Cheney on gay marriage: 'People free'

The former vice president (Cheney), whose daughter Mary is gay, said today that people "ought to be free'' to enter into the union of their choice. He does not, however, support a federal law on marriage, but believes the question is best left to the states."

That's funny considering that we didn't hear a peep out of The Dick Cheney on this topic the last eight years when he could have actually done something about it.

Go crawl back into your cave, Darth!

Cheney says it "is something we have lived with for a long time in our family."

It's not cancer you fool.

Straight people can be SO ignorant sometimes, I wonder how ANY of us make it past childhood.

"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."

He makes it sound like a disease. Yeah Dick, keep hoping for the cure....

The Republicons and their hypocritical "family values". They bash the gays but insist that thier domestic helpers work on Sundays
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWuXpfXSl5Y

Jimi,

Some facts.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/01/cheney_comes_out_for_gay_marri.html?wprss=44

Come on guys, for the first time in his life he is saying something with real compassion and thought. Dont misconsture what he means as if you were inside his head. Trust me, never in my entire life did I think I would ever defend this man. But I believe him to be correct in his view on this matter and believe he is being genuine in regards to his daughter and how it affected their lives.

Forget the stuff about Cheney. This "article" about Reagan is abominable: http://wineandexcrement.com/source-ronald-reagan-to-run-posthumously-in-2012-presidential-bid/1455/

Nice try, Scott Blakely. But all of the hate from Obama supporters from the beginning of his campaign has made it impossible for them to engage in fair, meaningful dialogue, common decency or compassion. You are on the side of hate and intolerance. You have actually stolen the trophy from Cheney - you and your fellow Obama supporters must be so proud.

Cheney is running around squealing like a stuffed pig. The man is an unpatiotic chickenhawk coward.

All this means to me is that he won't be running for President in 2012.

HURRAY!!

"The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support."

OK, I can buy that argument as reasonable and consistent.

The question is whether he would support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, which is federal intrusion on state's rights, and more importantly prohibits any federal agency from recognizing same sex unions.

Marriage is not a federal issue. No amount of your whining and sweeping re-writes of history will change that.

It would be as inappropriate for the feds to commandeer marriage law as it would be for them to commandeer divorce law, traffic law, or local zoning ordinances. The federal issues involved in divorce are Equal Protection and Full Faith and Credit.

Those whimpering because Cheney "could have done something about this" when he was in office are in desperate need of education on our form of government. ...actually, so are most of those now in our government.

If I had a "gay" kid, I guess that maybe I would say that I think that everybody should have a gay kid, too.
I I had a kid with a drug problem, I guess that maybe I would say that drugs are okay if used within the home. If I had cancer, I would probably say that cancer is actually a good thing to have. And, if my wife cheated on me with another man, I would probably say that it is a good thing because it spices up my marriage.
Poor old Cheney doesn't have much that he can do but to acknowledge that he has a wart on the end of his nose since it is out there in plain sght for everybody to see. One of God's humorous little "Paybacks" to Dick Cheney, I would think.

All the bile that is still being directed at Mr. Cheney proves that the real hatred that exists is purely political, and in one direction only: liberal on conservative. President Obama gets a virtually free pass solely because he is on the "right" side.

Gay unions?? I wonder if the "Gay Unions" will do to marriage what the United Auto Workers Union has done to GM and Chrysler??

RWILYMZ posts that marriage is not a federal issue. The poster also goes on to say that it would be "inappropriate" for the feds to commander marriage law.
Have you forgot "Loving vs Virginia"?? Yes, some states got the ball rolling, but the Supreme Court ultimately had to rule on the issue.
Marriage is also a federal issue since it involves everything from taxes, social security, and so on. .
Nice try, but the poster is the one who needs an education.

Jimm, he work on the federal level. He was at no position to do anything and wished to do nothing. Many people forget about the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution that protect states from the federal government from over legislating over people. Look at your state or local governments to solve this issue for you. The federal government can never overrule a civil union.

Personally, I think marriage can only be perform by a church and civil unions is what a government does.

This is simply a well-plotted strategy. By claiming "states rights", Dick can have it both ways: it makes him look somewhat like a human being and throws the issue to 50 separate state legislatures, guaranteeing it will take 2 or 3 generations to work it's way through culture. Win-win for the bankrupt conservative point-of-view.

Fools will be fooled. It's in their nature.

"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 you're misunderstanding him. Not that he's a "good guy," but pick your battles (kind of a pun, I guess).

I'm pretty sure he's saying something along the lines of:

It's really not the big deal people make it out to be--it's NOT a disease. We've lived with it in my family, and neither my marriage nor my values has crumbled. No one's had to die so that my daughter can be gay. Her lifestyle doesn't actually affect anyone. It just is.

Everything created has to have a creator. The entire human experience on this planet is a result of a Creator. Man was designed to be with a woman ONLY. Not man with a man. Not woman with a woman. Not man with a cow. Not woman with a horse. No matter if both consented to such destructive behavior or not. Marriage is the union between a Man and a Woman. That's the definition of it. Humanity is in real trouble when it begins to change the definition of anything to suit the desires of a specific group of people... especially when that group is wanting something that isn't based on truth.

Gays cannot marry because a marriage is a union of husband and wife. Gays, should however, have their own criteria for union that offers them the same protection as the union of marriage. I don't see what is such a big deal about it.

Lawyers are lobbying for gay marriage. It makes them happy to think of the divorce lawsuits and the money, honey.

Wow, What a liberal guy comapared to Obama who thinks that marraige is only between a man and a woman....even saying so while running against Alan Keyes in the IL Senate race.

I wish Obama's teleprompter would give an eloquent non commital speech full of platitudes on this. You know....kind of like all his speeches.

"That's funny considering that we didn't hear a peep out of The Dick Cheney on this topic the last eight years when he could have actually done something about it."

Sorry to burst your little hate bubble, but Cheney publicly disagreed with Bush on gay marriage during his presidency.

Why is no one mad at Obama? He's farther to the right on this issue than most Republicans I know.

It is so amazing to me that some people have no compassion for others unless it strikes their life. You have to wonder if his daughter's friend was Muslim, would he be less inclined to be supportive of wars in Muslim countries. He lacks humanity and is still a jerk.

OK, so Cheney says:
"I do believe that, 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..."
This is VERY interesting, not to mention wrong. Loving vs Virginia was a US Supreme Court case striking down bans on interracial marriage. Please tell me how this is NOT a federal law regarding marriage.

I find it funny (in a sad kind of way) that the liberal left is adamant about holding him accountable and condemning Mr. Cheney for every single exact word he articulated, and yet those same liberals will be the first to say of Vice President Biden's or Judge Sotomayor's words, "What he or she REALLY meant was ..."

I give Mr. Cheney a lot of credit for his candor about a personal family matter. I know that my own coming out was very difficult for my parents and family. I can't imagine their having to deal with it in a glaring spotlight on an international stage with gay activists screaming at them.

If it were so easy to accept and support a gay child or sibling, there would be no need for an organization like PFLAG.

Quit screaming at Mr. Cheney. At this point, it's fruitless to look backward as there is nothing he can do to further our cause. Direct your attention to President Obama who has yet to fulfill his campaign promise of ending the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and claims that his doing so is not a top priority.

This is simply a well-plotted strategy. By claiming "states rights", Dick can have it both ways: it makes him resemble a human being and throws the issue to 50 separate state legislatures, guaranteeing it will take 2 or 3 generations to work it's way through culture. Win-win for the bankrupt conservative point-of-view.

Fools will be fooled. It's in their nature.

Liberals have no moral compass which explains their views. What's next on the agenda, special rights for pedophiles? The fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom.

The most toxic, uncompassionate man in the US: Dick Cheney needs the limelight so badly now that he is coming up with any reason in the world to make a statement about lame drivel that comes into his head. It's addictive being famous, Dickie..even if you're the person everyone loves to hate!

Sorry, Michael Anthony, but you are incorrect.

"Have you forgot "Loving vs Virginia"?? "

Have you forgotten -- or perhaps never knew -- the issue involved in 'Loving'? It was not marriage; it was Equal Protection.

What did I say? I said that there only a few issues surrounding these matters which are federal issues, one of which is Equal Protection.

The other of which is Full Faith and Credit ... which means, "King Cormack", that if you get a gay marriage in Iowa it mustMustMUST be recognized as legal and valid in Alabama, without fail.

So, sorry guys, but your problem still stands: you know little to nothing about our form of government and yet you still insist on giving lectures on the subject. Doesn't that embarass you?

Let's "waterboard" him! See how he really feels! I'll betcha he can't stand that his daughter is gay! These people only come around through life's experience, like Nancy Reagan turning around about stem cell research that might help Alzheimer's, after living through her husbands lost years with the disease. I'll bet if he was "waterboarded" a few times, he would admit he was wrong....again!

"This is simply a well-plotted strategy. By claiming "states rights", Dick can have it both ways: it makes him resemble a human being and throws the issue to 50 separate state legislatures, guaranteeing it will take 2 or 3 generations to work it's way through culture. Win-win for the bankrupt conservative point-of-view."

This couldn't be further from the truth. Once the issue was relegated to the state level we began to see far more rapid and significant progress than ever before. Iowa is the latest example. With the exception of a few states that may prove impossible to budge, I predict that the remaining will follow in short order.

The reason that President Obama's views on this issue seem conservative in comparison to those of Mr. Cheney is because Obama and the Democrats highly value the black vote and aren't willing to risk losing that bloc over a this issue. It's no big secret that a large majority of black people are very much opposed to the prospect of legally recognizing marriage between individuals of the same sex. If it's evidence you need then simply look to California.

...and while I'm correcting the ignorance of posters here, let me address "jjrg7", who claims:

"Gays cannot marry because a marriage is a union of husband and wife."

Marriage is, BY DEFINITION, what the laws of those governments having jurisdiction [which is, MICHAEL ANTHONY, the STATE government] says it is.

If the state government of Iowa defines marriage to be any two persons of any gender older than 18, then that's what it is. ... in Iowa. If the state of Alabama says it's a man and women, one each, older than a certain age, then THAT is what it is. ... in Alabama.

There are no requirements under law for institutions [e.g., a church] given the "power vested in them by the law" to perform every marriage requested of them. Catholics recognize first marriages only and do not perform re-marriages, for example.

...and before any of you begin to display even MORE ignorance by trying to falsely correct me, I would remind you that the Catholic church considers an annulled marriage to never have occurred, which means that the divorcee with an annullment is getting married for the first time.

Get this and get it quick: there is no such thing as "civil union" which is separate and distinct from "marriage". The only question at issue is whether your church will perform the marriage ceremony or not.

Everything created has to have a creator. The entire human experience on this planet is a result of a Creator. Man was designed to be with a woman ONLY. Not man with a man. Not woman with a woman. Not man with a cow. Not woman with a horse. No matter if both consented to such destructive behavior or not. Marriage is the union between a Man and a Woman. That's the definition of it. Humanity is in real trouble when it begins to change the definition of anything to suit the desires of a specific group of people... especially when that group is wanting something that isn't based on truth.
Posted by: Jeremy | June 2, 2009 10:25 AM

You should have stopped with your first sentence and really given it some thought. As I see it, YOU are a "specific group of people" trying to define others to your liking.

Steven Kellert advertises his own ignorance:

"This is VERY interesting, not to mention wrong. Loving vs Virginia was a US Supreme Court case striking down bans on interracial marriage."

They struck it down because it violated EQUAL PROTECTION -- which is a federal issue.

Marriage is NOT a federal issue; the manner in which the states make and enforce their laws IS a federal issue.

The Federal government does not care [in general] what laws a state makes, as long as that state makes and enforces those laws in the way the Constitution requires them to. The ways the Constitution requires a state to make and enforce its laws includes Due Process, Equal Protection, and -- when it is a matter that involves persons meeting one state's laws moving to another -- Full Faith and Credit.

Seriously: where were you people educated? WERE you people educated? This is 8th grade civics. There's no excuse for your ignorance, here, unless you're not in the 8th grade yet.

Oh, and by the way, Steven Kellert ... a Supreme Court ruling is not a federal law because the Supreme Court does not pass federal laws; Congress passes federal laws.

The Supreme Court rules on [among other things] how those laws are enacted or enforced, and whether or not the Constitution allows that enaction or enforcement.

More 8th grade civics.

Caveat, I support gay marriage but understand why our society has been so slow to accept it-closed-mindedness is very hard to change, unfortunately. As an aside, to me the supposed religious aspect of heterosexual marriage has been exaggerated a great deal.

His position has been consistent for a long time, as far as I can glean from the clippings from 2004.

Also, I am confused. I would think that supporters of gay marriage should accept Mr. Cheney's comment postively and pretty much without reservation. Isn't it a little bit like getting an oil company to turn solar?

My advice to gay marriage supporters is not to reject Cheney's support. Now, anytime some "it's not Adam and Steve" type says anything, supporters can say, even Cheney supports gay marriage!

Seek allies in your cause even if you disagree with them on other issues, and you will have much more success.

Jeremy ... surely you can't be serious:

"Humanity is in real trouble when it begins to change the definition of anything to suit the desires of a specific group of people"

Are you trying to deny the validity of Democracy? our Democratic Republic?

Do you wish to go back to that form of government implemented by the strongest guy with the biggest club?

Does 10,000 years of socio-political advancement have to be negated because you, personally, dislike the latest change made?

I'd say: get over yourself, son. The world doesn't revolve around you.

"Loving vs Virginia was a US Supreme Court case striking down bans on interracial marriage. Please tell me how this is NOT a federal law regarding marriage."

Loving v. Virginia is not a law. It's a ruling. This is a mjor problem with our government in this country. The judicial branch (the courts) are making "laws". What does that leave for the legislative branch to do?
Oh yeah, they get to philibuster, waste taxpayer money on personal items, and propegate the partisan way!

I like ex-VP. Actually I like most of NeoCons.
But he is wrong - marriage is a federal issue when it comes to benefits and immigration. And to all my democratic friends - why Bush (who is against gay marriage) is a homophobe and Obama (who is against gay marriage too) is a gay friendly politician? Also, the last time I checked (correct me if I am wrong) that was Democratic president Clinton who signed into the law “don’t ask – don’t tell” and Defense of Marriage Act. How is that for gay friendly liberals?
Personally, I am against gay marriage. I am against straight marriage. I am against any marriage regulated and recorded by governments on all levels.

I like ex-VP. Actually I like most of NeoCons.
But he is wrong - marriage is a federal issue when it comes to benefits and immigration. And to all my democratic friends - why Bush (who is against gay marriage) is a homophobe and Obama (who is against gay marriage too) is a gay friendly politician? Also, the last time I checked (correct me if I am wrong) that was Democratic president Clinton who signed into the law “don’t ask – don’t tell” and Defense of Marriage Act. How is that for gay friendly liberals?
Personally, I am against gay marriage. I am against straight marriage. I am against any marriage regulated and recorded by governments on all levels.

I think the vice president has a very good point regarding gay marriage. It may sound awkward to a lot of people because we have been educated that a girl must marry a guy. If you are going to think of it, we do have a freedom to choose whoever we want to spend the rest of our lives with.

@ mark "liberals have no moral compass" So in your obviously enlightened mind Mark, denying two consenting adults the right to express their love to each other is somehow the moral high ground? People such as yourself today are the same kind of people that were against interracial marriage 30 years ago, not saying you are a racist but your mind works in the same hateful and fearful way.

Alex:
"denying two consenting adults the right to express their love to each other is somehow the moral high ground?"

Um, "consenting adults" "exploring love" is the justification behind eliminating anti-sodomy laws. The anti-gay marriage people seem to want to prevent a subsection of our "consenting adults" from settling down and becoming boring old middle-classers who pay taxes and have nothing better to do than gripe about potholes.

Personally, I don't get it, but apparently being boring taxpayers is reserved for heterosexuals.

Alex, I have some news for you. LIBERAL CA voted against gay marriage and President Obama is against it too.. Any comments?