Jump to bottom

444 comments
1 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:35:12pm

He's a RINO! /////

2 Randall Gross  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:35:31pm

For the record so do I. I"m ducking out before the debate starts because I don't want to get into another all night debate with work tomorrow.

3 AMER1CAN  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:35:36pm

Dick Cheney is still perplexing the left and the now the right!

4 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:35:57pm

Son of a gun ain't afraid to answer any question.

Good form.

5 Wide Right  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:36:58pm

Well played, sir.

6 NedS  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:36:58pm

Anyone who has ever gotten past the "Darth Vader" media creation of Cheney knows this. He respectfully disagreed with the president and Frist when they pulled that BS with a constitutional amendment a few years back. Good for him for speaking out and being an independent man of principle.

7 Lawrior  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:37:17pm

If only he could have been saying these sorts of things for the last eight years! Stupid politics.

8 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:37:33pm

I miss Dick Cheney.

9 Dar ul Harbarian  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:37:59pm

I want to marry Dick Cheney!

10 Shug  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:38:02pm

re: #8 Sharmuta

I miss Dick Cheney.

he less hard to miss than when he was the VEEP.

I wish he was POTUS though

11 Bob Dillon  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:38:23pm

I may not agree with everything he says but at least he is direct and does not pussy foot around on what he thinks and where he stands.

12 Randall Gross  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:38:24pm

One last comment: it would really blow the left's minds if he ran in 2012

13 Shug  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:38:50pm

re: #12 Thanos

One last comment: it would really blow the left's minds if he ran in 2012


Romney-Cheney

14 Shug  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:39:16pm

and I mean Romney- and Cheney's daughter

15 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:39:20pm

It's sad- it's like Dick is the closest thing we have to a leader these days. He's free to say what he wants because he's not in the leadership. He has nothing to lose- literally.

16 razorbacker  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:39:23pm

Breaking news:

A serious seismic event has been detected in the Castro district of San Francisco.

The suspected earthquake, estimated to have caused neurological damage among millions, is expected to be followed by moderate aftershocks.

17 Irenicum  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:39:38pm

I always suspected that this was his view. It just took being out of office for him to have the freedom to say so. I like the phrase "freedom means freedom for everyone". That's a keeper!

18 Dar ul Harbarian  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:39:40pm

re: #12 Thanos

One last comment: it would really blow the left's minds if he ran in 2012

Cheney-Palin '12

19 Sheila Broflovski  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:39:42pm

I just can't wait to see what Maureen Dowd has to say.

20 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:39:58pm

A BNP supporter "withdraws his support" for Robert Spencer -- because Spencer's just a "plastic anti-jihadist." Not a joke.

[Link: thedestructionofbritain.blogspot.com...]

And the guy really hates me, of course.

21 Lawrior  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:40:24pm

re: #19 Alouette

(insert fingernails on blackboard sound)

22 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:40:44pm

re: #12 Thanos

One last comment: it would really blow the left's minds if he ran in 2012

It would blow my mind. Don't mess with Dick Cheney.

23 NedS  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:40:53pm

re: #14 Shug

That would be awesome. The Cheneys are some of the most direct and well spoken people out there. I loved the Cheney - Edwards (baby's daddy) debates in 04.

24 The Shadow Do  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:41:12pm

Loves me some Dick!

Oops that didn't come out right....

Dick Cheney for Benevolent Dictator!

/I too have a gay daughter. Those who don't, don't know - for the most part.

25 Gus  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:41:23pm

Good. I always liked Dick Cheney. I think his response is excellent and agree with him completely.

26 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:41:54pm

re: #3 AMER1CAN

Dick Cheney is still perplexing the left and the now the right!

I don't know why it's a surprise. He alluded to this at some point while he was VP - some interview where he admitted, vaguely to be sure, that he didn't necessarily agree with the President, but he ended by saying, Bush is the Pres, and he wasn't, so it was Bush's call, not his.

27 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:42:06pm

the Dick Strikes Back....

28 latingent  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:42:08pm

Real Men can speak their minds no matter where the chips may fall. He makes Barry look like an impossible clown who bought a suit 3 sizes to big.

29 Shug  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:42:09pm

re: #20 Charles

A BNP supporter "withdraws his support" for Robert Spencer -- because Spencer's just a "plastic anti-jihadist." Not a joke.

[Link: thedestructionofbritain.blogspot.com...]

And the guy really hates me, of course.

so they hate you because you aren't fascist enough or because you are too anti fascist ?

30 dapperdave  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:42:09pm

Well, looks like he just disarmed the left on that issue.

31 Lawrior  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:42:24pm

re: #26 reine.de.tout

Wasn't it during the 2004 VP debate?

32 WindHorse  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:42:36pm

run Dick run...

33 Shug  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:42:48pm

re: #29 Shug

so they hate you because you aren't fascist enough or because you are too anti fascist ?

and by that I mean they are completely confused

34 jaunte  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:42:56pm

2004
At a campaign rally in this Mississippi River town, Cheney spoke supportively about gay relationships, saying “freedom means freedom for everyone,” when asked about his stand on gay marriage.

35 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:43:07pm

re: #22 Sharmuta

It would blow my mind. Don't mess with Dick Cheney.

good one...I'm a big Dick fan

36 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:43:45pm
37 avanti  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:43:55pm

re: #12 Thanos

One last comment: it would really blow the left's minds if he ran in 2012

It would, but not in the way you think. Something like the left running Pelosi and about as successful.

38 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:43:57pm

We can get a vintage picture and start a "Run, Dick, run!" campaign.

39 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:44:33pm

re: #35 albusteve

good one...I'm a big Dick fan

Really- I'm going to refrain.

40 WindHorse  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:44:35pm

re: #38 Sharmuta

First Grade!

41 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:45:14pm

re: #37 avanti

It would, but not in the way you think. Something like the left running Pelosi and about as successful.

I'd pay to see Cheney eviscerate Pelosi....she lives in the liberal fantasy world

42 WindHorse  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:45:15pm

re: #40 WindHorse

(1964)

43 jaunte  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:45:18pm

re: #36 reine.de.tout

August 2004
Cheney at Odds with Bush on Gay Marriage

You have superior formatting skills.

44 Dar ul Harbarian  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:45:54pm

re: #35 albusteve

good one...I'm a big Dick fan

I love it when Obama gets a taste of Dick.

45 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:46:01pm

re: #39 Sharmuta

Really- I'm going to refrain.

kinda unkooth it was

46 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:46:16pm

Spencer's fascist buddies are starting to turn on him now, because he's trying to have it both ways -- slip a little support to the fascists on the sly, but try to keep appearing moderate enough so that he can go on TV.

That little balancing act couldn't last.

47 Kragar  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:46:27pm

No true Cheney would.....

/

48 Irish Rose  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:46:37pm

Good for Mr. Cheney!

49 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:46:38pm

re: #43 jaunte

You have superior formatting skills.

I'm a quick study.

50 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:47:05pm

re: #46 Charles

Spencer's fascist buddies are starting to turn on him now, because he's trying to have it both ways -- slip a little support to the fascists on the sly, but try to keep appearing moderate enough so that he can go on TV.

That little balancing act couldn't last.

you stand for everything...you stand for nothing

51 Lawrior  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:47:06pm

re: #47 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

You're assuming that he can violate his programming.
/

52 IslandLibertarian  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:47:09pm

I miss honesty....
I miss clarity......
I miss strength.....
I miss conviction....
I miss Cheney......

53 Gus  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:47:57pm

re: #47 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

No true Cheney would.....

/

First he backtracks on Colin Powell and now this?!

RINO!

//

54 WindHorse  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:48:01pm

I pray to God for Dick Cheney's health.

55 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:48:02pm

re: #52 IslandLibertarian

I miss honesty....
I miss clarity......
I miss strength.....
I miss conviction....
I miss Cheney......

I Miss America, but don't tell anyone

56 avanti  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:48:25pm

re: #41 albusteve

I'd pay to see Cheney eviscerate Pelosi....she lives in the liberal fantasy world

My point is that Cheney is as unpopular outside the base as Pelosi is for hers. You don't run anyone for POTUS with approval numbers in the 20's, no matter how much you like them. BTW, I don't like Pelosi.

57 jaunte  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:49:08pm

re: #46 Charles

Continually upping the radical ante is an integral part of what makes fascism go. It'll be hard for Spencer to stay in touch if he doesn't 'march up front.'

58 IslandLibertarian  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:49:11pm

re: #55 albusteve

well this is a thread about Cheney........

but I miss Bush too..........

and America...........

59 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:49:24pm

re: #56 avanti

My point is that Cheney is as unpopular outside the base as Pelosi is for hers. You don't run anyone for POTUS with approval numbers in the 20's, no matter how much you like them. BTW, I don't like Pelosi.

I don't care about your point you pollhead

60 Dar ul Harbarian  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:49:35pm

re: #54 WindHorse

I pray to God for Dick Cheney's health.

I hope that canned obit CNN has for him grows old on the shelf.

61 freetoken  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:49:56pm

OT (already) (spill-over from last thread)... just reading some of the comments on the WND poll re: Tiller's death. Wow.

/I guess they are the real conservatives, not some RINO like Cheney...

62 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:49:57pm

re: #58 IslandLibertarian

well this is a thread about Cheney........

but I miss Bush too..........

and America...........

just being flip

63 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:49:57pm

re: #20 Charles

A BNP supporter "withdraws his support" for Robert Spencer -- because Spencer's just a "plastic anti-jihadist." Not a joke.

[Link: thedestructionofbritain.blogspot.com...]

And the guy really hates me, of course.

I wonder if Robert's going to threaten him with a libel suit.

64 NedS  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:50:32pm

re: #31 Lawrior

Yep and Edwards was against gay marriage and/or civil unions.

65 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:50:34pm

re: #52 IslandLibertarian

I miss honesty....
I miss clarity......
I miss strength.....
I miss conviction....
I miss Cheney......

Brace up, it's going to be a very long couple years.

(Yes, that's an optimistic statement, hoping for a good outcome in 2010.)

66 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:51:00pm

re: #61 freetoken

OT (already) (spill-over from last thread)... just reading some of the comments on the WND poll re: Tiller's death. Wow.

/I guess they are the real conservatives, not some RINO like Cheney...

Link?

67 Cato the Elder  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:51:29pm

Good for Dick.

Even a blind pecker finds a corn once in a while.

!כבוד

68 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:51:36pm

re: #46 Charles

Spencer's fascist buddies are starting to turn on him now, because he's trying to have it both ways -- slip a little support to the fascists on the sly, but try to keep appearing moderate enough so that he can go on TV.

That little balancing act couldn't last.

Your comment is in regards to... ?

69 Last Mohican  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:51:37pm

re: #20 Charles

So let me get this straight: BNP is accusing Spencer of being a Fascist in Name Only?

70 patrickafir  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:51:41pm

Wow, I bet he's lining up a presidential bid for 2012.

71 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:52:07pm

re: #46 Charles

I am told that Spencer is saying that Carlos Bledsoe, the shooter in Little Rock, studied in Yemen. But he's not able to name a source.

Is there any way to verify that?

72 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:52:10pm

Never mind - I found it.

73 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:52:17pm

re: #69 Last Mohican

So let me get this straight: BNP is accusing Spencer of being a Fascist in Name Only?

FINO?

74 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:52:25pm

re: #68 Walter L. Newton

Your comment is in regards to... ?

Never mind, I saw it up thread.

75 freetoken  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:52:33pm

re: #66 Charles

[Link: forums.wnd.com...]

E.g.:

Reply to: IAmNotAshamed
Point 1: How is murdering someone in cold blood a defense of life?

That is not a question, it's a statement with a false premise. If it is defense of life, it is not murder. Did any babies live today that would have died otherwise? Then Scott Roeder's actions were not murder.

Who gave the shooter the right to be judge, jury and executioner? True point, if it was vengeance. Not true, if it was defense of third persons.

"You see Tiller as expendable and that means you and I are no less expendable.

IF you see a man that murders little babies and then baptizes them as the same as yourself, you are blind.

76 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:52:42pm

re: #67 Cato the Elder

Good for Dick.

Even a blind pecker finds a corn once in a while.

!כבוד

Um...is that as rude as I think it was?

77 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:52:43pm

re: #69 Last Mohican

So let me get this straight: BNP is accusing Spencer of being a Fascist in Name Only?

That's right, he's a FINO.

78 The Shadow Do  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:52:54pm

re: #52 IslandLibertarian

I miss honesty....
I miss clarity......
I miss strength.....
I miss conviction....
I miss Cheney......

No need to miss him. I suspect, unconstrained from the administration he served, that he will be the conservative center of opposition to The One for a good while to come. Keepin' the commies honest if you will.

79 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:53:23pm

re: #70 patrickafir

Wow, I bet he's lining up a presidential bid for 2012.

I don't think his heart could take it.

A pity, that.

80 Irish Rose  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:53:31pm

re: #61 freetoken

OT (already) (spill-over from last thread)... just reading some of the comments on the WND poll re: Tiller's death. Wow.

/I guess they are the real conservatives, not some RINO like Cheney...

God is love!

81 Bloodnok  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:54:33pm

re: #46 Charles

Spencer's fascist buddies are starting to turn on him now, because he's trying to have it both ways -- slip a little support to the fascists on the sly, but try to keep appearing moderate enough so that he can go on TV.

That little balancing act couldn't last.

Has he blamed you yet? Surely this could not have been the result of his own bad decisions and bad associations!

/

82 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:54:59pm

re: #63 Sharmuta

I wonder if Robert's going to threaten him with a libel suit.

The hysterical thing is, if you pull up Gildas' On the Ruin of Britain, you will find that Gildas had better grounds for despair.

83 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:55:45pm

re: #77 Charles

That's right, he's a FINO.

I'm getting confused.

84 Last Mohican  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:55:47pm

re: #64 NedS

Yep and Edwards was against gay marriage and/or civil unions.

And Obama favors civil unions, but is against gay marriage.

I can't wait to remind all my gay friends to vote for Cheney over Obama in 2012.

85 freetoken  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:55:58pm

There are posters over there (WND) doing full on defense of murder. Amazing. Yes, there are some over there who are saying such things are not "Christian"... but still, that there are people in this country who believe out and out murder is an appropriate means to settle an moral issue that the political system has failed (in their eyes) to resolve... is disturbing.

86 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:56:52pm

re: #83 Walter L. Newton

I'm getting confused.

So's the BNP type. Of course, he has more excuse. Free-floating rage and hatred cloud anyone's mind.

87 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:56:58pm

re: #81 Bloodnok

Has he blamed you yet? Surely this could not have been the result of his own bad decisions and bad associations!

/

I blame Darwin Boy. ///

88 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:57:10pm

re: #56 avanti

My point is that Cheney is as unpopular outside the base as Pelosi is for hers. You don't run anyone for POTUS with approval numbers in the 20's, no matter how much you like them. BTW, I don't like Pelosi.

Cheney's number have gone up, avanti. Granted, they had nowhere to go but up, but they are in the 30's now.

89 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:57:15pm

re: #77 Charles

That's right, he's a FINO.

he's gonna cop a flat tire one of these days....anybody is not everybody

90 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:57:45pm

re: #84 Last Mohican

And Obama favors civil unions, but is against gay marriage.

I can't wait to remind all my gay friends to vote for Cheney over Obama in 2012.

This, I would love to see.

91 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:57:55pm

re: #85 freetoken

The upsetting thing is the conviction that justice has abandoned them.

92 freetoken  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:58:12pm

BTW, Kudos to Cheney for sticking up for his daughter, and for liberty in general.

However, it should be pointed out that he is in direct disagreement with several state GOP platforms.

93 danrudy  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:58:13pm

ANd once again another thing that Cheney can disagree with Obama on.

Whether or not one agrees with him , you have to admire someone who can give you his opinion without sticking his finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing

94 razorbacker  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:58:18pm

Now, now. Let us not go off half-cocked. Dick, after all, is such a hands-on type that the strains of the Presidency might be too much for him.

I mean, like the guy said, when Dick has a legal problem he shoots his lawyer in the face and then makes him apologize for getting in Dick's line of fire.

He drove his security detail nuts, always demanding to drive and running over puppies and kittens and girl scouts just to hear them squish.

And those late night high-speed runs in his '38 Mercedes Benz, hanging half out the window, dressed in that SS hat, popping minorities and liberals with his Luger. People would say, 'But Dick, you're President now. You've got to stop that." And then those people's people would be all like, "Wah! Dick Cheney ate my person's brain like Indiana Jones going after a poor trussed up monkey."

No. Perhaps it would be better to let Mr. Cheney return to Wyoming for a well-deserved rest. If he starts feeling badly, he could always slip back into the Oval Office through that secret passage-way they built and then sneak up behind Barack and chuckle like the Shadow used to, just to see Barack wet himself.

95 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:58:25pm

re: #88 Dark_Falcon

Cheney's number have gone up, avanti. Granted, they had nowhere to go but up, but they are in the 30's now.

there is a KOS poll to dispute that....wait one

96 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:59:16pm

I'm glad Cheney said this. Maybe it will lead to a civil discussion, rather than both sides simply ranting away at thin air.

97 WindHorse  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 8:59:22pm

re: #92 freetoken

yeah....so?

98 Irenicum  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:00:09pm

re: #69 Last Mohican

Ha! He's a FINO!

99 Last Mohican  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:00:12pm

re: #92 freetoken

BTW, Kudos to Cheney for sticking up for his daughter, and for liberty in general.

However, it should be pointed out that he is in direct disagreement with several state GOP platforms.

I hope he's also in disagreement with the one calling for teaching creationism in public schools.

100 avanti  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:00:34pm

re: #88 Dark_Falcon

Cheney's number have gone up, avanti. Granted, they had nowhere to go but up, but they are in the 30's now.

I know, but even that increase is pretty much in the base and you need more then that to win. I know I'm "poll man", but here's a good one on the size of the GOP tent now, and it's a eye opener for the future.

Tent ?

101 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:01:04pm

re: #96 Dianna

I'm glad Cheney said this. Maybe it will lead to a civil discussion, rather than both sides simply ranting away at thin air.

comments and discourse at this level are ammo to your enemies...I'm jaded beyond retrieve....hunker down

102 freetoken  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:01:20pm

Another comment from that WND thread:

[...] Anyway, the pro-life movement is running out of peaceful options. All that seems to be left is violence. When you are constantly backed into a corner, what do they expect to happen? The innocent slaughter, the modern day holocaust has to be stopped one way or another. Didn't we do everyting to stop the slaughter of Jews? Getting it stopped by law doesn't seem to be working.

One thing I never understood. How is killing someone who is going to kill someone else justified, but killing these butchers is not justified. What is the difference? It appears to me to be self-defense, saving the countless lives of innocent unborn children. [...]

This line of thinking seems awfully familiar to what we hear from certain other parts of the world...

103 Cato the Elder  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:01:25pm

re: #76 Dianna

Um...is that as rude as I think it was?

Actually I was being quite serious with a little tongue-in-cheek rudeness thrown in.

The Hebrew word means "Respect!"

104 The Shadow Do  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:01:31pm

re: #92 freetoken

BTW, Kudos to Cheney for sticking up for his daughter, and for liberty in general.

However, it should be pointed out that he is in direct disagreement with several state GOP platforms.

A good thing. Change is more than a Democrat slogan.

105 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:01:57pm

re: #96 Dianna

I'm glad Cheney said this. Maybe it will lead to a civil discussion, rather than both sides simply ranting away at thin air.

We can hope, anyways. Kind of hard, imo, to really label Cheney as a RINO.

106 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:02:07pm

re: #101 albusteve

comments and discourse at this level are ammo to your enemies...I'm jaded beyond retrieve....hunker down

Sigh. Well, at worst, I suppose I can shout some advice from the bunker.

107 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:03:38pm

re: #103 Cato the Elder

Actually I was being quite serious with a little tongue-in-cheek rudeness thrown in.

The Hebrew word means "Respect!"

Huh.

I think I'm going to leave it at that, tonight. I'm too tired and too stressed.

108 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:04:04pm

re: #88 Dark_Falcon

Cheney's number have gone up, avanti. Granted, they had nowhere to go but up, but they are in the 30's now.

And now he can be his own man, saying what he truly believes, instead of mincing his words to show solidarity with the man in charge.

109 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:04:12pm

re: #106 Dianna

Sigh. Well, at worst, I suppose I can shout some advice from the bunker.

do it...that's what this blog is for...good luck with your 8 paragraph windy opinions (not YOURS)

110 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:05:01pm

Government should get the hell out of the marriage business. Domestic Financial Cooperative contracts for all. Marriage by the church of your choice as a separate entity.

111 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:05:13pm

re: #96 Dianna

I'm glad Cheney said this. Maybe it will lead to a civil discussion, rather than both sides simply ranting away at thin air.

Both sides would rather rant so they can claim victory with their super-heated rhetoric.

112 DirtyDog  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:05:28pm

Just to throw out my opinion on the whole gay marriage thing, and wondering where the rating will fall...

When it is boiled down to the basics, the entire topic is about legal (read government) benefits. Stay with me here a bit. Any couple, gay or straight, can buy a wedding cake, rent a hall, find a willing priest, recite their vows before the god of their choosing, hire a DJ, and dance the night away before heading off on a honeymoon.

And for all whom it should matter (the couple and their god), they ARE married.

It then runs into the legal issues: government recognition of the automatic benefits marriage confers. Survivor benefits, life-or-death medical decisions, tax benefits, etc. And that is where I get hung up. A contract could be written up, filed away, and pre-distributed by a gay couple defining the EXACT power-of-attorney powers each has over the others, more or less enacting a legal "marriage".

So the only thing that leaves standing that could not be legally duplicated (unless I'm way off base on a few) would be the tax benefits of marriage.

But somehow, if the government were to level the field and remove all of the automatic benefits of marriage (including taxes) and force every couple, gay or straight, to have that legal document drawn up and filed to confer the benefits, I'm not sure the gay community would be happy with that type of equal rights. And thus, I ask myself, does this roll around to a type of forced "approval" of the gay lifestyle? Rather an intolerant world view, if that is what it finally boils down to.

Oddly enough, that's why I'm hesitant to be for gay marriage. I've wanted to get this off my chest for quite a while, and I guess the topic was just here at the right time. Damn near could have made my own blog post about that (had I had a blog).

Thanks, Charles.

113 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:06:01pm

re: #109 albusteve

do it...that's what this blog is for...good luck with your 8 paragraph windy opinions (not YOURS)

I was - for one rather dreadful moment - wondering if I'd started sleep-posting!

114 Lawrior  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:06:37pm

re: #94 razorbacker

Bravo.

115 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:06:47pm

re: #100 avanti

I know, but even that increase is pretty much in the base and you need more then that to win. I know I'm "poll man", but here's a good one on the size of the GOP tent now, and it's a eye opener for the future.

Tent ?

I'm not of the opinion that Cheney should run, even if his number were higher: He's an old man with a weak heart. What he can do is act as a sane shooter for the GOP: Firing off salvos of logic and clarity to smash the rhetorical edifices of Obama and pierce to smog of hopychange. He can provide ideas and firepower, thus clearing the ground for someone else to run.

116 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:07:00pm

re: #111 FurryOldGuyJeans

Both sides would rather rant so they can claim victory with their super-heated rhetoric.

indeed...like Cato says...I'm a 'shit picker'....but OTOH my vote counts too

117 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:07:57pm

re: #111 FurryOldGuyJeans

Both sides would rather rant so they can claim victory with their super-heated rhetoric.

And that's helped exactly how?

Really, can't both sides begin from recognizing the anthropological reasons for marriage, and explaining why they should continue, or be changed? Without resorting to appeals to emotion, or authority, or "we've always done it that way", or "if you don't agree with me you're a bigot"?

118 avanti  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:09:40pm

re: #115 Dark_Falcon

I'm not of the opinion that Cheney should run, even if his number were higher: He's an old man with a weak heart. What he can do is act as a sane shooter for the GOP: Firing off salvos of logic and clarity to smash the rhetorical edifices of Obama and pierce to smog of hopychange. He can provide ideas and firepower, thus clearing the ground for someone else to run.

I have no problem with that. It is the loyal opposition thing. I trust if Cheney agrees with Obama, he'll speak out too.

119 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:09:56pm

re: #117 Dianna

And that's helped exactly how?

Really, can't both sides begin from recognizing the anthropological reasons for marriage, and explaining why they should continue, or be changed? Without resorting to appeals to emotion, or authority, or "we've always done it that way", or "if you don't agree with me you're a bigot"?

They are not looking to help. They are looking to impose their viewpoint on the majority by fiat.

120 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:10:53pm

re: #118 avanti

I have no problem with that. It is the loyal opposition thing. I trust if Cheney agrees with Obama, he'll speak out too.

In your dreams.

121 WindHorse  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:10:57pm

re: #112 DirtyDog

I say.... let them have marriage.

What this does is reinforce positive behavior..... monogamy and stability.

As long as no one is trying to force their belief down my throat (ie. see born again Christians) or messing around with young innocents....

I say... live and let live.

Is this the biggest abuse of government?

hardly.

let them have the same benefits that others have.

Big deal.

if you don't like it.... move on to something else.

in terms of percentages... this is nothing.

122 Irish Rose  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:11:29pm

I know it's off topic, but I have the most insane craving tonight for a DQ footlong chili-cheese dog with onions.

123 Lawrior  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:11:48pm

re: #112 DirtyDog

Yes, though even married folk don't have every tax benefit. There are a few tax planning techniques that are off limits to "members of the family" which gay couples, among others, are free to use.

124 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:12:49pm

re: #119 FurryOldGuyJeans

They are not looking to help. They are looking to impose their viewpoint on the majority by fiat.

Then both sides are composed of ideologues, and there's no winning.

I can't - honestly - believe that. I have always believed that reason can work, given either enough respect, or backed by enough force.

125 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:12:59pm

re: #118 avanti

I have no problem with that. It is the loyal opposition thing. I trust if Cheney agrees with Obama, he'll speak out too.

you own wet dream...Cheney is miles above any liberal out there...can you just imagine what he thinks about that doofus BO?......hahaha!

126 Vaak  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:13:25pm

re: #1 Sharmuta

He's a RINO! /////

I still have yet to see you reply to my other statement applying to this, I guess even the "right," or whatever you call yourself, finds benefits to baseless arguments that he's a RINO.

For some reason, as a Christian Conservative, I don't find this all surprising at all. After all, he has a gay daughter. Are we not to connect the dots?

127 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:13:26pm

re: #118 avanti

Yet you are full of complaint and objections when he doesn't. Not being loyal opposition yourself with all the blather about poll numbers.

128 avanti  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:14:02pm

re: #112 DirtyDog


I'm not for gay marriage, but I can't tell you why from a rational prospective. My opinion might change, and it's not a ball buster for me either way. Like Cheney, if I had a gay child, I might have a better prospective on the issue.

129 DirtyDog  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:14:20pm

re: #121 WindHorse


What this does is reinforce positive behavior..... monogamy and stability.

And allows for gay divorce statistics to be tracked as well. I've honestly wondered what it would be. It would be a mighty big Clue-by-4 if it matched the straight divorce rate.

130 The Left  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:14:35pm

re: #37 avanti

It would, but not in the way you think. Something like the left running Pelosi and about as successful.

Very true.

131 Gus  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:14:44pm

re: #126 Vaak

I still have yet to see you reply to my other statement applying to this, I guess even the "right," or whatever you call yourself, finds benefits to baseless arguments that he's a RINO.

For some reason, as a Christian Conservative, I don't find this all surprising at all. After all, he has a gay daughter. Are we not to connect the dots?

Vaak. You see those slashes at the end of the comment? Like this: ////// That means the post is supposed to be sarcastic.

132 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:14:53pm

re: #126 Vaak

I still have yet to see you reply to my other statement applying to this, I guess even the "right," or whatever you call yourself, finds benefits to baseless arguments that he's a RINO.

For some reason, as a Christian Conservative, I don't find this all surprising at all. After all, he has a gay daughter. Are we not to connect the dots?

You miss the sarcasm tags, because there were too many.

133 Irenicum  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:15:15pm

OT/ from previous thread. I can't read anymore of the comment threads of the various "christian" "pro-life" etc,etc, blogs. It's just too sickening. I know there are reasonable voices out there, but the anonymity of the net has given voice to people's true feelings. And what I'm seeing is beyond ugly; it's what the DHS report was speaking about specifically. Anyway, I did like what Andrew Sullivan said tonight on Keith Olbermann. He thankfully acted as a counterbalance to Keith's raving. G'nite! Try not to think too much of the world, it'll give ya nightmares. Instead look at nice sunsets, like I did tonight!

134 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:15:31pm

re: #118 avanti

I have no problem with that. It is the loyal opposition thing. I trust if Cheney agrees with Obama, he'll speak out too.

Probably not. Cheney is fairly partisan and to be honest that's not a shooter's job. A sane political shooter (the term is my own) is someone used to attack the other side's policies and push his own party's ideas. His job is not build bridges with the other side, but rather to convince the other side's supporters to switch.

BTW: There are also insane shooters such as Maxine Waters who attack with illogical or loony arguements or those like David Brock who work solely to mount personal attacks on the other side.

135 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:15:59pm

re: #126 Vaak

It's called a joke.

136 avanti  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:16:58pm

re: #120 Walter L. Newton

In your dreams.

Then he's not as intellectually honest as you believe. If he simply thinks BHO is wrong 24/7 it's partisan BS all over again. He seems more honest then that to me.

137 WindHorse  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:17:21pm

re: #129 DirtyDog

.....well, you are right about what happens after marriage. who knows?

I would guess based on my friends who are gay that they might be more subject to divorce..... but who knows?

Still, I think the idea of gay marriage encourages stability.

138 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:17:42pm

re: #130 iceweasel

Very true.

true...it's true!...haha!...good one

139 srb1976  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:17:44pm

I have been trying to figure out a good way to say this, while I was catching up on what everyone else already said....
So for what it's worth, here's my silly opinion. If 2 teenagers (with parents permission) can get married, how do you argue that 2 adults can't?
I've always seen marriage as more of a civil agreement anyway (12th anniversary in a couple of weeks), just 2 people making a public declaration that they're going to team up and pool their resources.....the religious trappings and rituals are more a part of the public declaration than the heart of what a marriage is. I can't think of any good reason to deny 2 consenting adults the chance to "team up" or get married, if that's what they really want.....
I understand that when you consider legal and tax benefits it's more complicated than that, but there's my opinion anyway
Not sure how clear that is (probably could have said it much better, but I've already typed it up and deleted it 3 or 4 times)

140 srb1976  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:18:41pm

re: #122 Irish Rose

I know it's off topic, but I have the most insane craving tonight for a DQ footlong chili-cheese dog with onions.

Might as well give in, you won't be happy til you do = )

141 itellu3times  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:19:35pm

OK, but can we call it Garriage?

142 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:20:19pm

re: #136 avanti

Then he's not as intellectually honest as you believe. If he simply thinks BHO is wrong 24/7 it's partisan BS all over again. He seems more honest then that to me.

BO is wrong 23/6...when he's right he's riding the shit tails of GWB....explain that away

143 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:21:12pm

re: #138 albusteve

true...it's true!...haha!...good one

Is it raining at your spread?

144 Bloodnok  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:21:28pm

Good night folks! Stay rational.

145 avanti  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:21:35pm

re: #134 Dark_Falcon

Probably not. Cheney is fairly partisan and to be honest that's not a shooter's job. A sane political shooter (the term is my own) is someone used to attack the other side's policies and push his own party's ideas. His job is not build bridges with the other side, but rather to convince the other side's supporters to switch.

BTW: There are also insane shooters such as Maxine Waters who attack with illogical or loony arguements or those like David Brock who work solely to mount personal attacks on the other side.

Fair enough, but that's why I prefer "straight shooters" If Cheney tossed in a occasional, honest compliment, I'd be more likely to listen to the shit tossing. That's basically how BHO ran his campaign and that appealed to a lot of voters.

146 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:22:05pm

re: #117 Dianna

Me personally, I could've done without the hysterical, shrill, over-the-top comparisons to the Civil Rights movement from the gay activists. To compare being inconvenienced to what Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, the Freedom Riders and countless other blacks had to endure under Jim Crow is simply insulting. There was no Klan for them to face down, there was no Bull Connors or fire hoses or police dogs. Same Sex couples didn't have to be escorted to City Hall their wedding vows and ceremonies by soldiers from the 101st Airborne division.

I'm not advocating that they face the same hurdles that others did under Jim Crow.....but not insulting my intelligence for starters would be nice. I'm as white as they come and I found those histrionics offesnsive.

/And if I was that bothered by it, I wonder how well the gay marrige = Freedom riders comparison went over in the black community

147 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:22:40pm

re: #143 Walter L. Newton

Is it raining at your spread?

no...we are drying up with the sun and heat...the river is good but we need the rain fall...monsoons are coming

148 Last Mohican  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:23:18pm

There are many pages of comments on the Cheney story over at HuffPo. They're having trouble figuring out how to deal with it.

Obviously, their most important priority is to be as furiously hateful of Cheney as they can. Some of them are claiming that Cheney didn't really mean what he said, because he's such a horrible lying evil person and he always lies. Others acknowledge that he did mean it, but that he wasn't sufficiently considerate of his daughter as he explained it. Many of them are accusing him of being secretly gay. And at least one person just kind of skipped the whole gay issue entirely, and called for Cheney be hanged to death.

149 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:23:33pm

re: #135 Sharmuta

Someone's Sarcsm-o-meter's busted.

150 WindHorse  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:24:03pm

re: #145 avanti

it's all about feeling good?

Dick Cheney, by his support of gay marriage, is recognizing the "other".

Does he care whether it makes someone "feels good"?

No f'ing way. He doesn't care..... he believes what he believes.... take it or leave it.

Which is, of course, complete honesty.

151 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:24:11pm

re: #145 avanti

Fair enough, but that's why I prefer "straight shooters" If Cheney tossed in a occasional, honest compliment, I'd be more likely to listen to the shit tossing. That's basically how BHO ran his campaign and that appealed to a lot of voters.

BHO smiled and put on a happy face, and didn't flinch once while his goons did all the dirty work. That's how he ran his campaign. You don't expect us to have forgotten that already, hell, it was only last year.

152 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:24:46pm

re: #149 Fenway_Nation


Just like someone's PIMF-o-meter needs a tune-up.

153 Aye Pod  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:24:52pm

re: #20 Charles

A BNP supporter "withdraws his support" for Robert Spencer -- because Spencer's just a "plastic anti-jihadist." Not a joke.

[Link: thedestructionofbritain.blogspot.com...]

And the guy really hates me, of course.

From that post:

Mr Spencer is also missing an important factor in the victory of the democratic West over Islamisation. Our history has told us on numerous occasions that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". He seems to forget this. He forgets that had the West not allied with the Russians in WW1 and WW2 then the Germans would have won. We had no choice and what had to be done was done. We are at that time again. We cannot be picky with out allies or else the West will fall.

The irony of the BNP attacking Spencer with his own argument.

154 jaunte  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:25:13pm

re: #135 Sharmuta

It's called a joke.

If you tell a joke and someone misses it, is it a JINO?

155 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:25:19pm

re: #147 albusteve

no...we are drying up with the sun and heat...the river is good but we need the rain fall...monsoons are coming

Raining here right now, may be snow about 8000 feet tomorrow night. Tomorrow night I'll be at 7500 feet at my girlfriends. So maybe I will miss the snow. High in Denver tomorrow will be 56, on June 2nd. Ha!

156 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:25:34pm

re: #145 avanti

Fair enough, but that's why I prefer "straight shooters" If Cheney tossed in a occasional, honest compliment, I'd be more likely to listen to the shit tossing. That's basically how BHO ran his campaign and that appealed to a lot of voters.

The problem is that there isn't much Obama is doing that conservatives approve of, and almost that is so approved was started when Cheney was VP. If Obama wants praise from Cheney or me, he can start by cutting back on non-defense spending and forgoing some tax increases.

157 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:25:49pm

re: #151 Walter L. Newton

BHO smiled and put on a happy face, and didn't flinch once while his goons did all the dirty work. That's how he ran his campaign. You don't expect us to have forgotten that already, hell, it was only last year.

right...if anything has changed it's been for the worse...some of these posts are getting pretty comical

158 ArchangelMichael  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:25:56pm

re: #46 Charles

Spencer's fascist buddies are starting to turn on him now, because he's trying to have it both ways -- slip a little support to the fascists on the sly, but try to keep appearing moderate enough so that he can go on TV.

That little balancing act couldn't last.

So will this be the catalyst for him waking up and coming back to legitimate criticism of jihad, or for him to go full bore neofascist?

159 Last Mohican  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:26:19pm

re: #122 Irish Rose

I know it's off topic, but I have the most insane craving tonight for a DQ footlong chili-cheese dog with onions.

That sounds awesome. But speaking as a physician, I have to suggest that you consider carefully whether you have to wake up early and go to work tomorrow. A foot-long chili cheese dog with onions can be greatly rewarding, but it can also be a big commitment.

160 freetoken  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:26:51pm

re: #148 Last Mohican

161 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:27:15pm

re: #155 Walter L. Newton

Raining here right now, may be snow about 8000 feet tomorrow night. Tomorrow night I'll be at 7500 feet at my girlfriends. So maybe I will miss the snow. High in Denver tomorrow will be 56, on June 2nd. Ha!

you bitch

162 Gus  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:27:33pm

re: #148 Last Mohican

There are many pages of comments on the Cheney story over at HuffPo. They're having trouble figuring out how to deal with it.

Obviously, their most important priority is to be as furiously hateful of Cheney as they can. Some of them are claiming that Cheney didn't really mean what he said, because he's such a horrible lying evil person and he always lies. Others acknowledge that he did mean it, but that he wasn't sufficiently considerate of his daughter as he explained it. Many of them are accusing him of being secretly gay. And at least one person just kind of skipped the whole gay issue entirely, and called for Cheney be hanged to death.

I scanned a few of those this morning. Seemed like a lot of people were saying "so what" and another said "he would have said that if his daughter wasn't guy." There's no pleasing them I suppose. It's not unlike when Obama does the right thing it's not acknowledged by the opposition.

163 Cato the Elder  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:28:00pm

re: #20 Charles

A BNP supporter "withdraws his support" for Robert Spencer -- because Spencer's just a "plastic anti-jihadist." Not a joke.

[Link: thedestructionofbritain.blogspot.com...]

And the guy really hates me, of course.

Imagine, if you will, how Robert must be seething right now.

He can't say "I never wanted your support to begin with, asshole" - because that would alienate all the other BNP-loving neo-fascists whose support he has courted so assiduously.

He can't say "Please, you don't understand, I'm really a real steel-balled anti-jihadist, really, so kindly give me your support again" - because that would prove that what you've been saying all this time is true - that he does want to be in bed with these guys "insofar as they oppose the jihad".

I suppose he could try siccing Shrieks on them, but her incoherence would only increase the confusion - or the certainty.

His poor brain must be spinning. All he knows is somehow his reply has to end with the word "cordially".

You can almost smell the smoke as his logic circuits begin to fry. Like one of those old science-fiction bad-guy robots brought to a halt by a simple Greek paradox.

164 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:28:00pm

re: #161 albusteve

you bitch

I prefer "Drama Queen." :)

165 avanti  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:28:00pm

re: #142 albusteve

BO is wrong 23/6...when he's right he's riding the shit tails of GWB....explain that away

That's easy. He'll only appear right to you when he agrees with conservative principles, and since he's a liberal that won't be often. He did not get elected by being popular with the far right, nor will he become very popular with them while in office. The key for him, is to stay popular with over 50% of the voters.

166 Gus  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:28:02pm

re: #162 Gus 802

I scanned a few of those this morning. Seemed like a lot of people were saying "so what" and another said "he would have said that if his daughter wasn't gay." There's no pleasing them I suppose. It's not unlike when Obama does the right thing it's not acknowledged by the opposition.

PIMF

167 Banner  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:28:04pm

Real conservatives don't care what consenting adults do, and believe that Marriage and the like are NONE of the government's business!

Too many people have forgotten that.

168 WindHorse  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:28:54pm

and, oh yeah..... Avanti..... please go through the promises the "O" made and has kept?

Few and fur between....

(okay, his trip to NYC for his wife is real)... appropriate or not.

169 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:30:08pm

re: #163 Cato the Elder

...Greek paradox.

What's a Greek paradox? A dentist and a surgeon in Athens.

170 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:30:15pm

Maybe this is some sort of MachevellRovian plot to force BH0's hand on the gay mrriage issue.

Rove, you magnificent bastard!

/Probably not, since I think Cheney's just calling it as he sees it now that he doesn't have to worry about running for office anymore.

171 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:30:34pm

re: #165 avanti

That's easy. He'll only appear right to you when he agrees with conservative principles, and since he's a liberal that won't be often. He did not get elected by being popular with the far right, nor will he become very popular with them while in office. The key for him, is to stay popular with over 50% of the voters.

yes, well said....we already knew all that tho...BO is a whore, he has to follow Bush on key issues

172 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:31:13pm

re: #139 srb1976

This is a long statement, and tricky to answer. But I'm going to try.

I have been trying to figure out a good way to say this, while I was catching up on what everyone else already said....
So for what it's worth, here's my silly opinion. If 2 teenagers (with parents permission) can get married, how do you argue that 2 adults can't?

Put that way, out of any context, it's impossible to argue.

I've always seen marriage as more of a civil agreement anyway (12th anniversary in a couple of weeks), just 2 people making a public declaration that they're going to team up and pool their resources.....the religious trappings and rituals are more a part of the public declaration than the heart of what a marriage is. I can't think of any good reason to deny 2 consenting adults the chance to "team up" or get married, if that's what they really want.....

Frankly, you're missing a couple points, mostly because you're considering the modern world, rather than the historical and anthropological origins of marriage. Resources are not that constrained, so the issues of a recognized marriage, and the recognized rights of the off-spring of that legally recognized marriage, are much less of an issue. Similarly, property is not the tightly constrained and regulated thing it was even 100 years ago - and that's another point the gays need to raise and haven't in any coherent or reasonable way - so, maybe it's time we ignored what marriage originated for?

I understand that when you consider legal and tax benefits it's more complicated than that, but there's my opinion anyway
Not sure how clear that is (probably could have said it much better, but I've already typed it up and deleted it 3 or 4 times)

Bluntly? All the legal issues can be handled very simply with a contract. The tax issues - if you are above a certain threshold - are actually negative if you're married. As to survivor benefits? On most pension plans, you may designate and provide for a survivor, and they don't care if it's your spouse or someone else. Some insurance providers will balk, but there are ways around that, and more appear every day.

People aren't actually examining this topic. They're emoting at it.

You're more reasonable than most. But still, we must discuss what marriage is for, and then ask if it applies. Then ask if it's still - as it has been in the past - a state interest (and it was, it's a lie to say otherwise, historically), and if it is, what then? And if not, what then?

173 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:31:42pm

re: #164 Walter L. Newton

I prefer "Drama Queen." :)

I prefer Dairy Queen!....I'll buy

174 freetoken  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:32:03pm

More interesting.... religious doctrine... from that WND poll comments:

Posted by bob on Jun 01, 2009 18:06

I'm sure that there are a lot of babies in heaven are smiling because the man that took their lives and never let them breath,live,laugh and cry will not murder any more babies.


-

Posted by rm10645 on Jun 01, 2009 18:01

Referencing the comment..."Let me start by saying that violence is never a solution to any problem". So, the violence rendered to liberate the NAZI concentration camps wasn't a solution? "...and that life, at all stages, must be protected..." So, if one knew the activities of Josef Mengele, known as The Angel Of Death at Auschwitz, and didn't stop him; who would be more culpable to the crimes committed by him, the doctor for committing them or the person who knew and didn't stop him? And who will 'protect' Mengele's life had it been in danger? I didn't see any hands go up, so I'll take that as 'no one'. The point I'm making is that this is not an issue where one can have it both ways. Sometimes violence is a necessary tool when reason or other tools can not resolve the commission of an atrocity, be it state sponsored and sanctioned overtly or covertly via a wink and a nod or looking the other way. Both doctors committed atrocities. Dr. Mengele, in this instance is the lesser of the two evil doctors. [...]

Yeah, you're reading that right... don't adjust your LCD screen, it is just fine. WND forum posters really are putting up stuff like that.

175 MrPaulRevere  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:32:06pm

OT re. the murder of Dr. Tiller: I noticed Thanos was was commenting on local Kansas City talk radio today, more likely than not we were listening to the same shows. I was absolutely appalled. If callers were not wallowing in bloodlust they were making all sorts of rationalizations and equivocations for the murder (the analogy to killing a Nazi camp guard REALLY pisses me off). I am ashamed live in the same region as these maniacs.

176 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:32:16pm

re: #165 avanti

That's easy. He'll only appear right to you when he agrees with conservative principles, and since he's a liberal that won't be often. He did not get elected by being popular with the far right, nor will he become very popular with them while in office. The key for him, is to stay popular with keep suckering over 50% of the voters.

He can't blame his cock-ups on 'the failed policies of the last 8 years' for much longer, otherwise that'll include his tenure in the White House.

177 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:32:57pm

re: #135 Sharmuta

It's called a joke.

The problem, as I see it, is that there are enough on the far right that would be unable to accept what Cheney has to say on the subject in any way, shape, or form. Their ideology is unbending, and they are gaining effective control of the GOP.

178 Irish Rose  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:33:22pm

re: #173 albusteve

I prefer Dairy Queen!....I'll buy

In that case, I'll have two footlong chili dogs.
Hold the onions on the second one.

179 kahall  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:33:38pm

I have always loved Dick.
Wait.....

180 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:34:08pm

re: #175 MrPaulRevere

OT re. the murder of Dr. Tiller: I noticed Thanos was was commenting on local Kansas City talk radio today, more likely than not we were listening to the same shows. I was absolutely appalled. If callers were not wallowing in bloodlust they were making all sorts of rationalizations and equivocations for the murder (the analogy to killing a Nazi camp guard REALLY pisses me off). I am ashamed live in the same region as these maniacs.

It's happening right now, this moment, on KOA, 50,000 watt clear channel station, goes to 38 states at this time of night. The local host, a far right crazy himself, is not helping.

181 NY Nana  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:34:23pm

re: #168 WindHorse

(okay, his trip to NYC for his wife is real)... appropriate or not.

Hardly appropriate on the taxpayers (us) who footed the the bill. And the White House refuses to say what it cost us...disgraceful, just disgraceful.

182 daledog  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:34:25pm

Nobody's heads are popping.

183 avanti  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:34:40pm

re: #127 FurryOldGuyJeans

Yet you are full of complaint and objections when he doesn't. Not being loyal opposition yourself with all the blather about poll numbers.

If you've followed my posts, you know I would like another choice of a party. I can't vote for the GOP as it stands today, but I want a choice.
The reason I quote the polls is to show you how you are doing in the quest to grow as a party. The fact that many think the polls are rigged, that it's all the MSN's and ACORN's fault is just ignoring reality and setting yourself up for disappointment.

184 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:34:42pm

re: #167 Banner

Real conservatives don't care what consenting adults do, and believe that Marriage and the like are NONE of the government's business!

Too many people have forgotten that.

I don't entirely agree. There is a good case for traditional marriage and I do care what consenting adults do. That having been said, there is a difference between caring what people are doing and trying to restrict it. I have no use at all for anti-homosexuality laws and I support their repeal. I am also for civil unions, though I would prefer they not be called marriages.

185 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:34:55pm

re: #169 Walter L. Newton

What's a Greek paradox? A dentist and a surgeon in Athens.

the opposite of a Turkish paradox?...really I don't know...but I'm hanging on every second til Cato illuminates me with his blinding linguistic brilliance..."lead me yonder Cato!"

186 freetoken  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:35:38pm

re: #175 MrPaulRevere

See my post above yours, where one WND forum member justifies killing Tiller since Tiller is even more evil the Mengele.

187 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:35:41pm

re: #162 Gus 802

It has been recognized here at lgf a number of times, with a few trolls drug along kicking and screaming.

188 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:35:44pm

re: #178 Irish Rose

In that case, I'll have two footlong chili dogs.
Hold the onions on the second one.

Rose!...we gotta crew goin now!

189 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:36:11pm

re: #185 albusteve

the opposite of a Turkish paradox?...really I don't know...but I'm hanging on every second til Cato illuminates me with his blinding linguistic brilliance..."lead me yonder Cato!"

I have a thesaurus too!

190 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:37:04pm

While I walk my dogs, may I request consideration of my comment, #172, on this thread?

191 WindHorse  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:37:10pm

re: #181 NY Nana

what a huge surprise? But, then, rulers of the universe smile and do what they will....

/sure glad he's earned this position.....

192 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:37:55pm

re: #173 albusteve

I prefer Dairy Queen!....I'll buy

I'll have a large root beer freeze, please.

/kidding

193 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:38:08pm

re: #189 Walter L. Newton

I have a thesaurus too!

you're hired!...I can hardly wait bro...I'm JUICED!

194 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:38:17pm

re: #20 Charles

A BNP supporter "withdraws his support" for Robert Spencer -- because Spencer's just a "plastic anti-jihadist." Not a joke.

[Link: thedestructionofbritain.blogspot.com...]

And the guy really hates me, of course.

Did anyone make the "FINO - Fascist In Name Only" joke yet?

195 freetoken  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:38:18pm

So, here is the gruesome question: Are we expecting copy-cats?

In the last two days we have two instances of murderers apparently motivated by religious ideology. Now, both of them may be found to be "mentally ill" by the court system, or maybe not. Regardless, how many others out there will be stimulated into action by the two killers? Or will these two incidents blow-over?

196 MrPaulRevere  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:38:27pm

re: #180 Walter L. Newton

It is absolutely disgusting. I was channel surfing O'Reilly and Olbermann earlier and I agreed with Olbermann. This type of incitement and demonization is reminiscent of another country at another time, at the risk of invoking Godwins law.

197 Cato the Elder  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:40:30pm

re: #84 Last Mohican

And Obama favors civil unions, but is against gay marriage.

I can't wait to remind all my gay friends to vote for Cheney over Obama in 2012.

Excuse me, but Cheney does not say he's "for gay marriage" in this clip. He says he's for letting the states figure it out for themselves. Which mean he's cool with any state that chooses the other option, too.

He's neither for it nor against it. Classic equivocation.

198 avanti  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:41:14pm

re: #156 Dark_Falcon

The problem is that there isn't much Obama is doing that conservatives approve of, and almost that is so approved was started when Cheney was VP. If Obama wants praise from Cheney or me, he can start by cutting back on non-defense spending and forgoing some tax increases.

Dark, sadly, I don't think much will change on the making conservative happy front. I can't deny he's a liberal, and that was not a secret to the voters. They knew about health care and the tax increase for those over 250K and voted for him. He'll do what he can for those that voted for him, not so much for the right that did not.

199 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:41:55pm

re: #195 freetoken

After Oakland, Binghampton and Pittsburgh it just seemed like everything was spiralling out of control....and there were in fact some more murder/suicides immediately afterwards, although these didn't get as much attention as the first three for whatever reason (not as high a body count, not as many law enforcement fatalities, MSM and local media still focused on the first three shootings).

Then it got pretty quiet for awhile.

And now this.

200 Kragar  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:43:06pm

re: #197 Cato the Elder

Excuse me, but Cheney does not say he's "for gay marriage" in this clip. He says he's for letting the states figure it out for themselves. Which mean he's cool with any state that chooses the other option, too.

He's neither for it nor against it. Classic equivocation.

Its almost like he is saying we should apply the 10th amendment to the situation.

The nerve of him.

201 Vaak  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:43:39pm

re: #135 Sharmuta

It's called a joke.

OH OK! That's what those asinine dashes are for. But the other post didn't have them, so whatever.

So, I can take an idiotic shot at a person or whole group and call it a joke much like this "Too bad Dr. Tiller died, had a lot of unfinished work, he didn't do enough abortions ///////////" and it's all sarcastic and doesn't mean a thing even though it does sound bad? Ok, sounds good.

202 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:44:18pm

re: #198 avanti

Dark, sadly, I don't think much will change on the making conservative happy front. I can't deny he's a liberal, and that was not a secret to the voters. They knew about health care and the tax increase for those over 250K and voted for him. He'll do what he can for those that voted for him, not so much for the right that did not.

And that is where you and I disagree: On which policies are the right ones. We are both civil to each other, but we favor different ways of doing things. For that reason, I can't see myself giving Obama much credit but I don't expect him to lose sleep over that fact either.

203 NY Nana  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:44:23pm

re: #191 WindHorse


/sure glad he's earned this position.....

I would sure be glad if he lost this position...no sarc intended, just very wishful thinking.

204 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:45:26pm

re: #197 Cato the Elder

Excuse me, but Cheney does not say he's "for gay marriage" in this clip. He says he's for letting the states figure it out for themselves. Which mean he's cool with any state that chooses the other option, too.

He's neither for it nor against it. Classic equivocation.

Earlier today I read a transcript of what he said, and you are correct. He is laying this question back into the laps of the state. No where did he say he was personally for gay marriages.

205 avanti  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:45:36pm

re: #181 NY Nana

Hardly appropriate on the taxpayers (us) who footed the the bill. And the White House refuses to say what it cost us...disgraceful, just disgraceful.

Next thing you know, he'll take AF 1 to Texas, or like Reagan, take his wife to a show in NYC, oh wait...

206 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:45:45pm

I have this sudden urge for a honey-gazed ham right now.

207 Last Mohican  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:45:46pm

re: #197 Cato the Elder

Excuse me, but Cheney does not say he's "for gay marriage" in this clip. He says he's for letting the states figure it out for themselves. Which mean he's cool with any state that chooses the other option, too.

He's neither for it nor against it. Classic equivocation.

Excuse me, but here's what Cheney said:

Freedom means freedom for everyone.

I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish.

I don’t have any problem with that. I think people oughtta get a shot at that.

That would be "for it." Although he did say that states should be allowed to agree or disagree with his position when making law.

208 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:45:59pm

re: #201 Vaak

OH OK! That's what those asinine dashes are for. But the other post didn't have them, so whatever.

So, I can take an idiotic shot at a person or whole group and call it a joke much like this "Too bad Dr. Tiller died, had a lot of unfinished work, he didn't do enough abortions ///////////" and it's all sarcastic and doesn't mean a thing even though it does sound bad? Ok, sounds good.

rookie...go sit down for a bit

209 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:47:56pm

re: #201 Vaak

Time for someone to do some actual reading before they open their mouth and look stupid.

Ooops, too late.

210 Eclectic Infidel  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:48:00pm

re: #167 Banner

Real conservatives don't care what consenting adults do, and believe that Marriage and the like are NONE of the government's business!

Too many people have forgotten that.

PLENTY of conservatives would disagree with you. They want authoritarian laws telling consenting adults who they can or cannot marry. They want the majority to be able to dictate to the minority what kind of rights can be granted by law. Look at the vote in California. The majority voted away equal rights for gay Americans in the state, and people have no problem with it. Prejudice won out. Yee haw America. State's rights? Please. Just another excuse conservatives like to drag out in an attempt to show how sophisticated they are. The words are hollow though. Afterall, it's the words of the majority clan.

I agree with you. The govt should not be given a say in how legally consenting adults wish to join together in unions. Allow contract law to rule the day and be done with it. It won't happen though.

We'll hear the same talking points till pigs fly.

211 Irish Rose  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:49:03pm

I'm out for the evening, see ya'll on the DT.

212 NY Nana  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:49:20pm

re: #192 Dark_Falcon

If you have a Sonic near you, you can get a free root beer float...would you settle for that? ;)

213 avanti  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:49:30pm

re: #202 Dark_Falcon

And that is where you and I disagree: On which policies are the right ones. We are both civil to each other, but we favor different ways of doing things. For that reason, I can't see myself giving Obama much credit but I don't expect him to lose sleep over that fact either.

As I've said before, that's the way it should be. No one will make both the left and right happy, but we need both. To exaggerate a point, if we were all conservatives, nothing would change, if we were all liberals, we'd fly off a cliff. It's checks and balances.

214 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:49:45pm

re: #197 Cato the Elder

Wow, letting states decide issues, how novel, how un-American.

215 razorbacker  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:49:57pm

re: #197 Cato the Elder

Excuse me, but Cheney does not say he's "for gay marriage" in this clip. He says he's for letting the states figure it out for themselves. Which mean he's cool with any state that chooses the other option, too.

He's neither for it nor against it. Classic equivocation.

Maybe he's like me. Maybe he doesn't care. I have enough to worry about keeping my own marriage hitting on all eight cylinders. I don't worry too much about the personal entanglements of others.

But our society decided (no, I wasn't invited to the meeting, either) that chillens be good for a nation. I'd have thought that you could produce more chillens by giving some gee-whizz-would-you-look-at-the-size-of-it tax advantage to the people raising the chillens, but like I said, they didn't invite me to the meeting.

216 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:49:58pm

Late to this thread...

I clicked the link, watched the vid, read the comments.

If ever you find yourself feeling overly or unrealistically optimistic about the inherent kindness and compassion of the "human soul"; read the comments on a YouTube video. Any YouTube video.

217 The Left  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:50:30pm

re: #100 avanti

I know, but even that increase is pretty much in the base and you need more then that to win. I know I'm "poll man", but here's a good one on the size of the GOP tent now, and it's a eye opener for the future.

Tent ?

Combine that Gallup poll with the facts about demographic change in this country and it's clear that the GOP has some serious thinking and restructuring to do in order to win in the future. This is one reason (among many) that the current GOP strategy of playing only to their hardcore base (by calling seemingly everyone a RINO) is doomed to failure.

Anyone who read that Gallup poll should check out this Nate Silver post about it as well, for more.
[Link: www.fivethirtyeight.com...]

218 Cato the Elder  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:53:17pm

re: #207 Last Mohican

That would be "for it." Although he did say that states should be allowed to agree or disagree with his position when making law.

Excuse me, but that's like saying "freedom means freedom for everyone - I'm against slavery for black folks, everyone should have a shot at it [freedom]. But, it's up to the states to decide."

So he personally is against slavery for gay marriage, but if a state happens to disagree, then that's cool too, dude.

About as helpful, when you come down to it, as the Dred Scott decision.

Eventually it will have to be decided on a national level because freedom of movement means you can't have marriages in one part of the country be invalid in another.

219 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:53:41pm

I see that no body cares about an actual discussion. It's all emotion and trading sound-bites.

How very tiresome.

Who's willing to take their position and do a thought experiment? Play the scenario you favor out, and see where it ends?

No?

220 NY Nana  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:53:52pm

re: #205 avanti

Next thing you know, he'll take AF 1 to Texas, or like Reagan, take his wife to a show in NYC, oh wait...

Exactly....I do not recall any president doing this...but then the Obama Man can do anything he wants to, /because he is speshul.

221 srb1976  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:54:09pm

re: #172 Dianna

Thanks for the reply, I'm trying to sort out where I stand on the issue as much as anything else (at heart I'm live and let live kinda girl, so that's where I'm leaning) but there's always more to an issue than there seems to be on the surface.

It's all just more food for thought I guess...

222 Gus  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:54:27pm

re: #174 freetoken

More interesting.... religious doctrine... from that WND poll comments:

Yeah, you're reading that right... don't adjust your LCD screen, it is just fine. WND forum posters really are putting up stuff like that.

I don't know how I would simply respond to such a preposterous comparison of Tiller and Mengele. While morally questionable late term abortions do not compare in the slightest to the sadistic human experiments that Mengele conducted including dissecting human twins, putting people in ovens to create burns, sewing together two Gypsy children to create conjoined twins, and not using any anesthetic for these mad experiments. Not only was Mengele's experiments diabolical but they were based on racist and cultural hatred.

Mengele's experiments also included attempts to change eye color by injecting chemicals into children's eyes, various amputations of limbs and other brutal surgeries. Rena Gelissen's account of her time in Auschwitz details certain experiments performed on female prisoners around October 1943. Mengele would experiment on the chosen girls, performing sterilization and shock treatments. Most of the victims died, either due to the experiments or later infections. According to a website, "Once Mengele's assistant rounded up 14 pairs of Roma twins during the night. Mengele placed them on his polished marble dissection table and put them to sleep. He then injected chloroform into their hearts, killing them instantly. Mengele then began dissecting and meticulously noting each and every piece of the twins' bodies."

The comparison is not only an insult to ones intelligence but an insult to those that had family that were killed or disfigured by Dr. Mengele but it's also an insult to those that had late term abortions under the care of Dr. Tiller. Regardless of the moral issues with late term abortions and Dr. Tiller's practice the comparison is unfounded.

223 Stonemason  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:54:43pm

I agree with Mr. Cheyney, but, give me a line, a line we can agree with. One and one, that is my line.

Where is your line?

Seriously, I am okay with MM, FF, or MF. The thing is, personally, I wouldn't mind MFF, or even MFFF, however I understand that this is not a good thing so I am willing to allow the society in which I live make that decision and codify that decision.

So where is the line?

224 Cato the Elder  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:54:46pm

re: #215 razorbacker

Maybe he's like me. Maybe he doesn't care. I have enough to worry about keeping my own marriage hitting on all eight cylinders. I don't worry too much about the personal entanglements of others.

But our society decided (no, I wasn't invited to the meeting, either) that chillens be good for a nation. I'd have thought that you could produce more chillens by giving some gee-whizz-would-you-look-at-the-size-of-it tax advantage to the people raising the chillens, but like I said, they didn't invite me to the meeting.

Re tax advantages: That's what they do in Germany. Hasn't kept the German birth-rate from plummeting to all-time lows.

225 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:54:48pm

re: #217 iceweasel

Combine that Gallup poll with the facts about demographic change in this country and it's clear that the GOP has some serious thinking and restructuring to do in order to win in the future. This is one reason (among many) that the current GOP strategy of playing only to their hardcore base (by calling seemingly everyone a RINO) is doomed to failure.

Anyone who read that Gallup poll should check out this Nate Silver post about it as well, for more.
[Link: www.fivethirtyeight.com...]

so what?...liberalism is still a disease and will always be no matter what polls or voters say...just because conservatives cannot win an election hardly vilifies liberalism...you and you minions are simply wrong, disregarding polls and votes and the rest...where has your ideology ever been successful?...

226 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:55:08pm

OT: National Review's statement on the Tiller murder is quoted below. It strikes just the right note:

Gravely Wicked [Robert P. George]

Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. We are a nation of laws. Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence. Rightly or wrongly, George Tilller was acquitted by a jury of his peers. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted, and punished. By word and deed, let us teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion. Every human life is precious. George Tiller's life was precious. We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life. Let our "weapons" in the fight to defend the lives of abortion's tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit.

— Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University.

227 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:55:17pm
The majority voted away equal rights for gay Americans in the state, and people have no problem with it. Prejudice won out.

Yeah....it's not like screaming that anyone who didn't agree with them on gay marriage was a dumb intolerant 'bigot' undermined the 'No on Prop 8' side of the issue.

It's not like their conduct after the election will hurt them in the future.

228 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:55:40pm

re: #221 srb1976

Thanks for the reply, I'm trying to sort out where I stand on the issue as much as anything else (at heart I'm live and let live kinda girl, so that's where I'm leaning) but there's always more to an issue than there seems to be on the surface.

It's all just more food for thought I guess...

Oh, agreed. Most people, though, refuse to think, and simply emote.

I have no dog in the fight. I expect to be shot at by both sides. But I insist that reason can prevail, and ought to.

229 JohnAdams  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:55:50pm

re: #223 Stonemason

I agree with Mr. Cheyney, but, give me a line, a line we can agree with. One and one, that is my line.

Where is your line?

Seriously, I am okay with MM, FF, or MF. The thing is, personally, I wouldn't mind MFF, or even MFFF, however I understand that this is not a good thing so I am willing to allow the society in which I live make that decision and codify that decision.

So where is the line?

What's wrong with "two consenting adults"?

230 jaunte  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:56:22pm

re: #219 Dianna

I was thinking about what you said about the states interest in marriage; do you mean the resultant children from male-female marriage, maintaining population / taxpayers, or do you think an increased level of social stability also counts as a state interest?

231 razorbacker  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:56:39pm

re: #224 Cato the Elder

Re tax advantages: That's what they do in Germany. Hasn't kept the German birth-rate from plummeting to all-time lows.

Here's an honest question, no attempt to set you up for 'gotcha'. Didn't the Germans recently increase that tax advantage?

232 Stonemason  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:56:54pm

re: #219 Dianna

The state makes the decision for society...me, I make my own decisions and if I ran the state it would include same sex marriages.

My state would also defend any church that refused to marry same sex couples.

233 albusteve  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:57:34pm

re: #225 albusteve

I misused the word vilify....obviously

234 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:57:52pm

re: #223 Stonemason

I agree with Mr. Cheyney, but, give me a line, a line we can agree with. One and one, that is my line.

Where is your line?

Seriously, I am okay with MM, FF, or MF. The thing is, personally, I wouldn't mind MFF, or even MFFF, however I understand that this is not a good thing so I am willing to allow the society in which I live make that decision and codify that decision.

So where is the line?

Look at my #172, and tell me if that is - or isn't - at least a place to start.

I left polygamy and polyandry aside, simply because they needlessly complicate the debate.

235 avanti  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:58:03pm

re: #220 NY Nana

Exactly....I do not recall any president doing this...but then the Obama Man can do anything he wants to, /because he is speshul.

You did not miss my point that all President's have done things like this ? True, Reagan was the only other President to do the NYC show thing from what I've seen, but AF 1 has been used whenever the President leaves town.

236 Gretchen G.Tiger  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:58:04pm

Hello Night Lizards! It was one of those strange days in Near Iowa. Rain, dark clouds, clear skies, beautiful sunlight, then storms.

I have no idea how to properly punctuate the above. I know the second part isn't a true sentence. Perhaps a colon after Iowa? Lizard grammer help, please.

How are you-all and what are we talking about?

237 Stonemason  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:58:07pm

re: #229 JohnAdams

Nothing, good line, I like it.

238 JohnAdams  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:58:32pm

re: #224 Cato the Elder

Re tax advantages: That's what they do in Germany. Hasn't kept the German birth-rate from plummeting to all-time lows.

I think the gay community has done a very decent job in adopting and raising children and foster children. And lately, the mainstream marriage community has not had the greatest record. The point beyond dispute is that "family" is the best social organization, however that is practiced or defined.

239 Gretchen G.Tiger  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:58:41pm

re: #223 Stonemason

I agree with Mr. Cheyney, but, give me a line, a line we can agree with. One and one, that is my line.

Where is your line?

Seriously, I am okay with MM, FF, or MF. The thing is, personally, I wouldn't mind MFF, or even MFFF, however I understand that this is not a good thing so I am willing to allow the society in which I live make that decision and codify that decision.

So where is the line?

I'm all for monogamy in any form. Well, leave animals out of it.

240 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:59:48pm

re: #214 FurryOldGuyJeans

Wow, letting states decide issues, how novel, how un-American.

One tiny problem: The Full Faith & Credit Clause.

A marriage license (or college degree, etc.) that is recognized in one state, but be, by the power of constitutional law, recognized by all states.

Eventually the SCOTUS will have to rule on this. When? No idea.

241 avanti  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:59:54pm

re: #225 albusteve

so what?...liberalism is still a disease and will always be no matter what polls or voters say...just because conservatives cannot win an election hardly vilifies liberalism...you and you minions are simply wrong, disregarding polls and votes and the rest...where has your ideology ever been successful?...

Simply, words escape me.

242 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 9:59:56pm

re: #232 Stonemason

The state makes the decision for society...me, I make my own decisions and if I ran the state it would include same sex marriages.

My state would also defend any church that refused to marry same sex couples.

That's fine. Now, please, explain to me the historical, anthropological, technological and resource-based reasoning on which you reached your decision, and (further) run it out 100 years as honestly as you can.

243 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:00:04pm

re: #222 Gus 802

The comparison is not only an insult to ones intelligence but an insult to those that had family that were killed or disfigured by Dr. Mengele but it's also an insult to those that had late term abortions under the care of Dr. Tiller. Regardless of the moral issues with late term abortions and Dr. Tiller's practice the comparison is unfounded.

Concur. Yesterday I liked George Tiller to a hitman morally (and I stand by that statement), but even at that it should be noted that Tiller never liked killing or inflicting suffering and avoided the latter wherever possible. Mengele enjoyed both of those things. Tiller was a bad man, but he was not a monster and he did not deserve to be murdered.

244 Cato the Elder  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:00:24pm

re: #231 razorbacker

Here's an honest question, no attempt to set you up for 'gotcha'. Didn't the Germans recently increase that tax advantage?

I honestly don't know the answer - haven't followed German tax law for some time. But direct government payments to German families with children (= Kindergeld = lit. "child money") has been a feature of their tax code practically forever.

245 Cato the Elder  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:00:56pm

re: #239 ggt

I'm all for monogamy in any form. Well, leave animals out of it.

I prefer teak.

246 Last Mohican  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:00:58pm

re: #218 Cato the Elder

I see that you are uncomfortable with Dick Cheney's stated position that he personally favors the gay people's right to marry, but believes that individual states should have the right not to allow gay people to marry.

I'm sorry about that, but I'm glad that you are now ready to acknowledge that he said what he said. Good thing he didn't say it about slavery. We might have another civil war.

247 Stonemason  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:01:37pm

re: #234 Dianna

We are on the same side on this one Dianna. All I ask is that churches that refuse to marry same sex are not targeted.

Simple as that, really it is, one and one. Consenting Adults as another poster put it. The backing of the state for churches will bring along most of the right wing holdouts who are afraid that they will be forced to change some really basic tenets of their faith.

248 MrPaulRevere  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:01:49pm

re: #226 Dark_Falcon

I would tend to agree but I thought this line was unnecessary... "The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands." The abortion debate was personalized around George Tiller and that was WRONG.

249 srb1976  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:01:55pm

re: #245 Cato the Elder

I prefer teak.

Ok, that was just funny =)

250 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:02:45pm

re: #230 jaunte

I was thinking about what you said about the states interest in marriage; do you mean the resultant children from male-female marriage, maintaining population / taxpayers, or do you think an increased level of social stability also counts as a state interest?

Both, actually.

Remember, up until roughly a century ago, resources were much more limited - even in the United States - than they are currently.

The state always has an interest in the issues of 1) male behavior (married men are better citizens); 2) stable marriage (they require less state intervention at every level); and 3) orderly inheritance of resources.

Pretending that the State doesn't have those interests, even now, is a curious blind spot on both sides, and consistently left out of the debate.

251 razorbacker  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:03:20pm

re: #234 Dianna

Look at my #172, and tell me if that is - or isn't - at least a place to start.

I left polygamy and polyandry aside, simply because they needlessly complicate the debate.

Old boy down the road got to surfing the 'net, discovered some of those sites that none of us ever look at, and next thing we know he's gone to Chicago to meet his new lady. Meeting went well so he brought her back home to his wife and they all seem to be pretty happy.

Some days he looks a mite pale and drawn, but hey, some mornings I'm a bit under the weather myownself.

I don't know what legal ties they might have forged. Not my place to ask.

252 Eclectic Infidel  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:03:30pm

re: #227 Fenway_Nation

Yeah....it's not like screaming that anyone who didn't agree with them on gay marriage was a dumb intolerant 'bigot' undermined the 'No on Prop 8' side of the issue.

It's not like their conduct after the election will hurt them in the future.

There's always going to be people on one side of the fence who scream and screech far too loudly to be taken seriously. This is a given. But so what? Many took to the the streets out of frustration and anger and that was that.

I understand that there are folk out there who believe that somehow, gay rights in the realm of marriage will negatively affect their lives. I've met a few, but I can't honestly say that their fears are grounded in anything other than ignorance and, to beat a dead horse, prejudice.

Eventually, I think this will have to be decided at the national level. The state's rights nonsense just doesn't hold water in this regard.
IMO.

253 Stonemason  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:03:52pm

re: #242 Dianna

Wow, I'm not that well versed, but I will try...shoot, in a minute, gotta do a little school stuff

254 Gus  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:04:02pm

re: #243 Dark_Falcon

Concur. Yesterday I liked George Tiller to a hitman morally (and I stand by that statement), but even at that it should be noted that Tiller never liked killing or inflicting suffering and avoided the latter wherever possible. Mengele enjoyed both of those things. Tiller was a bad man, but he was not a monster and he did not deserve to be murdered.

I would say that he wasn't a sadist. That's the biggest difference one should see when making comparisons to Mengele. When I was typing out that post I cringed while reading the descriptions of his experiments -- which I've seen before.

255 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:04:06pm

re: #229 JohnAdams

What's wrong with "two consenting adults"?

sigh.

256 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:04:21pm

re: #229 JohnAdams

What's wrong with "two consenting adults"?

Clear, concise, no room for error. That's reasonable.

257 coldwarrior  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:04:24pm

re: #110 NukeAtomrod

Government should get the hell out of the marriage business. Domestic Financial Cooperative contracts for all. Marriage by the church of your choice as a separate entity.

the greatest comment ever on this subject, period.

nuke is the genius.

258 Last Mohican  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:04:30pm

re: #247 Stonemason

We are on the same side on this one Dianna. All I ask is that churches that refuse to marry same sex are not targeted.

That's the position that some state took recently. Vermont, maybe? Gay people have the legal right to marry, but no religious organization may be legally compelled to marry gay people if it doesn't want to.

That sounds just right to me.

259 freetoken  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:05:09pm

re: #226 Dark_Falcon

Many forum posters at WND, and elsewhere too, disagree with that Princeton professor you are quoting.

260 Cato the Elder  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:06:20pm

Good night everybody.

261 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:06:39pm

re: #247 Stonemason

As you and I know, their faith is irrelevant to anyone but them.

262 avanti  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:06:50pm

re: #260 Cato the Elder

Good night everybody.

Night Cato

263 jaunte  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:06:54pm

re: #250 Dianna

You're right about that; it is primarily an emotional debate from both sides, so neither side will be looking very carefully at the overall social/state interests except as support for their positions (and minimizing the points that don't support them).

264 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:07:15pm

re: #248 MrPaulRevere

I would tend to agree but I thought this line was unnecessary... "The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands." The abortion debate was personalized around George Tiller and that was WRONG.

No it wasn't wrong. Tiller engaged in actions the most Americans find abhorrent. Singling him out was morally acceptable as long as those doing the singling were clear that they did not support violence.

265 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:08:01pm

re: #251 razorbacker

Very funny, and I agree...but it doesn't answer the larger question. Nor will it.

266 JohnAdams  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:09:03pm

re: #258 Last Mohican

That's the position that some state took recently. Vermont, maybe? Gay people have the legal right to marry, but no religious organization may be legally compelled to marry gay people if it doesn't want to.

That sounds just right to me.

Yeah, that's fine. So many bigger fish to fry than this issue. I know so many gay couples of both sexes and I find nothing to differentiate them from straight couples--all of them have joys and problems that they deal with. I like a lot of religious people too, but the two roads don't have to meet.

267 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:09:07pm

re: #255 Dianna

What am I missing? That seemed reasonable to me. Am I too drunk to grasp the nuance here?

268 srb1976  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:09:23pm

re: #250 Dianna

Both, actually.

Remember, up until roughly a century ago, resources were much more limited - even in the United States - than they are currently.

The state always has an interest in the issues of 1) male behavior (married men are better citizens); 2) stable marriage (they require less state intervention at every level); and 3) orderly inheritance of resources.

Pretending that the State doesn't have those interests, even now, is a curious blind spot on both sides, and consistently left out of the debate.


So, even if all of these things are true, how does the makeup of the marriage in question negatively affect any of those interests?
1) If married men are better citizens, is this affected by whether or not they are married to another man?
2) A stable couple is a stable couple, regardless of it's makeup.
3) Inheritance would seem to be clarified rather than complicated

Maybe I'm missing something......
I'll check back in a few, gotta do some real work = )

269 MrPaulRevere  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:09:41pm

re: #264 Dark_Falcon

I disagree vehemently. Those demonizing him gave a wink and a nod toward violence.

270 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:10:02pm

re: #256 Slumbering Behemoth

Clear, concise, no room for error. That's reasonable.

And completely missing the point.

Like all empty statements of "tolerance", it completely fails to even begin to address the reason behind the fact that "marriage" has once again become an issue.

271 Gus  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:10:32pm

re: #258 Last Mohican

That's the position that some state took recently. Vermont, maybe? Gay people have the legal right to marry, but no religious organization may be legally compelled to marry gay people if it doesn't want to.

That sounds just right to me.

That's something I've supported. Actual marriage contracts are secular anyway so I don't understand what the fuss is all about. They are validated by government bodies and invalidated by government bodies after you spend thousands of dollars on a divorce attorney and courts costs. Nothing legalities are handled by a church, synagogue or mosque except for the rites, vows, and ceremony. Although vows can be seen as verbal agreements thus a contract.

272 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:11:07pm

re: #259 freetoken

Many forum posters at WND, and elsewhere too, disagree with that Princeton professor you are quoting.

And I disagree with them. I quoted his post on National Review's The Corner as an example of a responsible conservative statement on the Tiller murder.

273 razorbacker  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:11:18pm

I've got an early morning tomorrow and expect a late night, too.

Gonna accompany the wife-woman to the Sugarland/Keith Urban show tomorrow. I think Urban is the fellow. One of those cowboy-hat singers anyways.

So I better shut the back door, fill up the cat's food bowl, liberate that last small bowl of banana pudding and get ready to go to bed.

274 Eclectic Infidel  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:11:35pm

re: #258 Last Mohican

That's the position that some state took recently. Vermont, maybe? Gay people have the legal right to marry, but no religious organization may be legally compelled to marry gay people if it doesn't want to.

That sounds just right to me.

Sounds right to me as well.

And on that note, goodnight folks.

To sleep, perchance to dream.

275 coldwarrior  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:12:01pm

stupid ?

does anyone ever have problems accessing this site?
i am hoping that my isp isnt being 'selective'

276 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:13:13pm

re: #267 Slumbering Behemoth

What am I missing? That seemed reasonable to me. Am I too drunk to grasp the nuance here?

No, you're not engaged enough.

You - like me, frankly - don't actually care.

The debate, though, is charged between two parties who care a whole lot, and are shouting past each other. Neither side will look at the historical context, and work their way forward from there.

It's up to people like us to insist that both sides explain themselves, clearly, in context, with reasons why circumstances that applied in the past no longer do, or still do. Without resorting to "God!" as an argument.

277 JohnAdams  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:13:41pm

re: #268 srb1976

So, even if all of these things are true, how does the makeup of the marriage in question negatively affect any of those interests?
1) If married men are better citizens, is this affected by whether or not they are married to another man?
2) A stable couple is a stable couple, regardless of it's makeup.
3) Inheritance would seem to be clarified rather than complicated

Maybe I'm missing something......
I'll check back in a few, gotta do some real work = )

I think you could make a reasonable argument that the ideal environment for a child to be raised in a civilized society is within a committed mother/father home filled with love. Not to say that can't be adjusted slightly for sexual/gender preference.

278 kynna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:14:02pm

I followed a link to this Cheney interview on HuffPo earlier. The comments weren't closed this time. They still want him dead.

279 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:14:16pm

re: #269 MrPaulRevere

I disagree vehemently. Those demonizing him gave a wink and a nod toward violence.

Some of them did and they were wrong to do so.

And with that I must head to bed. I'm fading fast and need to sleep before returning to the fray. Good night, all.

280 coldwarrior  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:14:36pm

re: #278 kynna

I followed a link to this Cheney interview on HuffPo earlier. The comments weren't closed this time. They still want him dead.

281 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:14:47pm

re: #268 srb1976

So, even if all of these things are true, how does the makeup of the marriage in question negatively affect any of those interests?
1) If married men are better citizens, is this affected by whether or not they are married to another man?
2) A stable couple is a stable couple, regardless of it's makeup.
3) Inheritance would seem to be clarified rather than complicated

Maybe I'm missing something......
I'll check back in a few, gotta do some real work = )

Oooh! But you see, none of that is statistically borne out - or hasn't been, yet. And let's not get into the two uncles or aunts inheritance issues!

282 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:14:57pm

re: #270 Dianna

And completely missing the point.

Like all empty statements of "tolerance", it completely fails to even begin to address the reason behind the fact that "marriage" has once again become an issue.

I guess so. I am late to this thread, and skimming here. If you feel like catching me up, what point am I missing?

283 Gretchen G.Tiger  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:14:59pm

I think what bothers me most about the anti-abortion crowd is the total lack of understanding of the history of abortion. Regardless of the legality, abortions will take place and have always taken place.

This article gives some historical information on abortion in this country.

What we don't hear about is the PREVENTION of unwanted or unintended pregnancy. The FIRST Supreme Court Case that solidified a women's reproductive rights was Griswald vs. Conn in 1965. In which it was decided a married women could use contraception against her husband's wishes. As it is possible to kill a woman by keeping her pregnant, I think this court case had much more meaning that Roe V. Wade.

284 Stonemason  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:15:23pm

from a historical perspective, women were property (still are in some cultures), then, marriage came along and the women felt a little more human. The union of one and one is not unheard of in the animal world, take Canada Geese for instance, so one and one became the norm. Homosexuality is not normal (as normal is defined in Websters) so the normal marriage became MF. All the reasons that Dianna mentions are true, or were true, and, to be honest, may still be true, yanno, the married man is more stable...

Well, if the man was married to a man, he would still be more stable, in my opinion.

tax wise, I pay more because I am married, so married MM would pay more too.

Future, well, I can not predict the future, but I see very little in the way of 'traditional' families, we already dump our elders in 'homes', something that was not only unheard of but considered criminal in some cultures.

Like I said, I am not a hstory professor nor am I a lawyer. I am just a simple man who thinks that two people who love each other should be married if they want to be married, and the church I attend should not be forced to marry them

285 NY Nana  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:17:28pm

G'nite,all. Sweet dreams!

It is way too quiet here after having daughter and almost-3 year old grandson here, but NY Grampa and I are wasted! He never walks, as running is more fun, and 'helped' NY Grampa garden on our balcony. Dinner? I have bite marks on my tongue, as he was so funny! He is slender, but managed to scarf about 8 dried apricots, and all of a sudden, this kid who will not eat pasta with sauce, and daughter tries every trick in the book to get vegetables into him, as right now they are the enemy, decided that NY Grampa's pasta with sauce was the only one that was good enough to eat..daughter and I were both trying so hard to keep a straight face, and he kept looking at us!

Son in law went to see 'Up' with other friends from film school at the iniversity he graduated from, as daughter and son in law saw it the other night, and he wanted to see the 3D Digital version (he is a cinematographer and editor)...daughter didn't realize, so they saw the regular one.

And the bandit was wide awake all the way home from here, after going to the playground twice, and practicing for the marathon!

We loved every second, but need to recover!;)

286 JohnAdams  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:17:57pm

re: #284 Stonemason

Reasonable enough.

287 realwest  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:20:20pm

re: #207 Last Mohican
Precisely so. The States have always set the rules for marriage in this country (do you, do you not need a blood test; what age can someone no longer be considered a minor, etc.) but Cheney DID SAY
"Freedom means freedom for everyone.

I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish.

I don’t have any problem with that. I think people oughtta get a shot at that."

288 coldwarrior  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:20:30pm

re: #285 NY Nana

G'nite,all. Sweet dreams!

It is way too quiet here after having daughter and almost-3 year old grandson here, but NY Grampa and I are wasted! He never walks, as running is more fun, and 'helped' NY Grampa garden on our balcony. Dinner? I have bite marks on my tongue, as he was so funny! He is slender, but managed to scarf about 8 dried apricots, and all of a sudden, this kid who will not eat pasta with sauce, and daughter tries every trick in the book to get vegetables into him, as right now they are the enemy, decided that NY Grampa's pasta with sauce was the only one that was good enough to eat..daughter and I were both trying so hard to keep a straight face, and he kept looking at us!

Son in law went to see 'Up' with other friends from film school at the iniversity he graduated from, as daughter and son in law saw it the other night, and he wanted to see the 3D Digital version (he is a cinematographer and editor)...daughter didn't realize, so they saw the regular one.

And the bandit was wide awake all the way home from here, after going to the playground twice, and practicing for the marathon!

We loved every second, but need to recover!;)

that makes you a G'Ma

289 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:22:10pm

re: #282 Slumbering Behemoth

I guess so. I am late to this thread, and skimming here. If you feel like catching me up, what point am I missing?

Oh, boy.

Look, I don't have a dog in the fight.

Start from history. Run thought experiments on why gay marriage is or is not a good idea. Consider everything you can. Ignore emotions and appeals to authority - which include both God and rights. See where you end up.

I'm still waiting for anyone to do so.

290 coldwarrior  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:22:42pm

re: #284 Stonemason

unggh.. philles fan. :)

291 Gretchen G.Tiger  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:22:55pm

re: #285 NY Nana

G'nite,all. Sweet dreams!

It is way too quiet here after having daughter and almost-3 year old grandson here, but NY Grampa and I are wasted! He never walks, as running is more fun, and 'helped' NY Grampa garden on our balcony. Dinner? I have bite marks on my tongue, as he was so funny! He is slender, but managed to scarf about 8 dried apricots, and all of a sudden, this kid who will not eat pasta with sauce, and daughter tries every trick in the book to get vegetables into him, as right now they are the enemy, decided that NY Grampa's pasta with sauce was the only one that was good enough to eat..daughter and I were both trying so hard to keep a straight face, and he kept looking at us!

Son in law went to see 'Up' with other friends from film school at the iniversity he graduated from, as daughter and son in law saw it the other night, and he wanted to see the 3D Digital version (he is a cinematographer and editor)...daughter didn't realize, so they saw the regular one.

And the bandit was wide awake all the way home from here, after going to the playground twice, and practicing for the marathon!

We loved every second, but need to recover!;)

Ah, Nana! I ended-up pureeing all my veggies in the blender and then stuffing the mixture in home-made ravioli's. My kid would eat anything that he thought was pasta with red sauce.

292 srb1976  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:23:24pm

re: #281 Dianna

Oooh! But you see, none of that is statistically borne out - or hasn't been, yet. And let's not get into the two uncles or aunts inheritance issues!

Ok, that makes sense. Seems to me none of it can be statistically borne out until there are at least enough "test cases" to make up a reasonable sample, and since right now there can't be, I'm not sure what, if any, evidence you could substitute......
Maybe all you can do is keep watch on the states that are giving the whole thing a try, and see what happens.....
Really without answers here.....

293 Stonemason  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:23:43pm

re: #290 coldwarrior

of course...life long too, not a band wagon jumper, I have suffered!

294 Dianna  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:24:10pm

Heading for bed.

Good night, all!

295 srb1976  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:24:48pm

re: #294 Dianna

Good night, nice talking with ya = )

296 coldwarrior  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:24:54pm

re: #289 Dianna

anyone wishing to enter into a legally binding contract may. this is simple law.

then, it up to the churches...mine would never ever do it.

297 coldwarrior  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:25:37pm

re: #293 Stonemason

of course...life long too, not a band wagon jumper, I have suffered!

I AM A PIRATES FAN!

298 realwest  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:26:01pm

re: #294 Dianna
Good night Dianna - sleep well.

299 Stonemason  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:26:34pm

re: #289 Dianna

okay, no dog in the fight either here, but a serious historical dissertation is going to simply lead us to 'emotions' anyway because we are emotional animals. If we take it to biology, there are no reasons for marriage, so it is all about God and rights, they can't be separated out.

There is no way to discuss things with out emotions, we are humans, we think and we feel.

300 avanti  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:27:10pm

re: #294 Dianna

Heading for bed.

Good night, all!

Me too, different bed obviously. Night all.

301 Stonemason  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:27:36pm

re: #297 coldwarrior

ouch

302 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:27:40pm

re: #289 Dianna

Oh, boy.

Look, I don't have a dog in the fight.

Start from history. Run thought experiments on why gay marriage is or is not a good idea. Consider everything you can. Ignore emotions and appeals to authority - which include both God and rights. See where you end up.

I'm still waiting for anyone to do so.

Not trying to pick a fight, I was just confused about your "sigh". As for the rest of your post...

Lack of sleep and a couple of beers have made my brain extra fuzzy tonight. Maybe I'll just shut my yap observe for a while. Peace.

303 Gus  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:28:27pm

re: #289 Dianna

Oh, boy.

Look, I don't have a dog in the fight.

Start from history. Run thought experiments on why gay marriage is or is not a good idea. Consider everything you can. Ignore emotions and appeals to authority - which include both God and rights. See where you end up.

I'm still waiting for anyone to do so.

I'm curious. Have you done this?

304 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:29:32pm

re: #297 coldwarrior

I AM A PIRATES FAN!

I have no rebuttal.....

But thanks for Jason Bay.

305 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:30:08pm

Maybe everybody just has a case of the Mondays.

306 NY Nana  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:31:22pm

re: #288 coldwarrior

that makes you a G'Ma

And that is the best job description that I know of! We are blessed with 3 grandkids..in addition to the toddler, who lives in Brooklyn, we have a nearly-7 year old granddaughter in NJ, and a 9-year old granddaughter on LI...

We adore our 4 kids, but look upon the grandkids as payback for when they went through the terrible twos, and a part of their teens! ;)

307 razorbacker  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:31:59pm

What makes a marriage work?

I've had people ask me how we've managed to stay in a good marriage since '72. I don't know. We married so the child wouldn't be born a bastard (it still meant something then). The first five years we stayed together mainly to spite our friends and family that said it would never work. Lust became affection, affection matured into love, love became bound with a sense of continuity and stability, Before you know it, it's 2009 and we're still here.

Besides, I didn't want to lose half my stuff.

308 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:33:18pm

re: #305 Sharmuta

Watch it, Sharm.

Pete: Let me ask you something. When you come in on Monday and you're not feeling real well, does anyone ever say to you, "Sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays"?

Lawrence: No. No, man. Shit, no, man. I believe you'd get your ass kicked sayin' something like that, man.


//

309 HarryTheHawk  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:33:28pm

Cheney hasn't said anything new here. He mentioned "union" and "arrangement" but did not say "marriage" and in fact explicitly stated these relationships should not be sanctioned by the federal government. What am I missing?

310 mrclark  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:33:54pm

re: #1 Sharmuta

He's a RINO! /////

Cheney:

..people outta be free to enter into any kind of union they wish..


I'm sure the Man/RINO Love Association will appreciate his support

311 wiffersnapper  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:33:55pm

Liking the way Cheney is stepping up. Keep it up sir!

312 coldwarrior  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:34:25pm

re: #301 Stonemason

ouch

ummmhh.....and i love baseball

313 JohnAdams  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:35:13pm

I have some religious hang-ups regarding same-sex marriage but they are totally trumped by rights issues, and to me rights freedom is the only area where the state can get involved and in these cases you have to give the nod to gay marriage. Who can argue that heterosexuals have given a great name to marriage? The biggest issue is children.

314 coldwarrior  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:35:25pm

re: #304 Fenway_Nation

I have no rebuttal.....

But thanks for Jason Bay.

its bad here

315 Stonemason  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:36:35pm

re: #312 coldwarrior

so do I, and my wife as well, she is a transplant from Atlanta, loves the Phils now. Two boys, both play pretty well, both love the game.

Something about baseball, a great way to spend a few hours!

316 realwest  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:36:38pm

re: #296 coldwarrior
I'm not clear on what you're saying. Sorry, must be me and the lateness of the hour (Eastern time here) but if a gay couple enter into a "civil contract" and that civil contract is recognized by some Church, would you then consider them married?
For if it's the religious feature of marriage that you are concerned with, think of all the people who get the license (with whatever that entails, blood tests, whatever) and go to City Hall and the City Clerk processes that "civil contract" (assuming it does meet all the requirements for a license to get married) they don't even have to have a Church acknowledge it or bless it; they are married under that state's law, and -pursuant to the law - valid contracts entered into by A and B in State X must be honored as valid contracts between A and B in State W.
The only "out" is if that State A doesn't recognize contracts between Gays as valid contract.
Legally, Churches do not have the final say; you can get married, I suppose, by a minister, priest or rabbi who pays no attention to the State's law, but that doesn't make you married - only the imprimatur of the State makes the marriage valid.

317 pat  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:36:49pm

Cheney has maintained a consistent State Rights position on this since he has addressed the issue. And I suppose we all agree that abortion should be treated similarly?

318 coldwarrior  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:37:04pm

re: #306 NY Nana

yeah, its nice...my parent love their role.

319 coldwarrior  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:38:08pm

re: #316 realwest

hold on...lemme look at this....

320 JohnAdams  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:38:27pm

re: #307 razorbacker

Half of all marriages survive. Of the other half, yours is in the top ten percent. You and your spouse should be congratulated, emulated, and praised. Whether your marriage should be called "correct' is another matter.

321 Syrah  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:38:53pm

re: #305 Sharmuta

Maybe everybody just has a case of the Mondays.

Monday Monday

322 realwest  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:40:17pm

re: #320 JohnAdams
Do you mean to say sir, that Gays shouldn't have the same rights to go through the HELL that most divoreces are, just because they are GAY?
/

323 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:40:42pm

re: #321 Syrah

Hey! I missed you the other night. You left before I could get our spinoff up. Sounds like a few more folks have picked up the book though- maybe we'll get more company. :)

324 realwest  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:40:55pm

re: #319 coldwarrior
OK. I can wait a while.

325 razorbacker  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:41:13pm

And seeing realwest's post reminds me of another point. We've never had a church wedding. Just the JP and her husband for a witness. She did give a 50 year guarantee, though.

But I wasn't going to ask a church that I no longer attended to marry us, and she didn't want to marry in her church for reasons she chose to keep to herself.

326 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:42:12pm

re: #317 pat

Re: The marrige issue, and excluding the abortion issue..

The Fair Faith & Credit Clause will rear it's head at some point. SCOTUS will eventually have to settle this. The only question is when.

327 realwest  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:43:16pm

re: #325 razorbacker
And, despite all that non-church involvment, here you are - still married after all these years!
Congratulations!

328 coldwarrior  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:43:36pm

re: #316 realwest

I'm not clear on what you're saying. Sorry, must be me and the lateness of the hour (Eastern time here) but if a gay couple enter into a "civil contract" and that civil contract is recognized by some Church, would you then consider them married?
For if it's the religious feature of marriage that you are concerned with, think of all the people who get the license (with whatever that entails, blood tests, whatever) and go to City Hall and the City Clerk processes that "civil contract" (assuming it does meet all the requirements for a license to get married) they don't even have to have a Church acknowledge it or bless it; they are married under that state's law, and -pursuant to the law - valid contracts entered into by A and B in State X must be honored as valid contracts between A and B in State W.
The only "out" is if that State A doesn't recognize contracts between Gays as valid contract.
Legally, Churches do not have the final say; you can get married, I suppose, by a minister, priest or rabbi who pays no attention to the State's law, but that doesn't make you married - only the imprimatur of the State makes the marriage valid.

no...hold on...

if a couple enters into a legally binding agreement, it can be a 'marriage' by law of the state.

no church has to approve unless they want to, and deal with the fall out from it.

the short of this is that in every state, any 'gay' couple can be married by entering into the legal portions therof that binds their estates, et cetera and then can go find a church to 'marriage' them...

329 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:44:05pm

re: #305 Sharmuta

Dangit Sharm, you've forced me to dig this up. It's all your fault.

:)

330 realwest  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:44:23pm

re: #326 Slumbering Behemoth Yep, kindly see my #316.

331 srb1976  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:44:49pm

re: #325 razorbacker

Fopr what it worth, better half and I got married in a church neither of us had ever attended = )..... I went to high school with a couple of the pastor's kids and liked him pretty well, better half met him and liked him pretty well, that was that.....

332 JohnAdams  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:45:00pm

re: #322 realwest

Do you mean to say sir, that Gays shouldn't have the same rights to go through the HELL that most divoreces are, just because they are GAY?
/

Hey, don't call me sir! ;~) Touche. But yes, in today's society, with any lack of real social propriety regarding marriage, it is only just a contract which most gay couples would rather do without anyway, it seems.

333 NY Nana  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:45:32pm

re: #291 ggt

Daughter is a foodie, and she has also tried that...wise guy knows that the red sauce is tomato! That was why we were just astounded, and the look on his face? Mr. Innocence! He adores any kind of fruit, also. That is never a problem.

He hopefully will grow out of this, so we don't make a fuss. And he has outgrown his peanut allergy, so peanut butter is a favorite!

Daughter cooks all the meals, and she really is great. She uses a small amount of salt, fat, etc. She also writes articles for various magazines, etc., on healthy eating. She was a VP at a major publishing house in the city, but 9/11/01 changed her permanently. She has never been happier than she is now, and is happily married, and the best Mum I have seen.

We are proud of all 4 of our kids, and she still thinks she is their mother! ;) She is the second born, and only daughter of the 4.

She is now giving cooking classes in their apartment for expectant Mums and Mums of toddlers, as there is so little time to cook a nourishing meal...where was she when I needed her?

Got to go to sleep! G'nite, all, and I really, really mean it!

334 Syrah  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:46:57pm

re: #323 Sharmuta

Hey! I missed you the other night. You left before I could get our spinoff up. Sounds like a few more folks have picked up the book though- maybe we'll get more company. :)

Rough hours.

I am glad that others are picking up on the pick. You have been very persistent and persuasive.

I just started reading T.E. Lawrence "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom."

There are some comments in his Preface and Introductory Chapter that spoke loudly of the Unconstrained. I am not sure yet about him, though I had some suspicions before I even picked up the book. I will have to be careful to not let my own bias cloud my perceptions.

335 realwest  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:48:18pm

re: #328 coldwarrior

no...hold on...

if a couple enters into a legally binding agreement, it can be a 'marriage' by law of the state.

no church has to approve unless they want to, and deal with the fall out from it.

the short of this is that in every state, any 'gay' couple can be married by entering into the legal portions therof that binds their estates, et cetera and then can go find a church to 'marriage' them...


NO, the precise point I made which you overlooked or didn't pick up on is IF the contract is legally binding in State A. So if, for example, a gay couple gets married by the City Clerk (or whoever fulfills that role in Boston) in Boston - in a state which recoginizes gay marriage contracts as legal, then, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of our Constitution, EVERY state should recognize that Massachusetts state contract as valid and is to be given effect in every state.

336 pegcity  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:48:20pm

Gays got the right to marry in Canada years ago, and no one is calling for allowing polygamy or marrying dogs or whatever else people want to bring up.

337 Gretchen G.Tiger  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:49:05pm

re: #334 Syrah

Rough hours.

I am glad that others are picking up on the pick. You have been very persistent and persuasive.

I just started reading T.E. Lawrence "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom."

There are some comments in his Preface and Introductory Chapter that spoke loudly of the Unconstrained. I am not sure yet about him, though I had some suspicions before I even picked up the book. I will have to be careful to not let my own bias cloud my perceptions.

I have that one in my queue. I just started the Talisman by Sir Walter Scott. So far the narration (audio version) is horrible. It is an interesting dialogue between and Christian and Moslem warrior on their way to a crusade.

338 razorbacker  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:51:07pm

re: #331 srb1976

I just couldn't see my way to asking someone else's church to marry us.

Besides, what if we'd gotten the wrong church? Pretty funny we'd have looked standing before St. Peter and hearing him say, "razorbacker, all in all it don't look too bad, but this here Southern Baptist wedding...well, Son, we're foot-washing Pentacostals up here."

339 Gus  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:51:48pm

re: #336 pegcity

Gays got the right to marry in Canada years ago, and no one is calling for allowing polygamy or marrying dogs or whatever else people want to bring up.

There was some vote in my state which defined marriage as being only between a man and a woman -- sort of like DOMA. When the election came I voted against that and did a straight Republican ticket and voted no on all new spending. Wouldn't you know it the state DOMA passed and the Democrats won and spending bills passed.

Humans.

340 Syrah  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:52:08pm

re: #337 ggt

I have that one in my queue. I just started the Talisman by Sir Walter Scott. So far the narration (audio version) is horrible. It is an interesting dialogue between and Christian and Moslem warrior on their way to a crusade.

Looks like an interesting book.

It is available online. The Talisman.

341 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:52:23pm

re: #334 Syrah

I'm down to the last two chapters of Conflict. I'm hoping I will have time this week to pound out the remainder.

342 JohnAdams  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:52:47pm

re: #336 pegcity

Gays got the right to marry in Canada years ago, and no one is calling for allowing polygamy or marrying dogs or whatever else people want to bring up.

That's cool, but we in the States have more crazies and more lunatic lawyers in Minneapolis than you all have at outdoor hockey game in Winnipeg in January. ;~0

343 Stonemason  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:52:51pm

re: #336 pegcity

give it time. when people began to 'come out' one of the things I would hear my parents say was "next thing you know they'll want to get married". Of course their liberal friends would say just what you posted....

(I approve of same sex marriages)

344 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:53:14pm

Next, I have Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

345 srb1976  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:53:43pm

re: #338 razorbacker

Well congrats on making it work anyway!
We're going on 12 years now(just newlyweds, I know), it's rarely easy, but almost always worth it = )

346 Syrah  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:54:30pm

re: #341 Sharmuta

I'm down to the last two chapters of Conflict. I'm hoping I will have time this week to pound out the remainder.

It is not an easy read. There is so much to consider in each chapter that it is difficult to read quickly.

The audio version helps move it along, but it is not the same. Reading and listening are different.

347 realwest  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:55:51pm

re: #332 JohnAdams
Well I don't know if most gay couples would rather do without.
FOR instance - a gay couple who are friends of mine, have had a monagous relationship and have lived together for 37 years now. Now that they are older, they are concerned, for example, with inheritance laws, and with - especially since a Will can provide what the inheritance will be EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN THINGS - e.g. rent stabilization in NYC* - the right to visit a partner who is in a hospital, perhaps dying, where the hospital's rules are only spouses or blood relatives can see the patient.
*Rent Stabiization in NYC says that a rent stablized apartment (much valued because of the lower rents the whole rent stabilization process leads to) can ONLY be handed down to a brother, sister, child or spouse of the individual who signed the lease. That a gay partner has lived there for 37 years doesn't matter under current NYC law.

348 coldwarrior  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:55:58pm

re: #335 realwest

ohh...yeah.. right on. missed it,

for background...i am an orthodox christian, gays dont get married in my world.

however...they can enter into a legaly binding contract that looks like marriage without it being called marriage in any state. dissolving that agreement would look like a divorce.

if some bullshit prod outfit wants to marry them, whatever.

349 razorbacker  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:57:22pm

re: #345 srb1976

I won't argue. Life is easier when you know that someone has your back.

And twelve years is no mean feat itself.

350 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:57:26pm

re: #330 realwest

Yep, kindly see my #316.

RW, you're cool peeps in my book, so please don't take this as negative criticism..

My eyeballs have sucked ass at doing their job pretty much since my birth. Long posts without spaces in between paragraph breaks make my peepers go wobbly.

As a result, I end up scrolling over many long posts, yours included.

Not your problem, it's mine. But it would help folks with ocular problems like myself if you threw in an extra carriage return in your paragraph breaks. Just sayin'.

351 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:58:31pm

re: #346 Syrah

Well- I'm hoping with more Lizards picking up the book, they'll join in our discussion. It will be interesting to see what they pick up on vs what you and I picked up on in the early chapters.

I'm sure it's much different listening to the book. I like having something to mark up and dog ear, to refer to later.

352 Scion9  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 10:59:42pm

re: #309 HarryTheHawk

Cheney hasn't said anything new here. He mentioned "union" and "arrangement" but did not say "marriage" and in fact explicitly stated these relationships should not be sanctioned by the federal government. What am I missing?

You missed the part where Barack Obama is, as of today, unequivocally against gay marriage altogether under any circumstances (unless you buy into 'The Obama works in mysterious ways!', which you probably do.

You also missed the former VP, and prominent Republican did in fact say "any arrangement", not just "arrangement" in your attempt to parse his language into another meaning. There was no hedge, no caveat.

You also missed the part where marriage is not sanctioned by the federal government (read: no federal statutes) in any way currently, for anyone. Heterosexual marriage is currently regulated at the State level. No prohibition, promotion, or definition of marriage at the federal level is his stance.

353 razorbacker  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:00:58pm

Aw'ite.

First the pudding was gone.

And now razorbacker is gone.

Nytol.

354 sngnsgt  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:01:13pm

Cheney at odds with Bush on gay marriage

updated 7:51 a.m. PT, Wed., Aug 25, 2004

DAVENPORT, Iowa - Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter Mary is a lesbian, drew criticism from both proponents and foes of gay marriage Tuesday after he distanced himself from President Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

At a campaign rally in this Mississippi River town, Cheney spoke supportively about gay relationships, saying “freedom means freedom for everyone,” when asked about his stand on gay marriage.

msnbc.com

355 JohnAdams  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:01:27pm

re: #347 realwest

Those are tough issues, and worth the argument we are now having. This is why I'm in support of some sort of gay marriage law...it just has to be very specific so that crazies are not marrying barnyard animals or 4 year old twin sisters. Ya know, I think we can do this!

356 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:01:58pm

re: #354 sngnsgt

Bush isn't Cheney' boss anymore.

357 realwest  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:02:04pm

re: #350 Slumbering Behemoth That's not the first time you've said that to me, but my #316 consisted of six sentences and four paragraphs.
Don't understand where you're problem is with that.
And to somehow make it into either more sentances or more paragraphs would necessarily make it a much longer post.

358 The Left  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:02:32pm

re: #336 pegcity

Gays got the right to marry in Canada years ago, and no one is calling for allowing polygamy or marrying dogs or whatever else people want to bring up.

It would be nice to see this mentioned more often. Norway began allowing same sex marriage in the 90's. Many argue that allowing gay people to get marry somehow means we're on a slippery slope to recognising marriages between people and animals, or incestual marriages, or polygamy or polyandry or whatever. There's simply no reason to think that and the evidence of other countries shows that it doesn't happen.

This misinformation gets spread around in other ways too, like this infamous Santorum quote:

If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything


That's just false and crazy.

359 The Left  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:03:53pm

re: #358 iceweasel

"get married", that should be. I really oughta proofread.

360 realwest  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:04:14pm

Well y'all it's really late here and I have to go to bed.
I hope you all have a great evening/early morning and that I get the chance to see you all down the road!

Good night, all.

361 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:04:16pm

re: #197 Cato the Elder

Excuse me, but Cheney does not say he's "for gay marriage" in this clip. He says he's for letting the states figure it out for themselves. Which mean he's cool with any state that chooses the other option, too.

He's neither for it nor against it. Classic equivocation.

It was mostly equivocation by an experienced politician, until his closing remark: "Everyone should get a shot at it" -- IMO, this was Cheney expressing his personal wish, as the father of a gay daughter, that people like his daughter should have the option of legally-recognized same-sex unions. That is, although he says it should be up to the individual states, if he had his druthers, every state would establish some sort of legalized union status for gay couples. (But I think he carefully avoided taking a position on "marriage" vs. "civil unions".)

362 Silvergirl  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:04:29pm

Fun reading in the San Francisco Chronicle's comments section that follows their article on this.

363 sngnsgt  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:05:55pm

re: #356 Sharmuta

Just pointing out that Cheney has held this opinion about gay marriage for some time. I forgot about his daughter.

364 Syrah  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:06:07pm

re: #351 Sharmuta

Well- I'm hoping with more Lizards picking up the book, they'll join in our discussion. It will be interesting to see what they pick up on vs what you and I picked up on in the early chapters.

I'm sure it's much different listening to the book. I like having something to mark up and dog ear, to refer to later.

I am very much interested in seeing what others would have to say about the book.

I think there is a value in discussing the issues raised in this and in other books. We may live in the age of the internet and the big screen plasma TV, but there is still much that books have to offer.

365 Syrah  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:07:35pm

bbl - about an hour.

366 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:07:52pm

re: #357 realwest

Don't understand where you're problem is with that.

My eyeballs are the problem.

I have difficulty reading long posts that do not have spaces between the paragraphs.

Like

this.

A long stream of words, without proper paragraph breaks, are difficult for my peepers to process.

As I have said before, my problem, not yours. I'd just like to be able to read your posts, is all. Just sayin'.

367 Gus  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:10:31pm

re: #358 iceweasel

That's just false and crazy.

And look at where the creationist Santorum is now: out of office. I'm so tired of the ridiculous logical leep regarding gay marriage leading to marriage with animals. It's an insult to gays and in a way based on old fashioned diagnostic criteria on "deviant human behavior."

Frankly I'm tired of playing moral advisor but more tired of seeing so many people play moral designate and I'm starting to feel like a Cardinal pondering higher moral questions. I am however quite the heathen in their eyes as a secularist. My secular morality structure sees nothing wrong with gay marriage.

368 Gretchen G.Tiger  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:11:00pm

weet dreams all!

369 Gus  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:20:02pm

re: #362 Silvergirl

Fun reading in the San Francisco Chronicle's comments section that follows their article on this.

Interesting but they're all so focused with their anti-Cheney rage. One person said "I don't care what those hicks in Kansas think about gay marriage" yet California passed Proposition 8.

I'm so tired of everyone playing morality police. Whether it's regarding Cheney on torture or gay marriage. Meanwhile the USA has turned into a death cult with mass shootings every month with the highest at 33 dead in Virginia Tech. And people are pretending to be so concerned about waterboarding and gay marriage.

370 Scion9  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:21:31pm

re: #358 iceweasel

What is the logic behind disallowing any of that stuff? On what grounds could you deny, specifically polygamy? Currently, Muslims in America cannot fully exercise their religious freedom (which, I'm sure many might not think they is such a bad thing, but that is another issue) because it is illegal for them to marry up to their allotted five member marriages.

If all are consenting adults, by what standard does the federal (or state) government(s) deny religious freedom to certain polygamous religions? What argument exists that isn't "for the greater good" and is actually based on rights, and specifically the right to free exercise of religion.

Will turning a blind eye to polygamy continue to grow (in Europe especially), or will it be legally recognized at some point? Or will Muslims (and other more fringe sects) just roll over on their religion and accept European Judeo-Christian derived monogamous marriage as their default family unit?

The issue is hardly so cut and dry as "Two Consenting Adults". I don't see how it is even remotely Constitutional right now to bust up bigamists on the grounds of specifically engaging in plural marriages. The legal framework that these laws are adopted from is pretty clear that they are attempting to uphold morality; that is they literally and clearly state that they are legislating morality.

I'm not pro-polygamy, but at least know what you are about. "Two Consenting Adults" and "A Man and a Women", but nothing else under the sun is legislating morality rather you slice it for or against gay marriage. There isn't a legal argument that isn't arbitrary.

371 enoughalready  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:22:58pm

re: #20 Charles

Being hated by the likes of him is a compliment.

372 The Left  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:30:07pm

re: #367 Gus 802

And look at where the creationist Santorum is now: out of office.


Deservedly so! It took long enough.

Agree with you on all points. Another argument that's often made is that gay marriage somehow means that churches and religions will be forced to perform those marriages or recognise them as marriages if they don't want to. Again, utterly false.

The legalisation of gay marriage doesn't mean that the Catholic Church (to take but one example)will be forced to wed gay people or recognise gay marriage. Every religion already sets its own rules for what marriages they will and won't perform, will and won't recognise as valid and will remain free to do so.

373 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:40:58pm

re: #348 coldwarrior

ohh...yeah.. right on. missed it,

for background...i am an orthodox christian, gays dont get married in my world.

however...they can enter into a legally binding contract that looks like marriage without it being called marriage in any state.

Down-dung because your assertion is factually wrong -- some state constitutions now specifically prohibit the establishment of "contracts that look like marriage" for same-sex couples.

374 Gus  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:49:01pm

re: #372 iceweasel

Deservedly so! It took long enough.

Agree with you on all points. Another argument that's often made is that gay marriage somehow means that churches and religions will be forced to perform those marriages or recognise them as marriages if they don't want to. Again, utterly false.

The legalisation of gay marriage doesn't mean that the Catholic Church (to take but one example)will be forced to wed gay people or recognise gay marriage. Every religion already sets its own rules for what marriages they will and won't perform, will and won't recognise as valid and will remain free to do so.

Exactly. To say "marriage is between a man and a woman" and that's it isn't genuine when if seen in the context of particular religions. In other words you can't just take a man and a woman and place them in any religious ceremony and have them be valid. They meet the exacting criteria of that religion. Thus the man woman construct is not a universal in marriage since there are innumerable variables within different religions.

The defining document of marriages in the USA are secular in nature. A lot of states have a checkbox for religion however the religious authority can be secular in nature. Thus you can have a legal marriage performed in a secular humanist church. That itself should question the theocratic arguments against gay marriage along with the "Separation of Church and State."

To sum up I think religious bodies should be able to determine this issue independently. If a particular church should care not to honor gay marriage they should be allowed to make that decision and be protected from legal sanction for that choice (both from criminal or civil sanctions). That might effectively make all marriages civil unions however given the remaining option or availability of religious or secular affirmations the sanctity of marriage for either case should remain in place and respected from that point.

So the option would be open from the state for said couples yet the Catholic Church (as an example) can retain the option to say no. They can then apply a free-market ability to choose an alternative venue.

375 ladycatnip  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:54:01pm

#372 iceweasel

The legalisation of gay marriage doesn't mean that the Catholic Church (to take but one example)will be forced to wed gay people or recognise gay marriage. Every religion already sets its own rules for what marriages they will and won't perform, will and won't recognise as valid and will remain free to do so.

It's my understanding that if this becomes law, then any organization or church that refuses to marry gay couples would open themselves up to a discrimination lawsuit.

Anyone else know about this?

376 ladycatnip  Mon, Jun 1, 2009 11:58:58pm

#370 Scion9

What is the logic behind disallowing any of that stuff? On what grounds could you deny, specifically polygamy? Currently, Muslims in America cannot fully exercise their religious freedom (which, I'm sure many might not think they is such a bad thing, but that is another issue) because it is illegal for them to marry up to their allotted five member marriages.

Actually NY is having some difficulty with the muslim polygamy thing - saw this on a news show where African men are coming over with one wife, then getting permission for the "rest of the family" to join them. Lo and behold, when the family comes over to join them, it includes his 6 other wives and 12 children!

At the time of filming the NY lawmakers didn't know what to do - and probably still haven't done anything.

377 Gus  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 12:02:00am

re: #375 ladycatnip

#372 iceweasel

It's my understanding that if this becomes law, then any organization or church that refuses to marry gay couples would open themselves up to a discrimination lawsuit.

Anyone else know about this?

I'm far from knowing the specifics but that sounds like a plausible case. Their should be legal language that makes them immune. At least in a perfect world. Having seen previous lawsuits regarding dating websites there might be some resistance. I would think as a private entity they would be allowed to practice freedom of association.

378 Summer Seale  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 12:02:37am

I've always loved Dick Cheney, even though I sometimes don't agree with him.

In this case, I think it's just absolutely spot on. =)

I know some people's heads explode when I say this but here goes: I don't live in a religiously based country. I don't think it's right for religions to tell me what can or cannot be legal.

It doesn't mean that I think that churches and synagogues should be forced to change their religious views and marry people in religious ceremonies - I couldn't care less what they decide to do. It does mean, however, that the state cannot take what the religious books say and tell us that this is law for this reason.

379 SixDegrees  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 12:06:11am

re: #375 ladycatnip

#372 iceweasel

It's my understanding that if this becomes law, then any organization or church that refuses to marry gay couples would open themselves up to a discrimination lawsuit.

Anyone else know about this?

No, this is entirely incorrect. States would be required to honor marriages performed elsewhere, under the Commerce Clause, but would not be required to perform such marriages themselves, although they could run afoul of discrimination laws if they performed marriages for some but not others. Churches, on the other hand, are not affected at all - the Catholic church, for example, generally does not recognize the dissolution of marriage through civil divorce proceedings, and marriage within a church is subject to the rules of that church, period. If a church wants to forbid gay marriage, for whatever reason, it is entirely free to do so; those wishing to have such a marriage can bypass the church and be married under the auspices of the state if they chose.

380 SixDegrees  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 12:10:13am

re: #348 coldwarrior

ohh...yeah.. right on. missed it,

for background...i am an orthodox christian, gays dont get married in my world.

however...they can enter into a legaly binding contract that looks like marriage without it being called marriage in any state. dissolving that agreement would look like a divorce.

if some bullshit prod outfit wants to marry them, whatever.

Much better solution: do away with "marriage" by the state, and grant civil unions - contracts that look like marriage - to everyone. If you want a marriage certificate, go to the church of your choice. Problem solved, for everyone.

381 Gus  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 12:12:40am

re: #380 SixDegrees

Much better solution: do away with "marriage" by the state, and grant civil unions - contracts that look like marriage - to everyone. If you want a marriage certificate, go to the church of your choice. Problem solved, for everyone.

What do you think of this question:

Are specific states practicing religion through marriage laws?

382 The Left  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 12:21:29am

re: #370 Scion9

You're raising much more profound and deeper issues than the one i was addressing. I was only making the small point that extending the legal definition of marriage doesn't result in the moral collapse of a society (as some argue).

You're bringing up the deeper point that we legislate morality.

Bigamy is prosecuted because the bigamist has undergone the legal form of marriage with two or more women.

Polygamists aren't undergoing the legal form of marriage; they're engaging in a private religious practice. Yet we prosecute them for it!

You're pointing out the profound weirdness of the way we use the law to legislate morality, and also that the legal definition of marriage is about enforcing a kind of morality. I agree with that.

383 Throbert McGee  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 12:27:08am

re: #375 ladycatnip

It's my understanding that if this becomes law, then any organization or church that refuses to marry gay couples would open themselves up to a discrimination lawsuit.

That's nonsense -- consider the fact that Catholic priests routinely refuse to officiate at second marriages involving divorced persons, and Orthodox Jewish rabbis generally will not perform interfaith marriages between a Jew and a Gentile. And yet no one in America has ever brought a successful discrimination lawsuit to challenge these religious policies. (That First Amendment is a pesky thing!)

On the other hand, it is plausible that, for example, a Catholic hospital could face a lawsuit if it refused to provide spousal benefits for the same-sex partner of a hospital employee. In hopes of avoiding this, some of the New England states that have decided to officially establish Same-Sex Marriage have also instituted religious-exemption clauses. (Whether these exemptions will survive legal challenges in the long run remains to be seen.)

In short, it's worth worrying about the possibility that religious bodies might be forced by lawsuit to recognize the legal status of same-sex couples in a civil marriage. But there's no point in fretting over the scenario of churches being forced by the State to marry gay couples, 'cause that ain't gonna happen under American law.

384 The Left  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 12:38:13am

re: #375 ladycatnip

#372 iceweasel

It's my understanding that if this becomes law, then any organization or church that refuses to marry gay couples would open themselves up to a discrimination lawsuit.

Anyone else know about this?

Not *exactly* true. Religions currently have the right to marry only who they please, in accordance with their beliefs. For example, the Catholic Church won't marry non-Catholics, nor can they be forced to marry a Catholic and a non-Catholic. That's their right. They can't be hit with a discrimination lawsuit for that, nor will they be vulnerable to one when they refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

Discrimination lawsuits can and will be brought against people and communities who discriminate against same sex marriage though, in the form of refusing to allow them to rent the local hall to hold the wedding in. That sort of thing.

Here's an example: Suppose you have an organisation (or a church) that's Baptist and generates income by owning a building that they rent out to others for public functions. Suppose they rent it out for weddings, among other things. They *will* be vulnerable to a discrimination lawsuit if they decide to discriminate by not letting gay marriages be held in it. Just as they would be vulnerable to a discrimination lawsuit if they wouldn't rent out to black people.

But that Baptist church can't be forced to perform same-sex marriages, and can't be hit with a discrimination lawsuit for refusing to do so.

385 The Left  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 12:40:22am

re: #383 Throbert McGee

Excellent post.

386 theheat  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 12:51:41am

I think this is pretty rich, Cheney openly supporting homosexuals union-izing, getting married, whatchamacallit. I'm sure he knew this would go over like a lead balloon with some of the socons, but he said it anyway. He just gave the far right a reason to suspect him of all sorts of party infidelities, and the left one less reason to disagree with him, all in one fell swoop.

And now, for Mr. Obama, and all the other politicians that parrot the man-woman marriage idea they've either embraced to keep their base happy, or out of genuine prejudice, old nasty Dick can site back and say, "Checkmate. Neener, neener, neener."

'Tis a very sad day for his detractors, and I'm thoroughly enjoying the hell out of it.

387 shortshrift  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 12:52:20am

re: #190 Dianna

388 shortshrift  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 1:00:38am

re: #387 shortshrift

Well, I thought I had a good answer to your excellent questions concerning the state's interest in marriage. The internet connection must have failed.
I am too tired to rewrite it, but the gist was that the modern welfare state has made marriage pointless. The religious may cling to the tradition.
But marriage now may as well be defined as the contractual union of two or more adults.

389 SixDegrees  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 1:19:40am

re: #381 Gus 802

What do you think of this question:

Are specific states practicing religion through marriage laws?

No, they clearly are not. However, the term "marriage" as applied by the church and the state has two distinct meanings, and the use of the same term is what's causing all the problems. On the state side of the equation, just do away with it and call it a civil contract, reserving the term "marriage" for the function provided by the church.

390 Throbert McGee  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 1:31:20am

re: #385 iceweasel

Excellent post.

Likewise -- I'd forgotten about the "church rents out banquet hall" scenario, as an example of lawsuits that are likely to happen in the wake of legalized SSM.

391 Tamron  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 1:39:34am

re: #390 Throbert McGee

Likewise -- I'd forgotten about the "church rents out banquet hall" scenario, as an example of lawsuits that are likely to happen in the wake of legalized SSM.


What about this scenario: Be ready to watch the fur fly, when a gay couple sues a Muslim church for refusing to rent out their banquet hall for a post-gay-wedding party...

That'll certainly make the news.
.

392 PatriotLizardoid  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 2:44:08am

I love Dick Cheney. I really, really do.

393 bubbasbbq  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 2:52:29am

This is probably the only area where we disagree. THat's fine. I don't expect people to align 100% with my way of thinking, but I DO expect them to stick to core conservative principles like reasonable taxation, strong defense, controlled spending, etc. He has done nothing but do that very thing since day one. as far as I am concerned we can disagree on many side issues as long as the core principles are followed.

394 Drider  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 3:00:55am

For one to actually "believe" that Cheney is a RINO puts the "believing zealot" in the fantasy land camp.......I hear there is a huge tent in fantasy land camp.

395 Flavia  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 3:37:17am

re: #36 reine.de.tout

August 2004
Cheney at Odds with Bush on Gay Marriage

I wanted to thank you for posting this - I wasn't aware he had said this while in office.

396 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 5:36:45am

Cheney and Bush fought islamofascism for nearly 8 years. islamofascists are the most vicious anti-gay cretins in the world. Is it such a stretch to believe that Cheney knew this and that was one of the reasons he opposed the islamonazis so vigorously?

397 totalkaosdave  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 5:43:15am

Cheney is NOT for gay marriage on a federal level - he clearly states that. He IS for federalism, the state's right to recognize, or not recognize, gay unions/marriage. Most conservatives have this belief. For example, Roe v Wade should be overturned (the right to an abortion is NOT in the constitution) and abortion issues left to the states (federalism).
Cheney is not in favor of the federal government recognizing gay marriages and receiving the same tax benefits as presently defined marriage.
Your headline is a little skewed I believe...

398 FrogMarch  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 6:10:15am

Dick Cheney for President!

You want to see heads explode? Get the t-shirt.

399 kaymad  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 6:13:29am

I know this is posted only to stick it to conservatives, but isn't this the same stance he's had all along?

400 MTF  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 6:14:34am

This isn't news, he's been openly talking about the issue for some time. My only objection to gay marriage is really economic. Right now, all of our public employee unions have negotiated vast lifetime income and health care benefits, which are terribly underfunded. In New Jersey, for example, those benefits just for state employees (the local and county employees not included) are potentially underfunded by as much as half (there is some actuarial debate about the scope of the problem that I don't pretend to understand) and the obligation exceeds the state's already enormous and untenable acknowledged bonded debts. Adding a whole new set of beneficiaries without recrafting the benefit promises will take a horrible situation and make it truly catastrophic. I'm willing to bet that California is even worse shape, so Charles, as a taxpaying resident of the state, you should be very wary of this aspect of the issue.

401 quiet man  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 6:15:04am

I agree with Dick 100%. The government should not classify people on who they wish to live with. Since in most states civil unions and other laws give gays the basic required rights already, why should it draw the line here?

See, if left to the states, people get a choice....far better than it being imposed by unelected judges.

402 HAL2010  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 6:55:42am

Good on Cheney!

Love is love, and no government can say otherwise.

Now if only Rush dares pick a fight with him, things will get really interesting.
Think he will dare?

403 Land Shark  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 7:20:18am

I agree with Chenney. I've always voted against ballot initiatives seeking to ban gay marriage. I may not understand how people could be gay, but ultimately that doesn't matter. They are my fellow human beings. Freedom is freedom.

404 Former Belgian  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 7:30:31am

Cheney's comments on the subject give me pause, given my very high opinion of him. On the other hand, they are not that drastic a departure from what he's always argued: leave it to the states and the Federal government out of it.

A modest proposal: how about taking this one step further? I mean, legalizing only heterosexual and homosexual marriages still severely discriminates against another category of domestic relationships: those which are not sexual in nature.

Why not allow any two adult people who live under the same roof for an extended period of time to enter into a "domestic partnership" that would grant the same benefits as marriage? This is the road Israel has taken, and it allowed a broad ad-hoc coalition of parties to vote in favor. Actually, the proposal was originally raised by Chanan Porat, then MK for the (Orthodox) National Religious Party: the specific example he brought up was father and son buying a house together. Journalists brought up that obviously homosexual couples would avail themselves of such a law: he indicated that he was aware of that, and implied that this didn't bother him as long as the arrangement wasn't called "marriage".

405 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 7:38:13am

re: #249 srb1976

/Ron Burgundy
I have many leather bound books and my apartment smells of rich monogamy./Ron Burgundy

406 EaterOfFood  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 8:00:46am

re: #84 Last Mohican

And Obama favors civil unions, but is against gay marriage.

I can't wait to remind all my gay friends to vote for Cheney over Obama in 2012.

They will kill you with their bare hands.

Not me, however. I'm pleased as punch to find that I was right. A conservative Republican more pro-gay than The One. I hope Dick lives long enough to see Meghan McCain turn 35 so they can be running mates.

That is, if the GOP doesn't implode from within.

re: #383 Throbert McGee: As long as we have a 1st Amendment, I don't think churches have anything to worry about. Any lawsuit should, ideally, be thrown out of court.

407 leereyno  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 8:06:07am

ALL MARRIAGES SHOULD BE GAY.

Marriages that are miserable, morose, sad, and unhappy don't tend to last very long.

As a heterosexual, the question of whether monogamous life-long relationships between homosexuals should receive official recognition from the government is purely academic to me.

Social Authoritarians are opposed to the idea because...well because they're opposed to anything that doesn't fit their mold of traditional behaviour and social customs.

I think that the issue of gay marriage is largely invented. Leftists are promoting it precisely because it throws the social authoritarians into a tizzy. The idea, it seems, is to get the social authoritarians to expend their energy and public influence fighting against gay marriage as a way to discredit them.

Political war. Welcome to it.

408 SpaceJesus  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 8:07:48am

re: #401 quiet man


See, if left to the states, people get a choice....far better than it being imposed by unelected judges.


I know, those darn judges imposing things like minority rights. who do they think they are?

409 drcordell  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 8:08:25am

I'd have to disagree with anyone who thinks this is some sort of prelude to a Cheney 2012 campaign. Good luck winning a single GOP primary running on a platform that supports the "homosexual agenda." Nevermind that the government removing itself from marriage completely is the true conservative position.

Cheney's simply free to speak his mind now that he is free from any electoral pressures to hew the GOP line on gay issues. That, and he certainly is aware of the fact that it's a big thumb right in Obama's eye.

410 SpaceJesus  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 8:12:31am

re: #407 leereyno


I think that the issue of gay marriage is largely invented.


what

411 rumcrook  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 8:19:11am

re: #41 albusteve

lets start a collection and rent a hall in albuquerque we'll bill it as the heavyweight against the lite weight.

I would pay to see him go up against pelosi and pretty much any of mental midgets of the left.

412 pjaicomo  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 8:24:36am

I am glad Cheney said that, but it would have been better if he did something about it when he had the power.

He should have made his position more firm between the years of 2000 and 2008.

Still, its good to see someone so revered by the right take this position (especially when its not 2 years after getting exposed in some gay sex scandal after having been staunchly anti-gay for career/cognitive dissonance purposes - as is usually the circumstance).

413 Sabnen  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 8:26:09am

re: #400 MTF

How many gay couples do you think there are? 'Catastrophic' numbers?
Hardly. Don't exaggerate.

The problem with states sanctioned gay marriage is when the gay couple moves to a state that does not recognize gay marriage.

Now why a gay couple would want to move to such a state, I haven't a clue, but it could happen.

414 Cato  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 8:30:47am

Here is the epitome of the principled and caring man. He loves his daughter. He wants her to have certain benefits not readily available to her currently. Yet he understands there is a structure to the government that his personal desires do not override. Thus, he holds that this is an issue belonging to the states. This is principle.

Why did he not speak out earlier? BECAUSE HE HAS PRINCIPLES. In that case, that as VP he should not directly and openly disagree with the President. So now as a private citizen he can -- he is to the left of the current occupant of the White House.

415 SpaceJesus  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 8:32:30am

re: #411 rumcrook

lets start a collection and rent a hall in albuquerque we'll bill it as the heavyweight against the lite weight.

I would pay to see him go up against pelosi and pretty much any of mental midgets of the left.


I live in ABQ, I'll fork over some cash for it

416 shortshrift  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 8:33:42am

Upon waking, I think that my definition of marriage above at #388, which was a summary of my lost response to Dianna at #190, is too restrictive.
It should be: marriage is the union between two or more living things.

417 OldLineTexan  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 8:33:54am

re: #415 SpaceJesus

I live in ABQ, I'll fork over some cash for it

We need some ground rules ... first, NO shotguns.

/

418 SpaceJesus  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 8:37:28am

re: #417 OldLineTexan

We need some ground rules ... first, NO shotguns.

/


small arms should be ok though. since I live in the worst neighborhood on earth, this should be no problem if we host it at my apartment.

419 Sabnen  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 8:46:26am

re: #416 shortshrift

Upon waking, I think that my definition of marriage above at #388, which was a summary of my lost response to Dianna at #190, is too restrictive.
It should be: marriage is the union between two or more living things.

Oh now you've done it . . . my two dogs just saw your post and want to get married! Oh my! They have no idea of the responsibilities and considerations . . .hmmm what to do?

Maybe a small ceremony in the side yard and then they can invite all their friends and I won't have to open up the house.

Oh crap! Now the red rhododendron wants to marry the white one! What will their offspring be? . . . Pink?

420 Catttt  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 8:49:49am

re: #350 Slumbering Behemoth

Bless you for mentioning that. I've often wanted to mention it.

Break up your thoughts into paragraphs, people! Easier on the peepers AND on the old brain.

421 Catttt  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 8:50:36am

I meant to post that I adore Dick Cheney.

422 zeebeach  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 8:51:05am

re: #110 NukeAtomrod

Right on. Well said.

423 Catttt  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 8:56:42am

re: #112 DirtyDog

As an individual, I support gay marriage. This has a lot to do with the fact that I actually know several gay couples who are life partners and who should imho be able to marry if they want to.

BUT - good points about the legal and economic aspects. When gay marriage was first ok'd in a state, my first thought, from a completely seflish business perspective, was "Oh, great. Complications with IRA beneficiaries and survivor benefits."

424 OldLineTexan  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 8:57:27am

re: #418 SpaceJesus

small arms should be ok though. since I live in the worst neighborhood on earth, this should be no problem if we host it at my apartment.

I would put my furniture and valuables in storage, first. Maybe there's a tennis or basketball court with a chain-link fence nearby?

425 Catttt  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 8:58:37am

re: #423 Catttt

Uh oh. seflish? Must use spell check.

426 [deleted]  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 9:28:59am
427 [deleted]  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 9:31:39am
428 BLBfootballs  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 9:53:57am

I just don't see how this video says that Cheney "supports gay marriage". Listen to his words -- he thinks people have the right to live in any kind of relationship they want. He notes that people can already do that today.

He's willing to let each state decide the issue on its own and for itself. He apparently doesn't support a single overarching federal standard either way.

How does that "support gay marriage"?

429 Sabnen  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 9:59:50am

re: #428 BLBfootballs

I just don't see how this video says that Cheney "supports gay marriage". Listen to his words -- he thinks people have the right to live in any kind of relationship they want. He notes that people can already do that today.

He's willing to let each state decide the issue on its own and for itself. He apparently doesn't support a single overarching federal standard either way.

How does that "support gay marriage"?

If he said, "I don't support gay marriage.", that would be your clue.

430 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 10:13:27am

re: #428 BLBfootballs

I just don't see how this video says that Cheney "supports gay marriage". Listen to his words -- he thinks people have the right to live in any kind of relationship they want. He notes that people can already do that today.

He's willing to let each state decide the issue on its own and for itself. He apparently doesn't support a single overarching federal standard either way.

How does that "support gay marriage"?

By saying he "thinks people have the right to live in any kind of relationship they want" he is very obviously including gay marriage. That's what the question was about. And of course he doesn't support a federal standard -- there's no federal standard for traditional marriage either.

He is absolutely voicing support for gay marriage in this video, and saying it should be a matter for individual states.

431 Bill Dalasio  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 10:23:05am

re: #430 Charles

He is absolutely voicing support for gay marriage in this video, and saying it should be a matter for individual states.

Excellent bottom-line analysis.

The problem, of course, is that it puts Mr. Cheney at odds both with the both hard-line social conservatives, who oppose same-sex marriage at all, and the majority of same-sex marriage advocates, who insist that marriage is a right (and therefore not amenable to being resolved on a state-by-state basis).

432 Orangutan  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 11:23:06am

Cheney is doing a great thing here for the advancement of the Republican Party, and for the advancement of our society by due process. I applaud him on both counts.

433 leon77  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 11:58:23am

What is interesting to me is the left's reaction (I support gay marriage, BTW)...he has an ulterior motive! He just wants it for HIS daughter! He opposes federal action and it's not enough! I still hate him because he is eeevil!

Don't they get it? This is huge for them! now they can say to all the "it's not Adam and Steve" types, "well, Cheney thinks so! Isn't he pretty conservative?" Makes opponents of gay marriage seem more extreme.

434 MTF  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 12:19:08pm

The outstanding Don Surber pointed out today that Dick Cheney supports gay marriage while Barack Obama does not. Well, Obama probably does support it but he says he doesn't for some reason (like political cowardice maybe).

435 jjag  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 12:35:44pm

With all due respect to Mr. Cheney, I would like to know if he also supports polygamy.

Every supporter of gay marriage should explain how society, considering all the reasoning that applied to gay marriage, can prohibit more than two people who are "in love" from forming a "marriage".

Polygamy has a place in history as well as religion throughout the world. So, if gay marriage is worthy of government recognition and various tax and legal reward, certainly polygamy cannot be denied simply because "some people" are bigots about multi-partner arrangements.

436 arf  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 1:12:54pm

There may be some heads popping, I don't know.

This Republican likes the idea of social issues like this decided at the state level, at the ballot box, and not in the courts.

As much as Cheney got demonized.......I think he would have made a good President. Remember the Vice-Presidential debate in 2000, Cheney and Joe Lieberman? Whichever side you supported, it was nice to see the grown-ups for a change.

437 CEQAttorney  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 1:13:51pm

I guess my view is nuanced. As far as it goes, I don't care who marries whom. It does not really affect my life and freedom is freedom as far as I'm concerned.

However, here is the problem I have under the current dichotomy, a priest/pastor is licensed by the state to marry. One could argue that a religious person, being authorized by the state to officiate a marriage, is a representative of the state when he or she acts in that capacity. if that is the case, then, one could argue that such a person must officiate all marriages, even if he or she disagrees with the nature of the marriage.

This has already occurred when a photographer in New Mexico refused to take pictures of a gay marriage ceremony.

My preference to take marriage out of the equation. If you want the state to recognize your union, you get a civil union. If you want to get married, you can go to a church of your choice to get married.

438 shane  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 2:20:27pm

Now that is the conservative way of thinking. Small government not involved with your life, not trying to tell you how to live your life because it isn't their job. If we can just figure out how to get the republicans to figure out that government is for protection against other countries and not ourselves we might actually win.

439 shane  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 2:21:47pm

reply #435

Actually, I don't know why anyone cares if they don't live in the household.

440 cgn38navy  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 3:17:56pm

This isn't news. Anyone who watched the Dick Cheney - John Edwards debate was well aware the Cheney was in favor of gay marriage, he just wouldn't make a statement because he was in disagreement with GW on the issue. I've said it before, "Cheney is a great man."

441 jjag  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 4:01:15pm

If people have no problem with the lawful acceptance of polygamy, fine.

Just look at how well polygamy works where it is practiced....like Saudi Arabia. Would polygamy not game the welfare system?

Oh, and be prepared for other iterations. After all, if anyone can marry anyone else I see the possibility of marrying my daughters attractive given the likely estate tax laws in the future. Hey, since procreative sex isn't an issue in marriage (under gay marriage acceptance) why shouldn't I marry anyone I love....however I define (privately) what that love constitutes?

Hoards of men with no marriage prospects, fathers marrying daughters to game tax laws, men marrying foreign men (even if they are heterosexual) simply to get them legal status in this country, you marrying your brother to pass along your higher social security or pension benefits.....the possibilities for "mischief" are endless.....if anything goes, no?

442 The_Vig  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 4:19:10pm

re: #441 jjag

If people have no problem with the lawful acceptance of polygamy, fine.

Just look at how well polygamy works where it is practiced....like Saudi Arabia. Would polygamy not game the welfare system?

That seems like a problem with the welfare system. Don't disparage polygamy. Disparage welfare.

443 cminmn  Tue, Jun 2, 2009 4:41:32pm

I have to applaud Mr. Cheney. As a gay lizard I agree that the states and the citizens of those states should decide for themselves if a state will support a gay union. I am completly against using the word marriage but a union I find acceptable and an adult compromise that should be acceptable to both sides.

444 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 1:21:51am

re: #146 Fenway_Nation

Me personally, I could've done without the hysterical, shrill, over-the-top comparisons to the Civil Rights movement from the gay activists. To compare being inconvenienced to what Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, the Freedom Riders and countless other blacks had to endure under Jim Crow is simply insulting. There was no Klan for them to face down, there was no Bull Connors or fire hoses or police dogs. Same Sex couples didn't have to be escorted to City Hall their wedding vows and ceremonies by soldiers from the 101st Airborne division.

I'm not advocating that they face the same hurdles that others did under Jim Crow.....but not insulting my intelligence for starters would be nice. I'm as white as they come and I found those histrionics offesnsive.

/And if I was that bothered by it, I wonder how well the gay marrige = Freedom riders comparison went over in the black community

They have had the Stonewall riots and the Matthew Shepard murder.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh