better him than me

[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.