Will Cheney tip the SSM scale?

[Gangster_Octopus]

I would be very interested to hear Cheney’s position on DOMA.

[Declan]

It’s too late for Cheney in 2012 right? due to his age. I was kinda wondering why he gave such a political ansewer, ala he supports it as an individual but would leave it to the state legislatures. He seems to be maintaining a footprint in the news, when most former potus’s and vpotus’s pretty much drop off the radar. Even Al Gore, after the 2k election took several years before finding a niche in the Eco movement.

Declan

[Fish]

@Grumman

If “obsolete” means “getting what he wants”, I think we can all live with that.

By obsolete I mean “advocates a position but does nothing to bring it about.”

[Mosier]

@Dead_Badger

Don’t you know the difference between the words CAN and SHOULD? The federal government CAN enact SSM right away, but it hasn’t. You want it to. So by your own logic, aren’t you in favour of the status quo, too? You want the federal government to do something it can do, but it chooses not to. Hey, everybody, Mosier is against SSM! He wants things to be just the way they are!

Right?

I give up. This has passed through misinterpretation and blossomed into outright dishonesty. If you really believe what you just wrote, you can believe anything.

You can’t win a debate by calling someone a liar.

The difference between Obama and Cheney is that Obama is actually in favor of using the law to do the right thing, and Cheney seems perfectly content with discrimination, as long as the states choose to discriminate. This is no different from other discriminatory laws in history. The Cheneys of the 60s argued “all the states ought to repeal laws that discriminate,” but all that happened was more proof that basic civil rights can NOT be left up to the states, and must be directly addressed on a national level.

I don’t know whether Cheney in his heart honestly favors equal rights for gays or not. Ditto for Obama. But Obama’s method of approaching gay rights will end swiftly with equal rights for gays, and Cheney’s lame, passive support for gays will not lead to any meaningful gains for gays.

[XT]

@Mosier

I don’t know whether Cheney in his heart honestly favors equal rights for gays or not. Ditto for Obama. But Obama’s method of approaching gay rights will end swiftly with equal rights for gays, and Cheney’s lame, passive support for gays will not lead to any meaningful gains for gays.

You should definitely start holding your breath. I’m certain Obama will not fail to give us equal rights for gays ‘swiftly’…

…are you holding your breath? Any time now…

-XT

[Miller]

@Mosier

But Obama’s method of approaching gay rights will end swiftly with equal rights for gays…

Which approach is that? Last I heard, Obama didn’t favor gay marriage at all, on a state or federal level.

[SteveG1]

@Mach Tuck

Haven’t seen the ABC spin on this, but Cheney’s position is the worst sort of chicken shit.

I believe the man does sincerely support SSM, possibly because of his daughter. But I think he can’t make the simplest statement of that support because of his devotion to conservatism.

“We favor small government”. Therefore, this should be a states issue.

I call major bullshit on that. Using this position, Mississippi could have continued discriminating against blacks. I see no difference in this situation.

Are there any history majors around?

Wasn’t 'states rights" the reason given for avoiding or sidestepping issues during the 1840s-1850s-1860s?

Wasn’t 'states rights" as regards to slavery, one of the things that led eventually to our Civil War?

[XT]

@SteveG1

Wasn’t 'states rights" as regards to slavery, one of the things that led eventually to our Civil War?

Yes…thought it was a pretty complex situation that really doesn’t resemble SSM or gay rights, IMHO at least. But…yeah. The Southern states definitely wanted any new states brought into the union to have a choice on the slave vs no slavery issue, while the Northern states wanted any new states to be no slavery states. Both wanted this to avoid a shift in the balance of power.

This isn’t so much of any issue anymore because we haven’t exactly been admitting new states to the union lately.

-XT

[Little_Nemo]

Yes…thought it was a pretty complex situation that really doesn’t resemble SSM or gay rights, IMHO at least. But…yeah. The Southern states definitely wanted any new states brought into the union to have a choice on the slave vs no slavery issue, while the Northern states wanted any new states to be no slavery states. Both wanted this to avoid a shift in the balance of power.

It was the opposite way around. “Popular sovereignty” was a Northern idea. Southerners wanted the federal government to protect the right to own slaves throughout the country. Southerners said that the Constitution guaranteed slavery and therefore states could not prohibit it.

[mswas]

@Little_Nemo

It was the opposite way around. “Popular sovereignty” was a Northern idea. Southerners wanted the federal government to protect the right to own slaves throughout the country. Southerners said that the Constitution guaranteed slavery and therefore states could not prohibit it.

It’s amazing that anyone could ever read the constitution as supporting slavery. It’s just mind-bogglingly twisted logic.

[XT]

@Little Nemo

It was the opposite way around. “Popular sovereignty” was a Northern idea. Southerners wanted the federal government to protect the right to own slaves throughout the country. Southerners said that the Constitution guaranteed slavery and therefore states could not prohibit it.

Really? That’s completely different to my understanding. I always thought the Southerners were the ones touting states rights (to protect slavery in individual states) while it was the Northerners who were looking at things from a top down, federalist perspective (i.e. they wanted to mandate that new states joining the union would no be allowed to be slave states).

-XT

[SteveG1]

@xtisme

Yes…thought it was a pretty complex situation that really doesn’t resemble SSM or gay rights, IMHO at least. But…yeah. The Southern states definitely wanted any new states brought into the union to have a choice on the slave vs no slavery issue, while the Northern states wanted any new states to be no slavery states. Both wanted this to avoid a shift in the balance of power.

This isn’t so much of any issue anymore because we haven’t exactly been admitting new states to the union lately.

-XT

My point was, that it is a (seemingly) easy way to sidestep the issue. Make a vague claim that it should be “handled” at some other level of government. Toss the ball in someone else’s yard so to speak.

Sometimes it’s the right answer, sometimes it’s just a dodge.

[XT]

@SteveG1

My point was, that it is a (seemingly) easy way to sidestep the issue. Make a vague claim that it should be “handled” at some other level of government. Toss the ball in someone else’s yard so to speak.

Man…it’s BEING addressed at the states level! Seriously…haven’t you been following the news? Patently, it’s NOT being addressed at the federal level…and those who think Obama is going to wave his magic wand and ‘fix’ this at a national level are, to put it bluntly, delusional. At least not in the foreseeable future. Heck…the man hasn’t exactly been burning up the midnight oil to get this issue moving, at any rate. Even leaving aside the fact that he has bigger fish to fry, he doesn’t seem all that disposed to push on this issue, regardless!

-XT

[Dead_Badger]

@Mosier

You can’t win a debate by calling someone a liar.

Probably not, but it’s advisable to disengage if one’s opponent is plainly lying. And look:

The difference between Obama and Cheney is that Obama is actually in favor of using the law to do the right thing, and Cheney seems perfectly content with discrimination, as long as the states choose to discriminate.

This is a lie. I have no more interest in continuing to refute lies than I have an interest in proving that the sky is blue. So you have a nice day, and believe whatever you want to.