better him than me

[Danzig]

they say hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. a better saying would be hell hath no fury like a parent who feels their child is being attacked....

so, better wolf than me being in this situation! like him or not, cheney should get no more questions about his family than anyone else.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246715,00.html

[SniperSB23]

I'm sure he'll just shoot the guy anyways. If you are part of a group determined to impose their moral beliefs on the masses then you have to expect questions like this to come up when a family member of someone in that group isn't within the moral beliefs they are trying to impose.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

What moral belief(s) is(are) Cheney (or his "group") determined to impose as it relates to the question posed by Blitzer?

That homosexuality is morally wrong and that there should be constitutional ammendments to ban gay marriage.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

The amendments would actually prohibit gay marriage entirely?

It would define marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Well, that seems a bit different than a "ban" (your word).

If you say so. I don't come on here to argue politics, I come on to talk racing. Just didn't think the question was that out of line considering the stance of Cheney's party on gay rights issues.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

OK. I am just not seeing the connection between providing a legal definition of "marriage" and an actual ban.

Also, I fail to see why pressing a public official on his family when it is clear that he doesn't want to talk about them is justified. Regardless of political affiliation, it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to want some semblance of a private family life.

For the sake of clarity, legal definitions by proxy create bans. If you decide to create a law that legally defines citizens as "caucasian men and women born in America," then only caucasian men and women can be citizens. It immediately bans Asians and anyone of any African descent from being a citizen. Legally stating that something (marriage) is ONLY something (between a man and a woman) then bans any recognition of gay marriages through use of the language.

I don't personally care what D.C. thinks about anything at all in the entire world, however I enjoyed how defensive he got about it. If his daughter were to murder someone, it would be the same to ask him what he thought about that, because after all, Republicans are against murder. So because Republicans are, by and large, so vehemently opposed to anything homosexual, and have pandered to their base with the ridiculous amendment thing (and in doing so, used without fail the argument that children should be raised in only heterosexual families with two parents), it seems like a perfectly legitimate question to ask of Cheney what he thinks about his homosexual daughter raising a child with her lesbian partner.

Slightly ironic how that works. But nonetheless entertaining.

Separation of church and state at its finest. Or something like that....

[Danzig]

i just think a pols family, especially his kids, should be off limits. mary cheney is a private citizen, who has nothing to do with her fathers decisions on being involved in govt--and he has nothing to do with choices made by his adult daughter. how can he answer for her choices?

[SniperSB23]

Here is the transcript. He wasn't asked repeated questions nor was he even asked directly about it. He was simply offered an opportunity to respond to comments made by someone else and instead of just declining that opportunity and moving on he made a big stink about it.



Blitzer: We're out of time, but a couple of issues I want to raise with you. Your daughter, Mary. She's pregnant. All of us are happy. She's going to have a baby, you're going to have another grandchild. Some of the -- some critics, though, are suggesting -- for example, a statement from someone representing Focus on the Family, "Mary Cheney's pregnancy raises the question of what's best for children. Just because it's possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father doesn't mean it's best for the child." Do you want to respond to that?

Cheney: No, I don't.

Blitzer: obviously, a good daughter...

Cheney: I'm delighted -- I'm delighted I'm about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf. And obviously I think the world of both my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think, frankly, you're out of line with that question.

Blitzer: I think all of us appreciate...

Cheney: I think you're out of line.

Blitzer: ... your daughters. No, we like your daughters. Believe me, I'm very, very sympathetic to Liz and to Mary. I like them both. That was just a question that's come up, and it's a responsible, fair question.

Cheney: I just fundamentally disagree with you.

Blitzer: I want to congratulate you on having another grandchild.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

That is not true. Terms with clear legal definitions are often different in scope (narrower or broader, depending) than their common use in society. Sometimes, the legal definition is even at odds with a term's commonly accepted meaning.

So, defining marriage as X simply means that the law will only view X as a marriage. Couples, families, churches, groups, whatever can still have marriage ceremonies and recognize it/them and live accordingly. The marriage just would not be reconized under the law as such.

Right, B, but churches, groups, families, etc. don't grant legal rights, custody rights, inheritance rights, health care rights, and any other of hundreds of rights that are only conferred by legal marriage. This is the thing- if, God forbid, Mary Cheney would die while the child was still a minor, her other parent would have NO legal rights to the child, to Mary's estate, to any sort of rights that a couple that's been together as long as they have should have. None. And this is what the Republicans are pushing for- for gay couples to have no legal rights. And a constitutional amendment would put that into law. And so, here you have one of the leaders of the party pushing to ensure gay couples have no legal rights, who happens to have a daughter who is having a child with her lesbian partner, who will have no legal rights to their child. Getting marriage recognized legally is FAR, FAR more important than by a church or a family group or whatever.

Though frankly, with all the work Mary Cheney does for the Republicans, I'm more interested in how she justifies all her work to herself than how her dad does.

And in spite of all that, I wish her an easy pregnancy and her and her partner a beautiful baby.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

1) That is beyond my point. No one was trying to ban gay marriage.

2) And?

3) Isn't the push to have gay marriages legally recognized also rooted in some moral belief(s) as well? So, trying to get them legally recognized is also trying to force your moral beliefs on others? I mean, if you argue they are "wrong", then you must feel in the "right"... ie the same thing leftists accuse those on the right of.

4) Also, using conventional (and mostly leftist) political philosophy, one can certainly make arguments as to why heto marriage should be recognized above any other kind of marriage (wrt the law). Goose. Gander.

You sound like Alberto Gonzales, with his assertion that Americans never had any right to habeus corpus, because the only reference to it is under what circumstances it can be taken away. That line of thinking can also be applied to free speech, freedom of religion, etc. Do you want to go down that road? By establishing "marriage" as hetero only, you are banning marriage rights from two people of same sex. And ultimately, it comes down to the rights conferred by marriage. And they're a big deal.

Yes, you can make the moral argument-- many people, for example, thought it was immoral for a white woman to marry a black man, and the laws reflected that. Did that make the laws moral, or right?

For all of our desperate grasp for a universal truth, the fact is, as we learn more about human nature, we have to be willing to reexamine our views of what is normal. Child marriage used to be acceptable, and now it's not (well, not in most states, anyway)because we know more about childhood. Slavery used to be acceptable and now it's not. Beating your wife used to be not only acceptable, but required if you wanted her to get to heaven.

I fail to see what is immoral about letting two consenting adults who want to commit to each other do so, regardless of sex. I see no reason whatsoever to limit marriage to man and wife-- I don't buy the "marriage is for reproduction" argument, because then why permit marriage between man and woman past childbearing years, or between people with fertitily problems? And then why permit people to raise kids alone? Heck, why didn't the state just take away me and my brother after my mom died, since my dad was then a single parent? And while you're on the morality thing, why permit divorce for any reason other than adultery, since that's the only reason Jesus officially listed as acceptable?

In addition, marriage between two people has a stabilizing effect on society- it keeps people mellow to have someone in their lives. China is getting very anxious about the vast outnumbering of women by men thanks to the one-child-only policy and the fact that lots of parents aborted female fetuses so they could have a boy. There is now concern about future gangs of radical young men with no chance for a wife- frustrated sexual energy can mutate into all kinds of unpleasant things- look at what radical Wahhibism has done to young Muslim men. Let people pair off, for the love of Pete. Married couples are usually better off financially and in better health later in life. It's good for the country's economic and political health.

Now, yes, my belief that gay marriage should be permitted is based in moral beliefs too-- that all people should be treated equally and if it's unfair to prohibit different races from mine from marrying whom they want, it's unfair to prohibit people of different sexual preferences from marrying whom they want. (who they want?)

Fun trivia-- the laws against interracial marriage were overturnrd in Loving Vs. Virginia (1960) because the law only specifically banned whites from marrying anyone other than whites, and the Supreme Court declared that discriminatory... against whites.

All Cheney had to say is I disagree with some of my party's more Neanderthal members. But he is a good party man. Blitzer and Cheney both know what the situation is. And so do the Republicans that hate the fact that Cheney was "blessed with such a wonderful daughter".

[timmgirvan]

Blitzer was still smarting from dealing with Lynne Cheney, so he tried to show up the VP. Didn't go too well, did it? BTW..."Moses,out of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so"...Matthew 19:8.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

You are confusing privileges with rights. They are two very distinct concepts.



I'm not making a moral argument any more so than you are. Furthermore, this is not a proper analogy to the topic at hand. The fact that (im)morality was used to object to interracial marriage is not the same because the circumstances are not the same. For example, banning/prohibiting is not the same as legally defining marriage...eg, a gay couple would still be free to make any life long commitment they want - they just don't get the same legal benefits/privileges/entitlements that a hetero couple would, etc.



Again, we're not talking an outright ban. See above as well as my previous post(s).

Also, why just two? Just curious as to why that limitation seems ok to you.

What if they are father-daughter (both being consenting adults)? Brother-sister? Mother-son?

What if its two straight males who want to marry for the tax benefits, family leave, health care, inheritance, etc.?



You admit that you feel that the law can and should be used to encourage behavior beneficial to the nation's economic and political health. So, giving benefits to those in a committed relationship that often and naturally result in children is certainly in line with that view. Moreover, not all married hetero couples get every benefit - eg if they have no children, they don't get the tax break, etc. IOW, there is a natural tie between "traditional" marriage and procreation, and marriage is what it is even if its essential purpose is not always actualized - so let's encourage it as it is more beneficial to the state than not.

Furthermore, what if giving all committed relationships the same benefits was detrimental to the nation's economic and political health? For example, a new, sudden and massive burden on family courts (as well as the appellate courts), a new, sudden and massive burden on employers and insurance companies, etc.

Also, if you don't "buy it", so what? You're for forcing your moral views (ie sex should be irrelevant wrt two consenting adults who want to committ to each other) on others. Moreover, forcing those views on others would likely have a greater and more tangible burden on those who disagree with you than the opposite.



Don't get all high and mighty on me, sister. Especially not when you admit that you're arguing from a moral standpoint as well.



Do you really believe all people should be treated equally? Really? If you are against incestuous committed relationships between two consenting adults receiving the same privileges/benefits as “traditional marriage”, then you are not. If you think that an occasional orgasm should be involved in order for committed relationships between two consenting adults to receive the same privileges/benefits as “traditional marriage”, then you are not.

If you are in favor of progressive taxation (like most leftists), then you are not for across the board equal treatment. Far from it, actually.

Oh my stars and garters, the progressive taxation thing again. Again (I said this in an earlier thread)-- people in a progressive tax system are all taxed equally. What is not taxed equally is the money. Bill Gates' first $30,000 of income is taxed at EXACTLY the same rate as my first $30,000 of income. And I don't make much more than $30,000. It's the increase in income that gets taxed more heavily, not the individual. Don't want your upper level income to be taxed at 37 percent (or whatever it is now)? Then don't earn that much. Why is this so hard for people to wrap their heads around?

Bababooyee, c'mon- "traditional" marriage was about assets, land and stuff. So why is it wrong for two same-sex people to get married for assets, land and stuff?

Frankly, if twelve consenting adults want to get married together, I don't care. Freaking weird, if you ask me, but they're not hurting anyone. But I don't think that's likely to ever be a real issue in this nation, as the polygamists in this nation seem prefer getting "married" to girls who have barely started menstruating. I'd hardly call that consent. People who yell that gay marriage will be a downward slope to polygamy (not you; you've never said that) fail to take into account the jealousy factor. Fact is, monogamy has nothing to do with how many people you want to sleep with; it has to do with how many people you want your spouse to sleep with. in the majority of cases, that number is one, you. I can cheerfully envision myself sleeping with any number of men (Daniel Craig at the top of the list) and still adoring my husband. But the thought of him sleeping with anyone else makes a red film descend over my eyes. So, I give up my dreams of stalking Daniel Craig and choose monogamy, trusting that he'll keep his thing for Kate Winslet confined to his fantasies.

I don't think I'm confusing privileges with rights at all. Fact is, you can choose to consider anything a "privilege"- it's up to a society to decide what a "right" is. Do you consider freedom from slavery a right or a privilege? Our founding fathers described our inalienable rights as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"- denying someone the right to be viewed as married in the eyes of the state is, to me, a pretty obvious denial of the pursuit of happiness.

Seeing as how the Bush administration spent millions of our tax dollars on its "marriage initiative" I don't think anyone in government is concerned about the effects of additonal marriages on appellate courts or on businesses, so I don't buy that argument. Though you can make an argument that marriage is discriminatory against single people.

Bababooyee, without the LEGAL right to marriage, a gay man or woman has no, none, nada protection when their partner dies. So, a person who has spent 50 years of his or her life with another person has no rights about making end-of-life decisions, and if the birth family chooses to contest a will, the partner can be left with nothing. They don't get the pensions given to a widow or widower. It's wrong.

And here's my other question- how is getting married forcing one's views on anyone? You don't like the idea of gays men and women getting married? Don't go to their weddings. It's not your business. I think one can make a very strong argument that something that causes pain and suffering should be handled by law, but I don't see how gay marriage causes any kind of pain and suffering, other than what one can find in heterosexual marriage. So it offends you. Is it hurting anyone?

And I also don't buy the "but the kids, the kids" argument. I've seen many a child raised by gay parents here in the city (working at a cultural institution's educational department, you meet a lot of children), and they're just like any other kids. And hey, every gay person on this planet is the result of a heterosexual union, so go figure.

[Downthestretch55]

Can't we all just cut the wonderful Vice President a break!
Geesh! He's under such pressure! His mind must be on other things besides a daughter whose lifestyle demonstrates his hypocricy to his biggest supporters...GEESH!
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0126-03.htm

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Can't we all just cut the wonderful Vice President a break!
Geesh! He's under such pressure! His mind must be on other things besides a daughter whose lifestyle demonstrates his hypocricy to his biggest supporters...GEESH!
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0126-03.htm

Did the commondreams site add that photograph of Cheney or was that originally from the LA Times also. It is quite flattering.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Did the commondreams site add that photograph of Cheney or was that originally from the LA Times also. It is quite flattering.

Pgardn,
I don't know. That photo makes him look handsome, doncha think?

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Can't we all just cut the wonderful Vice President a break!
Geesh! He's under such pressure! His mind must be on other things besides a daughter whose lifestyle demonstrates his hypocricy to his biggest supporters...GEESH!
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0126-03.htm

YOU want to explain to me how Mary Cheneys' life demonstrates D Cheneys' hypocrisy? Just another typical shotgun blast,eh?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

YOU want to explain to me how Mary Cheneys' life demonstrates D Cheneys' hypocrisy? Just another typical shotgun blast,eh?

i was just thinking the same thing....i could see if dick cheney had a gay lover, now that would be hypocrisy.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

YOU want to explain to me how Mary Cheneys' life demonstrates D Cheneys' hypocrisy? Just another typical shotgun blast,eh?

Timm,
I really must be totally misinformed. There must be no truth to the funding of the Bush/Cheney ticket by the Christian fundamentalists, and they must not have anything to say about the "gay marriage" issue, the proposed constitutional amendment.
There must be abosolutely NO connection...none!
btw...the only guy that's fast with his trigger on a shotgun is vp DC, and he didn't report it...the hunting club did...24 hours later.