The draft version of the Republican National Platform distributed to delegates says: “We strongly support President Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage.
“Attempts to redefine marriage in a single city or state could have serious consequences throughout the country, and anything less than a constitutional amendment, passed by Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges.”
Maybe this strong support of the president – on one of the hottest issues of the presidential campaign – should be revised to: “Most of us strongly support President Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage.”
For on the same day this was distributed nationally, in Davenport, Iowa, Vice President Cheney made the following absolutely astounding statement in answer to a question asked him at a town hall meeting:
“People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.”
Yes, he actually said that! And the plaintiffs in that Utah lawsuit demanding equal rights for polygamous marriage were no doubt thrilled.
Does the vice president also believe – as does Democrat congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich – that legal marriage should be available for ALL sexual orientations?
And given Cheney’s Davenport Declaration, if not, why not?
The Family Research Council began with an understatement in calling the vice president’s statement “disappointing.” But they added:
“Unfortunately, protection of our values is made more difficult when mixed messages emanate from the White House. We support President Bush’s commitment to a constitutional amendment on marriage, but we are left to wonder why the vice president is allowed to depart from this position when the top of the ticket is unified on all other issues.”
Another Cheney earthmover was his statement: “At this point … my own preference is as I’ve stated. But the president makes basic policy for the administration. And he’s made it.”
“He’s made it,” declared the vice president – exactly at the same time he was defying it.
And what will Vice President Cheney say about this very serious dissent with the president when he accepts his nomination for re-election as vice president?
Will he electrify the convention by declaring that loyalty to his lesbian daughter compels him to publicly defy the president and the platform – which he did in Davenport?
Both of the Democratic ticket of Kerry and Edwards have announced that they are opposed to same-sex marriage – even though they have both, hypocritically and repeatedly, voted against efforts to stop it.
But what if Mr. One-Heartbeat-Away in the White House had a daughter who was a masochist who fell in love with a sadist? (And she loved being beaten, as much as her lover enjoyed beating her.)
Would Mr. Cheney have announced in Davenport his support of weddings with leather dresses, whips and chains?
The Sodomy Lobby’s so-called Human Rights Campaign immediately accused the Bush administration of trying to have it both ways – reaching out to moderate voters one week before the party’s convention in New York.
How will the Republican National Convention and the Republican nominee for president deal with The Case of the Defiant Vice President? Will there be four days of massive evasion of this major split on one of the most decisive issues?