The Washington Post's "God in Government" blog takes note of the dismissive response from LGBT activists to former VP Dick Cheney's recently voiced support for same-sex marriage:
The Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, welcomed Cheney's comments through gritted teeth.
"It is unfortunate that it took the former vice president two terms in office, two terms that were the most anti-LGBT in history, before he decided to stand up for equality," said Joe Solmonese, president of the HRC. "That being said, we welcome his voice to the table on this issue and hope the remaining right-wing opponents of marriage equality see how completely out of touch they have become."
Of course, it might have been a more effective response in terms of swaying "remaining right-wing opponents" if Solmonese had been able to restrain himself from denigrating Cheney while welcoming his support.
And by the way, was the Bush-Cheney administration really the "most anti-LGBT in history?" Bush supported a federal amendment against gay marriage that failed to pass (Cheney broke with Bush and didn't support the amendment). But Bill Clinton signed the odious Defense of Marriage Act and bragged about it in campaign ads that ran in the South. Clinton also signed legislation to ban gays from openly serving in the military ("don't ask, don't tell"); previously, the ban on homosexuals had been military policy but not federal law.
More. Reader "Bobby" comments on whether Bush/Cheney was the most anti-gay administration ever, as Solmonese claims:
Here's what Concerned Women of America (an anti-gay group) has to say:
"In his first 100 days as President, Mr. Bush:
* appointed a homosexual activist to head the White House office on AIDS;
* failed to overturn a single Clinton executive order dealing with homosexuality;
* continued the Clinton policy of issuing U.S. Department of Defense regulations to combat "anti-gay harassment" in a military that is required by law to keep homosexuals out of the armed forces;
* presided over the appointment of a liberal homosexual activist and "gays"-in the-military crusader to oversee the choice of civilian personnel at the Pentagon. ...
Is there any doubt that Solmonese is engaging in Big Lie partisanship at the expense of creating a greater bi-partisan constituency for gay legal equality? And why is the "LGBT community" generously funding him in order to do so?
20 Comments for “Party First, Again (and Again)”
posted by Bobby on
The most anti-gay terms in office? Was the president Pat Buchanan or David Duke?
Here’s what Concerned Women of America (an anti-gay group) has to say:
” In his first 100 days as President, Mr. Bush:
* appointed a homosexual activist to head the White House office on AIDS;
* failed to overturn a single Clinton executive order dealing with homosexuality;
* continued the Clinton policy of issuing U.S. Department of Defense regulations to combat ?anti-gay harassment? in a military that is required by law to keep homosexuals out of the armed forces;
* presided over the appointment of a liberal homosexual activist and ?gays?-in-the-military crusader to oversee the choice of civilian personnel at the Pentagon;
* supported the application of a homosexual activist group as a consulting group to the United Nations despite the group?s opposition to the U.S. military?s homosexual ban and other ?gay? goals such as legal ?marriage? and lowering the age of sexual consent for homosexuals.”
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=2574&department=CFI&categoryid=papers
Here’s his record with AIDS:
“under the Bush administration, U.S. humanitarian and development aid to Africa has increased from $1.4 billion annually in 2001 to $4 billion annually. In addition, Bush has demonstrated a growing commitment to combating HIV/AIDS and malaria in Africa. Egypt, Ethiopia, Sudan and Uganda are among the world’s top 10 recipients of aid from the U.S, and U.S. trade with Africa has doubled since 2001. In addition, Bush recently pledged to increase humanitarian and development aid to the continent to almost $9 billion by 2010”
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/60380.php
posted by Dave Bart on
Isn’t ironic that the face of ultra-conservative politics is embracing a position our President thinks is too liberal?
And how much moreso ironic is the HRC (which in theory sees GLBT rights as a greater priority than Democratic Party wins) is making back room deals with Obama to not agitate for our rights with regard to DADT or Marriage Equality?
The world has been turned upside down; our enemies now embrace us, and our ‘friends’ now betray us.
posted by Steve Mims on
HRC seems to forget that VP Cheney said the same thing about gay marriages in August of 2004, a few months before his re-election:
Cheney in 2004: ?Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it?s an issue our family is very familiar with,? ?With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. … People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.
Cheney in 2009: “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.”
posted by BobN on
Considering all the confusion and questions about what Cheney meant with his odd construction in 2004, you’d think he would have just out-right said, ‘I support same-sex marriage!’, last week.
Of course, he didn’t because he doesn’t. PARSE his words.
posted by Jorge on
Regardless, it is a needless disrespect to pro-gay Republicans and to the truth for Solmonese to have said what he did.
posted by Pat on
I don’t think Bush was the most anti-gay president, as Bobby points out, but he beats Clinton hands down in that category. Yes, Clinton signed DOMA, which was a disgrace. But Bush, not to be outdone, pushed for FMA twice. The fact that it failed doesn’t make a difference, just as it would have made no difference had the Republicans in Congress hadn’t overwhelmingly supported DOMA (since otherwise there would have been no bill to sign). Clinton supported DOMA. Bush pushed to go beyond that.
As for Cheney, I am appreciate of his support, although reading his statements more and more, I’m not exactly sure what he supports. We have a good idea of how he thinks government should work, federalism and states’ rights and all that. It would have been nicer to hear a clearer statement if he supports federally recognized same sex marriage or civil unions, then say that he supports the process blah, blah, blah.
As for Solmonese, I give very little credence to his words and atrocious leadership. It is nice that he made some comment on Cheney’s remarks. I’m waiting for, more importantly, his remarks on Obama’s failure to push for federally recognized civil unions and ending DADT. Obama is president now, Cheney isn’t. HRC endorsed Obama, and as such, should be putting his feet to the fire. I’ve written three times to HRC about their lack of action here. No response yet. I guess they still don’t want my money.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
What a grim contest, deciding whether Bubba or Dubya was the more anti-gay. As to Solmonese, HRC has been selective with its facts for a long longer than he’s been at the helm, but he does seem to have embraced the tradition.
posted by Rob on
Here’s his record with AIDS:
“under the Bush administration, U.S. humanitarian and development aid to Africa has increased from $1.4 billion annually in 2001 to $4 billion annually. In addition, Bush has demonstrated a growing commitment to combating HIV/AIDS and malaria in Africa. Egypt, Ethiopia, Sudan and Uganda are among the world’s top 10 recipients of aid from the U.S, and U.S. trade with Africa has doubled since 2001. In addition, Bush recently pledged to increase humanitarian and development aid to the continent to almost $9 billion by 2010”
Now Bobby, I already stated a good portion of that African AIDS money went to antigay religious organizations promoting abstinence-until-marriage crap. That money has gone to waste.
posted by John on
I don’t think Bush was the most anti-gay president, as Bobby points out, but he beats Clinton hands down in that category. Yes, Clinton signed DOMA, which was a disgrace. But Bush, not to be outdone, pushed for FMA twice. The fact that it failed doesn’t make a difference, just as it would have made no difference had the Republicans in Congress hadn’t overwhelmingly supported DOMA (since otherwise there would have been no bill to sign). Clinton supported DOMA. Bush pushed to go beyond that.
How clueless about the constitutional and legislative process are you? Bush was free to push for whatever amendment he wanted but guess what? The Constitution gives the president absolutely no role whatsoever in adopting amendments. So he used the bully pulpit the White House offered him to push for something both of us find to be odious. Waaah. Suck it up because FMA came nowhere near to be passing. DOMA did. DADT did. Both were signed by Clinton. You can keep spinning all you like but the fact remains that the actions of that spineless weasel Clinton had far more negative impact on gay rights than anything Bush did while in office.
posted by John on
Now Bobby, I already stated a good portion of that African AIDS money went to antigay religious organizations promoting abstinence-until-marriage crap. That money has gone to waste.
And yet it was still far more than Clinton ever did…
posted by Charles Francis on
Vice President Cheney had 8 full years, in which we saw him exert power more effectively than any politician since LBJ….moving the Executive branch, the Congress and federal agencies….and in all of that time he did exactly nothing to advance gay and lesbian civil equality. His communications director Mary Matalin, sided with Rick Santorum on the whole “man on dog” debacle in the run-up to the Lawrence decision; and Mary Cheney herself quit the RUC, never to be heard from again until she published her book, even as Dick Cheney’s former boss, President Gerald Ford, served on the Republican Unity Coalition (RUC) Advisory Board. In short, when they had the power to do anything, and there were many things they could have done using power deftly as only Dick Cheney knew how, they did nothing. Now we have this ‘time warp’ comment about gay marriage.
Charles Francis
posted by Jorge on
Could someone please explain to me who could possibly be the most anti-gay president besides Clinton and Bush? What, Reagan?
I mean it’s not like there’s much gay history to speak of, at least not much history when we’ve been in the public eye.
posted by John on
Vice President Cheney had 8 full years, in which we saw him exert power more effectively than any politician since LBJ….moving the Executive branch, the Congress and federal agencies….and in all of that time he did exactly nothing to advance gay and lesbian civil equality.
Yet he was unable to get his former chief of staff Scooter Libby a pardon. Why is that? Oh yeah that’s right: Cheney was Vice President, not POTUS himself. He may have had more influence than most previous Veeps but he was still Second Banana during those 8 years and policy was set by his boss, President George W. Bush. I realize that doesn’t sit well with the fiction liberal activists have spun about Darth Cheney, but pesky though it may be it remains fact.
Now we have this ‘time warp’ comment about gay marriage.
Which puts Cheney to the left of Obama on this. You know, the current POTUS who actually can effect policy but hasn’t seen to do much when it comes to gays. Such delicious but unfortunate irony…
posted by BobN on
How is believing that states can — and should — ban same-sex marriage and civil unions to the left of Obama?
posted by Bobby on
First of all, I’d like to thank Miller for posting my comment up there.
“Now Bobby, I already stated a good portion of that African AIDS money went to antigay religious organizations promoting abstinence-until-marriage crap. That money has gone to waste.”
—Maybe part of the money went there, but not all of it. I’m sure lots of money went to hospitals, research operations, condom distribution, anti-AIDS drugs and a bunch of other stuff. The truth is people in Africa love Bush, he has never faced protesters when he visits there.
In the end, Bush wasn’t the anti-gay zealot his enemies wanted him to be.
posted by wholesale watches on
Sometimes the memory and emotion gone out of our mind. the chronicle Watch which initial impulse in a day and began the past memory and respect.
The post from wholesale watches Company.
posted by Pat on
How clueless about the constitutional and legislative process are you? Bush was free to push for whatever amendment he wanted but guess what? The Constitution gives the president absolutely no role whatsoever in adopting amendments. So he used the bully pulpit the White House offered him to push for something both of us find to be odious. Waaah. Suck it up because FMA came nowhere near to be passing. DOMA did. DADT did. Both were signed by Clinton. You can keep spinning all you like but the fact remains that the actions of that spineless weasel Clinton had far more negative impact on gay rights than anything Bush did while in office.
John, I usually agree with your posts at Gay Patriot, but it looks like we’re in disagreement here. I am well aware of the constitutional and legislative process. Nothing in my post contradicts what you wrote here regarding the process. No spin involved. In fact, I made a point of trying not to put a spin on things. And I won’t challenge that Clinton had more negative impact on gay rights than anything Bush did while in office. Yes, the two pieces of legislation were signed by Clinton, and that clearly had a negative impact on gay rights.
Clinton signed DOMA. We both agreed that it was a setback for gay rights. Did Bush try to use his bully pulpit to get rid of DOMA? No. That by itself would have made Clinton and Bush equally anti-gay on this issue. But Bush went further than that. Not once, but twice, he attempted to get FMA passed. Yes, I am well aware that it fell far from passing. His failure does not somehow make Bush less anti-gay. But why did Bush even attempt it? I assume is that he actually, really wanted the FMA to pass. If not, perhaps this was some political ploy to appease the base. Either way, no matter how anyone tries to spin it, Bush comes out more anti-gay than Clinton.
With DADT, Clinton did back down to Republicans and some of his party, and compromised. No, I am not happy with what he did with DADT, but it did finally allow gay persons to serve legally in the armed forces. Did Bush use the bully pulpit to challenge DADT? No. He continued the anti-gay policy of Clinton here.
I just don’t see how Bush, who 1) continued with the anti-gay policies of Clinton and made no attempt to overturn it; and 2) tried to expand on an anti-gay policy, albeit failed; somehow makes Bush less anti-gay than Clinton.
Yet he was unable to get his former chief of staff Scooter Libby a pardon. Why is that? Oh yeah that’s right: Cheney was Vice President, not POTUS himself. He may have had more influence than most previous Veeps but he was still Second Banana during those 8 years and policy was set by his boss, President George W. Bush.
I also question why Cheney appeared to be able to not influence Bush on gay equality. We don’t know what went on privately between Cheney and Bush. Perhaps he tried to convince Bush to get rid of DADT. And perhaps he not only tried to convince Bush to not push for FMA, but also tried to get him to use his bully pulpit to overturn DOMA. But Bush wanted to continue and expand on Clinton’s anti-gay policies.
I also wondered why Cheney wasn’t able to influence Bush to get Libby pardoned. Again, we don’t know what went on behind closed doors, and perhaps Cheney really pressed Bush to pardon Libby and failed. In any case I found the whole matter regarding Libby creepy, and not sure what to think about that.
Which puts Cheney to the left of Obama on this. You know, the current POTUS who actually can effect policy but hasn’t seen to do much when it comes to gays. Such delicious but unfortunate irony…
That’s better. We’re in agreement here.
posted by Jorge on
Maybe part of the money went there, but not all of it. I’m sure lots of money went to hospitals, research operations, condom distribution, anti-AIDS drugs and a bunch of other stuff. The truth is people in Africa love Bush, he has never faced protesters when he visits there.
Yes, I believe the ABC method was the one that passed Congress. Even Rick Santorum spoke favorably of it. I also remember something like a certain portion of the funding had to be spent on abstinence-only education. Which I have no problem with, but variety is better.
posted by John on
John, I usually agree with your posts at Gay Patriot
Ah okay, you’re that Pat…er, so to speak. 🙂
Did Bush try to use his bully pulpit to get rid of DOMA? No.
Nope. Of course he made no promises to do such, unlike the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
That by itself would have made Clinton and Bush equally anti-gay on this issue.
So then are you saying that Obama is as “anti-gay” as Bush? You must be because they hold pretty much the same position on this subject: civil unions and not full marriage.
I assume is that he actually, really wanted the FMA to pass. If not, perhaps this was some political ploy to appease the base. Either way, no matter how anyone tries to spin it, Bush comes out more anti-gay than Clinton.
I cannot bleieve that you are trying to give Clinton a free pass like this. There is nothing “equal” on this between him and Bush. Clinton actually caused harm through direct action against gays. What did Bush sign against gay rights?
With DADT, Clinton did back down to Republicans and some of his party, and compromised. No, I am not happy with what he did with DADT, but it did finally allow gay persons to serve legally in the armed forces.
Sam Nunn (D-GA), then-Senate Majority Leader, led the fight with other Democrats against repealing the ban which ultimately led to Clinton’s craven capitulation. You make it sound like it was a Republican effort when in fact the Democrats led the charge, with GOP enthusiastically supporting them of course. Your claims about DADT are also untrue.
Did Bush use the bully pulpit to challenge DADT? No. He continued the anti-gay policy of Clinton here.
Nope. He agreed with the policy that Clinton enacted. Has Obama? Hardly. It takes leadership of the kind he hasn’t shown.
posted by Pat on
Nope. Of course he made no promises to do such, unlike the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Agreed.
So then are you saying that Obama is as “anti-gay” as Bush? You must be because they hold pretty much the same position on this subject: civil unions and not full marriage.
John, right now, just about. If Obama pushed for FMA (whether he succeeded or failed), then he would be just as anti-gay as Bush and more anti-gay than Clinton.
I cannot bleieve that you are trying to give Clinton a free pass like this. There is nothing “equal” on this between him and Bush. Clinton actually caused harm through direct action against gays. What did Bush sign against gay rights?
No free pass for Clinton. As you say, he caused harm through direct action against gay persons. But why the free pass for Bush? Bush caused equal harm by not even attempting to overturn the anti-gay measures that Clinton signed. Maybe we look at this differently, but I hold presidents equally responsible for signing an unjust law, and failing to attempt to get rid of an unjust law (and in Bush’s case, he even agreed with these unjust laws and/or tried to expand on them). If Bush tried to get DADT and DOMA repealed, but failed, because Congress voted against it or wouldn’t take up the matter, then I would give credit to Bush for trying, and would regard him much less anti-gay than Clinton. Whether Bush made promises or not is irrelevant to me.
Sam Nunn (D-GA), then-Senate Majority Leader, led the fight with other Democrats against repealing the ban which ultimately led to Clinton’s craven capitulation. You make it sound like it was a Republican effort when in fact the Democrats led the charge, with GOP enthusiastically supporting them of course. Your claims about DADT are also untrue.
I agree John. Since there were plenty of Democrats who opposed gay persons serving openly, they did push for a compromise. If Republicans were for Clinton’s initial policy, then there would not have been DADT. But I’ll put the blame squarely where it belongs. On the members of Congress, regardless of their party, who opposed gay persons serving openly.
I apologize if I have erred about DADT. My understanding was that before DADT, it was policy that homosexuals could not join the military. Of course, there were gay persons serving in the military. Many kept their sexuality to themselves, and were either celibate (or even engaged in straight behaviors) or tried to be discreet as possible. Some may have told their fellow soldiers and kept their secret. But gay military personnel could always have been expelled if they were found out. With DADT, a gay person could serve legally, provided they follow the don’t ask, don’t tell policy. If DADT made things worse for gay military personnel, I’ll trust your judgment on that. Then Clinton (Bush and Obama) are to blame for this.
Nope. He agreed with the policy that Clinton enacted.
I’m not sure what difference this is with what I wrote. In any case, either way you look at it, Bush comes out as anti-gay as Clinton on this issue.
Has Obama? Hardly. It takes leadership of the kind he hasn’t shown.
Actually, it appears that Obama has agreed with the policy that Clinton has enacted. He said nothing when Lt. Choi came out. So on this issue, at this point, at least, Obama is as anti-gay as Clinton and Bush.
I’ll gladly change my stance on that if Obama does as he promised and push Congress to allow gay persons to serve openly. But then I’ll still question his leadership for failing to act on it earlier.