Former VP Cheney Endorses Gay Marriage
In a move sure to befuddle the still-operating BDS brigades and outrage many social conservatives, former VP Dick Cheney has (mildly) endorsed gay marriage at the state level.
Cheney’s comments likely arise from the fact that he has an openly gay daughter. But they present an opportunity for both liberals and conservatives to break out of the partisan trap that has thus far dominated the gay marriage issue. For conservatives, Cheney’s comments point to a road out of a demographic trap. The fact is that homosexuality no longer carries the social stigma that it had just a decade ago, and surveys reveal that the reason for this is overwhelming support for gay rights among younger generations. This means that conservatives have to find a way to stop letting gay marriage and other anti-gay issues be their defining issues if they want to ever be electorally competitive again. And Cheney’s comments offer them the opportunity to admit to the fact that principled conservatives can be on both sides of this question and, thus, that the issue should not be on the banner of the overall conservative movement.
The same opportunity extends to liberals as well. In the course of demonizing conservatives for short-term political gain, many liberals have bought into and even actively promoted the notion that conservative = anti-gay by definition. And while these moves have helped solidify and motivate the liberal base, they have resulted in recurrent backlashes like California’s Prop 8 where conservatives who might otherwise have been at least neutral or inactive on the gay rights question have been radicalized by the perception that the gay rights movement is actively hostile to their religions and their values. By pointing out that a rock-core conservative might be pro-gay as a result of his own personal relationship with a lesbian woman, Dick Cheney challenges the sweeping anti-conservative stereotypes that cause many liberals to undermine the effectiveness of their own movement for gay rights.
A silly policy position … does one lose one’s married rights upon crossing state lines? Or lose one’s company benefits if one is transferred to a non-gay state? And what about Federal benefits for, say, a gay civil servant? Are those forfeit if one moves to a state with no gay marriage or civil union legislation, such a Florida? A state-by-state provision for gay marriage is an invitation to money-wasting civil suits and court challenges of state and federal laws. The problem with cons and their “states rights” arguments is, we don’t live in a world in which people spend their entire lives farming granddad’s farm. We move – an average of 3.5 times during out adult lives – often to new states or regions of the country. We need federal policies to deal with issues like this, not state laws. Marriage must be portable, just like medical policies and 401k plans. What a joke, and don’t think Cheney doesn’t know it. This is the Republican party folding to an obvious outcome: the eventual adoption of gay marriage across all states, with eventual Federal support. It is meant to appease religious zealots while giving the GOP a graceful way of accepting the inevitable.
Though I don’t agree with his position I would say his stance would not “exclude” him from the party. who’d thunk Dick Cheney would push out on the tent.
Can’t he just stay in the cubby hole assigned to him!
I’m going to enjoy pointing out in the next few days that Dick Cheney is now officially the left of Barack Obama on this issue. Though apparently this stance is nothing new. He made similar comments in 2004.
RkyMtnCritic:
“A state-by-state provision for gay marriage is an invitation to money-wasting civil suits and court challenges of state and federal laws”
And assuming ANY quick fix should default to a federal decision is a recipie for ignoring the nuances of issues from State to State. All States Rights need to be maintained, and even revisited to give back to the State what they have lost over the years.
This issue is never going to be fully resolved until it is firmly set in stone on a federal level….having a state-by-state differing opinion is going to do nothing more than result in more lawsuits. We do not have a state-by-state decision on other protected “social” issues…i.e., you can’t discriminate on a person’s race any more or less in Iowa than you can in New York. This IS a federal issue and one that our government need’s to resoundly voice in the affirmative for “human rights”….this ridiculous back-peddling of the claim for “state’s rights” is an affront to everything this country is supposed to be “for”—human dignity and personal freedom.
Well, Jeff, the Constitution does not empower the federal government to intervene based on every instance of something that impacts “human dignity and personal freedom”. Thus, unless you amend the Constitution or embrace some very dubiously expansive interpretations of vague clauses in the 5th or 14th Amendments, it is not a federal issue.
Alternately a Loving v Virginia case for homosexual marriage could make it to the Supreme Court. I have heard no convincing argument that Loving’s argument should not hold for homosexual marriage. Is there an anti homosexual marriage argument that is not directly parallel to Virginia’s argument in that case?
It could be a federal issue if you use:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Article 4, section 2 of the Constitution.
In conjunction with:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Thus my interpretation is that if one state recognizes something as a Privilege (such as marriage) then all states are bound to recognize it as such.
Essentially as I read this the federal government only has the power to prevent this from being enacted by a state as a violation of the constitution. Yet the Constitution does not address marriage. If they do not address marriage then this is a states right issue that when enacted as a privilege of one state must be recognized by all states as a privilege and NOT A RIGHT.
The Federal government is not expressly given the power to regulate the various states in regards to a Privilege.
Case closed. The states have the right and the duty to address gay rights and not the Federal government. Now perhaps it would take the federal government to ensure that the marriage privilege was equally observed by all states but it is not…NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS place to enact Gay marriage legislation.
AS I read the constitution it has already been done and now the various states must recognize the privileges granted by one state to all states.
Read Loving v Virginia.
Doomed;
I would assume that other constitutional lawyers see it differently that hasn’t happened yet.
Oh I have no doubt that Im wrong simply because I make no pretenses to be a lawyer or know the law.
However strickly reading the constitution it would appear to me that no where does the constitution give the federal government the right to….
yup…regulate the privilege of marriage.
Thus its a states right issue and not a federal government issue. However we all know that the federal government has been power grabbing for 200 years so if Im wrong based upon OPINIONS then Im not surprised at all.