The Richard B. Cheney argument for homosexual “marriage” used at Proposition 8 trial

The San Jose Mercury News reports:

For supporters of same-sex marriage, Tuesday’s testimony from San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders in the Proposition 8 trial would seem an important moment for their cause. A conservative Republican describes his transformation from gay marriage opponent to vocal critic of denying gays and lesbians the right to wed… [Sanders] tearfully recounted how he renounced his own stance on gay marriage after learning his daughter is a lesbian.

“My daughter deserves the same opportunity to have a wedding in front of family, friends and co-workers,” Sanders testified, choking up repeatedly on the stand.

James P., who sent the item, writes:

What a disgusting, intellectually and morally dishonest creature. If his daughter became a murderer, would he renounce his opposition to murder? Since when does a “conservative” change his position on the issues according to personal circumstances? And what place does all this tearful emotionalism have in the trial, anyway?

Meanwhile, at this end of the country, a county supervisor is attacked for insufficient tolerance of cross-dressing freaks.

LA replies:

This is not the first “conservative” who changed his mind over such a fundamental issue simply because his child was homosexual. There’s the conservatives’ hero former vice president Cheney, along his wife, the ML King-worshipping “conservative” Lynn Cheney, who, because their daughter is a lesbian, came out in support of homosexual “marriage.” Even worse, at the 2004 vice presidential debate, Cheney declined to reply to John Edwards’s vicious statement that conservatives were supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment solely in order to “divide” America for partisan purposes. I wrote that day about Cheney, “The hell with him.”

- end of initial entry -

Mike writes:

“My daughter deserves the same opportunity to have a wedding in front of family, friends and co-workers”

This argument always makes me want to throttle someone. There is no law prohibiting homosexuals from having a wedding ceremony with all of their friends and family (and co-workers, attending on penalty of being fired for insensitivity I assume). There are more than a few laws prohibiting free association in this country, but this alleged one does not exist. What infuriates me is that 99 percent of the arguments for government-recognized homosexual marriage are of this nature—arguing against a prohibition that does not exist. Never mind that in many of these “progressive” states, categories of “civil unions” already exist that grant all of the same privileges as a marriage license. This “issue” is perhaps the height of insanity in American politics, and those who are agitating for it should be sat in the corner with dunce caps until and unless they rediscover their rational faculties. If one needed indisputable proof of a feminized, homosexualized, politically correct hegemony in the media it would be evident in the elevation of this “issue” into something that anyone outside of a tiny minority of the militant gay community takes seriously.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 21, 2010 02:58 PM | Send