|
|
Liz Cheney on Civil Rights |
CHENEY: Yes. Listen, I love Mary very much. I love her family very much. This is just an issue in which we disagree.
CHENEY: It's not and I stand by both of those positions. I don't believe we've got to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. If people are in a same sex relationship and they want their partner to be able to have health benefits or be designated as a beneficiary on their life insurance, there's no reason they shouldn't do that. I also don't support amending the constitution on this issue. I do believe it's an issue that's got to be left up to the state. I do believe in the traditional definition of marriage.
The daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney was responding to a reported "push poll" that led voters to believe that she "aggressively promotes gay marriage."
Mary Cheney married partner Heather Poe in Washington DC--where same-sex marriage is legal--last June. The couple has two children. On Facebook, Mary Cheney wrote "For the record, I love my sister, but she is dead wrong on the issue of marriage. It's not something to be decided by a show of hands."
Dick Cheney said in 2009 that he believes that marriage should be regulated on a state-by-state basis but that "freedom means freedom for everyone."
A: That's right.
Q: Your personal reaction when you heard that?
A: I think my family's made clear that it made us angry. We thought it was wrong. I think it was unprecedented for a candidate to use the child of another candidate--in this case my sister--for political gains.
Q: The original question was whether people were born gay or they acquired the behavior. I don't think they wanted to make your sister feel bad. I think they were trying to make a point that just backfired on them.
A: What you saw after the debate with Senator Kerry's campaign chairwoman coming out and saying that Mary Cheney was fair game confirms what seems to be pretty obvious, which is that they were trying to score some political points.
H.J.Res.17: Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment: This joint resolution eliminates the deadline for the ratification of the ERA, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. The amendment was proposed to the states in House Joint Resolution 208 of the 92nd Congress, as agreed to in the Senate on March 22, 1972. The amendment shall be part of the Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.
Opinion to vote YES (Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL-7): The ERA was first proposed in 1923, shortly after women gained the right to vote. [The original] 1979 deadline was later extended before it expired. By the end of 1982, 35 of the 38 required state legislatures had voted to ratify the ERA. Nevada ratified the ERA in 2017, Illinois in 2018 and, in January 2020, Virginia became the 38th and final state required to ratify it. If passed in the Senate, H.J. Res. 79 would remove the arbitrary 1982 deadline.
Opinion to vote NO (Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA-1): H. J. Res 17 would retroactively remove the deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. Regardless of your thoughts on the ERA, the deadline for the states to ratify the amendment expired four decades ago. By passing this resolution, House Democrats are virtue signaling and trying to take a shortcut around what is required in our constitutional amendment process. Those who want to pass an ERA will need to start this process from the beginning. Today's vote mocks the intentionally high bar set by our Founders to make changes to our precious Constitution.
Legislative Outcome: Passed House 222-204-4 on 03/17/2021; received in the Senate and read on 3/23. [OnTheIssues notes on the duration for ratification that the 27th Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed by Congress in 1789 and was ratified by 3/4 of the States and became law in 1992, a ratification period of 202 years].