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.
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 Next »
300 commentz or bust!
blatantblue on June 1, 2009 at 4:10 PM
It’s okay, social conservatives. Just take a deeep breath.
SouthernGent on June 1, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Cheney charts a smart course for the GOP. Strong defense, anti-terror and federalism.
dedalus on June 1, 2009 at 4:11 PM
I respect his opinion – he and his family are living this issue in the FIRST PERSON.
jake-the-goose on June 1, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Not bad for a right wing fascist. Doesn’t this make Ogabe more “conservative” than Cheney?
Bishop on June 1, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Cheney is staying in the spotlight.
SWEET!
VibrioCocci on June 1, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Cheney declared a RINO in 5…4…3…
MadisonConservative on June 1, 2009 at 4:12 PM
I respectfully disagree with him.
It’s not exactly like opposing gay marriage is a losing issue for the GOP, though.
amerpundit on June 1, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Darth Cheney has spoken. So let it be written. So let it be done.
lorien1973 on June 1, 2009 at 4:13 PM
He’s wrong.
Skywise on June 1, 2009 at 4:13 PM
It’s a loser. If you really believe in federalism.
lorien1973 on June 1, 2009 at 4:14 PM
I think that Cheney is Allah’s kind of politician (libertarian hawk). Cheney’s more of a super hawk, but close enough.
BadgerHawk on June 1, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Yes it does…
Upstater85 on June 1, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Bing.
MadisonConservative on June 1, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Keep the government out of my life and I’ll fight to keep it out of yours.
dpierson on June 1, 2009 at 4:15 PM
He does have a huge horn.
lorien1973 on June 1, 2009 at 4:15 PM
And why are you linking to a HotAir poll that you yourself said was tilted by links from left of center sites?
BadgerHawk on June 1, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Neither is federalism, especially on this issue. Several states have legalize gay marriage. That won’t change. Cheney’s approach tells the red states that they can keep things the way the voters want.
In a nutshell, Cheney says keep the people safe and keep them free. Strength and liberty are good messages.
dedalus on June 1, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Yep. I oppose gay marriage but view it as a state decision. The only problem is with immigration policy and how federal definitions of marriage/family figure into that, but our immigration policy needs a rehaul on that angle, anyway (and I only mean legal immigration when I say ‘immigration’).
Cheney, as usual, is correct in his approach with respect to our system of governance, even if I disagree with his view of the issue, itself. People who don’t like how one state may decide are free to move to another … until the federal behemoth forces all states to accept the rulings of a few, but that’s a whole other problem.
Cheney is still, and will always be, The Man.
progressoverpeace on June 1, 2009 at 4:16 PM
So list off libertarian hawk, super hawk, and badger hawk in order of most RINO.
MadisonConservative on June 1, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Librul heads esploding.
Abby Adams on June 1, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Libertarian Hawk, eh? Kinda funny, but I wonder if that’s where I am myself…
That said, it would have been nice to hear Cheney talking about Freedom for the last 8 years instead of just now – given that we are already bound up in slavery.
Upstater85 on June 1, 2009 at 4:16 PM
What has been seen, cannot be unseen.
MadisonConservative on June 1, 2009 at 4:16 PM
There’s a difference between being a losing issue and being contradictory to your ideology. A majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, blue states have banned gay marriage, minorities oppose gay marriage, and our liberal president opposes gay marriage. It might disagree with a federalist ideology, but it’s not a losing issue for the GOP.
amerpundit on June 1, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Cheney is brilliant.
xyan on June 1, 2009 at 4:17 PM
RINO is one thing Cheney is NOT!
I support this outlook as well! Let the states decide!
Pomme143 on June 1, 2009 at 4:17 PM
That’s what AP called himself in a thread one day.
BadgerHawk on June 1, 2009 at 4:17 PM
No Cheney’s biggest fan, but I agree with him 100% on social issues. Pro-Life, Pro-Gay-Marriage, which certainly describes gen Y, hopefully the future of the GOP.
TimTebowSavesAmerica on June 1, 2009 at 4:17 PM
I’m not sure what your point is? That you oppose federalism on this issue; or that you like being intellectually inconsistent?
lorien1973 on June 1, 2009 at 4:18 PM
I’m not sure if I’m most RINO or 3rd most RINO from that, but I’ve never been registered as a Republican so, by default, I can’t be a RINO.
BadgerHawk on June 1, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Commie.
MadisonConservative on June 1, 2009 at 4:19 PM
I wish people would get their heads of their asses on this issue. Let gay people get married and move on with your life. No biggie.
therightwinger on June 1, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Wonder if Cheney is a fan of Meggie Mac?
Anyway,we knew this about Cheney in 2000; not really a surprise what so ever?
I know homosexuals. I’m related to one; however, I’m still against same-sex marriage. I guess I differ from the Gallup poll.
deidre on June 1, 2009 at 4:20 PM
I’m a social conservative and I think Cheney is great. I don’t agree with him on this issue but I can agree to disagree.
gwelf on June 1, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Yeah, I remember. I also remember thinking it was a little funny… I’m thinking AP is more Hawkish with some classical liberal leanings… Full Blown Libertarian? Naw…
Upstater85 on June 1, 2009 at 4:20 PM
That hurts. If I’m a commie there aren’t really words to describe how far left on the spectrum you fall.
BadgerHawk on June 1, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Pro-polygamy?
“Freedom means freedom for everyone”
Upstater85 on June 1, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Do you think Dick would give me a hug?
beefytee on June 1, 2009 at 4:22 PM
And other states are expressly banning it at the same time. For example, blue California.
They’re also ambiguous at a time when the top issues on the minds of Americans are neither strength nor liberty. You go into a debate focused on the economy, social issues, and other explicit domestic issues with ambiguous messages about liberty and strength, and you’ll lose.
amerpundit on June 1, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Cheney is correct. I believe he would turn this to the states to decide and get the Federal Government out of the discussion (States Rights). I’m fine with that. Given an up or down vote at the state level, the issue of gay marriage dies time after time after time. It’s only Federal involvement that takes “We The People” out of the equation.
sabbott on June 1, 2009 at 4:22 PM
thing is this isn’t freedom, its Libertine
You could apply this logic to Polygomist, Pedophiles, etc.
Gays are free to marry, as the definition of marriage is One man and One woman, they qualify as half that equation.
jp on June 1, 2009 at 4:23 PM
If you’re a Commie, I’m Obama. YOUR GAWD.
MadisonConservative on June 1, 2009 at 4:24 PM
As long as you also let states decide against pornography, abortion, and profanity.
PrezHussein on June 1, 2009 at 4:24 PM
My point is that it may not be consistent with ideology, but it’s not a losing issue. That doesn’t mean you should run on it, but I’m tired of the people who think things like opposing gay marriage are the the reason why the GOP is down.
amerpundit on June 1, 2009 at 4:24 PM
How so? Each state has the right to acknowledge or not acknowledge gay marriages.
Also, government, state or federal, not being involved in marriages isn’t on the table – you can have ‘gay rights’ mandated by government or ‘social conservative’ limiting the definition of marriage. Those are your choices right now. Why do you pretend there is another option?
gwelf on June 1, 2009 at 4:24 PM
ok fine, gay marriage, plural marriage, I will marry my goat and my dog and have a plural marriage. meanwhile in Alameda County they are teaching gay tolerance in kindergarten, (I was hoping for more reading and maybe some fingerpainting or playdough time) Parents are not allowed to opt out of the new curriculum. Sorry, but once we go down the gay marriage road, what is next. There will be a gay couple wanting to marry in a church, the church will refuse and there will be lawsuits galore. The gay marriage arguement is the progressives way to diminish the importance of the family unit. Beware, be very aware.
If we must “define” marriage, let the people (not the courts, not the legislators) decide. Lets all vote on it once and for all.
kringeesmom on June 1, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Once again the press asks about the issue everyone wants to know the answer to.
Nothing else in the news to talk about, I guess.
cntrlfrk on June 1, 2009 at 4:25 PM
By the way, I’m waiting for this “freedom for everyone” to kick in for people who want to marry cousins and underage kids. Freedom for everyone.
amerpundit on June 1, 2009 at 4:26 PM
I suppose all you who are in favor of gay marriage also have no problem with multiple spouses. Freedom is freedom for everyone! Or why should I be forced to wear a seatbelt..or pay taxes for that matter..Alas, you say, those things affect society as a whole….so does gay marriage!
rich8450 on June 1, 2009 at 4:26 PM
its not a Federalism issue because Marriage is a Contract and the constitution says all States must acknowledge contracts originating in other states.
So what happens is this: SOme states legalize, residents of other states go there to get license and then at right SCOTUS moment they file suit and to send to SCOTUS arguing these points. Presto: Another divisive Roe v. Wade decision
jp on June 1, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Fair enough. I wouldn’t be the first commenter here to compare you to The President.
BadgerHawk on June 1, 2009 at 4:28 PM
bingo, its really a sad state of affairs when some ‘conservatives’ can’t put two and two together
jp on June 1, 2009 at 4:28 PM
His stance is consistent with conservative beliefs. He says he against federal involvement one way or another and that states should decide.
One question I have about these decisions being made by state legislatures (or any legislatures, really) is how much back and forth is allowed…Suppose there’s a rising tide of conservatives that bring in a majority of conservative state reps and they pass a law saying marriage is only between a man and a woman and that’s the law of the land for 10 years. Then, say there’s a scandal (or just normal turn-around) and now the liberals are in charge. They change it to allow marriage between any number of non-related people over the age of consent. Then, 5 years later, more conservatives are back in and they limit it to just 2 non-related people of any gender over the age of consent. Then a few more years pass, and suddenly there’s a new batch of legislators that change the law so that marriage is only allowed between 2 non-related people of opposite genders over the age of consent.
I think the standard rule is that the marriages that take place legally at any given time are ‘grandfathered’ in. However, what about the people during the in-between times. Do they wait until the tide turns in their favor again?
It just seems like a giant mess…
JadeNYU on June 1, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Seatbelts nothing. If 21 year olds can drink alcohol, why can’t 18 year olds? Freedom for everyone. And why can’t I drink and drive? Freedom for everyone.
amerpundit on June 1, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Good for him.
Yakko77 on June 1, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Someone’s going to get on here… totally not read your post and respond by saying how non-incestuous, non-inter-species 2 person marriage is like WAY SO different and how “healthy” 2 person (gay or straight) marriages are needed for society…
No joke… Just wait.
Upstater85 on June 1, 2009 at 4:29 PM
No way.
Jaibones on June 1, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Is he really for gay marriage? Seemed to me he is a strict constitutionalist…”I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish”…and he wants the states to define the issue.
Isn’t that civil unions? Its just a matter of do we call that union Marriage?
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Cheney isn’t a domestic policy guy. Domestically, though, people care more about the economy than issues regarding personal behavior.
In addition to Cheney’s message the GOP should have a domestic agenda aimed at making families stronger, stopping the gays isn’t as compelling as doing something in the affirmative about a family’s education or heath care needs.
dedalus on June 1, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Uh…
MadisonConservative on June 1, 2009 at 4:30 PM
So, that means freedom for polygamy?
So, that means freedom for incest?
So, that means freedom for beastiality?
So, that means freedom for …… it won’t stop, we can’t even imagine who and what relationship will want “equality”.
stenwin77 on June 1, 2009 at 4:30 PM
The freedom for everyone argument (without anything else) is the same as the 5 year old kid kicking his classmate and saying… “It’s a free country.”
Upstater85 on June 1, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Grow up. Of all the reasons to oppose gay marriage; this is the most lame.
lorien1973 on June 1, 2009 at 4:31 PM
He obviously is a domestic policy guy, since he’s pontificating on domestic policy.
Agreed. I’d put arguing for school vouchers and other issues first. I’m just saying it hasn’t been a losing issue. Again, not that it should be first on the list, just that it hasn’t been costing the GOP overall.
amerpundit on June 1, 2009 at 4:31 PM
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=10856
The Great Myth: The Biblical Case Against Gay Marriage
jp on June 1, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Why -can’t- 18 year olds drink? Why is there a federal minimum drinking age? It’s actually a good question.
But this is not. Your freedom ends when it impedes mine or someone else’s.
lorien1973 on June 1, 2009 at 4:32 PM
How does Cheney feel about the accompanying gay agenda such as the handful of pro-gays who hijacked a school district’s curriculum in Alamdeda, CA, to introduce an “age-appropriate” course about homosexuality, transgender, and so on for kids in kindergarten through fifth grade. Parents who object can’t get their kids excluded because the hijackers characterized it as a course about bullying rather than sex education. Parents aren’t allowed to know even the dates on which the kids are taught the course.
Nice agenda brainwashing.
I’m all for Cheney, but I respectfully disagree because the gay agenda isn’t acceptance–it’s celebration by all and persecution of those who just find their behavior, though their own business, objectionable.
BuckeyeSam on June 1, 2009 at 4:34 PM
amerpundit on June 1, 2009 at 4:28 PM
freedom for everyone, unless of course your place of residence is in a womb.
I agree with Cheney on most things…but still think we should call Marriage as the union between a man a woman. If a couple wants to enter in a contract…fine, but marriage is more than an agreement between two people…its an agreement between two people and any kids they may sire / adopt.
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 4:34 PM
THANK YOU!
I’m not a gay marriage “proponent” or “opponent.” I just wish the government would take a neutral stand on it, and keep out of peoples’ private lives.
This distracts from the very real economic crisis that we are facing right now. Conservatives should put these very divisive social issues aside and unify on fiscal issues. You have seen how the left is throwing the past 8 years in our faces now, because Bush was not a fiscal conservative. They are blaming Repubs (even Reagan) for the current financial mess, and the public at large is believing that line of crap.
Not that you can’t be both fiscally and socially conservative, but I think that making fiscal conservatism our mantra is more of a winner.
Go, Cheney!
UltimateBob on June 1, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Good for him.
He’s having a very good time.
AnninCA on June 1, 2009 at 4:35 PM
So there’s an asterisk next to “freedom for everyone”. There are limitations to freedoms. Why do I need to wear a seatbelt? Failing to do so would only kill me.
amerpundit on June 1, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Cheney’s credentials are much heavier on the foreign policy side of the ledger.
I agree on vouchers. Regarding SSM as a winning issue for the GOP it varies greatly by region. Cheney’s approach allows the GOP to have some flexibility. Also, it makes him seem tolerant and pragmatic–which should confuse the MSM.
dedalus on June 1, 2009 at 4:35 PM
The man has a right to his opinion.
Terrye on June 1, 2009 at 4:35 PM
You don’t understand, though. If gay people are allowed to marry (based on a majority vote), then blood will drip down the walls of straight married couples’ homes. When they see them in public, or even hear that they are in the neighborhood, they’ll suffer the fate of the three villains at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Every time a gay marriage is carried out, god will kill a kitten.
Please, think of the kittens.
MadisonConservative on June 1, 2009 at 4:36 PM
The problem (as always) is that the Left has shaped the discussion of this issue. In so doing, they preempt (by design) conservatives from applying our principles, and understanding to the issue.
“All gays want gay marriage.” Is that so? That’s what the Left says. But they are also the ones who claim that all gays are products of dysfunctional, abusive, loveless families – with no respect for marriage.
Agrippa2k on June 1, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Let’s not forget the 18,000 married gay couples left in CA. I think that was done deliberately just to make a SCOTUS case.
I don’t know how we can protect any legal union to just being with TWO people once we go down this slippery slope. I am dead set against polygamy, yet don’t know how we can delineate keeping marriage between just TWO people (regardless of whatever sex they are), and not go down this sloping argument that even polygamists have rights, too.
Where does it end?
And anyone keeping their kids in the public schools in Alameda county do not love their kids. Any school that subjects kindergarteners to any kind of sex ed (and teaching about the gay lifestyle is de facto sex ed, how else do you explain it?), needs to be bycotted by the parents.
karenhasfreedom on June 1, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Good question.
MadisonConservative on June 1, 2009 at 4:36 PM
I’m against seatbelt laws, actually. Freedom means the right to be stupid and kill yourself if you want.
But driving is not a right, it’s a privilege that comes with a set of rules. If you don’t understand why drunk driving is illegal, then I feel sorry for you.
lorien1973 on June 1, 2009 at 4:36 PM
I’m not so sure about that.
DaveS on June 1, 2009 at 4:37 PM
First, I don’t mind if someone drinks and drives … on their own property without anyone around (just don’t ask me to cover the medical bill).
Second, good response. This response may be embedded in Cheney’s “Freedom means freedom for everyone” … or it’s not and he just said it quickly without thinking. Then this would mean that the version of Gay Marriage being pushed by most in the Gay Right‘s Movement really isn’t “freedom for everyone,” given that it would lead to people being forced to recognize this marriage… I wonder what Cheney thinks of the current push.
Upstater85 on June 1, 2009 at 4:38 PM
I don’t believe marriage is a right, either. And I can’t marry whomever I wish. There are rules.
amerpundit on June 1, 2009 at 4:38 PM
that’s gay.
JiangxiDad on June 1, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Why can’t 17 yr olds drink? Why can’t 15 yr olds drive?
Who defines what age is a Minor and what is not? In the Arab world sex with Children is no biggie, why not here? That would be “Freedom” after all.
After the Postmodern mind makes Gay Marriage legal and accepted, the next step will be something that today most think as disgusting. In the future they will think its about “Freedom” and “Choice” and rationalize it. Same thing has/is happening with this issue.
There are people that predicted this would happen 30 years ago, before Gay Marriage was even a concept in Postmodern mans mind.
jp on June 1, 2009 at 4:38 PM
amerpundit on June 1, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Oh, it’s on the horizon. Imagine the fabulous weddings the media would hit us with on MTV and such. I am SO glad my children are grown. I will worry when the grandkids arrive someday at what kind of crap they will be exposed to before they can grow up. There is a pandoras box waiting for you marriage advocates.
faol on June 1, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Cheney knows there are contradictions a mile wide in his statement. He’s being a Dad. Sheesh.
JiangxiDad on June 1, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Love it.
And for all of the “polygamy” straw men criers out there, leave the straw men to Obama. It’s a bad look for you.
beatcanvas on June 1, 2009 at 4:39 PM
lorien1973 on June 1, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Unless you are capable of drinking and driving! I agree that if you can’t control the vehicle due to impairment, then you shouldn’t be driving…but they define impairment not on ability but on blood alcohol levels.
They should get rid of seat belt laws…speed laws…etc. And instead if a driver is driving recklessly…ie tail gating, cutting people off, speeding beyond the conditions of the road will allow ( ie will cause a wreck ) then pull them over for reckless driving. But speed laws and seat belt laws are just easy ways for them to tax us and to keep the public from being responsible for themselves.
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Or there is no need… perhaps it’s implicit that freedom for everyone means that one’s freedom can’t infringe on the freedom of another… Ah… it’s confusing.
As far as the seat belt, as long as I don’t have to pay for the medical expenses, I never completely understood this one… Then again, most people do drive on government roads.
Upstater85 on June 1, 2009 at 4:41 PM
I think one of the underlying issues here is that you cannot want the government involved in our private lives when it suits you and not involved when it doesn’t.
dpierson on June 1, 2009 at 4:42 PM
17 year olds can’t view pornography either, can they? How about smoking?
amerpundit on June 1, 2009 at 4:42 PM
I don’t believe marriage is a right, either. And I can’t marry whomever I wish. There are rules.
amerpundit on June 1, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Absolutely! And nothing stops gays from marrying. Back in the day we had arranged marriages…and that included kids who were gay…they made it work.
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Not gonna worry about it. It just isn’t that important to me. My worry energies are fully engaged with mushroom shaped clouds on the horizen, a broken economy, and an incompetent in the driver’s seat. I’ll let the rest of you handle the marriage issues.
a capella on June 1, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Polygamy isn’t a straw man. It’s a reality. It’s been around for quite some time, and I don’t see it going away anytime soon.
So, go find another straw man to throw at us…
Upstater85 on June 1, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Yes. Why can’t they? Why can’t states decide for themselves what age is okay for all of this?
If you are old enough to vote and die for the country then you are old enough for everything else, IMHO. If you are advocating sending 11 year olds off to war, then that’s really your prerogative, I suppose.
Maybe that made sense to you. But I believe in a set of standards for everyone. Ability is subjective. Some people can’t drive sober.
lorien1973 on June 1, 2009 at 4:45 PM
How about suicide? Why can the police stop me from taking my own life? The intrusion of government has been going on for years. For every problem people see the government becomes their answer. At some point we just have to let people be stupid.
dpierson on June 1, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Exactly. There are going to be “bad” things, but at least the government won’t be promoting them…
Upstater85 on June 1, 2009 at 4:45 PM
beatcanvas on June 1, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Its not a straw man argument…as its a logical conclusion. If we define marriage simply a love contract…then define love.
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 4:46 PM
As horrible as suicide is, I don’t see why the government as involved in it… Now, should doctors be allowed to assist in suicide? I think not (not just because of government regulation).
You must not be living in the age of
AquariusObama.Upstater85 on June 1, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »