Cheney on gay marriage: “Freedom means freedom for everyone”

posted at 4:07 pm on June 1, 2009 by Allahpundit

Yet another issue on which he and The One disagree. No surprise here, especially given Gallup’s poll on how knowing someone gay affects one’s view of gay rights: Cheney said much the same thing back in 2000 at his VP debate with Joe Lieberman, although that answer was hedged with ambivalence about whether states should grant civil unions or go the whole nine yards towards full marriage rights. He doesn’t explicitly endorse marriage this time, but there’s no hedge this time either. Just good ol’ fashioned federalism, which puts him at odds with fellow conservative gay marriage supporter Ted Olson but squarely in line with the HA readership.

Actually, there is one thing he and Obama agree on. Click the image to watch.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

the_stoics on June 1, 2009 at 8:10 PM

It’s so cute when the paklids troll…

Skywise on June 1, 2009 at 9:27 PM

It is a little difficult to go back in time before the 20th century due to the technology of recording devices. However, going around the world to different cultures it usually isn’t a surprise which women within a culture are the most adored.

dedalus on June 1, 2009 at 8:20 PM

But that’s my point… FAT WOMEN were THE thing back in the day because they were the picture of motherhood and health.

Skywise on June 1, 2009 at 9:29 PM

This is why sex is so not what marriage is about…the amount of time spent in sex compared to changing the dirty diapers, washing the dishes, doing the laundry, mowing the lawn, bringing in income so the family can eat and wear clothes, having a conversation…is minimal. Love making is more than sex.
Can a gay man not have these things with a woman? Yes. Can he have an orgasm with that same woman? Yes.

Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 8:43 PM

My wife is more turned on by me doing the dishes than by most anything else. I’m not sure that’s good or bad, but I agree with your point. I’d go further to say that beyond sex, and beyond compatibility, sharing goals is perhaps the most essential–especially when those goals are kids. Kids take up almost all your time (and money) for about 20 years. Most couples who accomplish that together also tend to stay together.

re: orgasm. Yeah a gay guy can have one with a woman. A guy can have an orgasm with a male, female, animal, magazine photo, warm apple pie, or even a bit of a breeze. That’s not related at all to attraction or ability to feel romantic affection.

It is possible to perpetuate the species with arranged marriages and eliminate attraction and affection, though you’d find few supporters for that in the U.S.

dedalus on June 1, 2009 at 9:29 PM

It is possible to perpetuate the species with arranged marriages and eliminate attraction and affection, though you’d find few supporters for that in the U.S.

dedalus on June 1, 2009 at 9:29 PM

if you can arrange a marriage to a rich supermodel, I’d be all for it!!!

right4life on June 1, 2009 at 9:32 PM

But that’s my point… FAT WOMEN were THE thing back in the day because they were the picture of motherhood and health.

Skywise on June 1, 2009 at 9:29 PM

Kim Kardashian’s butt would suggest that a lot of guys still dig some meat on the bones.

Back in the day I’m not sure exactly how fat the hot women were. We have paintings, but maybe the women who could afford portraits tended to be wealthier and fatter.

Voluptuousness has likely always drawn an appreciative eye.

Sure in the 1960′s you had Twiggy, but you also had Raquel Welch. My guess is that regardless of the time period a body like Raquel Welch’s was never out of style.

dedalus on June 1, 2009 at 9:37 PM

The Father of Modern Psychiatry, Sigmund Freud, did not consider homosexuality a mental illness.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/freud1.html

SC.Charlie on June 1, 2009 at 8:55 PM

And if Fellini had been a psych major, he’d have been one of Freud’s apprentices.

Freud thought everything wrong with women had to do with their “indoor” plumbing, if you catch my drift. Oh, yeah, homosexual acts are strong evidence of mental illness because they make no biological sense. They do not have any potential to propogate the species, they promote diseases that cannot be cured, and their “relationships” are much more likely to involve violence between the “partners.”

There is no social benefit. Therefore, no special rights for sodomites.

platypus on June 1, 2009 at 9:48 PM

if you can arrange a marriage to a rich supermodel, I’d be all for it!!!

right4life on June 1, 2009 at 9:32 PM

LOL. If I knew any I’d introduce you. Unfortunately, most models, while beautiful, are only rich because of their hedge fund owning husbands.

dedalus on June 1, 2009 at 9:57 PM

re: orgasm. Yeah a gay guy can have one with a woman. A guy can have an orgasm with a male, female, animal, magazine photo, warm apple pie, or even a bit of a breeze. That’s not related at all to attraction or ability to feel romantic affection.

It is possible to perpetuate the species with arranged marriages and eliminate attraction and affection, though you’d find few supporters for that in the U.S.

dedalus on June 1, 2009 at 9:29 PM

Hence the notion that the gay person must be allowed to married their preferred partner is nonsense. If they want to be married, they can, but if they want same gender sex…they shouldn’t get married.

Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 9:57 PM

But here’s a specific: more stable relationships.

jonknee on June 1, 2009 at 9:00 PM

How so?…and evidenced by what?

Itchee Dryback on June 1, 2009 at 10:00 PM

Hence the notion that the gay person must be allowed to married their preferred partner is nonsense. If they want to be married, they can, but if they want same gender sex…they shouldn’t get married.

Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 9:57 PM

Your rationale could be applied to inter-racial marriages as well. Certainly, it is easier for straight people to remain within racial boundries than for someone to match up with a gender they aren’t attracted to.

My overall point is that Cheney is right. If the states vote on it a few will allow it and, right now, most won’t. Marriage has traditionally been a state issue. If you want to federalize marriage, I’d disagree.

dedalus on June 1, 2009 at 10:22 PM

There is no social benefit. Therefore, no special rights for sodomites.

platypus on June 1, 2009 at 9:48 PM

There is no social benefit to many marriages, but several SCOTUS decisions say that the states can’t require a social benefit. States can identify an interest in applying restrictions, but it has to be compelling and narrow. Denying marriage licenses to violent felons or deadbeat dads is an idea I could go for, but SCOTUS says that marriage is an individual right and not government program.

dedalus on June 1, 2009 at 10:27 PM

Cheney thinks people ought to be able to form any relationships they want. Well and good. But he also espouses the federal system solution of allowing the states to determine the rules on marriage and civil unions. I disagree. According to the 14th amendment to the US Constitution:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I read that to mean that laws apply equally to every citizen. Sonia Sotomayor has been justifiably criticized for ruling that the Constitution’s second amendment only applies at the federal level and not to the states. Cheney’s view is that the equal protection clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment can be interpreted by the states according to their views. I think he’s wrong. But I don’t think he’s being disingenuous. In the federalist concept, each state can determine certain laws based on local standards, and the beneficial aspect of it is that if you don’t like what one state is doing, you can find another state with different laws. But I think that Constitutional amendments pertain to all of us.

NNtrancer on June 1, 2009 at 11:05 PM

Came across this today, a woman genetically male and physically female (all female plus testicles hidden inside). To those against same sex marriage, who should she be able to marry?

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MedicalMysteries/Story?id=5465752&page=1

jonknee on June 2, 2009 at 12:05 AM

Your rationale could be applied to inter-racial marriages as well. Certainly, it is easier for straight people to remain within racial boundries than for someone to match up with a gender they aren’t attracted to.

My overall point is that Cheney is right. If the states vote on it a few will allow it and, right now, most won’t. Marriage has traditionally been a state issue. If you want to federalize marriage, I’d disagree.

dedalus on June 1, 2009 at 10:22 PM

Ah, the equating gay to racial issues. The difference being, try as I might, I can’t change the color of my skin. Skin color is not a behavior, it requires no decision. So to discriminate on the basis of skin color is lame.
By the same token, you argue, we can’t choose our gender. That is correct, however, there is nothing stopping a gay man from marrying a gay woman…hence your argument falls.

I do agree with Cheney that this is more of a states issue than a federal issue, but I wouldn’t necessarily be against a federal law to protect marriage. Personally I think 50 states is too few, as I think California alone could break into 3 if not more states….but that is for a different discussion.

Conservative Voice on June 2, 2009 at 12:05 AM

jonknee on June 2, 2009 at 12:05 AM

interestingly enough, you keep referring her as a she a woman etc, could it be you answered your own question? I believe you did.

Conservative Voice on June 2, 2009 at 12:07 AM

interestingly enough, you keep referring her as a she a woman etc, could it be you answered your own question? I believe you did.

Conservative Voice on June 2, 2009 at 12:07 AM

I refer as she because that’s what sex she lives as. So you’re same sex marriage as long as they visibly appear to be different sexes? Transgenders will be enthused at the prospect.

jonknee on June 2, 2009 at 12:10 AM

jonknee on June 2, 2009 at 12:10 AM

I don’t know her, i didn’t click on the link, I was only pointing out how you wrote about her, not the subject itself.

Does she consider herself to be gay?

Conservative Voice on June 2, 2009 at 12:30 AM

jonknee on June 2, 2009 at 12:05 AM

My guess is you were trying to bait me…but you make the assumption that I think being gay is genetic like she was genetically packaged with both genders. I don’t think its genetic; I consider it to be a mental illness…but that wouldn’t be pc would it? Given that people play both sides lends to that belief.
People may be born with different hormone issues…but hormone treatment doesn’t make a gay man straight…so we can rule that out. Since it isn’t hormones…it doesn’t seem likely that its biological…hence I conclude its mental. I’ve known a few people who are gay…some of them because they did drugs in their youth, experimented both sides…ended up claiming their preference is gay. Others were sexually abused. Some talked like a girl, so people around him treated him as if he was gay. I over heard one conversation where a gay guy was hitting on a girl, and she blew him off because she wasn’t his type…in that she was a girl.
This is what I do know however. And gays hate this argument, but Alcoholics is also claimed to have a genetic disease…and yet they are still held responsible for their behavior. So if its genetic…then become sober. Man has the instinctive behavior to have sex with many women. But that is taboo in society, frowned upon because it undermines the family and society. ( Its ok in pop culture, but its still frowned upon ). Yet men despite these urges, learn to control them. When we had arranged marriages, people learned to love their spouse.

Conservative Voice on June 2, 2009 at 2:06 AM

Bunch of good statists on here tonight. If the government defines marriage to include two men or two women, then they think that’s what marriage is.

I remember a day when people would have laughed at the idea that marriage was whatever the government says it is. They knew that the government belongs to us, not vice versa. But now, we have a government of the special interest groups, by the special interest groups, and for the special interest groups. Whatever the special interest group asks for, the government is somehow obligated to say yes to. After all, it’s inevitable, right?

Well, the most liberal state in the union said no to gay marriage, so it’s hardly inevitable. Unless, of course, all those opposed believe the lie and surrender.

The government didn’t create marriage, so why assume it has the power to redefine marriage? Before this push for gay marriage began, did anyone really believe that marriage included two men or two women? We had a federal Constitution for 220 years before someone noticed that the Constitution which doesn’t mention marriage now actually meant that marriage must apply to homosexual men or homosexual women or else marriage violated the Constitution. And this novel theory gets taken seriously?!?!

The agenda to declare marriage applies to homosexuals is as unconservative as an issue can get. It requires abandoning all the hallmarks of conservative values: a recognition of basic morality, of common sense, a distaste for government activism, a refusal to allow the government define our beliefs, a respect for long traditions, and a realization that new ideas are not necessarily good ideas.

It amazes me how many people are unable to see just how fundamental marriage is. The bond between man and woman is the very fundamental unit of human society. Government didn’t create marriage, and has no power to define it. Fools ignorantly confuse government regulation of marriage with the power to declare what it is, or to change its definition at will. But marriage was before our government, before the British government, before the Roman Empire, before Greek civilization, before Egypt, China, and Mesopotamia.

When a government, or a society, or individuals, take upon themselves to declare that two men or two women are married, they don’t really change marriage. They just reveal themselves as fools for not seeing what is plain in front of their face.

Basic biology should tell you that men and women are made for each other. But it goes beyond biology. Men and women are different, and were always meant to be together. The same two sexes that reproduce and create a child are equipped to raise that child. The further you get from the ideal, the worse the result for the children. Child abuse leaps dramatically when one parent or another is not the natural parent. (Thank God for the stepfathers and stepmothers who do their best with a child that was not theirs to begin with!) Even in spite of all the good and determined step-parents out there, it’s still a fact that child abuse roughly doubles overall when one parent is not the natural parent.

Children raised by a mother with a live-in boyfriend, are statistically the most likely to be abused.

How we are raised strongly affects how we will related to everyone else. Girls raised in a home with a strong and loving father find it much easier to form a good relationship with a husband. Girls raised in a home without a stron and loving father find it hard to have a stable relationship.

Boys have an even greater need for a strong and loving father even more.

But here we have people who want to venture the stability of the next generation on a wager that being raised by two men or by two women will be just as good.

That’s dumber than voting for a socialist while hoping he’ll turn out to be a capitalist.

At our very core, mankind is man and woman. We are mutually dependent. That’s why Muslim culture is depraved compared to ours: not because Muslims are worse people, but because you can’t diminish women without diminishing men. A culture that ignores the contributions made by women cannot compete with a healthier one.

It’s one thing to argue for tolerance. It’s another thing to take the thing that is perverse and unnatural, and declare it to be normal.

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on June 2, 2009 at 2:33 AM

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on June 2, 2009 at 2:33 AM

very well said

Conservative Voice on June 2, 2009 at 4:04 AM

Conservative Voice on June 2, 2009 at 12:05 AM

I didn’t raise the equation of race and sexuality. My point was that your criteria (i.e., that restrictions are permissible provided orgasm is possible). That restriction could be applied to couples based on race as well as wealth, religion, genetic condition, social standing, etc. Some cultures have made such restrictions. In the U.S. today those restrictions don’t work, at least we don’t accept them from the government. In marriage people look for something beyond the mere capacity to copulate and procreate.

dedalus on June 2, 2009 at 5:48 AM

dedalus on June 2, 2009 at 5:48 AM

no, my point is they claim their rights of equality are being violated, and they aren’t because they can get married and actually live a fulfilled life with their spouse. Because marriage isn’t about sex, it isn’t about love…its about the family. They can marry a gay person…as long as they are of the opposite sex…hence they aren’t restricted as people were with race.
If you take out all qualifiers, then you make the definition worthless. Its the same thing with the Republican Party. The more we listen to the RINOs, the more meaningless it is to be a Republican.

Conservative Voice on June 2, 2009 at 12:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4