Veep Debate Wrap-Up

|

Well, it's over. It seems only fair that the candidates got to sit down through the whole thing, since the audience must have been lying down and sleeping by the end of it.

Strangest moment: When Cheney failed to respond at all to Edwards' invocation of the Dickster's gay daughter, other than to thank his opponent for the kind words about his family. Cheney, of course, has shifted his stance on gay rights.

To be sure, Edwards and Kerry are full of shit when they prattle on about civil unions vs. gay marriage. And when Edwards' big critique of the anti-gay marriage amendment was that it wasn't necessary because no state has to recognize another state's marriage laws. Come on, guys, either you believe in equality or you don't. Then again, it's hardly better that the GOP wears its bigotry and hate on its sleeve.

NEXT: The Sampling Century (Bush-Bashing Edition)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. okay have to open with a thank you to all reason staff.
    Please someone explain to me why the Government recognizes marriage in the first place I always thought this was a Religious act, (seperate church and state please)It takes away rights from people who are not married, and on that note- encourages people to get married sooner- increasing the divorce rate (mabye)

  2. I don’t know about the divorce rate, but amen to the rest. Cheney seemed to be saying, “look, gay marriage is not my cross to bare. . . that’s just the way you got to play the game right now.” At least Cheney isn’t Rick Santorum . . why is this even an issue right now?

  3. I don’t know about the divorce rate, but amen to the rest. Cheney seemed to be saying, “look, gay marriage is not my cross to bare. . . that’s just the way you got to play the game right now.” At least Cheney isn’t Rick Santorum . . why is this even an issue right now?

  4. Nu2:
    I think you’ll find the majority position here is something like: “Ideally, marriage would be a purely private contract with government no more involved than with any other contract. But so long as government is involved, they should treat straight and gay couples similarly.”

  5. I actually thought that Cheney’s refusal to respond to the gay daughter comment showed a lot of class. I felt that Edwards was real (pardon the term) dickish with the way he brought it up. Cheney responded with dignity imho (I’m not even a fan of Cheney). Cheney took Edwards down hard, but his superior performance combined with Bush’s poor one isn’t going to help to quell the “puppetmaster” meme on the left.

  6. I felt the opposite regarding Cheney and the gay daughter thing. He had just spent about an hour openly insulting Edwards on his record (who should have responded with something about “pot calling the kettle black”, given Cheney’s dismal record on being right about anything at all). I for one was happy to see this condescending, smug asswipe of a VP getting his nose rubbed in his own hypocrisy.

  7. “Come on, guys, either you believe in equality or you don’t. Then again, it’s hardly better that the GOP wears its bigotry and hate on its sleeve.”
    Is this not a libertarian site ? I thought libertarians supported state’s rights as a chance for difference states to experiment in public policy ?
    I also thought libertarians support gay rights. Shouldn’t it be a good thing to be against a constitutional amendment *banning* not just gay marriage, but also gay civic unions ??

  8. I for one was happy to see this condescending, smug asswipe of a VP getting his nose rubbed in his own hypocrisy.

    And if his daughter has to get hurt in the process, well, hey, the little bitch had it coming too, right?

  9. Chris, around here an individual’s rights trump the arrangement of powers between the state and federal governments.

    Governments don’t have rights, people do. That certain powers are delegated to the states is a good thing, as each one can experiment with ideas that may succeed or fail – the old “laboratories of democracy” idea. But we do tend to go in for equal protection from the laws…errr….and of the laws.

    “States rights” (sic) on the marriage issue will be moot if and when the SCOTUS declares that State A must respect the marriage laws of State Z under the “full faith and credit” doctrine, especially if the Supremes toss the DOMA on the ash heap. The Libertarian response is to change any unions to private, non-state contracts. It’s the “conservatives” who want a constitutional amendment.

    Kevin

  10. “…openly insulting Edwards on his record”

    The insult is that he doesn’t have much of a record to insult, he was hardly around for his six years in the Senate.


  11. Is this not a libertarian site ? I thought libertarians supported state’s rights as a chance for difference states to experiment in public policy ?

    Libertarians support individual rights. States and other branches of government don’t have rights per se. Those who prattle on about ‘state rights’ are just as authoritarian as those who are for federal powers, just on a smaller scale.

  12. Nick,

    I suppose Reason’s opposition to affirmative action is evidence that it wears its hate and bigotry on its sleeve?

    You know full well that there are non-homophobic reasons for opposing gay marriage. You all have been a lonely oasis of evenhandedness throughout this campaign, don’t blow it now.

  13. I’m not sure the daughter’s feelings really account for much in the Cheney household, as Lynne Cheney admitted she hasn’t spoken to her daughter for years. I guess that’s “compassionate conservatism” in action. And it’s Cheney’s party that wants to deny her the right to marry or receive equivalent benefits, not Edwards’.

    As for records, I’ll go with my underwriter’s assesment of people: I’d rather work with someone without any record at all than one with a shopping list full of errors in judgment, going back to trying to help Dick Nixon out of his jam.

  14. Thank you Julian, I spoke with a group of people about this, I said to them the fed needs only to see civil union no matter the sex of the two people, and that then the states can coin any term they would like to describe it, But everyone there told me I was stupid that the government sees more than a social contract in marriage, but not one of them could explain how in the governments eyes marriage is more than a social contract.

  15. Metalgrid & Kevin

    “Those who prattle on about ‘state rights’ are just as authoritarian as those who are for federal powers, just on a smaller scale.”

    I can assure you that if the federal government announced tomorrow that it was getting out of the war on drugs and leaving drug policy up to the states, that libertarians would be dancing in the streets. reason.com would quickly post giddy articles proclaiming this as a giant step forward (which of course it would be).

    So I don’t understand how Nick (presumably a libertarian) can be arguing that *banning*, across the whole country, gay marriage and gay civil unions is EQUALLY as bad as leaving the issue up the individual states.

    I just don’t get it.

  16. You sound like so many compassion exhibitionist liberals.I’m against gay marriage therefore I’m “homophobic”,I’m against affirmative action I’m a racist,I think immigrants should assimilate,I’m ethnocentric,I think abortion is not a morally neutral act,I’m judgemental.
    What I really am is an old fashioned lapsed Catholic who is not all that hip.

  17. You sound like so many compassion exhibitionist liberals.I’m against gay marriage therefore I’m “homophobic”,I’m against affirmative action I’m a racist,I think immigrants should assimilate,I’m ethnocentric,I think abortion is not a morally neutral act,I’m judgemental.
    What I really am is an old fashioned lapsed Catholic who is not all that hip.

  18. You sound like so many compassion exhibitionist liberals.I’m against gay marriage therefore I’m “homophobic”,I’m against affirmative action I’m a racist,I think immigrants should assimilate,I’m ethnocentric,I think abortion is not a morally neutral act,I’m judgemental.
    What I really am is an old fashioned lapsed Catholic who is not all that hip.

  19. You sound like so many compassion exhibitionist liberals.I’m against gay marriage therefore I’m “homophobic”,I’m against affirmative action I’m a racist,I think immigrants should assimilate,I’m ethnocentric,I think abortion is not a morally neutral act,I’m judgemental.
    What I really am is an old fashioned lapsed Catholic who is not all that hip.


  20. So I don’t understand how Nick (presumably a libertarian) can be arguing that *banning*, across the whole country, gay marriage and gay civil unions is EQUALLY as bad as leaving the issue up the individual states. I just don’t get it.

    At the risk of sounding Randian here, if the conclusion you arrive at seems incorrect, you should check your premises. In this case, it may be presuming that Nick is a libertarian, and as much as we try to have a big tent, the natural law libertarians are probably better off running after Peroutka.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.