But Would He Want His Daughter To Marry One?

Vice President Dick Cheney shows that he has backbone problems along with heart troubles: In recent comments, he's said that while he believes laws about marriage should be properly decided at the state level, he would nevertheless support attempts by President Bush to ban gay marriage at the federal level.

During Campaign 2000, Cheney, whose daughter Mary is an out-of-the-closet lesbian, struck notes of tolerance toward gays and lesbians that are rare in Republican circles, so his latest words on the matter are that much more disappointing.

Story here.

Comments

[Fred App]

You've got it all wrong. He's not pandering now. He's saying what he truly believes. It was on the campaign trail that he was pandering, pretending to be reasonable so he could appeal to voters besides the fanatic right-wing.

Kinda like Bush, come to think of it.

[Dan]

It was on the campaign trail that he was pandering, pretending to be reasonable so he could appeal to voters besides the fanatic right-wing.

Maybe Bush and Cheney are trying to reach out to the American blacks, who oppose gay marriage 65% to 28%. But, hey, those black guys have always been fanatically right-wing, as we all know. 🙂

It's more likely that they're just reaching out to Americans in general, of course; 55% of the country favors a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, and opposition to legal recognition for gay marriage is about 61% (vs 34% support). That's if you trust last month's NYT polls.

I think gay marriage should be legal (actually, I think government should get out of the marriage business entirely, but that's not going to happen). However, that doesn't make gay-marriage opponents some kind of extremist freakazoids -- the sad truth is that opposition to gay marriage is one of the most mainstream political belief you can endorse.

[Douglas Fletcher]

I thought I put out a 'do not disturb' message about this issue. Will you people quit bothering me?

[s'wonderful]

Thanks Dan, you said a mouthful.
Does anyone know of a poll of homosexuals about this issue? Most of my gay friends are against or, at least, understand the issues far better than the average pundit.

[Eric]

Let me get this straight. Protecting the institution of marriage from a (state) govt assault, seeking to preserve an institution that has benefited societies all over the world for thousands of years, an institution that fights big government (those who rely on family are less likely to rely on govt), trying merely to maintain the definition of marriage that has not been controversial for most of human history - all this is intolerant to gays and now beyond the pale, the ignorant position of in-breds and bigots.
Nice to know. And a pile of crap.

[alma hadayn]

Here's the Cheney quote from campaign 2000. Note that he not only said Washington should leave it to the states, he also said that it's nobody else's business what sort of relationships one chooses. Sad, sad, sad.

"[P]eople should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's no one's business in terms of regulating behavior in that regard. The next step then, of course, is the question you ask of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction of the relationships or if they should be treated the same as a traditional marriage. That's a tougher problem. That's not a slam-dunk. The fact of the matter is that matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area."

Throughout history here have been plenty of ridiculous attitudes that have enjoyed mainstream popularity. I wouldn't call opponents of gay marriage "extremist freakazoids" but I do think it's a highly unreasonable position. I have yet to hear an explanation for why it is so important for the state to deny two people of the same sex who love each other the same rights it grants to heterosexual couples. So important that it actually needs to be in the Constitution.

[Eric]

Alma,
You're right that several bad ideas have enjoyed mainstream support throughout history. But how many of those bad ideas actually lasted throughout history? Those bad ideas have been discarded, while the good ones have survived, like free markets, representative government, and yes, marriage as a man and woman.

I have yet to hear an explanation for why it is so important for the state to deny two people of the same sex who love each other the same rights it grants to heterosexual couples.

I'll turn it around. Why is it so important for the state to radically alter the definition of marriage? By fiat, no less, from a handful of people on a state court? You may be surprised that I'm not a big fan of a constitutional amendment, but it does have the advantage of giving us (through our state reps) a say in this not-unimportant issue.

[Jon H]

Eric: "But how many of those bad ideas actually lastedthroughout history?"

Slavery.

Still happens. Was allowed in the US until recently, historically speaking. And is condoned in the Bible.

[Eric]

Jon,
Please. At one point, slavery existed world-wide and was accepted world-wide. Now, it's condemned world-wide and practiced in a few remote parts of the globe. It was recognized as abhorrent long before it was finally done away with.

[joe]

Contra Eric, marriage has changed considerably throughout history. A husband no longer has property rights over his wife's body, no longer becomes the owner of her property, marriages are dissolvable, can occur between people of different races...The assertion that this latest change represents an alteration in the heretofore inalterable falls apart upon the slightest investigation.

I think the assertion that this latest change is qualitatively different from those earlier changes is based on the idea that those earlier changes were good, while this one is icky.

[Joe]

Joe,
You're right that aspects of marriage have changed throughout history, mostly for the better (you'll get some argument about the wisdom of no-fault divorce). But none of those changes messed with the basic definition or understanding of marriage, which is a union between a man and a woman. The assertion doesn't fall apart at all.

Yes, there are and always will be those who find this icky, but you're deluding yourself if you think that's the primary reason for those of us who resist same-sex marriage.

[Eric]

Sorry - that last comment was mine.

[Heather]

"Jon,
Please. At one point, slavery existed world-wide and was accepted world-wide. Now, it's condemned world-wide and practiced in a few remote parts of the globe. It was recognized as abhorrent long before it was finally done away with."

Of course, this depends on how one defines slavery. By my definition, there are quite a lot of slaves still in this world. But since they're mostly women and the countries in question call it "marriage", no one much seems to care.

Oh my definition? A slave can't travel without permission from his/her owner/master/spouse, has no right to bodily integrity (female genital mutilation anyone?), can't own property, and can be killed without her/his master/owner/spouse facing much in the way of legal difficulties. For me, that pretty much sums up the status of women in a number of countries currently.

[Dan]

Protecting the institution of marriage

First of all, there isn't "an" institution of marriage; there are, at the very least, dozens.

Susan marries Frank in a Catholic ceremony. She divorces him and marries Tom in a Moslem ceremony, but without filling out the paperwork for a new marriage license. She's married to Frank (and cheating on him), married to Tom, or single, depending on who you ask. Which "institution of marriage" counts?

There are already gay men and women being married, in churches, in the United States of America. Their marriages have been endorsed by themselves, their families, their ministers, and (if you believe in such things) God. All that's missing is "the state".

Why is it so important for the state to radically alter the definition of marriage

The definition of marriage has already been altered, and will continue to alter in the future as it has countless times in the past; the state had nothing to do with it. Yes, many people do not accept that a married gay couple is "really married" -- so what? I have a Catholic friend who married a Jew in a Unitarian ceremony; there are several hundred million people who don't think THEY'RE really married either.

What's at issue here is whether the state decides to continue discriminating against gays, or stops doing so. That's really all.

The sensible choice, which SHOULD make both pro- and anti-gay groups happy, is for the government to not recognize ANY marriages, but instead only recognize civil unions open to any group of two or more people. Then your "institutions" remain free of government cooties. This idea isn't going to fly, though, because that 61% opposition to gay marriage is motivated by disgust for homosexuals, not by respect for marriage.

[Dan]

Those bad ideas have been discarded, while the good ones have survived, like free markets, representative government, and yes, marriage as a man and woman.

I have a suggestion. We'll use the free market to determine which the public likes better: apples, oranges, or pears. Anyone who buys a pear, we horsewhip. Anyone who buys an orange, we hang. Anyone who buys an apple, we throw a party for.

Well holy shit -- looks like the "free market" has proved it! People OVERWHELMINGLY like apples!

You don't think the fact that marriage remained "a man and a woman" was helped along by the fact that homosexuality was a punishable offense for most of human history?

Speaking of which, there's an idea that lasted thousands of years and has, recently, begun dying a well-deserved death: the notion that homosexuals are criminal deviants.

[Phil]

. . . you're deluding yourself if you think that's the primary reason for those of us who resist same-sex marriage.

"Resist?" What, is someone trying to force you to marry another man? Don't like gay marriages? Don't have one!

"Resist." Jebus. My wife and I are celebrating 13 years this July, and I can state without equivocation that our marriage is not threatened even one little bit by the idea that any of our gay friends might get married some day.

[JSM]

"...he's said that while he believes laws about marriage should be properly decided at the state level, he would nevertheless support attempts by President Bush to ban gay marriage at the federal level."

Sniff-Sniff- Smells like an election year!

[Joe Conason]

He's just against it because gays don't have any oil.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Cheny throws away one of his few saving graces to pander to the in-breds? Great. Thanks alot, you bald-headed fart.

[dhex]

i guess the "lookit me! i'm having a heart attack!!!" party trick got old after the 11th or 12th time, so he had to go find some new material.

[Swamp Justice]

He kills two birds with one stone. He is pandering (while CONTRADICTING himself!) to both state rights conservatives and the hateful religious fundamental conservatives.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Eric,

You make some good points against my rather narrow LLP argument, so allow me to expand it a little.

As far as I understand it, the libertarian view of government is not to abolish it (anarchist), but to limit it. This means that yes, an individual should be focused on LLP, but can also reasonably expect the government to protect LLP, and nothing more. This goes across the board, not just for an individual.

In the case of murder, the violator is obviously depriving another of their life. I believe that another individual, or a collective (government), has moral authority to use whatever force is necessary to keep the murderer from harming another.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, does not infringe on an individual's, or even a collective's right to LLP. All it does is offend certain sensibilities. I think you and I would agree that just about anyone can find offense in just about anything. The pathetic whining from individuals and groups can get pretty irritating. I don't think issues of hurt feelings should be a matter of law.

[thoreau]

I've only been married to my wife for a little over six months by the official count, and I certainly won't leave her if two gay guys get to share property rights, inheritance, power of attorney, etc., and of course the right to do whatever they damn well please in the privacy of their own home.

By the unofficial count, I've been married about a year and a half. A year before the wedding (it was a long engagement) my then-fiance and now-wife had a financial crisis and we wound up living together a year early for financial reasons. (This may not be a big deal to some, but in my family it was a big deal.) Although we didn't get officially married early (she wanted to take the necessary time to go through the hoopla of a big fancy wedding), we made promises and assumed responsibilities toward one another. We felt morally, spiritually, and emotionally bound by those promises despite the absence of paperwork from the state, blessing from the church (we're Catholic), and an extravaganza of nonsense courtesy of her father and sisters.

Anyway, if my wife and I managed to have a functioning marriage (in the sense of making promises, assuming responsibilities, and taking the whole thing seriously) in a non-traditional sense (no official sanction) without ruining anybody else's lives, I don't see how gay marriage will ruin my marriage.

(Somebody will probably ask why we went ahead and had a wedding if we already considered ourselves married in all the ways that count. For the answer to that question you'll have to consult a woman. If you're already committed and sharing responsibilities then the wedding has absolutely nothing to do with the marriage. It's all about the woman having her fairytale in a fancy dress and elaborate shindig.)

[Will Spencer]

Y'all are making too much of this. This doesn't have to do with electioneering, this has to do with teamwork and office politics.

Dick could not come out and say "Well yeah, Administration policy is this, but I believe something else, so I won't support the President" and maintain his professionalism and his ability to work with the other members of the Administration.

"Dick, do you support the President?"

"Hell yes!"

[Justin]

Eric asks: "Why is it so important for the state to radically alter the definition of marriage[?]"

Because a gay man cannot inherit property rights automatically if his partner of 12 years suddenly dies; he has to fight for them in court.

Because a lesbian does not immediately get her partner's social security benefits if she dies; once again, she has to fight for them in court.

And, most importantly of all as I see it, because of the horror stories I've heard about gays and lesbians who never got to be by their spouse's side during a medical emergency such as a heart attack, because they weren't considered family- and the number of occasions where it was the last time they ever saw their spouse again alive.

[Eric]

I've read all the replies to my post, and I'm still not convinced. Only one person (Justin) attempted to answer my question. Justin, the issues you raise can be resolved outside of marriage, with private contracts enforced by the state.

Discrimination against gays is another poor argument. You could say that marriage discriminates against any other unit other than one man and one woman. It also discriminates against two straight men wanting to marry five straight women, for example. Marriage is exclusive, as it should be, and I still haven't seen any good reasons why it shouldn't.

For those who say that same-sex marriage doesn't threaten your marriage, I say so what? It doesn't threaten mine, either. Neither does the high divorce rate, or no-fault divorce, or Brittany's laughable marriage. But it does do harm to the idea of marriage, that it's an important and vital building block of society.

It's interesting that no one mentioned the wisdom of one court deciding this for all of us. Apparently we enjoy letting a tiny minority of people decide huge issues for us, without our involvement or participation, as long as we agree with the outcome. Tell me again how that enhances liberty?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Eric:

It's very simple. The only things that an individual should be concerned about is their life, liberty, and property.

Does gay marriage threaten your life?
Does gay marriage threaten your liberty?
Does gay marriage threaten your property?

If the answer is "no" to all these questions, then the matter neatly falls into the MYOFB category.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Sorry. "The only things... ARE their life, liberty, property"

[Eric]

Mr. Nice Guy,
I understand what you're saying, but fortunately there is more to life than that, and it's a good thing. For example, let's say Joe Blow is murdered. Should I care about that? Doesn't affect my life, liberty, or property (LLP). Should a cop have tried to prevent the murder? Why? Doesn't affect his LLP. Should another cop try to find the murderer? Why? Doesn't affect his LLP. Should a jury try to convict a murderer? Why? Doesn't affect its LLP. And even if a cop and jury for some reason choose NOT to MYOFB and find and convict the murderer, why should a judge care what the sentence is? Doesn't affect his LLP. Sure, the murderer could kill again, but what are the odds of the judge getting killed? Or me? And what if it was a one-time crime of passion, and the murderer is no longer a threat? Doesn't affect my LLP.

My point is that govt is necessarily concerned about some larger things, like, say, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare and domestic tranquility, providing justice, and so on. Govt will always be involved with marriage. Since we govern ourselves (in theory, at least) we all have a stake in what govt does with marriage. And we should also all have a say in what the govt does, to best preserve our freedoms. So this goes a bit beyond the MYOFB, don't you think?

[Eric]

Mr. Nice Guy,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree with your expanded argument about LLP. Of course the govt should find and punish murderers, for reasons that go beyond preventing the killer from murdering again. It's also about providing justice to the victim and making the criminal pay for his crimes.

I also believe govt must protect LLP, and I'll even concede the same-sex marriage would not threaten my LLP. But now we come to a fundamental difference between conservatives and libertarians. Conservatives also believe in protecting LLP, but our concern goes beyond the individual and includes institutions (private and public) that we feel protect LLP as well. Marriage is one of those institutions. Many conservatives consider that one of the many benefits of a healthy marriage institution is that it protects liberty and provides a degree of protection from state encroachment.

We also believe that govt can do harm to these institutions that does not directly harm individuals, but indirectly harms them by weakening the insitutions people rely on. I'll use no-fault divorce as an example. One could argue it expanded liberty by providing people an easier way out of abusive marriages. One could also argue it weakened marriage by making it easier to end marriages, especially on specious grounds. Many have benefited from no-fault divorce, but I would argue many more have suffered because of it, and that has led to a weakening of marriage.

Conservatives already see marriage in trouble, and they don't see how same-sex marriage would help it. They think it would damage it even more, and perhaps ruin it (I don't know that I'd go THAT far), and that in turn would hurt more people than it helps.

[CLIFF]

THIS IS MY FIRST VISIT TO THIS PAGE AND I HAVE ENJOYED THE DEBATE, BUT LET'S BACKUP TO THE BAD IDEAS DISCOURSE. HOMOSEXUALITY IS A BAD IDEA THAT HAS BEEN AROUND WAY TO LONG. GAY MEN MAKE-UP 4% OF OUR POPULATION BUT ACCOUNT FOR ALMOST 50% OF AIDS/HIV INFECTIONS. THEY HAVE TAKEN PROMISCUITY TO LEVELS WE HETROS CAN BARELY IMAGINE. THE AVERAGE GAY MAN HAS 13 PARTNERS A YEAR, EIGHT OF WHICH HE DOESN'T KNOW BY NAME. THE RESULT IS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN HEALTHCARE COST.WHEN THEY GET INTO MY WALLET MY LLP IS IMPACTED, AND NOW WE WANT TO REWARD THIS LACK OF SELF CONTROL WITH MARRIAGE STATUS...NOT ME.