PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Former VP Cheney takes a very brave stand


Sully
06-02-2009, 10:47 AM
Cheney on gay marriage: 'Freedom for everyone'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090602/ap_on_re_us/us_cheney

WASHINGTON Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday he supports gays being able to marry but believes states, not the federal government, should make the decision.

"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said in a speech at the National Press Club. "I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."

Cheney, who has a gay daughter, said marriage has always been a state issue.

"And I think that's the way it ought to be handled today, that is, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that," he said.

Cheney spent most of his speech, and during the questions and answers that followed, defending the Bush administration's wartime policies.

He said that the jail at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba was necessary because its prisoners are too dangerous to be held elsewhere.

"If you don't have a place where you can hold these people, the only other option is to kill them, and we don't operate that way," he said.

The 240 prisoners left at Guantanamo, he said, are "the worst of the worst" including alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammed_ who would gladly become suicide bombers to kill more Americans.

Cheney said if the jail had not existed, captured terrorists would have had to have been brought to the United States where they would have legal rights denied to them at Guantanamo. He did not address why the prisoners could not have been held at U.S. military jails in war zones like Afghanistan and Iraq, where some newly captured prisoners are going now.

Cheney reiterated his challenge to President Barack Obama to release several pages of secret memos that Cheney says will prove that harsh interrogations were effective. His initial request to release the memos was turned down last month because the documents are the subject of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit and may be released by a court.

Cheney noted that Obama in April superseded another FOIA lawsuit to release the memos describing the CIA's harsh interrogation program, which he called "giving away the store."

Cheney also defended the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq in 2003, despite faulty intelligence about its nuclear weapons program and links to the 9/11 attacks. He asserted that Saddam Hussein could have helped terrorists acquire nuclear weapons. The U.S. government could find no evidence of an active Iraq nuclear weapons program after the invasion.

More than 4,300 U.S. service members have died in Iraq, with more than 30,000 wounded. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in the 6-year-old war that has cost the United States about $675 billion so far, according to the National Priorities Project.

Cheney is writing a memoir about his years in government, which he said will highlight the successes of the policies set in place after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Yeah...my header was TiC.

Direckshun
06-02-2009, 10:48 AM
Actually, that is a brave stand considering he's the de facto voice of the Republican Party.

Sully
06-02-2009, 10:49 AM
Actually, that is a brave stand considering he's the de facto voice of the Republican Party.

Who will never be running for another office in his career.

Hey, it's nice for him to say.
It would have been nicer when it actually meant something.

BigRedChief
06-02-2009, 10:57 AM
Whats the argument for gays not being allowed to marry? Just the fact they are the same sex?

Sully
06-02-2009, 11:00 AM
Whats the argument for gays not being allowed to marry? Just the fact they are the same sex?

AFAICT here's all the arguments I've seen.

1. It's against Gods will.
2. It's not "natural."
3. Kids will be mean to other kids.
4. Marriage has always been religious/ between man and woman.
5. It will ruin traditional marriage.
6. We will burn like Rome once we allow this.

BigRedChief
06-02-2009, 11:02 AM
dupe

Mr. Flopnuts
06-02-2009, 11:03 AM
I think that is a pretty brave stance from ole Dick. It's also right in line with my conservative beliefs. Let the states handle their own business.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-02-2009, 11:04 AM
I think that is a pretty brave stance from ole Dick. It's also right in line with my conservative beliefs. Let the states handle their own business.

I can't believe Dick Chaney did anything to illicit this kind of approval from me. Anything.

BigRedChief
06-02-2009, 11:07 AM
AFAICT here's all the arguments I've seen.

1. It's against Gods will.
2. It's not "natural."
3. Kids will be mean to other kids.
4. Marriage has always been religious/ between man and woman.
5. It will ruin traditional marriage.
6. We will burn like Rome once we allow this.
If the opiniion by some that 1 and 2 are true then homosexuality should be outlawed also correct? Is so I'll put up a major fight on that one. They have a right to be whoever they really are.

3. I coached little league baseball for 10 years. For about 5 of those we had a lesbian couple that adopted and their son played on the team. They were accepted by the other parents and I never heard 1 comment from the other kids directed at him about the 2 mom's thing.

4. Just because its always been that way doesn't mean it should stay that way. Slavery, paganism etc come to mind.

5. Ruin my marriage? How? I'll start thinking of turning gay so I can open up my mariage possibilites?

6. What two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of my nor society's business.

BigChiefFan
06-02-2009, 11:12 AM
What a weasel. His own daughter is a lesbian and he didn't even have the balls to stand up for her rights when he had a political platform to stand on.

I don't trust that man.

Sully
06-02-2009, 11:13 AM
If the opiniion by some that 1 and 2 are true then homosexuality should be outlawed also correct? Is so I'll put up a major fight on that one. They have a right to be whoever they really are.

3. I coached little league baseball for 10 years. For about 5 of those we had a lesbian couple that adopted and their son played on the team. They were accepted by the other parents and I never heard 1 comment from the other kids directed at him about the 2 mom's thing.

4. Just because its always been that way doesn't mean it should stay that way. Slavery, paganism etc come to mind.

5. Ruin my marriage? How? I'll start thinking of turning gay so I can open up my mariage possibilites?

6. What two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of my nor society's business.

I agree 100%

SBK
06-02-2009, 11:17 AM
Cheney makes the same argument, that it should be up to the states, that many of the conservatives around here have made.

Sully
06-02-2009, 11:19 AM
Cheney makes the same argument, that it should be up to the states, that many of the conservatives around here have made.

Even though I disagree with it, it's a legit argument. I have no qualms with him making that argument.

SBK
06-02-2009, 11:27 AM
Even though I disagree with it, it's a legit argument. I have no qualms with him making that argument.

I'll go a step further. I bet if you posted a poll about Roe v Wade you'd have a lot of people here who hate abortion tell you their problem with that law is that it should be made by the states.

My belief is that Roe v Wade should be overturned, and the law should be left to the states. I'm not of the line of thinking that it should be overturned so that abortion can be federally outlawed.

End.

BucEyedPea
06-02-2009, 12:15 PM
This is nothing new at all. He has a gay daughter too.
Even Bush supported civil unions.

BigRedChief
06-02-2009, 03:18 PM
This is nothing new at all. He has a gay daughter too.
Even Bush supported civil unions.
so why are they not legal in all 50 states?

BucEyedPea
06-02-2009, 03:35 PM
so why are they not legal in all 50 states?

Because thinking it belongs to the states means it won't be legal in every state. It will reflect the mores of the common people.
Nor does it have anything to do with the Federal govt or Dick Cheney if you apply logic to what he said or to what the Constitution says. For some reason you think it means uniformity if it belongs to the states. It doesn't. Ya' know the whole idea of federalism at work here.

FD
06-02-2009, 05:24 PM
He said basically the same thing in 2004, right? Why are there two threads today about Cheney with no new content.

Sully
06-02-2009, 05:37 PM
He said basically the same thing in 2004, right? Why are there two threads today about Cheney with no new content.

If he said this in 04, I don't recall it. I remember him running from the issue and hiding during the debates, but if he cleared up his running, I missed it.

Baby Lee
06-02-2009, 05:38 PM
AFAICT here's all the arguments I've seen.

1. It's against Gods will.
2. It's not "natural."
3. Kids will be mean to other kids.
4. Marriage has always been religious/ between man and woman.
5. It will ruin traditional marriage.
6. We will burn like Rome once we allow this.

The only thing that holds for someone from my POV, is the assumption that raising kids in a household with one mother and one father is socially desireable enough to merit official recognition.

For me, the tragedy isn't that so much that some unions get more goodies and recognition easier than others. It's as much that personal unions merit goodies and official recognition at all. Why should how society views and rewards you be so dependent on your personal associations.

If this momentous sea change pushes through, I want a concomitant re-examination of all the unions we encourage and reward. Should we reward people for forming unions with multiple people, whole communities, fraternities and sororities, online chatgroups, etc? Is there any utility in monitoring the 'authenticity' of marriages involving noncitizens?

FD
06-02-2009, 05:41 PM
If he said this in 04, I don't recall it. I remember him running from the issue and hiding during the debates, but if he cleared up his running, I missed it.


"With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said at a 2004 campaign stop in Davenport, Iowa, using language nearly identical to his remarks today. "People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/01/cheney_comes_out_for_gay_marri.html?wprss=44

This is extremely old news.

BigRedChief
06-02-2009, 05:43 PM
The only thing that holds for someone from my POV, is the assumption that raising kids in a household with one mother and one father is socially desireable enough to merit official recognition.

For me, the tragedy isn't that so much that some unions get more goodies and recognition easier than others. It's as much that personal unions merit goodies and official recognition at all. Why should how society views and rewards you be so dependent on your personal associations.

If this momentous sea change pushes through, I want a concomitant re-examination of all the unions we encourage and reward. Should we reward people for forming unions with multiple people, whole communities, fraternities and sororities, online chatgroups, etc? Is there any utility in monitoring the 'authenticity' of marriages involving noncitizens?
If two people love each other then they should be allowed to be married. No more. Abuse of the system and what "married" means to a lot of private and public infrastruture would soon happen.

Letting same sex couple marry is way different than having pologmy or community marriages take place. I don't see America going for that and I would be opposed to that.

Baby Lee
06-02-2009, 05:58 PM
If two people love each other then they should be allowed to be married. No more. Abuse of the system and what "married" means to a lot of private and public infrastruture would soon happen.

Letting same sex couple marry is way different than having pologmy or community marriages take place. I don't see America going for that and I would be opposed to that.

way different is no descriptor at all. Elaborate.
People marry who aren't in romantic love.
People marry who don't have sex, or kids.
What's the crucial common denominator you see?

Why can't any configuration you can imagine of voluntary volition make the decision that, even if they're not in romantic love, or don't engage in sex, these are the people with whom they wish to share visitation, probate, real estate and tax incentives?

BucEyedPea
06-02-2009, 07:07 PM
If two people love each other then they should be allowed to be married.

Why do you think they actually love each other anyway? Ev'r live with any of them and see how promiscuous they are and unfaithful resulting in lots of jealousy tirades and insecurity. Most male gay relationships don't last longer than a year.

stevieray
06-02-2009, 07:45 PM
my guess is marriage itself eventually will be abolished, and all unions will be labeled civil..


prolly have to go to uncivil court for dissolution.

stevieray
06-02-2009, 07:47 PM
Why do you think they actually love each other anyway? Ev'r live with any of them and see how promiscuous they are and unfaithful resulting in lots of jealousy tirades and insecurity. Most male gay relationships don't last longer than a year.

I read once that a doc in NY said he could tell immediately if a murder was from a homosexual relationship.

Sully
06-02-2009, 07:54 PM
Why do you think they actually love each other anyway? Ev'r live with any of them and see how promiscuous they are and unfaithful resulting in lots of jealousy tirades and insecurity. Most male gay relationships don't last longer than a year.

Generalizations are fun!

Boon
06-02-2009, 09:00 PM
He (Cheney) is probably just getting us ready for when he comes out of the closet.

cardken
06-02-2009, 10:01 PM
The Costs of Rising Divorce Rates Across The US
By James M. Robbins
The latest statistics claim roughly 60% of marriages end in divorce. Second or third marriages have only about 20% of couples remaining happily married. A full eighty percent of repeat marriages end in divorce. Over one million children watch their parents divorce each year, and half of the babies born this year will suffer through the divorce of their parents before they turn 18. While divorce is often necessary, there is no denying rising divorce rates signal societal issues.

Strong Argument for the sanctity of traditional marriage, LOL. Listen it's all a crock, Marriage is a sham, I've been married twice legally and one "common law" marriage. Ups and Downs, Good and Bad. But the argument is always about how sacred marriage is, and over half of them fail not once but twice. So appearently, no one thinks much of it. So let everyone join in on the "fun." Get off your high horses.

stevieray
06-02-2009, 10:35 PM
Strong Argument for the sanctity of traditional marriage, LOL. Listen it's all a crock, Marriage is a sham, I've been married twice legally and one "common law" marriage. Ups and Downs, Good and Bad. But the argument is always about how sacred marriage is, and over half of them fail not once but twice. So appearently, no one thinks much of it. So let everyone join in on the "fun." Get off your high horses.

that doesn't indict marriage, rather shows what a nation of quitters we are becoming, while devaluing a main cog of our social fabric.

Taco John
06-02-2009, 11:23 PM
Actually, that is a brave stand considering he's the de facto voice of the Republican Party.

You just can't seem to decide who is the defact voice of the Republican party...

BucEyedPea
06-03-2009, 06:09 AM
The Costs of Rising Divorce Rates Across The US
By James M. Robbins
The latest statistics claim roughly 60% of marriages end in divorce. Second or third marriages have only about 20% of couples remaining happily married. A full eighty percent of repeat marriages end in divorce. Over one million children watch their parents divorce each year, and half of the babies born this year will suffer through the divorce of their parents before they turn 18. While divorce is often necessary, there is no denying rising divorce rates signal societal issues.

Strong Argument for the sanctity of traditional marriage, LOL. Listen it's all a crock, Marriage is a sham, I've been married twice legally and one "common law" marriage. Ups and Downs, Good and Bad. But the argument is always about how sacred marriage is, and over half of them fail not once but twice. So appearently, no one thinks much of it. So let everyone join in on the "fun." Get off your high horses.

Yeah but, due to the economic downturn....there's less splits. In the past, before all our fake wealth, consumer wealth that is, the economics didn't make divorce easy. But now marriage is as throw-a-way as any other consumer good. Hence, why gays seem to desire marriage these days than when it was harder to get out of.

BigRedChief
06-03-2009, 06:23 AM
way different is no descriptor at all. Elaborate.
People marry who aren't in romantic love.
People marry who don't have sex, or kids.
What's the crucial common denominator you see?

Why can't any configuration you can imagine of voluntary volition make the decision that, even if they're not in romantic love, or don't engage in sex, these are the people with whom they wish to share visitation, probate, real estate and tax incentives?
Jeeeezzz you think I spend my time thinking about gay marriage? Maybe "they" are right? Gay marriage would open up the other 49% of the population to myself for a possible relationship. But, I don't think I could get past the whole "I would have to kiss a guy thing". Would there be class's/training?

We can figure out a way to allow gays to marry in this country without causing the moral fabric of this nation to crumble because two lesbians got married at the courthouse.

Baby Lee
06-03-2009, 06:30 AM
Jeeeezzz you think I spend my time thinking about gay marriage? Maybe "they" are right? Gay marriage would open up the other 49% of the population to myself for a possible relationship. But, I don't think I could get past the whole "I would have to kiss a guy thing". Would there be class's/training?

We can figure out a way to allow gays to marry in this country without causing the moral fabric of this nation to crumble because two lesbians got married at the courthouse.

Got it, it's not so much about principle, or even conscious thought, as it is that they're the interest group pissing in your ear this particular moment.

BigRedChief
06-03-2009, 06:41 AM
Got it, it's not so much about principle, or even conscious thought, as it is that they're the interest group pissing in your ear this particular moment.huh?
I've been in favor of gay marriage for a long time.

Bottom line in my book:
They are U.S. citizens and are being denied the right to pursue happiness. I think we have a law or two about making sure that doesn't happen.

Messier
06-03-2009, 06:50 AM
You just can't seem to decide who is the defact voice of the Republican party...

Neither can they.

Baby Lee
06-03-2009, 07:19 AM
Bottom line in my book:
They are U.S. citizens and are being denied the right to pursue happiness. I think we have a law or two about making sure that doesn't happen.
Apparently your 'bottom line' has some clearcut limitations
Letting same sex couple marry is way different than having pologmy or community marriages take place. I don't see America going for that and I would be opposed to that.
So again, what's the critical difference between two gay people pursuing happiness and other unions?

patteeu
06-03-2009, 07:54 AM
Who will never be running for another office in his career.

Hey, it's nice for him to say.
It would have been nicer when it actually meant something.

He never came out and said it, but it was pretty obvious that he supported gay marriage when he was still in office. He always made it a point when talking about this subject to say that his job as VP was to support the president's policies, but he hinted pretty strongly that his personal views were different.

patteeu
06-03-2009, 07:56 AM
I can't believe Dick Chaney did anything to illicit this kind of approval from me. Anything.

The scales are falling from your eyes. ;)

patteeu
06-03-2009, 08:03 AM
What a weasel. His own daughter is a lesbian and he didn't even have the balls to stand up for her rights when he had a political platform to stand on.

I don't trust that man.

You think he's a weasel? You must really think ill of Mary Cheney. Here's an excerpt from an interview she did with People Magazine (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1191271,00.html) after coming out with her book, "Now It's My Turn: A Daughter's Chronicle Of Political Life":

People: You were director of vice presidential operations on the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign, but you didn't agree when President Bush announced his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment to ban same-sex marriages?

MC: When President Bush endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment, he let me know he would understand if I wanted to put out a statement. For me, that would have been so inappropriate. I signed on to be a staffer; I didn't sign on to express my own point of view.

People: But now you can state your opinion on same sex marriage?

MC: I am in favor of legalized same sex marriage. I make it clear in the book I passionately disagree with President Bush on the issue of the Federal Marriage Amendment. But I also make it very clear that I had no doubt, even with that disagreement, that President Bush was the absolute best person to be leading us at this time in our country's history. It would be great to have the luxury of being a one-issue voter, but I didn't, and quite frankly, I don't think our country does.

I think that both father and daughter are quite admirable. Both of them recognize that gay marriage isn't even close to the biggest issue facing the country.

Edit: It's also worth noting that she says Bush explicitly gave her permission to put out a statement and yet she did not. That speaks well for both of them, IMO.

Sully
06-03-2009, 08:16 AM
He never came out and said it, but it was pretty obvious that he supported gay marriage when he was still in office. He always made it a point when talking about this subject to say that his job as VP was to support the president's policies, but he hinted pretty strongly that his personal views were different.

Yeah. I realize the mistake I made. The article doesn't quote him actually saying he's for gay marriage, so he really didn't take a stand at all.

patteeu
06-03-2009, 03:11 PM
Yeah. I realize the mistake I made. The article doesn't quote him actually saying he's for gay marriage, so he really didn't take a stand at all.

He took a clear stand in favor of each state's right to decide and it's not hard to figure out what his personal position is. Does it really bother you that he doesn't explicitly say that he supports gay marriage or would he have to call Republicans who oppose it bigots to satisfy you?

Sully
06-03-2009, 03:19 PM
He took a clear stand in favor of each state's right to decide and it's not hard to figure out what his personal position is. Does it really bother you that he doesn't explicitly say that he supports gay marriage or would he have to call Republicans who oppose it bigots to satisfy you?

Last night I was told he said this in 2004. I hadn't seen the video at the time, and didn't remember him saying it. But he did. He really didn't say anything. He thinks everyone should be able to enter "any relationship or union they want to." as opposed to the article from 04 where he is quoted to say they should enter any "relationship" they want. He went from saying nothing, to hinting at an actual stance.

It's a (very small) step further than what he said in '04, and I commend him for that. But I also think it's cowardly that he takes that step after he's out of office and never to run for office again. Especially considering how he cowered when asked about it in the debates.

As for your last sentence, that's silly...and you know it. Are those the only two options? To dance around the topic, or to call those who aren't pro-gay marriage bigots? You and I both know they aren't, so just stop.

patteeu
06-03-2009, 04:36 PM
Last night I was told he said this in 2004. I hadn't seen the video at the time, and didn't remember him saying it. But he did. He really didn't say anything. He thinks everyone should be able to enter "any relationship or union they want to." as opposed to the article from 04 where he is quoted to say they should enter any "relationship" they want. He went from saying nothing, to hinting at an actual stance.

It's a (very small) step further than what he said in '04, and I commend him for that. But I also think it's cowardly that he takes that step after he's out of office and never to run for office again. Especially considering how he cowered when asked about it in the debates.

As for your last sentence, that's silly...and you know it. Are those the only two options? To dance around the topic, or to call those who aren't pro-gay marriage bigots? You and I both know they aren't, so just stop.

He didn't just say nothing in 2004. It was obvious that he didn't personally agree with the Bush policy in 2004. He didn't articulate a specific policy preference of his own, but what he did do was far from "saying nothing".

And his choice to support the senior partner on his ticket during the election wasn't "cowardly", it was honorable. It's a shame you can't tell the difference.

Sully
06-03-2009, 04:51 PM
Honorable?
Party over ideals is honorable?

It wasn't too long ago you were chiding me for not making fun of a lefty poster because he was "on my team."

patteeu
06-04-2009, 12:03 AM
Honorable?
Party over ideals is honorable?

It wasn't too long ago you were chiding me for not making fun of a lefty poster because he was "on my team."

This isn't a case of party over ideals, it's a case of a whole set of important issues over a single, trivial (by comparison) issue. It's a case of loyalty and honor over self indulgence.

BigMeatballDave
06-04-2009, 12:07 AM
I oppose gay marriage, just as our current POTUS. I'd support Civil Unions.

Sully
06-04-2009, 08:16 AM
A constitutional amendment is trivial. Got it.