Video: Liz Cheney endorses traditional marriage, sparking war of words with gay sister

posted at 10:51 am on November 18, 2013 by Allahpundit

I’m tempted to call this a clever Cheney family ploy to burnish Liz’s conservative credentials ahead of her primary against Mike Enzi, except … Enzi’s opposed to gay marriage too. It may help her pass a tea-party litmus test but it doesn’t actually gain her anything against the incumbent. On the contrary, all the attention to this subject is likely to remind Wyoming conservatives not only that the Cheney family is notably pro-gay among Republican royalty — Dick Cheney’s other daughter is herself married to a woman — but that Liz herself was widely assumed to be pro-SSM based on things she’s said in the past. Either (a) everyone misunderstood her position before, (b) she’s an exceedingly rare example of someone who used to support gay marriage but has since “evolved” in the other direction, or (c) her endorsement of traditional marriage on “Fox News Sunday” is just an empty pander to tea partiers.

Here’s Heather Poe, who’s married to Liz’s sister Mary, responding to her opposition of SSM yesterday on Facebook. I wonder which of the three explanations above she favors.

I was watching my sister-in-law on Fox News Sunday (yes Liz, in fifteen states and the District of Columbia you are my sister-in-law) and was very disappointed to hear her say “I do believe in the traditional definition of marriage.”

Liz has been a guest in our home, has spent time and shared holidays with our children, and when Mary and I got married in 2012 – she didn’t hesitate to tell us how happy she was for us.

To have her now say she doesn’t support our right to marry is offensive to say the least

I can’t help but wonder how Liz would feel if as she moved from state to state, she discovered that her family was protected in one but not the other.

I always thought freedom meant freedom for EVERYONE.

Mary Cheney, Liz’s sister and Poe’s spouse, replied, “Couldn’t have said it better myself.” Legit sibling feud or campaign charade aimed at highlighting Liz’s ostensible social conservatism? The NYT thinks it’s the former:

The situation has deteriorated so much that the two sisters have not spoken since the summer, and the quarrel threatens to get in the way of something former Vice President Dick Cheney desperately wants — a United States Senate seat for Liz…

People who have spoken to Liz Cheney say she is irritated that her sister is making their dispute public and believes it is hypocritical for Mary Cheney to take such a hard line now, given that she worked for the re-election of President Bush, an opponent of same-sex marriage…

Mary Cheney, 44, said in a phone interview Sunday that she presumed her sister shared her father’s views on marriage, and that view was reinforced because Liz Cheney “was always very supportive” of her relationship with Ms. Poe and the couple’s two children. She learned otherwise in August when Liz Cheney declared, shortly after announcing her Senate candidacy, that she was opposed to same-sex marriage rights. Mary Cheney said it is now “impossible” for the sisters to reconcile as long as Liz Cheney maintains that position.

“What amazes me is that she says she’s running to be a new generation of leader,” Mary Cheney said, citing her 47-year-old sister’s slogan in her campaign against Mr. Enzi, 69. “I’m not sure how sticking to the positions of the last 20 or 30 years is the best way to do that.”

That last paragraph is the killer, since one of Liz’s big headaches in the primary is reassuring primary voters that she’s a bona fide conservative and a bona fide Wyomingite. Enzi and his surrogates, like Rand Paul, have needled her about her east-coast pedigree, knowing that calling her authenticity into question on one point may lead voters to question it on the other. Liz’s counter to all that is that the Senate needs new blood; now here comes Mary Cheney to question whether Liz’s supposed advantage over Enzi — youth and fresh thinking — is much of an advantage after all. Result: Some social-con voters may doubt whether Liz is really as much a supporter of traditional marriage as she says and others may doubt whether she’s really that much different from Enzi. Not a good place to be — especially with Enzi getting good press lately for his early skepticism of ObamaCare and reaching out to tea partiers by publishing op-eds at sites widely read by grassroots conservatives.

Here’s what she said yesterday, and beneath it is what she said in 2009. She never explicitly says in the latter that she supports legalizing gay marriage, but she does say that her “family” endorses the idea that “freedom means freedom for everyone” — the very words that Poe threw back at her in yesterday’s Facebook post. Draw your own conclusions about what her position was at the time.



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 8

Prediction: This subject will be Allah’s first post of the day.

Bitter Clinger on November 18, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Nice.

Flange on November 18, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Cat fight — AWWWWWWW YEAH!!!!

The Nerve on November 18, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Liz’s sister is married to another woman??

Not according to my home state of Arizona.

Eph on November 18, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Time to bring back that alternate Hot Air logo.

All gay, all the time…

ElectricPhase on November 18, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Exit question for lefties: Did Doug Matagayness from OTB help write this post???

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Eph on November 18, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Prediction: Atheist takes a beating on this thread.

Eph on November 18, 2013 at 10:57 AM

“I always thought freedom meant freedom for EVERYONE.”

Unborn children too???????????????

double hhhmmmmmmmmmmmm

Eph on November 18, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Prediction: Atheist takes a beating on this thread.

Eph on November 18, 2013 at 10:57 AM

I haven’t seen libby lately. Will he show up?

22044 on November 18, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Moved to “top picks” in 3… 2 … 1 …

Eph on November 18, 2013 at 11:00 AM

“I’m not sure how sticking to the positions of the last 20 or 30 7000 or 8000 years is the best way to do that.”

steebo77 on November 18, 2013 at 11:00 AM

her endorsement of traditional marriage on “Fox News Sunday” is just an empty pander to tea partiers.

Why is it a pander to Tea Partiers?
Most Tea Partiers I know trend libertarian on social issues.

This might be a pander to socons…but not Tea Partiers.

DRayRaven on November 18, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Prediction: This subject will be Allah’s first post of the day.

Bitter Clinger on November 18, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Nice.

Flange on November 18, 2013 at 10:55 AM

I just KNEW Allah couldn’t resist a gay marriage spat.

Bitter Clinger on November 18, 2013 at 11:00 AM

“All gay, all the time…”

Only when Atheistfevah and Jazzqueer are posting

Eph on November 18, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Most of you probably don’t have gay siblings, so the analogy:

Liz: I really don’t like your husband, Mary. Let me tell that to the nation.
Mary: Are you kidding!?!?

There’s a few situations in my family where a couple of my cousins are estranged from the family due to that reason above. One cousin felt the family wasn’t accepting of his wife as we were of his brother’s wife, and completely divorced himself from the family.

Family / sibling feud.

… however, both my sister and I are gay. My family is supportive of both of us and our (future?) husband/wife. Sure, I have a couple of older family members that grew up in an environment where they knew gay people, so of course they’re a bit surprised and curious about the whole thing. But they still are loving, supportive family. No family feuds (THANKFULLY!!) there.

ZachV on November 18, 2013 at 11:01 AM

$10 says OTB is all over this “fued” too.

someone let me know b/c I aint gonna check

Eph on November 18, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Sure, I have a couple of older family members that grew up in an environment where they DIDN’T KNOW gay people, so of course they’re a bit surprised and curious about the whole thing.

ZachV on November 18, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Fixed.

ZachV on November 18, 2013 at 11:03 AM

“Prediction: This subject will be Allah’s first post of the day.”

Followed by Cher on Sara Palin.

Salem should be proud…

Eph on November 18, 2013 at 11:03 AM

$10 says OTB is all over this “fued” too.

someone let me know b/c I aint gonna check

Eph on November 18, 2013 at 11:02 AM

You are correct.

steebo77 on November 18, 2013 at 11:03 AM

This might be more effective if Mary Cheney was pro-”Market Fairness Act”.

Jeddite on November 18, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Moved to “top picks” in 3… 2 … 1 …

Posts get moved to Top Picks if they get 100 (or close to 100) comments. If this one gets that, it’ll be moved. If not, not.

Time to bring back that alternate Hot Air logo.

All gay, all the time…

Unless I missed something, the last post on the site to deal with gay rights as a central theme was this one, posted nearly a month ago. And that was as much about Christie as it was the gay issue.

I just KNEW Allah couldn’t resist a gay marriage spat.

I can resist them, but not when they involve the former VPOTUS, his daughter who’s running for Senate, and his other daughter who’s married to a woman. What blogger could/should?

Allahpundit on November 18, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Jesus H Stop stepping into the stupid social issue beartrap Republicans!

As stupid as it is, there are way too many myopic single-issue voters out there that will agree with 90% of what you say and vote for the other guy because of that 10%.

Its stupid but thats the way it is.

Defenestratus on November 18, 2013 at 11:06 AM

So these two Sisters are going to push the “Old Man”
over the edge?

ToddPA on November 18, 2013 at 11:06 AM

“You are correct.”

Libturds are 100% predictable.

I’m guessing Hawaii (A state Hussein won by 20 points) approving homo marriage is on their blog too.

Eph on November 18, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Here’s Heather Poe, who’s married to Liz’s sister Mary…

No, she’s not. *smh* C’mon, Allah, you’re better than that. That’s what the whole debate is about. It doesn’t matter if some state tries to wave a magic wand and issues a piece of paper to these two women. They’re not married, they never have been married, they never will be married. Because two women being married to one another is impossible. It’s a law of nature. It cannot be changed by some legislature.

Shump on November 18, 2013 at 11:06 AM

“I always thought freedom meant freedom for EVERYONE.”

Thanks. I’m still free to think same sex marriage is a joke first and a money grab second. I could be persuaded to change the order though.

DanMan on November 18, 2013 at 11:07 AM

“I always thought freedom meant freedom for EVERYONE.”
Eph on November 18, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Only for those that think “correctly” and that goes for any side. All positions are unmovable, correct and will not be changed. The other person is wrong, hypocritical and hateful. Anyone that thinks like me is right and everyone else is wrong and deserves to be punished for being on the wrong side of history.

Dr. Frank Enstine on November 18, 2013 at 11:07 AM

“Thanks. I’m still free to think same sex marriage is a joke first and a money grab second.”

+1

Eph on November 18, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Eph on November 18, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Also correct.

steebo77 on November 18, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Allahpundit on November 18, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Whoa, a little defensive this morning.

Did someone get up on the wrong side of the bed?

Bitter Clinger on November 18, 2013 at 11:09 AM

“Whoa, a little defensive this morning.”

LOL!

Eph on November 18, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Jesus H Stop stepping into the stupid social issue beartrap Republicans!

As stupid as it is, there are way too many myopic single-issue voters out there that will agree with 90% of what you say and vote for the other guy because of that 10%.

Its stupid but thats the way it is.

Defenestratus on November 18, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Or stay home. This has been my complaint about cons for years now. They have and will give away the farm because they don’t like the color of the mailbox.

Dr. Frank Enstine on November 18, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Keep in mind conservatives are not allowed to have opinions on social issues for sure and just have to accept the lies of liberals as fact.

You will obey.

CO2 a known plant food will be controled you see, we have to make sure that sea water does not back fill all the creeks and rivers, we have to obey the Earth First Cargo Cult.

Get with the program, OBEY.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 18, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Liz’s decision to run against Enzi made me question her judgment. There is no obvious reason for Enzi to be primaried. Pissing off her sister in this public way and attracting attention to this lose/lose issue for her confirms my suspicions. Liz needs to stick with commentary and leave politics to people with a talent for it.

thuja on November 18, 2013 at 11:11 AM

CNN says this “could” be a symbol of a great divide in the GOP….maybe even a civil war?

d1carter on November 18, 2013 at 11:12 AM

I was watching my sister-in-law on Fox News Sunday (yes Liz, in fifteen states and the District of Columbia you are my sister-in-law) and was very disappointed to hear her say “I do believe in the traditional definition of marriage.”

What is the “traditional definition of marriage? How far back in the history of marriage does one go for this definition? In what culture(s)? Throughout the entire world history of marriage, the “traditional definition” has changed/evolved in very many ways. Perhaps we all have differing opinions and beliefs of what marriage really means. What’s important, is what it means to each couple.

JetBoy on November 18, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Exit question for everyone, including AP:

Of all the states that passed “gay marriage” how many did Hussein win in 2012?

And of the states Hussein won, what was the margin of victory?

I’m guessing all states with an average margin of victory of 15 points.

Eph on November 18, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Whoa, a little defensive this morning.

Did someone get up on the wrong side of the bed?

Bitter Clinger on November 18, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Maybe the wrong side of history?

Dr. Frank Enstine on November 18, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Of course this will get all sorts of media attention but Alec Baldwin’s homophobia….. not so much.

Were a right-winger to have said what Baldwin said would put MSDNC on a vendetta. Rachael Madcow alone would have hours of “commentary” about the right hating the gays. But when it comes to one of their own- crickets.

Happy Nomad on November 18, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Aren’t most of us here the “limited government” types? Aren’t we all angling for taking marriage out of the political landscape? What business is it of a government who marries who, right? We want government out of the way, yes?

It often sounds like you guys want the government, state or otherwise, to have a law stating a legal position on marriage. How does that make you a limited government advocate?

beselfish on November 18, 2013 at 11:13 AM

I always thought freedom meant freedom for EVERYONE.

Funny, I always thought marriage was between a Man and a Woman. You know, the non related type. Poe you say? Any relation to Edgar?

Bmore on November 18, 2013 at 11:14 AM

It may help her pass a tea-party litmus test

Gay marriage is NOT what the Tea Party is about. Sheesh.

Jackalope on November 18, 2013 at 11:14 AM

The TEA Party has become many things to many people, particularly on the left and the “moderate” GOP….

d1carter on November 18, 2013 at 11:16 AM

she’s an exceedingly rare example of someone who used to support gay marriage but has since “evolved” in the other direction,

That’s what happened to me as well. The whole Carry Prejean thing and the left calling anyone who believes in tradition marriage “homophobic” and “h8ers” is what did it. The fact that peopel are being successfully sued for not taking pictures of gay weddings and such is what continues my feelings about it.

DethMetalCookieMonst on November 18, 2013 at 11:16 AM

JetBoy on November 18, 2013 at 11:12 AM

The traditional definition of marriage isn’t in question, and a good Catholic boy like you knows it. This moral relativism makes you look exactly like the gigantic hypocrite you are.

JannyMae on November 18, 2013 at 11:16 AM

correction,

It often sounds like you guys want the government, state or otherwise, to have a law other than “SSM is legal”. How does that make you a limited government advocate?

beselfish on November 18, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Shump on November 18, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Yep – that is correct. I have no opinion on whether same sex couples wish to form a union of some sort. That is up to them. We can even develop contractual basis of how they might work.

But they aren’t married – and no state or federal govt can change that. If I had a sibling or child that were gay and wanted to do the SSM route I would be nice about it, but not particularly encouraging about it. I am worried about their happiness, but I am not going to change my own opinion on marriage just to avoid a fight. If they want to make it an issue, that is their problem.

Zomcon JEM on November 18, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Enzi part of the gang of 6 in the attempt to find a way to make a deal with the commie thug hate America Democrats on Obamacareless.

We have to stop trying to make deals with them and go for defeat of them.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 18, 2013 at 11:17 AM

1. ENZI for Senate
2. Why is government involved in what is a religous rite? Oh yeah, it’s another way to convolute the tax code, pander for votes, and engage in social engineering.
3. All government should be able to do is recognize civil unions for the purpose of tax relief when there are minor dependents to a member of that civil union and for purposes of expedited estate transfer. That is all
4. Want to get “married”? Go find a church willing to do that for you and your inamorata.

Any arguments to the contrary are bullsh**.

M240H on November 18, 2013 at 11:17 AM

If Liz Cheney never discussed “same-sex marriage” again while she challenges Enzi, no one would be happier than her.

22044 on November 18, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Pot kettle Black

workingclass artist on November 18, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Gay marriage is NOT what the Tea Party is about. Sheesh.

Jackalope on November 18, 2013 at 11:14 AM

So true.

For the most part I’m socially conservative in that I’m a traditionalist but the tea party is NOT about social issues. That’s what the liberal media is tryign to paint it as. They think that just because Glen Beck made a socially conservative offshoot of the tea party (9/12 project) means that the tea party as a whole is the same.

DethMetalCookieMonst on November 18, 2013 at 11:18 AM

So, believing that words have meaning is now unacceptable?

besser tot als rot on November 18, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Have a nice Thanksgiving, Dick. Football games with the TV at max volume.

kcewa on November 18, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Aren’t most of us here the “limited government” types? Aren’t we all angling for taking marriage out of the political landscape? What business is it of a government who marries who, right? We want government out of the way, yes?

It often sounds like you guys want the government, state or otherwise, to have a law stating a legal position on marriage. How does that make you a limited government advocate?

beselfish on November 18, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Marriage is a legal contract, which requires regulation by government, especially since children are often involved in it. The idea that “getting the government out of marriage” is a conservative position is simply ridiculous.

JannyMae on November 18, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Gay marriage is NOT what the Tea Party is about. Sheesh.

Jackalope on November 18, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Exactly. Stupid move.

rrpjr on November 18, 2013 at 11:19 AM

To have her now say she doesn’t support our right to marry is offensive to say the least

It’s not even a right for straight couples to get married.

Also, there is not a single state in the union where it’s illegal for two gay peopel to get married. Not one.

DethMetalCookieMonst on November 18, 2013 at 11:20 AM

JetBoy on November 18, 2013 at 11:12 AM

I believe it came about in Rome. There was so much partying and intercourse between anyone and everyone that no babies were being born so one of the Emperors came up with a tax credit for marriage and having children. Prior to that it was a form of contract to ensure birth right and lineage for the males in the family. Females didn’t really have any rights until the 20th century. Now that said. I could be remembering wrong. It has been many decades since I was in University where this subject was talked about in my Economics course.

Dr. Frank Enstine on November 18, 2013 at 11:20 AM

What is the “traditional definition of marriage? How far back in the history of marriage does one go for this definition? In what culture(s)? Throughout the entire world history of marriage, the “traditional definition” has changed/evolved in very many ways. Perhaps we all have differing opinions and beliefs of what marriage really means. What’s important, is what it means to each couple.

JetBoy on November 18, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Ok. Let’s make one than. A relationship between men and women that is of benefit to society as a whole.

Oh my God. Liz has bought into the giant ponzi scheme that is humanity!

WryTrvllr on November 18, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Seems as if the State Run Media is looking for alternative narratives after last week’s debacle…HA plays along.

d1carter on November 18, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Any arguments to the contrary are bullsh**.

M240H on November 18, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Wow. Pretty authoritarian statement.

kcewa on November 18, 2013 at 11:21 AM

What is the “traditional definition of marriage? How far back in the history of marriage does one go for this definition? In what culture(s)? Throughout the entire world history of marriage, the “traditional definition” has changed/evolved in very many ways. Perhaps we all have differing opinions and beliefs of what marriage really means. What’s important, is what it means to each couple.

JetBoy on November 18, 2013 at 11:12 AM

How far back does the historical record go in recording Legal Homosexual Marriages?

Revisionism.

workingclass artist on November 18, 2013 at 11:22 AM

“Dick Cheney’s other daughter is herself married to a woman ”

Not according to Arizona law.

Eph on November 18, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Wow. Pretty authoritarian statement.

kcewa on November 18, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Yep.

M240H on November 18, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Gay marriage is NOT what the Tea Party is about. Sheesh.

Jackalope on November 18, 2013 at 11:14 AM

I wasn’t aware it was.

Bmore on November 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM

I always thought freedom meant freedom for EVERYONE.

So then when Corbette RIGHTFULLY compared the legality of gay marriage to that of insestual marriage you didn’t blow a gasket? Right? Right?

DethMetalCookieMonst on November 18, 2013 at 11:24 AM

What is the “traditional definition of marriage?

JetBoy on November 18, 2013 at 11:12 AM

There you go. Then why are you upset about what she said?

besser tot als rot on November 18, 2013 at 11:24 AM

She should have run in VA. She’d have had a better chance.

Jon0815 on November 18, 2013 at 11:24 AM

d1carter on November 18, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Yep.

Bmore on November 18, 2013 at 11:24 AM

The traditional definition of marriage isn’t in question

It most certainly is, and always has been, about the “traditional definition of marriage”. And you sidestepped my question by suggesting otherwise.

…and a good Catholic boy like you knows it.

Well, you didn’t waste any time impugning my faith. It usually takes a little while before someone inevitably brings it up, but you threw that in there on the first step.

This moral relativism makes you look exactly like the gigantic hypocrite you are.

JannyMae on November 18, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Now that’s just pure comedy gold.

JetBoy on November 18, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Does the NYT monitor Facebook for their news…?

d1carter on November 18, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Can anyone tell me how Liz Cheney would be any better than Mike Enzi?

I see two people with very similar positions. If anything, Liz is more ensconced in the beltway mentality.

Bill C on November 18, 2013 at 11:25 AM

No, she’s not. *smh* C’mon, Allah, you’re better than that. That’s what the whole debate is about. It doesn’t matter if some state tries to wave a magic wand and issues a piece of paper to these two women. They’re not married, they never have been married, they never will be married. Because two women being married to one another is impossible. It’s a law of nature. It cannot be changed by some legislature.

Shump

Words mean what people think they mean. A Washington Post poll in March showed 81% of people under age 30 support SSM. It’s safe to presume that support has gone up since then. The future of the word “marriage” is clear.

thuja on November 18, 2013 at 11:25 AM

“I always thought freedom meant freedom for EVERYONE.”

Eph on November 18, 2013 at 10:58 AM

The homosexual lobby demands far more than simple equality, they demand we overtly and enthusiastically support their ways, even to the point of teaching our babies how wonderful and ‘normal’ they are.

They demand we stifle our private thoughts and direct our private businesses to treat them as if they were exactly like us.

They demand we modify our religious beliefs and codes and practices to excise any disapproval of their perverse ways.

I am open to discussions of equality, but not special treatment.

slickwillie2001 on November 18, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Aren’t most of us here the “limited government” types? Aren’t we all angling for taking marriage out of the political landscape? What business is it of a government who marries who, right? We want government out of the way, yes?

It often sounds like you guys want the government, state or otherwise, to have a law stating a legal position on marriage. How does that make you a limited government advocate?

beselfish on November 18, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Pretty much every society has created an institutional structure in which children can be raised by their natural mother and father in a monogamous life long relationship. And governments have recognized marriage so that they can encourage such responsible behavior (through tax breaks, etc.) on the part of a heterosexual couple towards the children that their relationship might produce.

And by the way our government doesn’t “state a legal position” on anything. We have a common law system where the laws arise from the people.

kcewa on November 18, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Liz “endorses traditional marriage”, and this causes a firestorm with her sister ???

Since words have meaning, am I to assume Liz’s sister does NOT support traditional marriage ??? That doesn’t make logical sense.

—-
on another note, when Sally Jones-Meriweather marries Robert Smith-Williams, what exactly to they call themselves, or their kids ? it falls apart after one generation.

williampeck1958 on November 18, 2013 at 11:27 AM

So Liz supports the traditional, i.e. logical and mainstream, view of marriage as between a man and a woman, and she’s the one who needs to defend it?
how about this mary: nobody cares what you think and we’d all be just as happy not hearing from you. cheney or no cheney.

smfic on November 18, 2013 at 11:27 AM

I would have expected a savvy political family like the Cheneys to have avoided a public personal dispute.

On gay marriage, it’s bad enough that the establishment rolled over like a tired and defeated dog. It’s worse when your own family, church or community is involved in rabid gay assurances that you need to tow the line, so now that it’s out there Liz Cheney should dig deep and explain what many people already know: gay-marriage is not real marriage and the gay lifestyle choice is a dead-end for most people.

If if I had not met so many gay people who were unhappy, I would change this opinion, of course.

Apologies in advance to any gay bloggers, friends or relatives who are outraged, but I’m not running for office and you are (apparently) in control of your own life (yet keep wanting to tell us all about it).

virgo on November 18, 2013 at 11:28 AM

a) Doug & Dave want to live together, marry, what have you. 2 consenting adults.

b) Doug and Dave and Bob want to live together, marry, what have you. 3 consenting adults.

c) Doug and Dave and Ted and Susie and Jan and evereone else in the aparment building want to live together, marry, what have you. All consenting adults.

What’s the legal difference if marriage is simply a contract?

yes Liz, in fifteen states and the District of Columbia you are my sister-in-law

Really? The government has decreed the definition of “sister-in-law”? There is legal standing for “sister-in-law” in what area of law?

No. You don’t get to force yourself on anyone as her “sister” merely because the government says you’re married.

This is what homoexuality does. It dulls the mind. EVERYTHING has to be viewed through the prism of sexual desire. Everything. And if you don’t lioek it, we’ll get the government to force you to like it. It’s why the Log Cabin Republicans think Tom Ridge is relevant and why they spend their time and efforts endorsing GOP candidates solely on their position on sexual preference “rights”.

mankai on November 18, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Unless I missed something, the last post on the site to deal with gay rights marriage as a central theme was this one, posted nearly a month ago. And that was as much about Christie as it was the gay issue.

FIFY

DethMetalCookieMonst on November 18, 2013 at 11:28 AM

It often sounds like you guys want the government, state or otherwise, to have a law stating a legal position on marriage. How does that make you a limited government advocate?

beselfish on November 18, 2013 at 11:13 AM

From the view of the state marriage is a contract that automatically provides certain privileges in regards to inheritance and a few other little matters like signing documents for a spouse as well as certain tax credits. Most of these can be done via any lawyer except for the tax stuff. The whole SSM thing says that gays are discriminated against because they cannot marry and get these so called benefits.

If the government wants to be involved I think all unions should be civil contracts that provide these so called “rights” and should only last for a limited time chosen by the couple. Maybe with automatic renewal unless the couple doesn’t want it. Religious marriage should be a completely different thing based on the couples religion and what that religion allows.

Dr. Frank Enstine on November 18, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Words mean what people think they mean. A Washington Post poll in March showed 81% of people under age 30 support SSM. It’s safe to presume that support has gone up since then. The future of the word “marriage” is clear.

thuja on November 18, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Wow. The future is a long time. The gene pool cleans itself.

WryTrvllr on November 18, 2013 at 11:30 AM

I heard last week that the POTUS is a liar…….and Dem/Progs were thinking about repealing ObamaCare.

d1carter on November 18, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Just remember, anyone who didn’t flip on the issue along with Chicago Jesus as of May 12th, 2012 is a bigot.

Chickyraptor on November 18, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Have a nice Thanksgiving, Dick. Football games with the TV at max volume.

kcewa on November 18, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Yep!!

Bitter Clinger on November 18, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Liz Cheney can say she believes in the traditional definition of marriage, but still be happy for Mary Cheney and Heather Poe (and celebrate a wedding with them). These two things are not mutually exclusive. What Heather Poe appears to be objecting to is that Liz Cheney doesn’t share her views about same-sex marriage.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on November 18, 2013 at 11:31 AM

I believe it came about in Rome. There was so much partying and intercourse between anyone and everyone that no babies were being born so one of the Emperors came up with a tax credit for marriage and having children. Prior to that it was a form of contract to ensure birth right and lineage for the males in the family. Females didn’t really have any rights until the 20th century. Now that said. I could be remembering wrong. It has been many decades since I was in University where this subject was talked about in my Economics course.

Dr. Frank Enstine on November 18, 2013 at 11:20 AM

You believe correct!

There you go. Then why are you upset about what she said?

besser tot als rot on November 18, 2013 at 11:24 AM

You didn’t answer my question. And I didn’t say anything about being “upset” at what was said.

How far back does the historical record go in recording Legal Homosexual Marriages?

Revisionism.

workingclass artist on November 18, 2013 at 11:22 AM

You didn’t answer my question.

Ok. Let’s make one than. A relationship between men and women that is of benefit to society as a whole.

WryTrvllr on November 18, 2013 at 11:20 AM

I’ll give you kudos for at least giving an answer. Thank you.

But who defines “beneficial to society as a whole”? Are SSM’s less beneficial than heterosexual marriages? That’s a rather broad brush stroke. And automatically assumes heterosexual marriages will be beneficial, while SSM’s would not.

JetBoy on November 18, 2013 at 11:32 AM

I just KNEW Allah couldn’t resist a gay marriage spat.

I can resist them, but not when they involve the former VPOTUS, his daughter who’s running for Senate, and his other daughter who’s married to a woman. What blogger could/should?

Allahpundit on November 18, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Did you hijack someone’s Facebook account, Allah? You need to stop that.

kcewa on November 18, 2013 at 11:33 AM

She should have run in VA. She’d have had a better chance.

Jon0815 on November 18, 2013 at 11:24 AM

I have liked Liz but this run does seem kind of opportunistic. Even though I don’t think she’s gaining on Enzi.

However, does Virginia even have a seat up for grabs in ’14?

Bitter Clinger on November 18, 2013 at 11:33 AM

They demand we stifle our private thoughts and direct our private businesses to treat them as if they were exactly like us.

They demand we modify our religious beliefs and codes and practices to excise any disapproval of their perverse ways.

I am open to discussions of equality, but not special treatment.

slickwillie2001 on November 18, 2013 at 11:25 AM

The same things were demanded when racism was defeated. I think we should back away from some of the “Civil Rights” protections now that racism has been substantially defeated. I hope the same backing away from excess would be done when bigotry against gays is substantially defeated.

thuja on November 18, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Is this the same NYT that said “it’s only 5% of Americans”…?

d1carter on November 18, 2013 at 11:35 AM

But who defines “beneficial to society as a whole”? Are SSM’s less beneficial than heterosexual marriages? That’s a rather broad brush stroke. And automatically assumes heterosexual marriages will be beneficial, while SSM’s would not.

JetBoy on November 18, 2013 at 11:32 AM

17 trillion in debt defines what is beneficial to the USA as of this point in time.

WryTrvllr on November 18, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Mary Cheney said it is now “impossible” for the sisters to reconcile as long as Liz Cheney maintains that position.

What an adult positon to take there, Mary.

“If you don’t agree with me, I’m not talking to you.”

Bitter Clinger on November 18, 2013 at 11:35 AM

What is the “traditional definition of marriage? How far back in the history of marriage does one go for this definition? In what culture(s)? Throughout the entire world history of marriage, the “traditional definition” has changed/evolved in very many ways. Perhaps we all have differing opinions and beliefs of what marriage really means. What’s important, is what it means to each couple.

JetBoy on November 18, 2013 at 11:12 AM

In all cultures for as long as the concept has been invented it ALWAYS meant a marriage between one man and one woman. Even when poligomy is involed it’s multiple marriages, not one big marriage. Each wife is treated as a seperate marriage.

DethMetalCookieMonst on November 18, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Allahpundit on November 18, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Not surprised by this post, either. HA has moved decidedly center-left since changing hands! Pro-amnesty, SSM, against DMA. Name it and they are more left, always! Stirring the pot to protect the Establishment!

tomshup on November 18, 2013 at 11:38 AM

” A Washington Post poll in March showed 81% of people under age 30 support SSM”

So in reality its more like 61%

Eph on November 18, 2013 at 11:38 AM

beselfish on November 18, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Using the “limited government” argument on this issue is ridiculous. If that is truly your take (and I’m supposing it isn’t), you’d dismiss the idea of marriage completely. For why would government endorse ANY relationship over any other?

If the limited government position is to recognize any relationship anyone wanted for any purpose or to stay completely out of all definitions of relationships, then not only does marriage become anything we want (5, 10, 1000 people), we also lose the definition of child/parent.

Two consenting adults right? That’s the criteria? OK. An 18-year-old decides he wants his college professor or his 18-year-old rommate to be able to claim his as a dependent child. No problem? It’s what two adults want, right? Limited government! The state has no right to define personal relationships!

Btw – who decides the definition of adult? Do you, as a “limited government” advocate support allowing me to declare my 13-year-old an adult? Now the state has to let him vote! he can sign contracts, etc. What if his 45-year-old teacher wants to marry him? No problem! Limited government types don’t believe the government (society at large) has a right to define relationships, right?

The point is not to necessarily equate the two (so don’t bother going there), the point is that “limited government” doesn’t amount to “anything goes” or that society doesn’t have an overriding incentive to define certain relationships. We do it all the time.

mankai on November 18, 2013 at 11:38 AM

“HA has moved decidedly center-left since changing hands”

I thought Salem Industries was a Christian company?

hhhmmmmmm????

Eph on November 18, 2013 at 11:39 AM

In all cultures for as long as the concept has been invented it ALWAYS meant a marriage between one man and one woman. Even when poligomy is involed it’s multiple marriages, not one big marriage. Each wife is treated as a seperate marriage.

DethMetalCookieMonst on November 18, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Very true…as far back as marriage goes, it’s been about man/woman unions. But that’s just scratching the surface of the history of marriage. At one time, a bride would be stoned if she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding day. A wife was once considered her husband’s property. The list goes on.

JetBoy on November 18, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Mary Cheney said it is now “impossible” for the sisters to reconcile as long as Liz Cheney maintains that position.

So you can’t have a relationship with anyone who disagrees with you on this issue? And how does that make you different than any other bigot?

kcewa on November 18, 2013 at 11:41 AM

It’s not clear what Egolizabeth Cheney is trying to prove by running for Senate in Wyoming, except perhaps embellishing the family name. Wyoming already has two good conservative Republican Senators, neither of whom need to be replaced.

It might be different if Mike Enzi were a RINO, but right now the failures of ObamaCare are all over the headlines, including the mass cancellations of individual health insurance policies, which Mike Enzi had the foresight to warn us about in 2010. Enzi was “ahead of the curve” on what is now the hot-button issue in the nation (Obamacare), so why is Liz Cheney tying herself in knots trying to outflank Enzi to the right while explaining away her lesbian sister?

Give it up, Liz!!! There may be a future for Liz Cheney in politics, but Wyoming in 2014 are not the right place and time.

Steve Z on November 18, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 8