There is a long and growing list of people – and specifically Republicans — who are said to be to the left of President Obama on gay marriage. Our high-profile GOP supporters include Laura Bush, Elizabeth Hasselbeck and, most recently, freshly-out Ken Mehlman.
But the grandest of the Party’s Old Grandees is, of course, Dick Cheney, whose support for same-sex marriage is the most valuable scalp gay marriage supporters have been able to secure. He’s even been characterized as “more progressive” on this issue than Obama.
Let’s get a grip. I won’t argue that Obama’s well-documented flips and flops, ducks, weaves, hedges, caveats, little white lies, obfuscations and desperate dives underneath the desk in the Oval Office are any profile in courage. Despite the fact that I think he will still be one of our finest presidents and may yet show some spine on real equality, what we’ve gotten from him so far is a savvy exhibition of three card monte. While we know he can demonstrate leadership on issues he finds compelling, on gay equality he is more sheep than shepherd.
But Cheney hasn’t exactly been our Martin Luther King. The pinnacle of his oratory has been this: “I think freedom means freedom for everyone.” To my knowledge, he has never yet publicly used the phrase “same-sex marriage,” or even “civil unions.” Here’s as close to explicit as he has ever gotten:
I do believe that 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.
Now I won’t look this gift horse in the mouth, but it’s not exactly support for equality – it’s a plea for state’s rights. And that would appear to include the right for states to give same-sex couples nothing.
Perhaps I’m wrong about that, but from Dick Cheney’s extremely rare public utterances, I can’t find any reason to believe he would have as little problem – i.e. “no problem” — with same-sex couples having no rights as he would with them having full equality.
But he can clarify that. Specifically, he could put his money where is mouth is, and join Mehlman, Ted Olson, and so many other leading national Republicans at the AFER fundraiser (even Mary will be there). Or he could actually say something clearly: “I support same-sex marriage” would be nice, but I’d even take something like, “Both of my daughters deserve the same respect and rights under the law, and my party ought to make a commitment to that fundamental principle.”
At that point, I would be willing to put him beside Obama and find Obama wanting. But for the present, the two are about even in substanceless avoidance; Cheney avoids the issue by saying too little, while Obama avoids the issue by saying too much.
22 Comments for “Cheney and Obama: Nowheresville”
posted by BobN on
Now I won’t look this gift horse in the mouth
You should not only look it in the mouth, you should continue and follow his words all the way down to where their real value is found as they squeeze out the other end.
Dick Cheney does not support SSM or civil unions. He utters the same carefully crafted bit of deception every single time he is asked a question about gay couples. If people would get out their freakin’ parsers, they would see that he has said almost nothing at all. In an earlier period, people — including “journalists” would have asked for clarification. These days, with a brain-dead media and so many spinners out to find whatever message suits them, his deceit goes unexamined.
The best — I repeat — the very BEST interpretation of his “support” is a belief that our rights should be up to a vote at the state level and we have the right to make our case. Mind you, we’ll fight that fight without his support. The state of Wyoming, Cheney’s home state and at least part-time residence of his lesbian daughter rejected a call for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2009. He uttered not a peep during that controversy. The amendment was not proposed, largely because heterosexual-only marriage was already state law (since 1957).
posted by BobN on
But for the present, the two are about even in substanceless avoidance
There is afoot in the land some strange malady that affects otherwise sane people and causes them to see equivalence where there is none.
See, the Dems are just like the GOP. Cheney is just like Obama. It’s NONSENSE.
posted by David Link on
BobN, get ahold of yourself. . . .I didn’t say Cheney is just like Obama in a most things, or a lot of things, or (in fact) in anything except “substanceless avoidance” of a healthy, open discussion of gay equality in marriage. Just that one thing.
Of course, I can’t speak for what might be afoot in other parts of the land, or other discussions. But speaking for myself, I think sometimes there’s some value in comparing similar but not exact things to see if that comparison might illuminate anything. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t, but lordy and gloriosky, my friend. . . .
posted by Lymis on
I always find it a bit odd when people use the left-right measure in speaking of same-sex marriage, as though it actually meant something.
I suppose that as long as the professional spokespeople for the Right insist that any progress on gay rights is anathema, there’s some point in it.
But if you picked two people, one of whom said, “I think everyone should have the right to make their own choices about their relationships in any way that works for them, but I don’t approve of calling same-sex unions marriage even if we give them all the rights” and another person said, “I believe in same-sex marriage because all sex outside of a lifelong monogamous commitment blessed by a clergyman is evil and dirty and against God’s plan, so marriage has to be an option, ” I think I’d have a hard time declaring that the marriage “supporter” was the one further to the left on the issue.
Let’s remember that when Mary Cheney and her partner had a child together, the Cheney grandparents had their formal portrait taken with only the child, unlike the pictures they had taken with their other grandkid (which included the children’s parents). I don’t see that as particularly supportive.
posted by Bobby on
Another pointless story in indegaymarriage. Guys, if you need inspiration, check out advocate.com
Apparently radical gays are learning from radical blacks when it comes to playing the race/homophobia card. Here’s the latest, apparently Sarah Palin has been “gay-baiting”
http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/09/02/Sarah_Palin_Gay_Baiting/
Here’s the quote:
““I don’t read some of it because I know that those who are impotent and limp and gutless, and then they go on, they’re anonymous, they’re sources that are anonymous, and impotent, limp, and gutless reporters take anonymous sources and cite them as being factual references,” Palin said.”
Yeah, sounds like real homophobia to me just like it’s real racism when a white man eats white chocolate instead of black chocolate.
Fine, back to indegaymarriage, the only issue of importance in our gay community.
posted by Lymis on
With regards the Palin quote, every place I have seen it come up on gay blogs, the huge majority of the comments flatly disagree that those comments were homophobic. That they were insulting, belittling, and didn’t address the content of the article in any way, and that they were very definitely intended as emasculating, but not homophobic.
Just because one writer, or a small group, overreacts, you can’t say the whole community agrees.
posted by Bobby on
“That they were insulting, belittling, and didn’t address the content of the article in any way, and that they were very definitely intended as emasculating, but not homophobic. ”
—You know, I hate it when people tell me to “man up,” what the hell does that mean? What has courage, integrity and fair dealing have to do with being a man anyway? Yet this is part of our culture, it’s part of how we talk. Palin was only responding to journalist cowards that hate her guts for who she is while loving Obama.
They hate Palin because she’s not a politically-correct conservative or a RINO like Cindy McCain.
“Just because one writer, or a small group, overreacts, you can’t say the whole community agrees.”
—It’s not just one writer, it’s also his editor. advocate.com is not a one-person blog, seriously, it’s one thing for Vanity Fair to do hit pieces on Palin based on unnamed sources, it’s something else for advocate.com to accuse someone of gay-baiting when there’s no gay-baiting. I’ve seen this crap done to whites, where innocent statements are labeled racist. Remember the bruhaha of the republican chairman saying that Obama should spend less time playing basketball?
I’m glad the most comments defended Palin, but this story has already made it to Mediaite.com and because of that stupid writer the gay community is going to look stupid.
posted by William Quill on
Well said. There are some contributors to this site who jump at any slight indication of favorability from Republicans to the cause and see it as a reason to back them over the Democrats. While we should welcome the fact that Republicans are coming on board, don’t give them overdue credit.
And please, as Lymis says, stop using directional terms on this one. What is left-wing about supporting marriage equality? Progressive is a much better word, I think.
posted by Will J on
I believe that Dick Cheney is a war criminal. Thus I believe that his ability to argue effectively on human rights issues is extraordinarily compromised. I am afraid that his moral compass does not extend much further than his own immediate self interest. Therefore I do not believe that Mr Cheney’s position one way or the other is substantial.
posted by Houndentenor on
But what has Cheney done to help with gay issues in the GOP? He ran on a ticket promoting a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. Did he object, even in private? I don’t really care what his personal feelings are. It’s what he does while he has the power to do something that matters. The same with Mehlman. And while we’re at it the same with Bill Clinton.
Who are the Republicans currently in office who support gay marriage? Schwartzenegger. Who else? I’m sure there are a few.
posted by Jorge on
The point of touting support for gay marriage among the right is not to promote gay-friendly Republicans and conservatives as leaders and advocates for our cause. I won’t dispute that serious moral passion and leadership on a lot of gay issues is going to come from the progressives, and that it is not forthcoming at this time. The point is to show the movement toward our side among the right. This creates a more progressive center which is stronger and more effective at protecting our rights and interests. In other words, consolidating progress.
I don’t interpret Dick Cheney as a supporter of gay marriage at all politically, although it’s probable that he favors it personally. And does anyone care to wager what would happen if someone tried to pin him down on transgender rights and sexual-orientation neutral education? However, he brings a perspective and credibility that was previously lacking.
posted by Jorge on
But what has Cheney done to help with gay issues in the GOP? He ran on a ticket promoting a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. Did he object, even in private?
Object? No. Dissent? Yes. And he admitted his dissent publicly, before the 2004 election, as was well-publicized at the time. He stated his own preference, and then added that the president makes basic policy decisions for the administration.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-08-25/news/17439455_1_gay-daughter-issue-of-gay-marriage-cheney-s-remarks
I would openly question what you think Mr. Cheney’s daughter, Mary Cheney, should have done when Bush announced his support of the amendment, as she was a part of the vice president’s campaign staff at the time. I would remind you that the fact that she is a lesbian makes her ultimate decision by definition a correct decision.
posted by Houndentenor on
I think if I were working on a political campaign that decided to make an anti-gay position part of the platform and a central campaign issue (read what Mehlman said about the campaign), I would have quit. But then I have some personal integrity.
I do expect to see some socially liberal, fiscally conservative (traditionally conservative not borrow-and-spend “conservatives”) running in the Blue States over the next few years (like Brown and Schwartzenegger), but it’s naive to think that the religious right is going to give up it’s stranglehold on the GOP any time soon. No one like that is going to get past the South Carolina primary (if they even survive Iowa).
posted by Jorge on
Nobody is questioning your personal integrity, but I appreciate your honesty.
It seems to me you would choose to burn bridges and condemn allies in order to maintain a purity of ideology and conviction.
How do you expect to lead a movement if everyone else is afraid of being cast out and condemned for slight infractions or disagreements?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I think if I were working on a political campaign that decided to make an anti-gay position part of the platform and a central campaign issue (read what Mehlman said about the campaign), I would have quit. But then I have some personal integrity.
Not really. You just are demanding of others what you won’t do yourself.
Meanwhile, since the gay and lesbian community openly supports and endorses FMA supporters, your attack on Mehlman is really nothing more than just a classic example of displacement.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I think if I were working on a political campaign that decided to make an anti-gay position part of the platform and a central campaign issue (read what Mehlman said about the campaign), I would have quit. But then I have some personal integrity.
Not really. You just are demanding of others what you won’t do yourself.what you don’t mind yourself.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Meanwhile, I will also point out that, according to the gay and lesbian community, its leading organizations, and its Obama Party employees, it is neither antigay or homophobic to support and push a Federal Marriage Amendment.
So what this boils down to is another pathetic example of Link, BobN, Houndentenor, et al, demonstrating that the gay and lesbian community assesses whether one is “homophobic”, not on the basis of what one does, but solely on the basis of party affiliation.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, it most certainly IS homophobic to push for an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment. There is no other reason to be against equal rights for gay people other than animus. None.
I have said many times that it is disgusting how willing Democrats are to throw gays and lesbians under the bus but that bus is being driven by the GOP.
posted by BobN on
Will everyone bloody please fucking stop calling these amendments just “anti-gay-marriage”. They BAN recognition of civil unions, too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
comparing similar but not exact
The point, David, is that they are NOT AT ALL similar. Cheney’s spoken words — repeated carefully — constitute nothing more than a completely hands-off attitude towards our lives. No more arresting us — good — but not giving us any recognition whatsoever.
The latter is nearly the polar opposite of Obama’s position (however off the pole the word “marriage” pushes us).
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yes, it most certainly IS homophobic to push for an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment.
But that’s irrelevant, since you support and endorse and vote for Obama Party members who do it anyway.
I have said many times that it is disgusting how willing Democrats are to throw gays and lesbians under the bus
But that’s irrelevant, since you support and endorse and vote for Obama Party members who do it anyway.
posted by Jorge on
The latter is nearly the polar opposite of Obama’s position (however off the pole the word “marriage” pushes us).
Cheney’s spoken words — repeated carefully — constitute nothing more than a completely hands-off attitude towards our lives.
Obama’s spoken words are sweeter than the Serpent’s tongue.
No more arresting us — good — but not giving us any recognition whatsoever.
Yes you can! (but wait a couple of years and pipe down, okay?)
The latter is nearly the polar opposite of Obama’s position (however off the pole the word “marriage” pushes us).
Quite right. Obama makes promises to fight for our rights, then does nothing until we hold a protest. Cheney tells it like he sees it, regardless of if it might be unpopular with his base.
posted by BobN on
Cheney tells it like he sees it
Well, he tells us nothing, so that’s how he sees us. As nothing.