Cheney v. Bush on Gay Marriage
When the Bush started bringing up the gay marriage "issue" we all knew he was trying to use it as a wedge to divide people but we did not know he was trying to divide the Bush Cheney ticket.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
About US
Previous Posts
- CRAP!!!
- Lie Enough and People Start to Believe
- Bush Agenda?
- The Kids of Abu Ghraib
- What has happened to Bob Dole?
- OUTFOXED
- How a Philosophy Professor With a Checkered Past B...
- SBVfT resigns from Bush Campaign
- Chicago Tribune Editor breaks silence on Swift Boa...
- Geo. Bush: Surrender monkey?
Read
- Democratic Underground
- The American Prospect Bushlies.com
- BuzzFlash
- CNN
- College Football News
- Daily Kos
- Defamer
- Distorted Veracity
- ESPN
- Glenn Greenwald
- Internet Movie Database
- Media Maters
- NFL
- NY Times
- New Orleans Food Info
- Osakatomebaby
- Slate
- Stupid Movie Physics
- Talking Points Memo
- The Twittering Machine
- Ted Rall
- Michael Moore
- The Nation
- Washington Post
- downtown scoop
5 Comments:
Half Truths and Lies
There Lil Michael Moore goes again. Cheney never said he supports gay marriage and never said he opposes a Constitutional amendment. If you read Cheney's statement closely, he says he believes that the states should be able to decide the issue.
Ultimately, that is exactly where Bush and Cheney agree -- they agree that courts should NOT be deciding the issue.
Regrettably, the facts are that liberal courts in the Northeast are currently deciding the issue of gay marriage. These decisions could spread under the full faith and credit clause and the Lawrence opinion. Thus, the decisions could usurp a state legislature's ability to make its own decision.
Admittedly, the liberal media that this blog mimics, wants you to believe that there is some huge split in Bush-Cheney, but that just isn't the case. Both Bush and Cheney despise the fact that this crucial issue is being decided by courts and not the state legislature or the people.
Now, speaking of splits, let's look at the Kerry/Edwards ticket. Earlier this year, Edwards critized Kerry for taking money from lobbyists and for supporting trade pacts that Edwards claims have resulted in US jobs being lost. Why has this blog not commented on this? Because you have tunnel vision my friends. You are so for "your team" that you have no perspective whatsoever. Gain some credibility and criticize Kerry where such criticism is warranted.
I'm assuming the previous poster has never taken a course in conflicts of laws or he never would've said that the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution would compel other states to recognize the marriages of another. This is simply not true. States have always been free to disregard the acts of another state when those acts are deemed by them to be contrary to their public policy. Furthermore, the detestable 'Defense of Marriage Act' specifically states that states may refuse to recognize the type of marriages in question.
The poster has proved once again that deliberate ignorance is not an effective rhetorical technique.
Dick "Go F Yourself" Cheney - With respect to the question of [unintelligible word] relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.
Also adds - The president has, as a result of the decisions made in Massachusetts this year by judges, felt that he wanted to support a constitutional amendment to define at the federal level what constitutes marriage, that his perception was that the courts in effect were beginning to change without the people being involved
If you read that statement it is clear that Cheney belives in freedom of all people to be in whatever relationship they want to be in including gay marriage. He also says that it is BUSH that thinks judges are "activist" and the BUSH wants the Hate Amendment. There is no other way to view this but to see that this is a major split. I commend Cheney for standing up for what is right and human rights. Now he can go back to destroying the country.
Barrister Tim --
You are clearly a legal scholar, or just an swindler -- I'm not sure which. DOMA is being challenged all over the country as unconstitutional. Are you claiming that DOMA is constitutional and that these lawsuits should be thrown out?
If you remember when DOMA was passed in 1996, many of your liberal democrat cronies claimed it was unconstitutional.
Did I miss something? Isn't saying the states should decide implying there is no need for an ammendment? I am not a constitutional scholar but that's what I read.
Col, I'm going to have to agree with the troll that [string of unintelligible words] Cheney didn't outright support gay marraige.
Dear Troll Yanni, please come up with a new way to make fun. Seriously, no one was even discussing Michael Moore. When are you going to start your own blog? I mean, your criticism would be more interesting if you had some original ideas rather than just jabs.
Then again, everyone's feeding you so...
Post a Comment
<< Home