind up being the "everything that we need to fix in the Constitution since the last successful amendment in 1992 Amendment, " making the chance of getting it by the 2/3rds 3/4's majorities needed even slimmer, given the current polarization of politics in the US.

In any case, it's a classic catch-22. Mother Theresa herself couldn't summon the political capital needed to get an amendment of this nature through.

So if Bush says he's being tough on the same-sex issue, then he's just blowing smoke, because realistically it's a zero-sum game.

[Ebenezer]

Why do you suggest Cheney has to agree exactly with the Republican platform to be on the ticket?

Kerry said a couple weeks ago that he believes life begins at conception. Should the Dems drop him from thier ticket?

Yes. If the Dems really wanted to win this election they would have gotten somebody with a pulse and a set of ideas.

[Ebenezer]

That's fine, except this issue will always run into a problem called the US Constitution. The only way around it is a Constitutional Amendment, but that's naive because...


You need a two-thirds vote (of a quorum) in each house of the US Congress for a proposed amendment
Alternately legislatures of two-thirds of the states may ask Congress to call a national convention to discuss and draft amendments, (then you still have to go back to step 1) to get it through the house
You must have the approval of the legislatures or conventions of three-fourths of the existing states before an amendment becomes part of the Constitution
To be successful in taking a same-sex marriage amendment through Congress would require huge expenditures of political capital to get an amendment through in a reasonable period of time before the proposed amendment expires. It's unrealistic to expect that you could get an amendment like this passed within a four-year administration term and with the alternating (every 2 years) Congressional elections, it's even more unrealistic. The proposers would be voted out of office way before you could realistically get it through congress and the states' legislatures.

The Senate, the House and the State Legislatures have much more important things to blow their political loads on than whether or not Harry can marry Larry.

And even then, this proposed amendment will face constant legal challenges (i.e. the Constitution could be declared unconstitutional) if the wording of the amendment abridges or violates any rights accorded in other articles of the constitution, so you would be right back to square 1.

The "extremists in a few states" have got you by the balls on this issue, because getting over 1/4 of state legislatures to oppsose a constitutional amendment of this nature would be pretty easy, IMHO. With the population distribution from state to state being what it is (i.e. small population vs large population states), theoretically 4 % of the US population can stop an Amendment that 90% of the American public is in favour of.

Then again, you could always propose a constitutional amendment to amend the 2/3rds, 3/4's formula, but that would have even less chance of success.

Could you imagine the tack-ons to any proposed amendments of this nature ?
This would start out being the "Harry/Larry Amendment" and wind up being the "everything that we need to fix in the Constitution since the last successful amendment in 1992 Amendment, " making the chance of getting it by the 2/3rds 3/4's majorities needed even slimmer, given the current polarization of politics in the US.

In any case, it's a classic catch-22. Mother Theresa herself couldn't summon the political capital needed to get an amendment of this nature through.

So if Bush says he's being tough on the same-sex issue, then he's just blowing smoke, because realistically it's a zero-sum game.
Amazing...somebody who knows how are constitution is suppose to work...you forgot one thing...the part about those powers not given to the federal gov't is thereby given to the states...


say it with me...meaningless electorial fodder to take attention off of the real issues which neither candidate wants to or is willing to discuss because they are afraid of being held to anything they may promise during the campaign.

[Đ²]

We call it a http://www.byte.org/redherring.gif up here

[Dozerdog]

Why do you suggest Cheney has to agree exactly with the Republican platform to be on the ticket?

Kerry said a couple weeks ago that he believes life begins at conception. Should the Dems drop him from thier ticket?



The Democrats don't have as part of their platform a distinction of where life begins.


They are Pro- choice. Leave it up to the mother to decide what's right. Many catholic democrats beleive abortion is bad- but don't beleive it's their place to force their religion on others. That's what Pro-choice means- YOU CAN CHOSE

[Đ²]

Heck, if the ERA amendment went down in flames, then why would you expect a 'when harry marries larry' amendment to be successful :huh:

Last time I checked, Constitutional Amendments in the US that actually successfully go through are usually reserved for important stuff, not for schlock radio Rushed Limbic agendas.

[Bling]

The Democrats don't have as part of their platform a distinction of where life begins.


They are Pro- choice. Leave it up to the mother to decide what's right. Many catholic democrats beleive abortion is bad- but don't beleive it's their place to force their religion on others. That's what Pro-choice means- YOU CAN CHOSE


Letting someone decide is telling them it's ok to kill their baby. If someone wants to kill their baby, go ahead and do it is what the Democrats are saying. That's just another example of sex is everything to Democrats

[Ebenezer]

Letting someone decide is telling them it's ok to kill their baby. If someone wants to kill their baby, go ahead and do it is what the Democrats are saying. That's just another example of sex is everything to Democrats
no matter how hard I try there is absolutley no comeback to that post...just ludicrious.

[Đ²]

I'm going to McDonalds to exterminate the cows now...because the Democrats said so. :eek: :shakeno:

I've got a feeling that
http://community-2.webtv.net/@HH!DE!AA!1D3834999C6B/DrCarpenter/TVANDMOVIECHARACTERS/media/captureD52.jpg
isn't speaking from very much personal experience when it comes to sex.

[Đ²]

Well , except for the Priests, but he's not allowed to publically talk about that as a term of the settlement...

[Discotrish]

The Democrats don't have as part of their platform a distinction of where life begins.


They are Pro- choice. Leave it up to the mother to decide what's right. Many catholic democrats beleive abortion is bad- but don't beleive it's their place to force their religion on others. That's what Pro-choice means- YOU CAN CHOSE

Well the problem is that the mothers are forcing their beliefs on their unborn babies and killing them.

There are plenty of parents who don't think it's wrong to abuse their kids, either. But many catholic democrats and republicans believe, apparently, it IS their place to force their religion on others when someone is getting hurt. Like a kid.

Gotta love those activist judges who overturned the partial birth abortion ban, because a woman's health is so threatened by the fetus that it's necessary to kill the baby when it's two thirds delivered.

Patti :doh:


Florida pols -- darned glad to meet you! (http://www.beefonweck.blogspot.com)

[Patrick76777]

Guess his family is more important than a bigoted platform.

[/url]


LMAO

[chernobylwraiths]

Doesn't Cheney have a gay relative? A sister or daughter or something?

Somehow, I missed the first line of the story. :doh:

[OpIv37]

On the constiutional issue- 38 states already have some law/statute/clause defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, and that is enough to get the amendment ratified. Some political capital could get the amendment through the House, but there is no way it will ever pass the Senate. In late July, they couldn't even get 60 votes to force a real vote on the issue (cloture, but I'll spare you the lecture on Senate procedures), and they would need an impossible 67 to pass an amendment.

This whole amendment thing is just election-year grandstanding by Bush to try to solidify his conservative base. And Cheney and McCain have the true Republican view- fundamentally, Republicans are against increasing the power of the federal gov't at the expense of the states.

[The_Philster]

Somehow, I missed the first line of the story. :doh:
:laughter: I refrained from answering your question just because I thought you'd see that sooner.