Dick Cheney, Federalist?

Michael C. Moynihan | June 1, 2009

As both Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch argued last week, commenting on this article in The Weekly Standard, we are seeing the "last gasp of a losing argument" from opponents of gay marriage. A few days later, former Solicitor General Ted Olson, who argued Bush v. Gore for the Bushies, joined forces with liberal lawyer (and former Gore council) David Boies and filed a legal challenge to California's Prop. 8. Now former Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking at the National Press Club, affirmed his support for a federalist approach to same-sex marriage, telling assembled journalists that "people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish."

The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that the 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. But I don't have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that.

Via RealClearPolitics, which also has the video.

Comments

hmm|6.1.09 @ 4:17PM|#

The question and problem is going to be the tax code. Gift tax, estate tax, income filing are all going to need a rewrite at the national level. Of course we could just get rid of it.

Never mind the other million headaches that accompany marriage. I guess I have to say, "yay go gay people." and then cry about the fact another group was just assimilated into the retarded system of state run marriage.

|6.1.09 @ 4:20PM|#

Haha. I read that last sentence as:

"People ought to be shot for that."

Dick Cheney shouldn't discuss shooting.

|6.1.09 @ 4:32PM|#

I would hope that a wise man with a lesbian daughter would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a parent of straight children who hasn't lived that life.

|6.1.09 @ 4:48PM|#

This is fairly in line with what he's telegraphed before and not a surprise to hear it from him now, on this particular issue that is.

|6.1.09 @ 4:50PM|#

we are seeing the "last gasp of a losing argument" from opponents of gay marriage.

By that standard, we saw the last gasp of a losing argument for free minds and free markets a long time ago.

There's something surreal when a magazine that promotes the legalization of drugs and prostitution, higher standards for search warrants and SWAT raids, and limited government spending, starts mocking another group whose cause is suffering legislative and judicial defeats.

|6.1.09 @ 4:51PM|#

Oh, and I should add that federalism is always popular with the party out of power, so this is no surprise.

Fascitis Necrotizante|6.1.09 @ 5:18PM|#

I have to give credit where it's due: that was an actually clever comment of Tony's.

ShutterGeek|6.1.09 @ 5:50PM|#

Hmm, there is actually less work required than you would think in amending legal codes. Most are already written in a fairly gender-neutral way in order to allow for either partner ("his or her spouse" and so forth). They generally actually work just fine as written if both partners are male or both female.

The majority of the rest involve gender specific pronouns that can just be read generically (in the same way that "his" in older laws is usually currently understood to mean "his or her").

There are surprisingly few laws with language explicitly referencing partners of opposite genders. That was just assumed and could simply be no longer assumed.

|6.1.09 @ 5:58PM|#

I think this is half-way consistent with what the Bush administration actually did while in office. The federal Defense of Marriage Act did not create a federal definition of marriage; rather it stated that states were not required by the Comity Clause to recognize (gay) marriages performed in other states.

Of course, it also said that the feds wouldn't recognize a gay marriage under any circumstances, which is kind of the opposite of what Big Dick is saying here. I dunno that he ever came out (so to speak) one way or the other on that aspect of DOMA while it was being debated.

Rhywun|6.1.09 @ 6:35PM|#

Um... it's still a lesser form of marriage until the Feds recognize it as a means to allow a foreign national to join his or her partner in the United States. It's a start, though.

|6.1.09 @ 7:12PM|#

And they say the slippery slope is an invalid argument.

|6.2.09 @ 9:27AM|#

Who you kidding Dick? We all know if it wasn't for your carpet munching daughter, you'd be towing the lion in "defense of marriage".

|6.2.09 @ 4:07PM|#

He said this in his debate with Edwards, too. I think Cheney has always been more of an old western fusionist conservative rather than the bible thumpin' breed.