Cheney Daughter Remark

[J. J.]

Tredrick, I wanted to see if he'd realize that copied a duplicate message after an hour, and without new material.  You'll note he hasn't.

[J. J.]

Nice to know I'm agreeing with the Tribune.

Actually, I'm not angry with you.  I just feel sorry for you.  I really do mean that.

[J. J.]

I feel sorry for you JJ.  For someone who thinks he's smart, and advertises his superior intelligence to the world with a MENSA bumpersticker on his car, you sure do say some dumb things sometimes.

freedomburns

If I valued your opinion, I'd be insulted.  I've read your posts and realize that it's really Freedumbburns.

However, you did make several incorrect assuptions.  I have never claimed "superior intelligence."  You inferred it; that's your conclusion, not mine (but, fortunately, I don't value your conclusions).   I do have a Mensa bumper sticker on my car, but not to "advertize" anything to the world.

[J. J.]

The only thing that really makes me angry is your refusal to address my points and instead insult me, then your gloating when you made an incomprehensible point rather than trying to clarify your point.

I enjoy an intelligent discussion of issues, but when the other side can't stick to making their point and addressing mine, I get angry.

I hope no one was offended at any point.

Why not just agree to disagree since this argument isn't going anywhere?

I have addressed you points.  Your first comment directed at me was, "Am I gay? And when did I chose?"  I had already indicated that, I have no idea how I came to my sexual preference and that I was straight.   

I've been one of the few Republicans on this site that has consistently said, in effect, "This may or may not be a matter of choice; this may or may not be a matter of birth.  This might or might not be a combination of the two." I would not call that unclear.  That a factual statement, since there isn't solid evidence either way.  It doesn't imply that gay people are evil, sinful, or are mentally ill or that straight people are good, holy, or are mentally healthy.  It states that what we don't know what factors shape sexual preferrence.

You have claimed that you "believe," along with John Kerry, that it is an inborn trait; you've even added that it might be God's will that someone is gay.  I submit that this is intellectually dishonest and exceptionally arrogant for either you or Kerry to claim this, since it isn't based on any factual evidence.  You dragging God's mind into this, is exceptionally arrogant.  Neither of us know what that will is.

You also stated:

If Bush isn't sure whether homosexuality is a choice, then why is he so sure that gay marriage should be illegal?

What Bush has proposed is not to make gay marriage illegal.  It is to permit one state to determine what constitutes a marriage within that state.  It does not prevent any state from permitting same sex marriage.  It would be fine for PA, for example, to permit same sex marriages, but NJ would not have to recognize that marriage within NJ; NJ would not be able to regulate what PA does.

Now, you have stated something as fact that isn't and you have stated something as Bush's position that is not Bush's position.

My only conclusions, based on that is, could be that:

1.  You are being intellectually dishonest intentionally.

2.  You don't understand the issue because you cannot understand the issue.

You've indicated that you didn't understand.

[J. J.]

He is the part you left out:

The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress. ...



Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html

Now, I'm not seeing that this says, at al, same sex marriage is being illegal.  It refers to a certain part of Article IV,  Section 1., the "full faith and credit" clause.  It is clear, in that context, that the call here, modifies that specific clause.   (BTW: I did cite that clause earlier; I guess you either didn't look at it or understand it either.)

This is, as are serveral current constitutional amendments (12th, 13th, 18th 25th), overides a section of the Constitution.  It states that one state does not have to recognized a specific act, a same sex marriage, of another state,.  This is why the press release cites the "full faith and credit" clause.

[J. J.]

the bold part is where he discusses the constitutional amendment.  It would clearly define marriage as between a man and a woman.  That's the way they overcome full faith & credit, by defining marriage as ONLY between a man and a woman, effectively making same sex marriage unconstitutional.  He leaves open whether states might create some other form of union with similar rights, but clearly makes calling that union, "marriage" illegal.

Here is what was actually proposed:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. [Emphasis added] 

This does not make same sex marraige illegal.  I can site two examples. 

In 1868 the 14th Amendment was passed.  It said in part (Section 1), that the right to all citizen cannot be abridged.  It also says Section 2. that the right to vote only "can be denied to male inhabitants of such State being twenty one years of age, and citizens of the United States... " for certain this, e.g. engaging in rebellion or convicted of a crime.

Now the states could, and some did, deny the right to vote to females and to people under 21.  Was it illegal, because of this, for people under 21 or women to vote?  No!  There were states that permitted women to vote well before the  19th Amendment (I think WY was one of the first) and states that permitted 18 year olds to vote prior to the 26th (possibly NJ).  The fact that the Constitution did not required something did not and does not make it illegal or unconstitutional.

The proposed amendment states that no state constitution nor the US Constitution can be interpreted to "require" that same sex marriage.  That does not prohibit any legislature from doing it.

This is the famous "straw man" tactic, misrepresent the other guy position and attack the false position.  It is, of course, intellectually dishonest, or perhaps based on a lack of understanding.

[J. J.]

Here is what was actually proposed:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. [Emphasis added] 

I believe your analysis of the language is inaccurate.  The proposed amendment would do 2 things:

1) make it unconstitutional for any state to recognize marriage other than between a man and a woman;
2) allow the states to set up other "rights", not including marriage upon same-sex couples, while not requiring other states to recognize those rights.

Under the proposed amendment, civil unions could be legal, but need not be recognized by other states.  Marriage would not be possible between same sex couples in the United States.

The specific language is irrelevant, of course, since it would never pass; it is merely an election year attempt to woo voters who are scared of anything relating to gay rights.

No constitutional amendment is required to permit any state to establish civil unions; they can do that now.  For the record, I defend any state legislature that wishes to do that.

Second, as pointed out, the Constitution did not grant anyone who was under 21 or female (any age) from being defined as a voter.  The states, quite constitutionally, did choose to (oddly, PA wasn't one of them).  MT elected a Member of the US House, Jenette Rankin (R), to the House in 1916; she served one term at that time.  The 20th Amendment wasn't adopted until 1920.  

There is nothing in this proposed amendment that say,"No state shall permit a marriage between people of the same sex."  It doesn't prohibit any state from doing anything.  It does say that one state does not have to recognize a marriage from another state, unless that marriage is between a man and a woman.  It wouldn't have to recognize a marriage between one man and two women, either, but it could chose to do so.

I love the contradiction between you cliams that Bush feels that "gay marriage should be illegal," and that "the specific language is irrelevant."  If he is claiming that the it should be illegal, why doesn't the specific language say that?

[J. J.]

so how do you interpret the language:

marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman .

Is that just superfluous language?  The next clause has to do with negating the requirement of recognizing civil unions and the like. 

If Massachusetts law now says couples of the same sex can marry.  This amendment negates that. [clause 1]

If Vermont allows civil unions, this amendment allows other states to decide if they want to recognize the Vermont civil unions.[clause 2]

That's my reading.  Did you go to law school J.J.?

I would interpret as someone who goes, or graduated from, law school does, plain and clear meaning of the words.  The Constitution, as previously cited, did state a condition where men over 21 counted not vote.  That group could not, was prohibited, in some cases, from voting.  It didn't state that the states were permitted or prohibited from females or people under 21 from voting.

Actually, I am, in the constulting that I do, someone that attorneys, and occasionally, judges, do contact on interpreting rules and constitutions.  Last time, even the PA Supreme Court refused to even here a challenge.  :-)

As noted on this site, I am a bit of a historian as well.  What I'm citing here, is history.

In answer to your specific comments, no, it doesn't "negate" that.  It would overturn the construction of the MA Constitution by the MA Court (and I'm not overjoyed about that).   It would, however, not prevent, the MA Legislature from adopting a statute to permit it.  They never did.

Second, yes, a VT civil union would not have to be recognized in a state outside of VT.  A state could pass a law stating that it will not recognized civil unions; likewise, if another state established a law relating to marriage that VT didn't like, they would not have to recognize it.

Since I've answered your questions, please answer two of mine:

Are you liscensed to practice law in any jurisdiction?  I think I know the answer.

If a man 30, married a girl 10, outside of VT, should VT be required to recognize it?  (Hint: That is not hypothetical.)

[J. J.]

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

This would negate Massachusetts's gay marriage statutes, just as the 13th amendment negated any state laws to the contrary.

The 13th Amendment does say:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude , except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

I'll add that MA does not have a statute, as this is based on the MA Supreme Court's interpretation of the MA Constitution (that MA is trying to amend).

If this was a flat out ban the words "construed to require" would not be needed.  You'll note that there is nothing in the 13th amendment about state constitutional construction.

[J. J.]

I am not currently licensed to practice law, but I DID go to law school and did practice law for a few years.  I could easily renew my license if I so chose.

Should VT be required to recognize a marriage between a 30 year old and a 10 year old?  I'll say no, they shouldn't.

Under your theory, if consistent, they should.  This, however was my state, PA, that called it a legitimate marriage, based on the principles of common law.  Until last year, common law marriages were permitted.

If you did go to law school, my suggestion is, don't practice.

[J. J.]

If the first sentence "banned" same sex marraige, why would you need to worry about how state and the US Constitution's are "construed" in regard to same sex marriage.  I think it was AL or MS that just removed the slavery language in its constitiution in the 1990's.

[J. J.]

First of all, you are presuming you have any clue as to what "my theory" is.  Which "theory" of mine presumes that they should?

And, as I stated previously I did go to law school, but am not currently practicing.  Believe me, my not practicing has NOTHING to do with my ability to analyze statutes and laws.  I was Order of the Coif and a very good law school.

By the way, you never explained why the language about the definition of marriage would even be in the amendment if it had no meaning.

The theory that there should not be a state by state prohibition. 

The language defines what "marriage" in in the rest of the amendment much like the clause as to what constitutes treason (Art. 3, Sec. 3).  That statement does not make treason "illegal," but it does define what constitutes it.

Now, you'll notice that the proposed amendment states that the courts cannot interpret a constitution (US or state) to be "construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

If the definition, as you've suggested, means that same sex marriages are banned, why would it be necessary to have a statement on construction?  If this a 'ban' why not leave it without a construction clause, like the 13th Amendment?

[J. J.]

Just to provide some input through a fresh pair of eyes by someone with a vested interest in this topic, it seems pretty clear to me that the amendment as proposed DOES NOT prohibit same-sex marriage, but merely PREVENTS judicial review from interpreting the US Constitution, or the various state constitutions, so as to say that they already contain provisions which require recognition of same-sex marriage. Not sure which one of you is arguing this side without reviewing.

I see two parts....a part stating that marriage for Federal purposes shall be a man and a woman....and a part that says that no other parts of the Consitution may be interpreted by the courts to undermine the meaning of part one.

Seems clear as glass to me. Not that I agree with passing anything like it in any event.

It's closer if not identical to mine.  This looks more like more like the 11th Amendment than the 13th.

[J. J.]

Oh, I think think this is very interesting.  We've had one guy :

1.  Claim to understand how sexual preference is formed. (Well, actually two guys.)

2.  Hint that he knows the mind of God.

3.  Claim that he knows exactly how George Bush feels on an issue.

4.  Ask me, er, for a "date (I'm cleaning up the language a bit.)"  Ah, I don't swing that way, not there's anything wrong with it.

[J. J.]

Here's what a defender of the Amendment says about it:

The Federal Marriage Amendment introduced in Congress takes a prudent and reasonable approach to the problem. It abolishes same-sex marriage in the United States, and prohibits judges from legalizing other forms of same-sex unions, while preserving both federalism in family law and local self-government by protecting the authority of the legislatures to establish state policy regarding whether (and to what extent) to give some legal benefits to unmarried — including same-sex — couples.

bold added by me to show my point.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/wardle200402170918.asp


I'm too tired to address anything else tonight.

Would you then, after nappy time, you please explain why it talks about laws being "construed."  If this type of marriage is "illegal," there would be no reason to for state and the US Constitution to be "construed."  Much like the slavery prohibition clause in 13th Amendment, there would be no need for anything in a state constitution to be "construed."  That's not a defender of the amendment says, it is what the proposed amendment itself says.

[J. J.]

I will also add that the commentator, Lynn D. Wardle, while a law professor (at Brigham Young University), is not part part of the White House staff, not a member of Congress or a state legislature, nor a member of the judiciary (who might have rules about making such comments). 

This is once again the staw man argument.  Misrepresent the opponent's position, and attack the misrepresentation.  It is, unfortunately, typical of elcorazon in this discussion.

[J. J.]

I'm not happy that elcorazon is misrepresenting Bush's position. 

I'd support it.  If a state wants to permit civil unions and/or same sex marriages, fine.  That state should force that on another state.

[J. J.]

J.J.:  there are 2 points:  1) to make same sex marriage illegal; 2) to allow states NOT to construe "other similar rights" to marital rights as being required for other types of unions from other states.

One other point.  The law professor who you claim is making a "straw man argument" supports the amendment.  And although he's not part of the administration, he's well qualified to interpret the meaning of the words.

By the way, EVEN if you were correct about the interpretation, which I don't believe you are, calling me out for misconstruing Bush' position is out of line, given that clearly reasonable minds CAN construe this amendment to mean what I said it means. 

First, the law professor isn't a "straw man argument," on my part.   You imply that because it is Wardle's argument, this is the intent of the people proposing the amendment.  Second, you should know that legislative intent, which is what you are claiming, is determined by those people in the legislative process, not an outside law professor.  You really should know things like that.

Second, here is your quote about the text of the amendment:

The specific language is irrelevant, of course, since it would never pass; it is merely an election year attempt to woo voters who are scared of anything relating to gay rights.

[/i]

This is yet another example of the arrogance that both you and Kerry share.  You called the language of the proposed "irrelevant".  You have stated you "believe" on how sexual preference is determined, you "believe" that this might be God's will, you "believe" that this is  what Bush was thinking in proposing it, and that you "believe" that this is what the text of the amendment means.  I, on the first three points say, "It possible, but we don't have any real way of knowing."  You expect us to accept what you "believe" as fact, because you "believe" it.  That is intellectually dishonest.

On the fourth point, I have asked, "Okay, if this ammendment creates a situation where the Federal Government makes sames sex unions totally illegal, why is there a need to worry a state constitution being 'construed'[b/]."  A state constitutonal provision, permitting, even expressly, same sex marriages would be null and void, if the amendment violated the US Constitution, much like those clauses permitting slavery in some state constitutions.  There would be no need to instruct the courts how a state constitution should be "construed" in that case.  Why don't you answer the question?  Does it again interfer with what you "believe?"

[J. J.]

I've already answered that question several times.  You just don't like my answer.  The construed language deals with issues such as civil unions, not marriage.

I know what legislative intent is.  We hadn't been discussing that.

My "irrelevant" comment had to do with the fact that the amendment is NOT going to pass, so we are really wasting our time with this argument.

You have yet to answer my question about the language of the amendment, though are trying to change the subject.  Here is the text of the amendment:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

It refers specifically to a marriage.  If marriage is made illegal, why even mention the possibility that marriage can exist?  This clause refers to possible marriage and a possible union; it refers to the if a constitution can be "construed" to regire a marriage.  If adopted, the courts would not be able to base the permission of a marriage on a constitutional clause, but it not preclude a court from basing its decision on a statutory provision.

You indicated that you think this is a "waste" of time.  I could disagree more.  It is an excellent example of how intellectually dishonest John Kerry's answer was, and the intellectual dishonesty of some of his supporters.

Now, you started out by asking me if I was gay and when did I chose my sexual preference.  I, interestingly. had volunteered the information earlier.  I'm going to ask you a similar question.  I will not ask what your prefference is.  I do ask, however, whatever your sexual preference is, what proof do you have that it is inborn, i.e., congenital, or genetic?  What proof do you have that there was at least not an element of choice?

[J. J.]

Geez! Are you all still talking about this?

36000 dies from the flu last year! Terrrorists are taking Iraq. Corporations are getting tax breaks that could be ours! Babies are "being murdered"! Pat Robertson is in the early stages of alzheimers! People are making bets on the election based on 7-11 coffee!

Get some perspective!

TCash101, the intellectual honesty of one of the candidates, and his willingness to pander, is a key issue.

[J. J.]

TCash101, the intellectual honesty of one of the candidates, and his willingness to pander, is a key issue.

At least one of the candidates can claim to have an intellectual anything.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree, Kerry is certainly intellectual in his dishonesty on this issue.  Bush may be unintellectual in his honesty, at least on this issue.

[J. J.]

Many of the rationales behind the amendment don't like to talk about it but the scholars agree that the language of the first sentence disallows legislatures from allowing same-sex marriage. I guess technically, a state could choose to recognize a same sex marriage from another country if it's legislature so chose, but the only other reason I can think of for the use of the word marriage in the second sentence is that it was poorly drafted, probably because the main point of the first sentence is to drum up support for Bush' candidacy rather than pass the amendment itself.

J.J. - I'm really getting tired of you accusing me of being intellectually dishonest.  As I've stated a couple of times, EVEN if you are correct, it is clear that I believe my interpretation of the amendment and that it's a reasonable interpretation shared by others.  Seriously, I had no intention of getting into this drawn out discussion.

One more thing:  I'm sorry I asked if you were gay.  I didn't realize you were the same person who had discussed the issue earlier in the thread.  Throwing that in my face every time you try to refute my points is specious and is merely a personal attack which disguises your real point.  Try to stick to dealing with the specifics of our argument and it'll make this a lot less heated.

Thanks.

Well, you can expect it do continue, unless you wish to answer the question.  I have ask you to explain the wording of second sentence was "pooly drafted."  That is, whether correct or not, at least an honest answer.  However, with that sentence in there, how can can you jump to the conclusion that it makes same sex marriage either illegal or unconstitutional.  At worst, it creates an ambiguity that might, if your interpretation is correct, make same sex marriages be found by a court to make it unconstitutional.  The same judges who found an existing clause (in the MA Constitution) could find the same clause here, enough to permit statute to permit it.  (I should remind you that Bob Bork opinions did not get him confirmed to the Supreme Court.)

Basically, admit, even due to it being "poorly worded," that it does not clearly state what you claimed it did.  That is being intellectually honest.

Second, you have no need to say you are sorry for asking my preference.  I am confortable with who I am, and if I happened to be gay, I would have answered it the same way.  That's one benefit to having few illusions about yourself, you get to be brutially honest about yourself.

Third, you did ask me a question as to if I made a choice, which I answered.  Now, your sexual preference is your own business, and I have no desire to know, so I am not asking that.  I am asking you have any evidence that sexual preference, whatever it is, is totally inborn, without any "learned" or environmental influence?  Is their any evidence that there is no element of choice?

If you can make that claim, and support it with evidence, I'll be happy to recant my statements that the position that John Kerry was intellectually dishonest.  I challenge you to provide that evidence.

[J. J.]

J.J. - I will say that it is possible to conclude that the amendment doesn't outlaw same sex marriages.  That's not my reading.  If I'm being "intellectually dishonest" then so are you by claiming that the amendment does not outlaw same sex marriages since clearly it "could" be interpreted that way.

I have no evidence one way or the other about whether it's a choice.  I just stated my belief, just as Kerry did.  Many political opinions are beliefs, sometimes based on solid evidence sometimes not. 

You said Bush wanted to make same sex marriages "illegal."  I said that the amendment does not make it illegal, though I will admit that the wording is poor.  The words "illegal," "prohibited," "not allowed," "banned," "forbidden," are not used.  I have posted the text of what was proposed and am more than willing to let the reader make their own choice.

You've also posted:

"I have no evidence one way or the other about whether it's [sexual preference]a choice."  Well, I agree with that, and consider that to be intellectually honest.  Bush said, "I don't know."  He didn't go on to speak about as a "choice," a "lifestyle," or a "sin."  He spoke accurately on the evidence that is availible.

The question was:  "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

Here is what Kerry said:

KERRY: "We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as."


To infer that a third party would be able to answer this question, authoritatively, is intellectually dishonest.

Here, BTW, is what Bush said:

BUSH: "You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important that we do that.

"And I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live.

"And that's to be honored."

Bush was being intellectually honest in this answer.  Kerry was not.

I'll submit that Mary Cheney doesn't have an answer either.

[J. J.]

I appreciate your answer J.J.  I respectfully disagree.  I think Bush tries to give a safe answer which will not offend his base, while also not sounding bigoted to the mainstream who may be to his left on this issue.  I'm not sure that's intellectually honest.  I'll give him credit for dealing with the question in an intelligent manner politically.  I think Kerry believed what he said and I don't think that makes it intellectually dishonest.

I think when Bush said Saddam had WMD and turned out to be wrong, he was mistaken, not dishonest.  It turns out the "evidence" he had was wrong, but that doesn't make it dishonest.  He honestly believed what he said.  I believe Kerry honestly believes it's NOT a choice.  He could be wrong, but that's his HONEST belief; as far as I can tell.  Of course that's only my OPINION, as I have no hard evidence to prove it either way; nor do you, I might add.

Are we done yet? 

I'm not so sure as you that this was anything as close to an appeal to the 'religious right" that you think.  A number will stand up and say, "Of course it's a choice, it the homosexual lifestyle."  An "I don't know," answer doesn't exactly appeal to that group; the comment that "...in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live," certainly doesn't.  That could cost him votes, very easily.

Bush could have correctly that there was an element of choice.  Someone need not act on his or her sexual desire, be he hetreo or homosexual.  I havn't slept with every women who's ever been willing to sleep with me.  In that respect, I do make a choice.  He could have answered the question that way, but didn't.  Instead he said, "I don't know."  That answer is both honest, so far as we can tell and it is accurate.

Now look at Kerry's answer.  He didn't answer the question directly.  He said to ask "Dick Cheney's daughter, who is lesbian, she would tell you ... ."  She doesn't have any more proof than either of us do, and she has never commented publically on it.   Kerry doesn't answer the question and uses as "proof" what he thinks she thinks.  That is intellectually dishonest.

[J. J.]

Kerry's answer was more persuasive than Bush's answer.  That's the point of a debate.

How did you like Bush's answer where he mangled what Dred Scott was all about?  Was that just a bad memory, ignorance or was that intellectual dishonesty?

Gee, Bush wouldn't appoint a justice who would claim that a minority group had no rights that the majority was "bound to respect."  That sounds quite the opposite of, "...in a free society people, consenting adults can live any way they want to live."  I would call that both consistant and intellectually honest.

Now, we have a question that Kerry didn't answer, didn't state his core believe, and cited what he assumes "Dick Cheney's daughter" thinks.  Kerry was intellectually dishonest.  It's also a bit of stereotyping, assuming that Ms. Cheney has an opinion because of who she is. 

It seems that he might have been factually dishonest as well when he claimed, in his Al Gore moment, stating that he met with the "entire" security council befor the Iraq invasion.