Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Cheney's Gay Marriage Comments Draw Fire

Expand Messages
  • Norm
    The religious right s outcry against Dick Cheney is loud and clear: get back in-line! When asked about his thoughts on gay marriage, he side-stepped the issue
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 28, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      The religious right's outcry against Dick Cheney is loud and clear:
      get back in-line! When asked about his thoughts on gay marriage, he
      side-stepped the issue and instead deferred to state's rights.
      Apparently, the reality of the anti-gay marriage amendment may hit
      too close to home for Cheney.

      Self-proclaimed "family values" advocates don't know how to respond
      to a father defending his daughter's right to have the freedom to
      pursue her own relationships. For years, conservatives claimed that
      they do not hate gays and in fact respect GLBTs' right to live
      freely. The vice president actually proclaimed this freedom in
      light of the gay marriage debate. The religious right reactionary
      rage seems to indicate that maybe they are not so respectful.

      The religious right is worried that his comments were calculated by
      the Bush/Cheney campaign as a swing to the left(?!?). I would call
      it an unintentional alteration from hatred to reluctant respect. I
      doubt Cheney's wishy-washy comments about gay marriage have inspired
      anyone.

      I never thought I would find myself defending Cheney, but below is
      the excerpt of his comments from the V.P.'s website. Unfortunately,
      either he stopped speaking at "...my own pre" or the transcript was
      cut-off.

      Norm!

      "Q We have a battle here on this land, as well. And I would like to
      know, sir, from your heart -- I don't want to know what your
      advisors say, or even what your top advisor thinks -- but I need to
      know what do you think about homosexual marriages.

      "THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the question has come up obviously in the
      past with respect to the question of gay marriage. Lynne and I have
      a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar
      with. We have two daughters, and we have enormous pride in both of
      them. They're both fine young women. They do a superb job, frankly,
      of supporting us. And we are blessed with both our daughters.

      "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. The question that comes up with respect to the issue of
      marriage is what kind of official sanction, or approval is going to
      be granted by government, if you will, to particular relationships.
      Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by
      the states. The states have made that basic fundamental decision in
      terms of defining what constitutes a marriage. I made clear four
      years ago when I ran and this question came up in the debate I had
      with Joe Lieberman that my view was that that's appropriately a
      matter for the states to decide, that that's how it ought to best be
      handled.

      "The President has, as result of the decisions that have been made
      in Massachusetts this year by judges, felt that he wanted to support
      the constitutional amendment to define -- at the federal level to
      define what constitutes marriage, that I think his perception was
      that the courts, in effect, were beginning to change -- without
      allowing the people to be involved, without their being part of the
      political process -- that the courts, in that particular case, the
      state court in Massachusetts, were making the judgment or the
      decision for the entire country. And he disagreed with that. So
      where we're at, at this point is he has come out in support of a
      federal constitutional amendment. And I don't think -- well, so far
      it hasn't had the votes to pass. Most states have addressed this.
      There is on the books the federal statute Defense of Marriage Act
      passed in 1996. And to date it has not been successfully challenged
      in the courts, and that may be sufficient to resolve the issue. But
      at this point, say, my own pre

      "More questions, yes."

      --From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040824-
      4.html
    • nyguy_1225
      It just goes to show that when the issue affects someone one loves, one thinks with not just one s mind but with one s heart too. That way of thinking involves
      Message 2 of 3 , Aug 28, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        It just goes to show that when the issue affects someone one loves,
        one thinks with not just one's mind but with one's heart too. That
        way of thinking involves the whole person and is always the wisest.

        -Alex


        --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, "Norm" <nojam75@y...> wrote:
        > The religious right's outcry against Dick Cheney is loud and
        clear:
        > get back in-line! When asked about his thoughts on gay marriage,
        he
        > side-stepped the issue and instead deferred to state's rights.
        > Apparently, the reality of the anti-gay marriage amendment may hit
        > too close to home for Cheney.
        >
        > Self-proclaimed "family values" advocates don't know how to
        respond
        > to a father defending his daughter's right to have the freedom to
        > pursue her own relationships. For years, conservatives claimed
        that
        > they do not hate gays and in fact respect GLBTs' right to live
        > freely. The vice president actually proclaimed this freedom in
        > light of the gay marriage debate. The religious right reactionary
        > rage seems to indicate that maybe they are not so respectful.
        >
        > The religious right is worried that his comments were calculated
        by
        > the Bush/Cheney campaign as a swing to the left(?!?). I would
        call
        > it an unintentional alteration from hatred to reluctant respect.
        I
        > doubt Cheney's wishy-washy comments about gay marriage have
        inspired
        > anyone.
        >
        > I never thought I would find myself defending Cheney, but below is
        > the excerpt of his comments from the V.P.'s website.
        Unfortunately,
        > either he stopped speaking at "...my own pre" or the transcript
        was
        > cut-off.
        >
        > Norm!
        >
        > "Q We have a battle here on this land, as well. And I would like
        to
        > know, sir, from your heart -- I don't want to know what your
        > advisors say, or even what your top advisor thinks -- but I need
        to
        > know what do you think about homosexual marriages.
        >
        > "THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the question has come up obviously in
        the
        > past with respect to the question of gay marriage. Lynne and I
        have
        > a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar
        > with. We have two daughters, and we have enormous pride in both of
        > them. They're both fine young women. They do a superb job,
        frankly,
        > of supporting us. And we are blessed with both our daughters.
        >
        > "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. The question that comes up with respect to the issue of
        > marriage is what kind of official sanction, or approval is going
        to
        > be granted by government, if you will, to particular
        relationships.
        > Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by
        > the states. The states have made that basic fundamental decision
        in
        > terms of defining what constitutes a marriage. I made clear four
        > years ago when I ran and this question came up in the debate I had
        > with Joe Lieberman that my view was that that's appropriately a
        > matter for the states to decide, that that's how it ought to best
        be
        > handled.
        >
        > "The President has, as result of the decisions that have been made
        > in Massachusetts this year by judges, felt that he wanted to
        support
        > the constitutional amendment to define -- at the federal level to
        > define what constitutes marriage, that I think his perception was
        > that the courts, in effect, were beginning to change -- without
        > allowing the people to be involved, without their being part of
        the
        > political process -- that the courts, in that particular case, the
        > state court in Massachusetts, were making the judgment or the
        > decision for the entire country. And he disagreed with that. So
        > where we're at, at this point is he has come out in support of a
        > federal constitutional amendment. And I don't think -- well, so
        far
        > it hasn't had the votes to pass. Most states have addressed this.
        > There is on the books the federal statute Defense of Marriage Act
        > passed in 1996. And to date it has not been successfully
        challenged
        > in the courts, and that may be sufficient to resolve the issue.
        But
        > at this point, say, my own pre
        >
        > "More questions, yes."
        >
        > --From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040824-
        > 4.html
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.