I'm not sure why Dick Cheney is getting as much credit as he does for being to the left of Obama on gay marriage. I certainly appreciate the fact that he has spoken up about the subject, but after reading and listening to his words, I'm still not entirely sure what he said.
Here is his latest comment, which repeats a theme using words he has articulated for years:
"I think that freedom means freedom for everyone. As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that the historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. . . . But I don't have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that."
It's clear he means to (and does) support some kind of state recognition of same-sex marriage. Or does he? What he supports is a right for couples to "enter into any kind of union they wish." He doesn't "have any problem with that" (though he clearly does not support any federal equality for this "kind of union.") Still, "freedom means freedom for everyone."
So he won't be advocating for any state to pass a gay marriage bill, or a civil unions bill or pretty much anything. He'd be happy, it seems, if states simply enforced existing contract law that would allow his daughter and her partner to "enter into" some kind of partnership. If states want to do more than that, he wouldn't object.
The absence of opposition is certainly progress for a national, conservative Republican, but only because the bar is so impossibly low. While Cheney's statements are regularly reported as showing his support for same-sex marriage, I don't believe I've ever heard him use the phrase "same-sex marriage," much less "support for same-sex marriage." I'd be pleasantly surprised if he's ever said he supports civil unions, using the word "support" right next to "civil unions," in conjunction with some kind of first-person pronoun.
To his credit, he is able to use the word "gay," unlike some of his fellow Republicans who are still referring to people with "tendencies." And lord knows I wouldn't ask Cheney (or anyone) to get comfortable with lingo like "LGBTQ." But, given the fact that he and his family have "lived with" this issue for years, is it really too much to ask whether he can actually say whether he supports same-sex marriage or civil unions, using the terms that most high-school students today are comfortable with? Or to ask him whether he supports equality rather than just freedom? Because those are two very different things.
20 Comments for “Cheney on Gay Marriage — Kind Of”
posted by BobN on
Finally!! I thought I was the only person who saw this word-game for what it is.
But I would quibble with one bit: “If states want to do more than that, he wouldn?t object.”
Cheney’s eight years in the White House saw a coordinated effort to pass 30 state constitutional amendments, MANY of which ban SSM and CUs. Did Cheney advocate dropping the latter restriction? I doubt it.
posted by Barry on
Cheney’s comments seem pretty clear to me. He’s in favor of continuing the trend of states experimenting with gay marriage or civil unions, but he’s not in favor of legislating same-sex marriage on the national level. As such, he’s a more consistent federalist than some conservatives, who want the federal government to take over the issue.
I doubt that Cheney has any interest in getting into the details. His brief, as VP and now as unofficial Bush Admin spokesman, concern foreign and security affairs. He has actually accomplished a lot more for the cause of gay marriage/unions by his general statement, which have been parsed in headlines as “Cheney backs gay marriage.” As he surely knew they would be.
posted by David Link on
Barry, do you really think it’s fair to call him a federalist if he explicitly says that withholding the federal government benfits for marriage may and should be used as leverage against states that want to engage in the experimentation he appears to support? At best, I think that’s inconsistent of him. If you want to encourage state variation, you should not use the power of the federal government to put the brakes on it at the same time.
posted by BobN on
Dick Cheney chooses the words he uses on this issue and it’s apparent that he chooses them carefully because he has used the exact same, ambiguous phraseology for over four years.
Now, why would he do that? He opposes a federal amendment. He has not opposed state amendments and has worked hard with other to see to it that 30 states have anti-SSM amendments, many with anti-CU restrictions, as well.
Cheney probably means exactly what he says. Leave it to the states. He just fails to mention that he thinks states should outlaw SSM.
I wish people would remember that his own daughter and her partner have shown absolutely no inclination to get their relationship any official recognition. They live in Virginia — a state which goes further than any other in trying to ban or invalidate even simple contracts between members of a same-sex couple — and have not travelled to Mass. or California or Canada to get married. Nor have they registered a domestic partnership in any state.
Mary Cheney and Elizabeth Poe are taking Poppa-Cheney’s advice and “forming any relationship they wish” with legal contracts.
Mary Cheney is, apparently, an acorn which has not fallen far from the tree. Elizabeth Poe is, apparently, a very trusting person (and possibly a fool).
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I wish people would remember that his own daughter and her partner have shown absolutely no inclination to get their relationship any official recognition.
Which would make them the same as the hundreds of thousands of other gay couples who, despite whining and screaming that they can’t live another minute without gay marriage or domestic partnerships, for some reason haven’t “travelled to Mass. or California or Canada to get married. Nor have they registered a domestic partnership in any state.”
Only without the whining and screaming about the necessity of gay marriage.
posted by Patrick on
ND30 you do quite a bit ofE-whining and screaming yourself, whats the big deal? Would you please explain why you believe there are thirty sexual orientations?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Would you please explain why you believe there are thirty sexual orientations?
At this point, I have no opinion on the exact number, given that, as seen in that discussion, there is no one single definition of orientation on which everyone agrees.
But then again, when teaching sex to five year olds is considered normal among gay people, or when having sex with children seventeen years your junior is touted as “common” by gay-rights groups, it should hardly be surprising that pedophilia and homosexuality are viewed as similar.
It’s a pity that leftist gays and gay marriage supporters spend more time venting their spleen on religious people than they do on the child molesters and sexualizers in their midst, but that merely is a reflection of the gay community’s values.
posted by Patrick on
“At this point, I have no opinion on the exact number, given that, as seen in that discussion, there is no one single definition of orientation on which everyone agrees.” haha what a cop out. The post clearly defines your belief.
Here is a book that shows you believe men older than fifty should be screwing girls younger than 13 and having multiple wives and extra marital relations as well, think greater than a threeway, full on heterosexual orgy.
posted by David Link on
ND30, please. . . . Even assuming that the UK and Canadian examples you link to could be considered “normal” or “common” in either of those countries (and nothing in either article so much as hinted at such a thing), how can you expect to be taken seriously by transposing those anecdotes into a US context as well? You lose your credibility when you try that kind of sleight of hand. I’m certainly willing to engage all reasonable arguments, but when you attribute such attitudes to those of us debating these issues in good faith, you are pushing the limits of reason — and good faith.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Here is a book that shows you believe men older than fifty should be screwing girls younger than 13 and having multiple wives and extra marital relations as well, think greater than a threeway, full on heterosexual orgy.
The problem word in there is “should be”.
The Bible mentions that people DID do all of those things. However, nowhere does it say that everyone SHOULD do all of those things. Indeed, given the very clear strictures against adultery that Jesus gave, as well as the ultimate fate of Solomon, just to name one example, that rather throws that entire argument into question.
Even assuming that the UK and Canadian examples you link to could be considered “normal” or “common” in either of those countries (and nothing in either article so much as hinted at such a thing)
From the UK quote:
‘The danger of accusations of the corruption of innocent children has led team members to make repeated claims that this project is not about sex or desire – and that it is therefore not about bodies.
‘Yet, at a very significant level, that is exactly what it is about and to deny this may have significant negative implications for children and young people.’
No Outsiders is led by researchers from Sunderland University and also involves academics at the Institute of Education and Exeter University. Books, puppet shows and plays are used to teach children about same-sex relationships.
During the project, the seminar paper says, its members have ‘challenged each other to go beyond imagined possibilities into queer practice’.
The seminar will ‘question the taken-for-granted of the supposedly sexless, bodiless and desire-less primary classroom’ and examine ‘the place of the research team members’ own bodies, desires and pleasures in this research’.
From the Canadian:
The proposed changes will have a disproportionate impact on gays, said Richard Hudler of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.
“My first lover was 17 years older than me. And this is common [among gay people],” he said.
how can you expect to be taken seriously by transposing those anecdotes into a US context as well?
There are plenty of examples closer to home, David.
Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday’s kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall.
Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.
The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store.
Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off…….
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
Heck, you can find examples on this very website.
How is a child beauty pageant different from the leather fair you linked to? I certainly don’t see much difference.
posted by Jorge on
ND30, please. . . . Even assuming that the UK and Canadian examples you link to could be considered “normal” or “common” in either of those countries (and nothing in either article so much as hinted at such a thing), how can you expect to be taken seriously by transposing those anecdotes into a US context as well? You lose your credibility when you try that kind of sleight of hand.
“Slight of hand”? Doesn’t that require a mislead to actually be believable?
posted by Pat on
It’s a pity that leftist gays and gay marriage supporters spend more time venting their spleen on religious people than they do on the child molesters and sexualizers in their midst, but that merely is a reflection of the gay community’s values.
NDT, it’s also a pity that religious persons spend more time venting their spleen on gay people than they do on the child molesters and sexualizers in their midst, but that merely is a reflection of the religious community’s values.
(Put’s NDT’s selective broad brush down and throws it in the septic tank where it belongs.)
posted by Pat on
Even though Cheney’s comments are not quite clear, I do applaud and welcome his comments. We’re not going to have federal same sex marriage or civil unions with only Democrat support (even if they actually followed through on their promises).
My only problem is that Cheney was not able to use his influence in the Bush Administration on that issue, like he was able to do for others.
That still puts him way ahead of Obama. Obama has not even addressed issues such as federally recognized civil unions or ending DADT since being elected. He has, however, refused to defend Lt. Choi when he came out. So far, he’s shown that his leadership abilities are just as atrocious as his predecessor. What a shame.
posted by Pat on
I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish.
Uh oh. I must have missed this part of the quote the first time. Waiting for people to crawl out from under their rocks to insist that Cheney must also support incest, polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, and sacred unions with plants and non-living objects as well.
posted by BobN on
Which would make them the same as the hundreds of thousands of other gay couples
Nope. Those hundreds of thousands of gay couples don’t have children. Mary and Elizabeth have a son. It is grossly irresponsible for parents not to provide the most stable, reliable family structure they can, complete with all the legal protections available to them.
I thought you considered yourself a conservative…
posted by Bobby on
“My only problem is that Cheney was not able to use his influence in the Bush Administration on that issue, like he was able to do for others.”
—It was political suicide at the time, even today it still is although the numbers are starting to change.
Politics isn’t like the liberal media where they can editorialize for gun control and against the death penalty with impunity. The jerks at the Washington Post, New York Times and Miami Herald can ignore conservative and libertarian Americans. Those media elite rat bastards can go to cocktails and reafirm their views.
But same-sex marriage takes more than stupid edtitorials and self-serving celebrities advocating a politically correct position. Same-sex marriage takes convincing everyday people, Chenney may support it, but that’s not enough.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
NDT, it’s also a pity that religious persons spend more time venting their spleen on gay people than they do on the child molesters and sexualizers in their midst, but that merely is a reflection of the religious community’s values.
Mhm.
In an address to the convention in 2008, Executive Committee President and CEO Morris Chapman strongly condemned “those who would use our churches as a hunting ground for their own sick and selfish pleasure” and said that while the number of Baptist ministers who are sexual predators appeared to be small “one sexual predator in our midst is one too many.”
Meanwhile, as to the full quote from Cheney:
I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don’t support.
Mary and Elizabeth have a son. It is grossly irresponsible for parents not to provide the most stable, reliable family structure they can, complete with all the legal protections available to them.
Which they have in the state in which they choose to live and in accordance with its laws, as you yourself stated:
Mary Cheney and Elizabeth Poe are taking Poppa-Cheney’s advice and “forming any relationship they wish” with legal contracts.
If one looks at the best interests of the child involved, one would think you would want the most legally enforceable thing available. Instead, you’re apparently putting getting an essentially-meaningless thing like a Canadian marriage ahead of that.
Is there any more proof needed that the whole gay marriage argument is more about the token than it is the practicality? As I’ve stated countless times before, the fact that California has “millions” of people allegedly protesting the absence of marriage, but a tiny fraction of those amounts actually in domestic partnerships, indicates that it’s more about the word and the trophy than it is the legal reality.
posted by BobN on
Which they have in the state in which they choose to live and in accordance with its laws, as you yourself stated:
Uh… they live in a state which by constitutional amendment (I believe) invalidates any of those contracts. Mary is relying on her family’s prominence should any problems crop up. Elizabeth is relying on God knows what.
My point is that Mary and Elizabeth ARE irresponsible. There are plenty of nice places around DC that are not in Virginia. As I noted above, they really aren’t in a typical same-sex couple’s predicament.
Your fantasies aside about being able to discern the desires of Californians, there were not “millions” protesting. And millions have not married. But 36,000 have — probably 28K or so Californians. EVERY SINGLE GAY COUPLE WITH CHILDREN THAT I KNOW are among the married.
Just cuz you have no reason to marry or get a CU doesn’t invalidate the needs of others.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Uh… they live in a state which by constitutional amendment (I believe) invalidates any of those contracts.
Really? Why don’t you cite a few decided cases for us where Virginia invalidates such contracts?
‘Cause it sure didn’t work out that way for this one.
EVERY SINGLE GAY COUPLE WITH CHILDREN THAT I KNOW are among the married.
Funny, that’s not the case for me — and I live here.
Meanwhile, the “gay marriage” side is whining and screaming and crying about how they can’t live a single day without marriage. Why, if that is the case, are only 38k of them married? Why aren’t you yelling at them to go get married?
Answer: Because your only interest in this case is bashing Mary Cheney. And frankly, if the gay community were in the least worried about Mary Cheney’s welfare, it wouldn’t be making remarks like this.
posted by Pat on
In an address to the convention in 2008, Executive Committee President and CEO Morris Chapman strongly condemned “those who would use our churches as a hunting ground for their own sick and selfish pleasure” and said that while the number of Baptist ministers who are sexual predators appeared to be small “one sexual predator in our midst is one too many.”
Thanks, NDT, for the link indicating one religious person said that child molestation by clergy is bad, but totally unnecessarily on a couple of counts.
First of all, I pointed out how generalizations are inane to begin with. And also, if you really felt the need to prove how good religious persons were, citing one link isn’t going to do it.
And frankly, if the gay community were in the least worried about Mary Cheney’s welfare, it wouldn’t be making remarks like this.
The gay community made those comments?