Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Homo Old News: Dick Cheney Supports Gay Marriage
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Dick Cheney yesterday:
Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday he supports gays being able to marry but believes states, not the federal government, should make the decision. "I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said in a speech at the National Press Club. "I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."Cheney, who has a gay daughter, said marriage has always been a state issue.
Dick Cheney in 2004:
At a campaign rally in this Mississippi River town, Cheney spoke supportively about gay relationships, saying “freedom means freedom for everyone,” when asked about his stand on gay marriage.“Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue our family is very familiar with,” Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. “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."
No news here, folks, nothing to see here, move along. But here's hoping that one of Barack Obama's daughters turns out to be gay.
Share via
1
Thank you Dan! I was really baffled by everyone's amnesia and the media's spin that somehow Cheney had "come around to gay marriage". It was big news then that he had a gay daughter and that he and Bush differed on this one.
Obama will deliver, I am confindent. Remember OMG Rev Wright? Remember OMG Sarah Palin? Remember OMG Hillary is doing well in Appalacia? If there is one thing we should have learned by now its the talking heads job to panic, freak, hand-wring, and go into historonics. There is a slow and steady long plan at work.
Obama will deliver, I am confindent. Remember OMG Rev Wright? Remember OMG Sarah Palin? Remember OMG Hillary is doing well in Appalacia? If there is one thing we should have learned by now its the talking heads job to panic, freak, hand-wring, and go into historonics. There is a slow and steady long plan at work.
3
#2: I don't know which is more "liberal".
A) Let states decide marriage rights as they traditionally have done, some will have marriage, some civil unions, some nothing.
B) Have a federally recognized civil union that gives the legal protections of marriage but not the name.
It's kind of a toss-up to me. If it wasn't for DOMA (thanks Bill Clinton) at least gay people in Mississippi could go to Iowa, get married, and get the federal benefits if not the state.
A) Let states decide marriage rights as they traditionally have done, some will have marriage, some civil unions, some nothing.
B) Have a federally recognized civil union that gives the legal protections of marriage but not the name.
It's kind of a toss-up to me. If it wasn't for DOMA (thanks Bill Clinton) at least gay people in Mississippi could go to Iowa, get married, and get the federal benefits if not the state.
4
Not so sure he's as much of a supporter of gay marriage as you think. He's basically saying, "If people at the state level decide that gays can marry, great. If not, that's fine too, but people should have the freedom to enter into any relationship they want."
Uh, ok. Thanks for the permission for that. That's not really a stance on gay marriage. Nice try.
Uh, ok. Thanks for the permission for that. That's not really a stance on gay marriage. Nice try.
5
Not so sure he's as much of a supporter of gay marriage as you think. He's basically saying, "If people at the state level decide that gays can marry, great. If not, that's fine too, but people should have the freedom to enter into any relationship they want."
Uh, ok. Thanks for the permission for that. That's not really a stance on gay marriage. Nice try.
Uh, ok. Thanks for the permission for that. That's not really a stance on gay marriage. Nice try.
6
Dick Cheney supports gay marriage because he hates everyone equally. His evil isn't so shallow as to be moved by race or who you're fucking, it's much more deep-seated.
7
Dick Cheney supports gay marriage because he hates everyone equally. His evil isn't so shallow as to be moved by race or who you're fucking, it's much more deep-seated.
8
Actually "freedom means freedom for everyone to enter into the relationships they want" is a pretty spot on way to express the concept in a way that straights across America can get.
[Btw where is "Appalacia" -- in Italy somewhere?]
[Btw where is "Appalacia" -- in Italy somewhere?]
9
"Freedom for everyone" apparently means "freedom for the majority population of each state to deny a basic civil right to a minority population of that state." The states'-rights argument was what pro-slavery and pro-segregation folks used as their cover as well. I don't understand why anyone thinks this is any kind of liberal (or even moderate) position.
10
Yesterday Obama declared June to be LGBT Pride Month and marked the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots. Maybe now he will use this opportunity to enact his campaign promises.
"Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_offi…
"Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_offi…
12
@9 you are right, and I agree, and I didn't compliment the "states should decide this issue" part of what he said. What I am saying is that calling it freedom to marry for everyone is a better set of words to use than "gay marriage" in terms of connecting empathetically with straights. IMHO. IMHO those words (freedom to marry) have resonance with the straight values and identity as "All Americans" who love freedom, whose daddies fought in WW2 for freedom, etc. etc., who believe in marriage, and family, and who are taught and live and breathe adherence to the Declaration of Independence's and its invocation of liberty (a/k/a freedom) and pursuit of happiness, etc. Why leave all these foundational words to the conservatives who usee them to deny liberty freedom and happiness to so many people?? Also, IMHO after viewing it as freedom to marry and part of liberty in the US constitution one concludes this is a fundamental freedom protected in the US constitution (and btw in most state constitutions) which means it is illegal for any State to deny freedom to marry based on sexual orientation.
No support for "states' rights" was or is intended, implied, or expressed. [In fact: super - yuck!!! Ew!!! Gross!!! Hate that concept!!!]
Ciao--
No support for "states' rights" was or is intended, implied, or expressed. [In fact: super - yuck!!! Ew!!! Gross!!! Hate that concept!!!]
Ciao--
13
Freedom applies to everyone...if you live in the right state. This guy is an asshole. I wish the press would stop talking to him.
14
I mentioned yesterday that this wasn't new news, that I've known it for four years. No one believed me. Thanks for finding the citation.
15
It's tough for marriage to be a state matter for anything but the particulars (see the US constitution, Article IV, sections 1-2).
16
@3
I don't buy that gay marriage is necessarily a "liberal" idea in principal.
Here's my litmus test for how “conservative” a principal is: Does it increase or decrease personal liberty? (With principals that increase personal liberty being conservative in nature.)
Since regulation is by definition designed to reduce personal liberty, if an idea decreases regulation in principal it is conservative in nature.
Using this method you can look at an issue without regard to its ideology and determine which perspective of an issue is actually the more conservative in principal.
This, of course, causes problems for party operatives on both sides who demand (and must be able to claim) ideological purity because, by this standard, just as decreasing the regulation of guns to make them more readily available is a conservative idea in principal, so too are decreasing the regulation of marriage to make it available to same-sex couples and decreasing the regulation of abortion to make it more easily accessible by women conservative ideas in principal. Conversely, increasing regulation of the automotive industry to require greater fuel efficiency and increasing regulation of the financial industry’s lending practices are not conservative (liberal?) ideas in principal.
Of course this assumes that the fundamental conservative principal is individual liberty, which forces me to languish with the Libertarians while the Christianists and the Progressives inaccurately categorize positions as “conservative” or “liberal” based on their special ideological interests instead of thematic principals.
I don't buy that gay marriage is necessarily a "liberal" idea in principal.
Here's my litmus test for how “conservative” a principal is: Does it increase or decrease personal liberty? (With principals that increase personal liberty being conservative in nature.)
Since regulation is by definition designed to reduce personal liberty, if an idea decreases regulation in principal it is conservative in nature.
Using this method you can look at an issue without regard to its ideology and determine which perspective of an issue is actually the more conservative in principal.
This, of course, causes problems for party operatives on both sides who demand (and must be able to claim) ideological purity because, by this standard, just as decreasing the regulation of guns to make them more readily available is a conservative idea in principal, so too are decreasing the regulation of marriage to make it available to same-sex couples and decreasing the regulation of abortion to make it more easily accessible by women conservative ideas in principal. Conversely, increasing regulation of the automotive industry to require greater fuel efficiency and increasing regulation of the financial industry’s lending practices are not conservative (liberal?) ideas in principal.
Of course this assumes that the fundamental conservative principal is individual liberty, which forces me to languish with the Libertarians while the Christianists and the Progressives inaccurately categorize positions as “conservative” or “liberal” based on their special ideological interests instead of thematic principals.
17
...ok, even if one of the Obama girls turns out to be gay, it's not like anyone will know for some time yet. They're both elementary schoolers, yes? So they're both still thinking "ew, kissing is gross!" and not "how can I sneak behind the bushes and go mack on Mark/Madison."
So no one will know until after this whole issue is a non-issue.
This shit should be over by now. The inevitable speed of expanding equality should be, well, a little bit faster, dammit.
Some people are just gay. Married or not, they're just gay. So support equality and commitment and all that already.
So no one will know until after this whole issue is a non-issue.
This shit should be over by now. The inevitable speed of expanding equality should be, well, a little bit faster, dammit.
Some people are just gay. Married or not, they're just gay. So support equality and commitment and all that already.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Stephen Fry v. the Catholic Church by Dan Savage
-
Straight Up by Dan Savage
-
Neologism Needed by Dan Savage
-
Palin's Cheat Sheet by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Toilet Brush Off by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
Tea Party Crowd Believes That Only Good Spellers Should Vote by Dan Savage
-
How's That Hopey, Changey Stuff Working Out For Childhood Obesity? by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
The Green Police Super Bowl Commercial by Charles Mudede
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (17) RSS