V.P Cheney comes out in favor of gay marriage..

Gather App
Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support AutomaticWasher.org:

S

~sudsshane

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
1,250
ABC News’ Rick Klein reports:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s media blitz continued today -- this time with Cheney placing himself to the left of President Obama on a key social issue.

Appearing at the National Press Club, Cheney answered a question about gay marriage by coming out in favor.

“I think that freedom means freedom for everyone,” Cheney said, The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports. “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.”

Cheney stated his position in a roughly similar way during the 2004 campaign, though he couched his position by pointing out that President Bush made administration policy -- and he favored a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

But the issue has gained new currency in recent months, as state after state moves to legalize gay marriage. Some prominent Democrats -- including former President Bill Clinton, who said last week that his view on gay marriage is “evolving” -- are moving away from their opposition to gay marriage.

President Obama remains personally opposed to gay marriage.

Source: yahoo news/abc news

Now if only Pres. Obama, and Congress would show some courage and overturn DOMA, and "Don't Ask Don't Tell"
 
Thanks~

Didn't know that was the case.

This is still a good thing regardless, because maybe it will help turn the tide our way within the Republican Party. Let's face it, we need all the support we can get.
I have always viewed Cheney as more moderate on social issues than Bush was. I am certain his daughter has helped shaped his view on gay marriage.

Can't wait to hear what windbag Limbaugh has to say about this..!!
 
But Back To The Real World....

Rush and Bill-O will also be having spasms when they get a load of what the president did Monday. As for me, I'm pleased. No word about same-sex marriages, but the tone of the proclamation is encouraging....

Subject: President Barack Obama Proclaims June as LGBT Pride Month
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 1, 2009

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH, 2009
A PROCLAMATION
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born. During LGBT Pride Month, we commemorate the events of June 1969 and commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.

LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society. There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities. LGBT Americans also mobilized the Nation to respond to the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic and have played a vital role in broadening this country's response to the HIV pandemic.

Due in no small part to the determination and dedication of the LGBT rights movement, more LGBT Americans are living their lives openly today than ever before. I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration. These individuals embody the best qualities we seek in public servants, and across my Administration -- in both the White House and the Federal agencies -- openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.

The LGBT rights movement has achieved great progress, but there is more work to be done. LGBT youth should feel safe to learn without the fear of harassment, and LGBT families and seniors should be allowed to live their lives with dignity and respect.

My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security. We must also commit ourselves to fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic by both reducing the number of HIV infections and providing care and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS across the United States.

These issues affect not only the LGBT community, but also our entire Nation. As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected. If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit. During LGBT Pride Month, I call upon the LGBT community, the Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

BARACK OBAMA
 
Shane:

"This is still a good thing regardless, because maybe it will help turn the tide our way within the Republican Party."

I hope you're right, but the Republicans have been for Grand Old Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose for so long, I'm not holding my breath.
 
That, too, is a great thing!

Now, if only, Pres. Obama would come out in support of gay marriage..
 
I hope you're right, but the Republicans have been for G

Very true Sandy.

The best thing the GOP can do is distance themselves from the far right of the party. While I agree, there is alot to be done, this is a start.
 
I think it's just too fascinating

that Cheney grew a pair after it does one bit of good for anyone except himself.

Lawrence/Maytagbear
 
Has anyone heard anything on the 2 millitary men that are about to lose there retirement because of dont ask dont tell.the ones that have been in the media recently.
 
Yes, I have..

It is disgraceful. That is why overturning "Don't ask, Don't Tell" is of the utmost importance.
 
Well it was probably good for the Vice prez, that he shot a man in the face, in a STATE, where its legal :-)..... oh wait a minute, i bet the states determine if its legal to shoot someone in the face.
 
Until Obama

Actually does something, I will continue to regard it as benign neglect. He isn't hurting us like the Republicans did and do, but he has failed to move one single, solitary finger to help us.

We have a very narrow window here - narrower, now that those idiots are trying to storm the Supreme Court (which, last I looked is still run by homophobic Republicans).

What we need is for some more congressional leaders to do what Leahy just did - and make some concrete changes in our sub-human status.

We also need for gays to stop hiding in the closet and acting thankful for the few crumbs thrown to us upon occasion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/us/politics/03immig.html?hpw
 
I have to ask why anyone would trust anything that comes out of Dick Cheney's mouth???? A kinder, gentler republican party? Indeed.......
 
Quite a from the AW folks

I happen to believe that Cheney means what he says about gay rights. But then I happen to travel in circles where most of the Republicans and conservatives I encounter support gay rights. But it appears that this group refuses to accept the support, or even supporting comment, from certain people. As a Republican, am I to presume that you also reject my support?
 
Can't speak for all of

the members of AW.org, but it seems to me that the noisiest, most prominent Republicans and Republican thinkers are not the moderates or (dare I say?) liberals, but the nutcase far right.

Muzzle those creeps first(O'Reilly, Coulter, Limbaugh, most of Faux News.) Or get the moderates talking.

Just my opinion.

Lawrence/Maytagbear
 
Muzzling?

I can't get on board with "muzzling" speech. That is exactly what that "out there" Limbaugh would say would be your response. Why hand him such a bouguet? If good ideas require the "muzzling" of other ideas, then they aren't good ideas.
 
Ok, maybe I could

have expressed it a bit differently. I admit that. However, bring up the moderate voices. If there are any left.

L/Mb
 
Rocketwarrior,

I am firmly convinced that there are also good people who are Republicans and conservatives.

Please remember that a good deal of what is said on any given posting reflects a long history of private and older conversations here. We are never to mention it, but quite a bit of what goes on in a related organization also has an effect.

That said, many of us here who stood up during the last eight years and spoke our minds against shrub & Co. had the delightful pleasure of being sent nasty-o-grammes by some of the conservatives and Republicans around here.

At least twice, members of the group had their employers contacted by conservative members who tried to get those folks fired - and succeeded in one case.

Several of us were turned into the FBI by a conservative Republican here who insisted we were traitors and dangerous.

Now, I know it is not fair to throw all conservatives into one pot and I am very well aware that there are conservatives who are gay and conservative gays who are Republican. I can't get my mind around it but I know it is so.

It is just, after several years of being actively, aggressively ill-treated by some Republicans, many of us are more than a bit touchy on the subject.

Does that make sense?

I know it isn't fair, and I am really trying hard not to assume every conservative here is like that. But it hurt and it left many people very very angry and bitter.

Frankly, I do think the Republican party is in turmoil. I have friends who are business Republicans and they are literally tearing their hair out, trying to figure out what to do with the party. Many intellectuals (and once upon a time, the Republican party had many intellectuals on offer) have been booted out of the party (Noonan, Douthat to name two who were torn to shreds last year).

It's going to be a rough slog for conservatives like you. I am sorry about that - you have a right to your opinions. If I recall correctly, the only thing we agree on is gun rights. If it makes you feel any better, my statement that gun control means using both hands means a large part of the knee-jerk liberals around here hate me just as much as do many conservative Republicans.

I think we are all going to need a while to recover from the culture wars of the last eight years.
 
....what goes on in a related organization....

I am interested in issues. I know (way to well) about the bickering and off-thread nastiness that can go on. There are probably some cultural issues there that we cannot address because we need to be so careful.

But back to the issues: Long, long ago, I was asked annually to speak to law students about interviewing, etc. And in those days, there were a lot of conservative, all white, all male, all ?straight? firms. And the 70's women's movement was just revving up. Now, if an interviewer asks an "inappropriate" question, you could walk out and raise a fuss. But my view was that you learn how to role with the question, get the job, and then be part of change. I always felt that I could do more from inside than walking around the building with a sign. And with the support of like minded conservatives, we hired our first woman attorney, our first legal assistant, etc., etc. Just could not have done that from outside.

And there is no way that I am going to trust our government, the Democrat(ic) Party, the Republican Party, Obama, Limbaugh, to get get anything meaningful accomplished without challenge. Tough challenge. It is hard enough keep politicians honest without giving them Carte Blanche.

But back to gay rights. There are some who are comfortable with the proposition of federal government controlling and owning everything. I am not. And I don't think that makes me a raving mad man. So when you try to box Cheney as being disingenous with his support of gay rights by saying he supports state's rights I don't think you are being fair.

When "our government" went apeshit over Terri Schiavo, I suspect most of you agreed that the feds should stay the heck out of it. It was a local, Florida, court that let them remove the tube. Not the federal government. So you see, you can be in favor of the right to let her go and still be in favor of a State's right to deal with the matter.

So back to Cheney - the suggestion that because he believes in State's rights he doesn't really believe in gay rights doesn't cut it. And I don't know why his just being supportive of his daughter isn't good enough faith for y'all. How do you think women finally got into sports big time? Do you think fathers supporting their daughters might have had something to do with it. That has been my experience.
 
Everyone was content to leave to the states the question of what constitutes "marriage" -- until the "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996 singled us out and explicitly denied us this right at the federal level.

As for Cheney, IMO he's a perfect example of right-wing hypocrisy. E.g. 80% of Americans who identify themselves as conservative say they favor laws against abortion, and a similar percentage of *these same people* also say they wouldn't want the government involved if THEIR OWN child became pregnant. Likewise, it's easy to voice opposition to same-sex marriage, but much harder when you imagine it's your own gay son or daughter who wants to marry.

This same hypocrisy applies to many other issues. Just imagine if federal law required the children of our elected representatives to enlist and serve in our armed services, before anyone else's children. If such a law existed, can anyone seriously claim we would have invaded Iraq, or committed troops to Vietnam, or anywhere else in the world since the end of World War II? It's so easy to send other people's kids to fight and die.
 
Hyprocrit

If we exclude all persons who do or say hyprocital things from our support, our failure is guaranteed. Finding a label and attaching it to someone is pretty easy. And that is what happens when you simply don't like someone - analysis and debate ends, and labelling and name calling begins. That kind of discussion deterioration happens all the time around here.
 
Sending kids to war

This is a specious argument. Requiring children of elected representatives to enlist - or requiring pregnant unwed children of representatives to get an abortion or requiring them not to, or requiring judges to be executed before sentencing anyone to execution, or any other sentence, etc, etc. That is not a point or an argument. - That isn't even rhetoric - it is attempted distraction.

An elected representative, a trust officer, a judge, has a fiduciary obligation to manage/vote in ways that might be different than for their personal situation. You can invest one way as a fiducary, but another for yourself.

...and why do you limit it to "since WWII?" -- Are you saying you agree with the U.S. getting in to that one and concerned that elected representatives with a requirement that their children go first might have choked?
 
> ...and why do you limit it to "since WWII?" -- Are you saying you agree with the U.S. getting in to that one and concerned that elected representatives with a requirement that their children go first might have choked? <

I'm saying the truth: the last proper deployment of U.S. armed forces (and by proper, I mean deployment with a declaration of war from our Congress) was WWII. Everything since has been "military action", "police action" etc.

And my hypothetical is not a distraction, it merely points out a simple truth: Bush and Cheney (and Clinton and Bush Sr and Reagan and Kennedy and Johnson) would have thought much longer and harder about their decisions to commit our armed forces, had they been required to send their own children to fight first.
 
Logic?

...but your "truth"/logic would suggest that congress would not have voted to get into WWII. In your argument, you presume that personal issues will override fiduciary responsibility. And do we simply ignore the exceptions, those who had children 'at risk'? Outliers?
 
Let's bring this in for a landing....

I don't think anyone disbelieves that conservative/republican folks would genuinely and sincerely support granting equality to all in terms of same sex marriage. That's not even a question, at least not in my mind. I have conservative friends who think the whole debate is ridiculous. But why, all of a sudden, is Tricky Dicky II coming out vocally in support of state's rights vis a vis gay marriage rights? I think folks question more what the underlying motive might be rather than his sincerity, especially given that he does have a lesbian daughter. He may personally favor gay marriage, or not. That's his choice/opinion and it's not anyone's business. But he casts suspiscion on himself when he publicly states his support for "state's rights" in the manner that he has. Again, goes more to motive than personal belief/support of the cause on his part. Simply said, it's very un-Cheney like to make such a statement (even though he is not saying that he supports gay marriage), but to couch the statement in such a manner. Maybe I'm just being overly analytical here, and that could be so.
 
Mark, I don't doubt for one second that Congress would still have declared war after Pearl Harbor, even if this hypothetical law had been in place. In fact it's my exact point: deployment of our armed forces should always be reserved as a last resort, truly a last resort. But since the end of WWII this has not been the case. We've reached the point of almost continuous military adventurism, where e.g. Halliburton selects military targets in Iraq based on their profit potential for rebuilding these targets. It's beyond obscene, and if Dick Cheney isn't the personification of pure evil I can't imagine who ever could be. This clown, while awarding Halliburton no-bid government contracts, was receiving $270,000/year from the company in "deferred" income.

If this was 1949 instead of 2009, Cheney would already have been tried and hung as a war criminal, and probably Bush along with him.
 

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top