Even A Broken Clock…

Filed in National by on June 1, 2009

Meet Dick Cheney, RINO.

Speaking at the National Press Club for the Gerald R. Ford Foundation journalism awards, Cheney was asked about recent rulings and legislative action in Iowa and elsewhere that allowed for gay couples to legally wed.

“I think that freedom means freedom for everyone,” replied the former V.P. “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.”

I think that he’s wrong that it won’t become a federal issue. If enough states allow gay marriage, there will be pressure on the U.S. government to accept it on a federal level as well (such as U.S. tax forms and SS benefits). So Dick Cheney joins the ranks with Steve Schmidt, Meaghan McCain and Ted Olson. Again I ask, wouldn’t the time to have done something have been when you were actually in power?

Video of the remarks:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5jefmsqBG8&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Tags:

About the Author ()

Opinionated chemist, troublemaker, blogger on national and Delaware politics.

Comments (22)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. pandora says:

    Credit, where credit’s due!

    I’m curious to see what the Republican Party does with this.

  2. I say reward good behavior.

  3. anon says:

    If only he also had relatives who:

    were tortured
    had an abortion
    lost health insurance
    etc.

    …maybe we’d be in a better place today.

  4. jason330 says:

    …lived in Iraq…

  5. Mark H says:

    “If enough states allow gay marriage, there will be pressure on the U.S. government to accept it on a federal level as well”

    UI, I disagree a bit. Not that the Feds won’t get involved, but the reasoning. Don’t exactly know the term , but it would come into play if I married Russell Crowe in Iowa, and moved back to Delaware. Of course if I moved back to Delaware with Russell, I would want my marriage recognized, so that he could get on my health insurance. As soon as Delaware refused, I’d file a federal suit (something to do with Interstate Commerce I believe) and then the Feds would have to get involved.

  6. Maria Evans says:

    It’s been Cheney’s position:

    Here he is in 2000:
    ~~ Asked at the debate last Thursday in Danville, Ky., whether homosexuals should have all the constitutional rights enjoyed by other citizens, Mr. Cheney said that ”people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into” and that the issue of gay marriages should be decided by the states.~~

    And in 2004:
    “~~With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People . . . ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.”

    Cheney went on to reiterate the position he first outlined in the 2000 campaign — that same-sex marriage should be left to the states to decide.~~

  7. Yes, he has said it before, Maria. I’m glad he has reiterated it in such a public manner. Though he didn’t do anything for same sex marriage when he was VP, so it’s still mostly lip service.

  8. Mark,

    I probably wasn’t clear. I think the situation you outline is exactly how the federal government will get involved.

  9. anon says:

    Cheney went on to reiterate the position he first outlined in the 2000 campaign — that same-sex marriage should be left to the states to decide.

    Which of course is a denial that it is a civil right.

  10. cassandra_m says:

    I think that freedom means freedom for everyone

    Which is quite right. Except that any state that can refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage still gets to be in the position of stamping on the civil rights of gay people in a way they can’t for straight people. DOMA limits the extent of the Full Faith and Credit clause (among others, I suppose) and lets individual states deny marriage rights to gay people. Not exactly freedom for everybody.

  11. There is already a lawsuit on DOMA.

    On March 3, 2009, GLAD filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Boston on behalf of eight married couples and three surviving spouses from Massachusetts who have been denied federal legal protections available to spouses. Two of these couples will be filing suit after receiving rejections of their amended tax returns from the IRS. Each plaintiff is currently eligible for a particular program or benefit, applied for it, and was denied that legal protection because of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”). You can view the Complaint here.

    DOMA was enacted in 1996 before any state began issuing marriage licenses to qualified same-sex couples. It has two substantive parts. Section 2 authorizes states to establish policies with respect to marriages of same-sex couples. Section 3 deals with federal discrimination and is the only portion of DOMA challenged in GLAD’s lawsuit. (Section 1 merely names the act.)

  12. Mark H says:

    “Full Faith and Credit clause”

    That’s the clause I was looking for 🙂

  13. Maria Evans says:

    UI he said it during VP debates in 2000 and 2004, very public venues. I’m not sure why you all think it’s some kind of revelation when I’ve known about it since 2000.

    In 2004, remember Kerry brought up Mary Cheney being gay during the debate and then Cheney made those remarks about gay marriage and it was pretty much the only thing people talked about after the debate?

    And seriously, how many VPs publicly go against their President’s policies? I can’t think of any recent examples.

    What Cheney said in 2000, 2004 and 2009 showed more support for gay marriage than anything President Obama has said on the topic, and, well, Biden, he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act which makes it so a marriage in CT isn’t recognized in DE. That’s not really rousing support for gay marriage, while Cheney had nothing to do with DOMA, he wasn’t in the government at that time.

  14. Cheney should be condemned in the strongest terms for his willingness to undermine marriage and I do so. I did so years ago. He has no effect on the issue and I would never support him being where he would. That wouldn’t affect his status as Sec Def. VP made me a little nervous, but it was W’s call. Cheney made him more electable in 2000. It was a gamble which paid off as W completed 2 terms and Cheney kept his pledge not to run on his own.

    Maria is right. He always held this position. He is one of about 3 Republican public officials and just a few percent of the party to hold that. As for why he didn’t do anything for gay marriage, he would have been dropped from the ticket. Remember when GWB said I am the President and I set the policy on this issue. It was basically shut up, Dick.

  15. There is no civil right to unrestricted marriage. States have always set restrictions whether it is age or realtion to potential spouse and of course it sets the paramaters for undoing a marriage.

    The key element is if a state enacts a law do other states have to give it reciprocity?

    Remember, you focus on Cheney and he is supportive but Obama is against. At least that is what his teleprompter said. Why are you not attacking Obama as a bigot and homophobe?

    Mike Protack

  16. RSmitty says:

    Why do you two frequently (not always, mind you, just frequently) post in tandem on this blog?

  17. RSmitty says:

    Anywho…
    Cheney should be condemned in the strongest terms for his willingness to undermine marriage and I do so.
    :slaps head in disbelief that the gay couple fairy will swoop in and cause his marriage to be nullified due to their acceptance of the lifestyle of being breeders:

    I am so GRATEFUL that I can not grasp the logic that allows for such fertile grounds that promotes such fear over two humans wishing to enter a legally-official bond that right now only two “breeders” can enjoy, thus forcing homosexual couples into a lesser class of being.

    The.hate.MUST.stop!

    (FTR – I am a breeder, too, but I acknowledge that I was born that way)

  18. Instant messaging, it is a buddy system that we were taught in the military to use in hostile territory. Just kidding.

  19. RSmitty says:

    😆
    FTR, it was just an observation.

  20. John Manifold says:

    The RW trolls posted above are tooting a fife that’s leading the GOP to the Pigeon Point.

    Most of my GOP friends don’t give a hooey about gay marriage-phobia. They’re utterly malleable on the issue, since they have gay friends, classmates, colleagues. This goes for the yuppie scum who mocked Mondale to the Republican-by-inheritance folks who vote for Coons, Markell and Carper. The older ones may have mocked gay folks when they were insecure adolescents; at this point, they view gay-baiters as obsessive goobers.

    It’s amazing how quickly this issue has turned around. Some assume that gay-baiting scores points in Gumboro, but my impression is that the more time a candidate spends yapping against gay folks, the more quickly the “center-right” changes the metaphorical channel.

  21. MJ says:

    Cheney wouldn’t have been dropped from the ticket because W’s daddy wouldn’t approve of such a move and we all know that Cheney was really running the country. If Cheney was so strong in his belief and support of his daughter (besides these empty words), then why didn’t he actively oppose Marilyn Musgrave’s marriage protection amendment to the Constitution?

  22. Maria Evans says:

    MJ show me where a sitting VP “actively opposed” his president’s position on something. The fact that Cheney came out with an opposing view point in both 2000 and 2004 is about as far as any VP goes in the world of opposing the president.

    And why bash Cheney’s words? Where are Obama and Biden’s words in support of gay marriage? Ooops, that’s right, they openly oppose gay marriage.