“The fact of the matter is, we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody…And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It’s really no one else’s business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard…The next step, then…is the question you ask of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction, if you will, of the relationship. That matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that’s appropriate. I don’t think there should necessarily be a federal policy.” – Dick Cheney on ‘Gay Marriage’ during the 2000 Vice-Presidential Debate
That was then. This is 2004. And now Vice President Cheney whistles a different tune. He now supports a ban on gay marriage.
Well, you could knock me over with a feather! A Republican as cynical hypocrite?! What were the odds?! Usually such occurences are happily overlooked by the Marching Band of Right Wing Footsoldiers in flyover country. But in this case, it makes the new GOP line against Kerry (“He’s on both sides of every issue” – which he is, by the way!) a particularly hard sell. Even the Ditto Heads ought to be able to notice the transparency of that particular game as it relates to Election ’04’s number one social issue.
That said, by the time November rolls around, I don’t believe it’ll all make much of a difference either way what anybody has to say about it. The wall seems to be finally coming down, and the GOP and DNC are as powerless to stop it as East German Chancellor Erich Honecker was to stop the Berlin Wall from toppling in ’89.
All eyes now on Chicago where Mayor Richard Daley has said that he’d have “no problem” with city commissioners offering marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
And so it goes. Another barrier falls. The greatest singular moment in History for the Gay Community since Stonewall. And it’s about frickin’ time.
UPDATE 2:21pm: And here goes New Mexico!
Irony Drippin’ Quote of the Day:
“I have ultimate confidence in the American People’s ability to separate B.S. from the truth.” – Rush Limbaugh during the first broacast hour, 2/20/04
Yes, Rush was good today. Clinton supported DOMA. We are fighting back legally. Be careful, for it may just backfire on you.
Good luck! It’s a battle worth fighting for you! You guys sure know how to pick your battles! I’d hate to see your good Heterosexual Marriage completely and totally ruined by all of these gay people getting married! I’d call out the Militia on this one if I were you!
"The wall seems to be finally coming down, and the GOP and DNC are as powerless to stop it"
They are not obeying the law so no walls are coming down. I am reminded that the Clintonites did not care about the Rule of Law – about lying in a federal court about fixing a sexual harrassment civil case ("it was just about sex" is what they preached)- so, no surprise here. The law means nothing to the lawless and immoral. One cannot just change the meaning of "Marriage" after 6,000 years of recorded history.
"That was then. This is 2004. And now Vice President Cheney whistles a different tune."
Gore used to be pro-life and pro-guns. Can people not change their minds? If Gore was still pro-life and pro-guns, he may have won his state in the 2000 elections or he could have run as a Republican and won.
"One cannot just change the meaning of "Marriage" after 6,000 years of recorded history."
Uh, oh! You better let Alabama know about that! In 2000 they became the last state in the union to allow for Interracial Marriage! Maybe you better give them a call and let ’em know about that 6000 years thing!
So Paul, I assume you are Calling the White House telling them to add a ban on Divorce and Adultery and My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance and Shotgun Vegas Weddings to the ban on gay marriage.
Divorce is sin. Shall we stone adulterers. You ARE for God, right? The Bible says we should stone adulterers. Why are you not clamoring for a ban for these things? Is it because you are divorced already? Or your wife already boned the milkman? Maybe you got so drunk off your ass you went to Vegas and married that lovely hooker you met over there. "It can be bad If I did it" seems to be your rationale.
50% of all marriages fail. A prominent Baptist publication came out with a study in 2000 that said the Born-Again Christians are more likely to divorce than other couples. More and more straight couples choose not to get married. Care to address these facts? If the institution of marriage is failing look first at straight people. Marriage is a shambles and its got nothing to do with gays (a dirty little secret that Rush won’t tell you).
oh…do serial divorcers like Rush Limbaugh, Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, and Ronnie Reagan (divorced. poor Jane Wyman), the true arbiters of what true marriage is?
"But it is you, a man like myself, my companion, my close friend, with whom I once enjoyed sweet fellowship as we walked with the throng at the house of God"
-PSALMS 55:13-14
sounds REALLY gay to me.
Jaime – typical liberal response using profanity. If marriage is so bad, why do gays want to add to it? I have never been divorced and adding adultery to the topic is ludicrous. No one is stoning anybody. Yes, gays have ruined the love between two men. Psalms is not talking about erotic love, but brotherly love. I did not expect you to know that anyway.
I wouldn’t expect a dillhole like you to understand humor. I know that Psalm was not about gays.
You cower from the facts like a typical Rushbot. The ‘Sanctity of Marriage’ is the topic. ONE HUNDRED FRIGGIN PERCENT of fault lies on straight people in regards to marriage.
Address the issues. If the sanctity of marriage is so important to you? Why not deal with the actual issues of divorce, money, and society. Why the gay bogey man?
In Matthew 19 Jesus addresses Divorce. In Mark 10 Jesus addresses divorce. Yet, you’ll fight for Newty boy to divorce his cancer patient wife. I guess this is one of those ‘acceptable sins’, you know the ones Jesus spoke DIRECTLY on. Pick and choose I guess. Whatever works for you.
And to have a conservative BEG the government be their priest is laughable. That’s what you want, right? Bush to Sanctify things. Its the job of the people in Congress…to make things holy. Am I getting you right? ‘Don’t touch my guns or my tax cut, but dear Bush please tell America what is holy.’ That’s it right? Am I getting warm. The job of George W. Bush is to sanctify things?
Definition of Marriage:
"Marriage is the legal union of a man and woman as a husband and wife"
Are you referring to *today’s* "definition" of Marriage? Or the one that just a few years ago had defined it as the Marriage between a man and a woman of the same race? Or the one a few years before that which defined as a between a WHITE man and woman?
Or, as long as we’re basing what is *right* on the way things are defined in dictionaries and documents that *we* have created, perhaps we should go back to the definition of a Black Man in our own Constitution: That being as "property" and "three-fifths" of an actual human being.
Good luck, Paul. The genie is out of the bottle, and you guys have lost the war. You may as well apply for your divorce papers now since the Institution of Marriage has been irreperably destroyed. My condolences to you.
It’s too bad you don’t get paid for your ranting. You’d be rich. I am referring to the Biblical definition of marriage which has nothing to do with race. There is no definition of a black man in the constitution. You are confusing a document or a definition with the way people actually treated each other or felt about things.
Again, those "living together" before marriage have the highest divorce rates.
Paul, how you are able to be wrong with such alarming consistency is a marvel.
Slavery is defined and referred to in the Constitution in a number of places. The first is the Enumeration Clause (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3) as follows:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
Question: A man thinks that he prefers a male partner, so he goes out and finds a man that thinks he should have been a woman. Did the first man find the second attractive because he was a man or because he was a woman inside? Would he be just as happy with a woman that thinks she should have been a man?