Cheney Comes Out In Favor Of Gay Marriage

Proof • June 2, 2009

“Freedom means freedom for everyone.” Which sounds suspiciously like something I’ve been saying about gay marriage for some time now, to the dismay of many of the right-leaning commenters here.

CHENEY: 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 the 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.

I’ve always liked Dick Cheney. Even when I’ve disagreed with him, which hasn’t been that often, I’ve respected him for his no-nonsense approach to politics. But I’m finding a brand new level of affinity for him now based on that “freedom means freedom for everyone” comment. Not so much because I really care all that much about gay marriage as an issue (I don’t, really) but rather because “freedom means freedom for everyone” is exactly the message conservatives need to hear right now.
The problem with Republicans over the last several years boils down to them not meaning what they say. They talk about limited government, but they don’t mean limited government. A pro-freedom message goes hand-in-hand with a limited government message. Because government isn’t freedom. Government is the exact opposite of freedom.
Now, some level of government and thus some curtailing of our freedoms is necessary to live in a civilized society, which is why government should be kept to a minimum so that freedom can be maximized.
Let’s hope that Cheney means what he says. Let’s hope Dick Cheney keeps talking like this. Because someone like Cheney could deliver the sort of shift the GOP needs to get back on track.

Tags: Asshats, Domestic Issues, Politics

http://Array sayanything-5371

You are just a useful idiot to them.

OK. With all due respect, you are just a useful idiot to them.
Buzz

I wonder who yanked his chain.
http://wizbangblog.com/ Jay Tea

Robert108 said:

Actually, Rob, he said the States should decide, not the feds, and so far, no State has had a favorable popular vote for homo marriage.

Robert, Maine and Vermont’s legislatures have passed gay marriage laws, signed by their governors, and New Hampshire is on the verge of doing that as well.

Would you care to reconsider your statement?

J.
http://tarheelred.wordpress.com/ pino

Don’t mention yourself and conservative in the same sentence.

So….which part are you? Having the government tell me how to live or not having the government tell me how to live?

Are you for MORE freedom or, you know, less.

Part of extending freedom and liberty is knowing that ALL people aren’t going to agree with you on all issues.

But I am interested. At what point and on what issue can I disagree with you and still be considered, by you, conservative?
ellinas

Also, the slogan “freedom for everyone” apparently doesn’t include the freedom to defend the definition of marriage as it has been forever.
robert108 on June 1, 2009 at 04:30 pm

You sir a full of bovinr excrement. No one has stopped you, restricted your ability and or took away your freedom to defend the definition of marriage as it has been forever.
HG

Gentlemen and Gentlewomen,

What is needed to address this argument for “maximum liberty”, is the legality of gender specific laws and absence of discrimination regarding marriage. We have various laws that are exclusive to one gender or the other without any discrimination. The fact that marriage does not exclude anyone from marrying a member of the opposite sex, and that all are prohibited from marrying a member of the same sex is exactly why marriage does not fit the legal definition of inequality or discrimination. We should explore and better explain this.
sayanything-5371

think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish.
This is true; and what we as Conservatives ought to embrace.

Who is “we”? You and that mouse in your pocket? Don’t mention yourself and conservative in the same sentence.
ellinas

We’ve paid scant attention culturally to lesbian relationships because we know how fickle females are and how un-aggressive they are. Lesbianism rarely produces any problems, lesbian promiscuity is a relatively new phenomenon in human history only made possible in modern society like ours where moral and ethical standards are and have been under assault. For thousands of years, lesbians were much smarter than male homosexuals and much more controlled. They kept to themselves, and they made a point of not antagonizing the societies they lived in.

suitepotato- on June 1, 2009 at 06:07 pm

Obviously you have not read the Old Testament passages where the powers to be admonished females from lesbian acts and placed prohibitions on the use of phalic images for self gratification.

Maybe you never heard of Sappho a famous ancient Greek poet from the island of Lesvos circa 630 BC, and her poetry in which she describes her love for other females.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/homosexuality_is_wrong_-_a_compendium move_zig

You never answer this with anything more than rhetoric. Why do free people in a free society need an affirmative argument for something that doesn’t harm another person?

Well, Eddie, here’s your answer for you — it does harm the rest of the other 98 percent of society.

They comprise a huge proportion (ex. 82 percent in CA) of the spread of AIDS/HIV and other diseases (2 percent of the population accounting for over 2/3rds of all Syph cases and about 40 percent of all Child Sexual Assault .. that is, rape of children)

Each AIDS/HIV case costs, on average, $600,000.00 to treat. You think each one of these fags is paying their own freight? They are imposing their costs onto the other taxpayers, insurance payers and onto the costs of the hospitals, as well as sucking up much-needed medical research funds from other worthy causes.

You look at how homosexuals reacted to the Proposition 8 vote and and to Miss California. No tolerance there.

They intend to destroy and supplant Middle American morals and religion. Not harm us? Dude, you’ve been sleeping under a rock.

Propagandize Homosexuality, Ban Religion, Legalize Pedophilia

1) propagandize and whitewash Homosexuality, starting with school kids.

2) simultaneously, they seek to eradicate religion, under the guise of Civil Rights.

3) ultimately, they want to remove all legal and moral barriers to men having sex with underage boys.

Not on my watch Pal.
HG

Glad to see I’m in good company Chief.

I remember a line from Mel Gibson’s character in The Patriot: “I’m a parent. I haven’t got the luxury of principles.” Cheney is between a rock and hard place with a lesbian daughter and conservative ideology. I don’t fault him in this. I don’t hold him as an authority either.
http://tarheelred.wordpress.com/ pino

You are just a useful idiot to them.

And you continue to talk like the rest of ‘em on here. You don’t practice freedom. You don’t come down in favor of individual liberty. You want to dictate; no different than the Liberals. In fact, really, it’s hard to tell you apart.

And as you continue to talk like this, to speak without respect, or dignity or common courtesy, you push people away. You make what WE stand for abhorrent. People who would otherwise agree with you on 85% of issues, run from you.

And they vote for Obama.

So, really, believe what you want to believe. You don’t even know that I share your belief. The difference is that I am extending that same liberty to other folks.

Cause that’s what I want them to do to me.
http://tarheelred.wordpress.com/ pino

people

Nice try. Animals are unable to consent. Equally so; children.
Buzz

First Petraeus now cheney, next palin is going to cave to these commie, pinko bastards. What’s the world coming to?
robert108

Actually, Rob, he said the States should decide, not the feds, and so far, no State has had a favorable popular vote for homo marriage. So, it has to be imposed by the courts. How can you be OK with that?
Actually, it’s back to reality, with the homo activists having to make an affirmative argument for changing the fundamental nature of marriage to suit their selfish needs.
ellinas

Also, the slogan “freedom for everyone” apparently doesn’t include the freedom to defend the definition of marriage as it has been forever.
robert108 on June 1, 2009 at 04:30 pm

Correction.

You sir a full of bovine excrement. No one has stopped you, restricted your ability and or took away your freedom to defend the definition of marriage as it has been forever.
http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

Wow, who knew Cheney was more liberal than Obama.
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

HG. Correct. Men are generally not allowed in the Women’s room. People under a certain age can not try for a license.
robert108

Men are generally not allowed in the Women’s room.

Are you “anti-freedom”, Chief? /sarcasm
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

Not on my watch Pal.

We’re winning. We may have already won.

You related to Roeder?
http://northerngleaner.blogspot.com/ Gene

108 is right.

Cheney believes what I do. If you want to make a contract with your dog go ahead.

But, don’t call it, don’t codify it as “Marriage”. BHO and I agree on what marriage is…It’s not Homosex.
robert108

Also, the slogan “freedom for everyone” apparently doesn’t include the freedom to defend the definition of marriage as it has been forever. For Rob, it means only freedom for his favored groups, not those who oppose them.
robert108

You never answer this with anything more than rhetoric. Can’t answer the question, eddie? Why do free people in a free society need an affirmative argument for something that doesn’t harm another person? Sorry I have to tell you this, but your premise is bullshit. The proof is that the homo activists are trying to force their stuff on all the rest of us through the courts, and in CA, they practiced terrorism on those who supported real marriage. Why are they so willing to use violence to get their way? When you propose to change something so fundamental and long-lived as marriage, you should at least come up with a good reason to make that change.

Rob: The poverty of your one-sided definition of “freedom” is evidenced by your need to use lying smear, and in failing to come up with any valid reason to change marriage to suit the homo activists.
Since marriage is not a “right”, and since is was created and nourished by normal heterosexual men and women, there is no “equality” involved. There is no “other side” here; marriage is between a man and a woman, and everything else just isn’t marriage, no matter what you try to call it.
I can pass a low that calls all NoDakers “dolphins”, but that doesn’t change reality.
http://tarheelred.wordpress.com/ pino

I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish.

This is true; and what we as Conservatives ought to embrace. While I may not agree with it, I have to agree with their right to it. I also don’t agree with the fact that we allow divorce and then allow THOSE people to get married; but they have that right.

Oh, oh yeah….and people who have sex before marriage; I don’t think they should be doing THAT either. But, again, they have the right to get married.

I do believe that the 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.

Here I think that he is wrong. While States do have the ability to define legal age, they are not free to restrict Civil Liberties. You can no more restrict a gay couple from getting married than you can restrict a bi-racial couple from getting married. This is most certainly a Federal issue. California will prove this.
http://forums.kikizo.com/ Eddie_the_Hated

Also, the slogan “freedom for everyone” apparently doesn’t include the freedom to defend the definition of marriage as it has been forever.

The brown-shirts aren’t hammering on your door yet, are they Robert? No? Huh… seems your right to defend what you will still stands strong.

Actually, it’s back to reality, with the homo activists having to make an affirmative argument for changing the fundamental nature of marriage to suit their selfish needs.

You never answer this with anything more than rhetoric. Why do free people in a free society need an affirmative argument for something that doesn’t harm another person?
robert108

BTW, homos are free to get married; they just have to meet the requirements, and find someone of the opposite sex to marry them. Single people can’t be “married”, either; they also have to meet the same requirement, which proves that it isn’t a “right”, or a matter of “freedom”.
It’s just more leftie bullshit.
http://www.myspace.com/thekingscourt4u Gman

Rabid,

The Barney Frank pic is perfect. I wonder if they would consider adopting it for his official photo.
docdave

I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish.

Sure. If someone wants to marry his cat, dog or sheep, it should be permitted. /sarc
Neiman

Why do free people in a free society need an affirmative argument for something that doesn’t harm another person?

Because you are wrong, gay marriage is designed to harm, to destroy, the definition and state of traditional marriage. It is morally, socially and economically harmful, destructive of any society. Thus, gays must prove that the benefits of changing the definition and state of traditional marriage outweighs the negative consequences.

Unfortunately, this matter does not involve just individual states, as at some point when enough states approve some bastardized homosexual form of marriage, full faith and credit will demand even non-homosexual marriage states recognize and provide full benefits for homosexual marriages, thus making homosexual marriage a matter approved by the federal government.
HG

We have laws against polygamy for a reason. It is detrimental to women, families, and society. Homosexuality is also detrimental to, first, homosexuals, then the health of society, our healthcare system, our federal and state budgets, etc.

When:
2% of the population account for 71% of all HIV/AIDS diagnoses. (CDC 2005)

2% of the population account for hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne

2% of the population account for 65% of Syphallis cases in the US. (CDC 2007)

…it is as plain as the nose on your face. This behavior is irreparably and mortally harming individuals on a scale that is unacceptable for civilized society. Homosexuality presents an unacceptable risk level, or nothing does. Regardless of what animals do, biologically speaking, humans are not equipped for this homosexual behavior. Clearly nature does not intend it or by now we would have evolved (adapted) to accomodate this behavior.

Normalizing this behavior is the last thing society should be considering. These people need help and the appropriate treatment to live a full and well adjusted life. They don’t need us to turn our back on the difficult and deadly problems inherent in homosexuality.

I think Cheney’s admission that marriage should be decided at a state level is one that implies no inequality exists. If this was a civil rights issue, it would demand a federal solution.
HG

…Unless, of course, the heterosexual wishes to join in a domestic partnership with a party of the same sex.
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

HG correct. This is a state’s right’s issue just like baby killing by illegal abortions.
HG

Broadening the marriage contract to include gender nuetral unions is absurd for the damage homosexuality does to society, the fact that most hold the idea of marriage between a man and woman, the lessons and history of civilizations, and the rich tradition, as well as the historical and religious significance of marriage.

Many states have or are in the process of recognizing civil unions called domestic partnerships which afford many of the benefits bundled in the marriage contract. These domestic partnerships are afforded almost exclusively to homosexuals alone. With the exception of a heterosexual couple where one party is over 62 years old and meets certain SS requirements, heterosexuals are excluded from civil unions.
http://www.rabidamerican.net/ Rabid American

This is unequivocally a States issue……

The State, by means of the vote of the citizen residents, can decide this issue.

Not the Fed, as some would have you believe!!!!!
http://www.rabidamerican.net/ Rabid American

I wonder who yanked his chain. (Buzz)

Your Mom…….
TomTom

Cheney’s daughter is a flaming LESBIAN!
sayanything-5371

At what point and on what issue can I disagree with you and still be considered, by you, conservative?

I don’t care if you disagree with me or not. Homosexuals do not have the right to pervert and re-define ancient and time tested institutions in order to try to legitimize what they do. Frankly, you are a fool, because they aren’t really interested in marriage and commitment at all. With homosexuals promicuity is the norm. What they want to do is tear down the institution of marriage and substitute their immorality to further their real agenda, which is the abolition of age of consent laws. The breakdown of morality, like you propose, is part of their agenda. You are just a useful idiot to them.
http://tldr.de/ Arecibo

This is not an issue the Federal government has any power over. End of discussion.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

No, J, he wouldn’t.

Robert:

For Rob, it means only freedom for his favored groups, not those who oppose them.

That’s not true, actually. I support freedom for everyone. What I don’t support is one group of people trying to suppress the freedoms of others.

I don’t think it’s “freedom” to remove other people’s freedoms. You think so, which is why you’re a big government authoritarian.
http://suitepotato.blogspot.com/ sayanything-4808

Heterosexuals saw this coming in a subliminal subconscious way a long time ago with their ritualizations and prohibitions and taboos placed on heterosexual sex and their general public opprobrium placed upon homosexuality. It’s always been there, practiced in private and without fanfare by those with enough sense but in today’s modern oversexed culture, male sexual aggression has come unhinged.

Male homosexuals very rarely form anything like a stable pair bond. As it is the heterosexual pair bonds which are the foundation of human advancement, are already weakening culturally. This is bad enough. Male homosexual pair bonds are nothing more than temporary hook-ups in the vast majority of cases.

If anything the male homosexual culture of 2009 is out of control. It’s been firmly engulfed in the modern obsession with self gratification on every level. It’s become entirely obsessed with victimhood equating mankind’s long disapproval with unfair imposition on a freedom that they never had, a freedom to impose their behaviors upon the majority to accept something they find inherently unacceptable.

No one has any rights in reality. They have indulgences that last as long as society itself deems them to be in force and end when that society no longer believes in them. No one in any society ever in human history has ever been thought to have a right to the approval of others. Even the most heinous egomaniacal rulers never seriously thought that what they did had any inherent expectation of approval, only acceptance without opposition by right of might.

I’ll say that again. No one ever in human history has ever been thought to have the right of others to approve of them or their actions. In the end, your mind is your own and no one can make you agree, only argue and leave you to decide for yourself. It hardly needs to be said that the modern world is cursed with a surfeit of people who believe that disapproval is equal to oppression but when you tell a child no and they stamp their feet and scream that in the absolute that you never let them have their way, you see it for the immaturity it is and homosexual male culture is exceedingly immature in the main.

The state is the voice of the society made manifest and should the state sanction homosexual pairings as the same as marriage, an institution they recognize as needed for the proliferation of the species and the betterment of the same, the advancement of the society across time, their very posterity, then the state says on behalf of the society that their mating, their building of families and their commitment for more than ten thousand years was just a fad. A mistake simple people made and suddenly you and some others come along and think you know better.

Some people yet to be born will curse the bones of those that did nothing to fight the slide of humanity into a sewer of its own making.
http://suitepotato.blogspot.com/ sayanything-4808

Eddie:

something that doesn’t harm another person?

Could you be more purposely full of shit than this? Your posts make it clear you have a better intellectual grasp than a lot of other people online and your line is first grade level purposeful disingenuous pap and you know it.

Actions have consequences. All actions. Everything you actually move from idea to action results in self-reinforcement and discouragement both. Some actions in little to none of one and a lot of the other, some more balanced. You can guess what sex tends more towards.

Males are without any doubt and with thousands of years of human history documenting it the more aggressive of the genders. In every way, males come out on top. Especially sexually. Who commits rape the majority of the time? Who are the majority of sex offenders whether adult or pedophile? Who are the minority of the population overall? We males are outnumbered by females by several percentage points and we males take home all the trophies for sexual aggression. And we know it. We’ve known it for thousands of years.

We know it so well that we tacitly acknowledge a certain lack of ability to control ourselves and instead fearfully put the controls on females as if to warn them that if they tempt us too much we can’t guarantee their safety. We males create the taboos regarding prostitution and promiscuity because we know what we get to be like when we go whoring freely. We stop seeing women as sisters mothers and daughters and start seeing them as things to fuck. We become even more territorial than usual. We become more violent. We descend into barbarism all over a piece of ass. And we know it. We’ve known it for thousands of years.

We’ve paid scant attention culturally to lesbian relationships because we know how fickle females are and how un-aggressive they are. Lesbianism rarely produces any problems, lesbian promiscuity is a relatively new phenomenon in human history only made possible in modern society like ours where moral and ethical standards are and have been under assault. For thousands of years, lesbians were much smarter than male homosexuals and much more controlled. They kept to themselves, and they made a point of not antagonizing the societies they lived in.

Male homosexuals do no such thing, at least not now. In a society without encouragement to control to keeping certain behaviors behind closed doors to themselves, male aggression takes over. No longer just neighbors who happen to never date or marry and spend a lot of time with other men, now it’s all about their sexuality.
WOOFX

Now we know what he was doing in that undisclosed location.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Cheney Comes Out In Favor Of Gay Marriage

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments