Cheney supports gay relationships

Dick Cheney - at a campaign rally today in Iowa - made clear today that he opposes the Bush Administration's efforts to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriages, and, made clear - as many Democrats have not - that he fully supports freedom for gay people and gay couples:

---------------------------

Cheney Backs 'Freedom' for Gay Relationships

Tue Aug 24 2004 16:25:16 ET

During a rally in Davenport, Iowa on Tuesday, Vice President Dick Cheney was asked by a woman "What do you think about homosexual marriage?"

"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with. With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.

"The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage."

----------

The actual full transcripts demonstrate that Cheney's comments were even more pro-gay than what is reflected by these excerpts. He said he opposed the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages and argued that states should have the right to recognize same-sex marriages if they want to. Many Democrats are petrified of ever saying anything like that.

When Cheney debated Joe Lieberman in the 2000 Vice Presidential debates, they were both asked whether they favored gay marriage, and Cheney gave by far the most pro-gay answer. In response to whether he favored gay marriage, Cheney said: "Boy, that's a tough one" - at a time when virtually NO major political figure had even talked about gay marriage. He then talked about the importance of the freedom to enter into one's own relationships without governmental intrusion, and said the issue should be left to the states. Lieberman just flat out said he opposed gay marriage, and - like many Democrats - was clearly to the right of Cheney on gay issues.

It's pretty extraordinary, especially now, for the Republican Vice President to so publicly support gay rights. The fact that his daughter is openly gay is obviously a huge factor in his doing so, once again illustrating the fact that the most potent activity for gay equality is to live life openly as a gay person, and the most damaging activity is to remain hidden in the closet or, wosre, encouraging others to do the same thing.

Could this come under the category of a "flip-flop"? Just asking.

>Could this come under the category of a "flip-flop"? Just

>asking.

No - these pro-gay views are identical to the ones he voiced in the 2000 debate- well before any major politician in either party was brave enough to do so.

When Bush announced his support for the gay marriage constitutional amendment a few months ago, Cheney was asked if he also supported the amendment (in light of his prior argument that states should be allowed to have gay marriage), and he replied, pointedly: "I support the Presdient" (as opposed to supporting the amendment, which is what he was asked).

What's most amazing about what Cheney said is that there is absolutely no political benefit to saying it. To the contrary, it is going to intensely piss of their religious right base. But when you have an OPENLY gay daughter (or son or father or best friend, etc. - as opposed to a closeted one), it's pretty hard to sit there and spew anti-gay views.

>No - these pro-gay views are identical to the ones he voiced

>in the 2000 debate- well before any major politician in either

>party was brave enough to do so.

>

Actually, it is a flip flop......after Dubya made his marriage amendment proposal, Cheney flip flopped and supported it.....only to flip flop back to his original position now. Of course, I'm sure he's not finished flip flopping. Just be patient and give him a little time. Endless lies from your buddies at the Republican Party. That's the truth, and I'm sticking to it.

> What's most amazing about what Cheney said is that there is

> absolutely no political benefit to saying it. To the

> contrary, it is going to intensely piss of their religious

> right base.

But, at this point in the campaign, it isn't the "base" that you are worried about - they are going to vote for you regardless - what you have to do is appeal to the moderate and/or undecided voters.

This could just help the republicans to pick up a few of those votes.

No matter how pissed off the religious right might be they are never going to vote for the democrats - the worst that they can do to the republicans is just stay at home and not vote - but I don't thnk they will risk doing that if there is a chance that the democrats might be elected. So, nothing Cheney says is going to make much difference to their vote.

>But, at this point in the campaign, it isn't the "base" that

>you are worried about - they are going to vote for you

>regardless - what you have to do is appeal to the moderate

>and/or undecided voters.

I'm not sure this is true. A key part of Rove's strategy is not just to make sure the religious right votes republican (as you say, they have nobody else), but it's crucial that they remain as enthusiastic as possible, and feel like they are having their pet issues (and gay marriage is their number one pet issue now) attended to. They think that a huge, record turnout for evangelical voters is a key component of their chances for winning. Having Cheney come out and make this very personal statement about his "gay daughter" and almost praise gay marriage is the exact opposite of that core strategy.

>This could just help the republicans to pick up a few of those

>votes.

I think the last issue that swing voters in battleground states like

Ohio and Pennsylvania care about are gay issues or gay marriage. If anything, they are pretty much on Bush's side on this issue. It could be that it's to the GOP's benefit to have a little fight with the religious right prior to the convention, and this story does humanize Cheney, because he talks about his love for his gay daughter, but on the whole, it's a very risky thing to do with very little benefit, and although we'll never know, I think Cheney was asked about it and just said what he actually thinks. Period. Shockingly, some politicians actually do that sometimes.

b

Good for Cheney! I am glad to hear that at least there is one grownup in the GOP who can still think and listen to his heart and the reality of American family life.

I (and a lot of other people) have thought for some time that something would happen to allow Bush to replace Cheney on the ticket. The assumption was that he would have some sort of heart event, and then Bush could replace him with Condy or Colin or John McCain. Maybe his heart is in better condition than we thought.

RE: Cheney Bullshit

LOL! So Cheney "opposes" Bush's constitutional amendment? What form exactly can we expect this "opposition" to take?

Will he lobby Republican members of Congress to vote against an amendment? No. Will he lobby Republican members of state legislatures to vote against it if it passes Congress? No. Will he help raise money for the Human Rights Campaign and other organizations that lobby against the amendment? No. Will he work to elect legislators who are on record opposing the amendment or to defeat those who are on record supporting it? No. If he did any of these things he would be off the Republican ticket faster than you can say "muff diver." So his "opposition" is nothing but bullshit, right?

And did someone say Cheney "supports" gay relationships? I'd like to hear those who made this astounding statement describe exactly what Cheney is going to do to help insure that gays and lesbians have the same rights in regard to their relationships as straight people do. If the answer is that he is going to do absolutely nothing, then perhaps they will explain to us what is meant by saying he "supports" this cause. Well, gentlemen?

RE: Cheney Bullshit

This time, I have to agree with Woodlawn. While I'm glad Cheney's *finally* said something to the effect that he's not supportive of that amendment and is in favor of gay marriage or at least letting the state's decide, he's stayed pretty silent this entire time, and I know from reading some news articles people have been begging both him and his daughter to speak up.

So while I'm glad he's coming around and at least has now said something, he's in a position of power and influence, and from my perspective, he's really not using it. This is a step in the right direction, but at the same time, I can't help but feel he's got such a great position and could be doing so much more for the cause. I don't know (purely a hunch on my part), but I sort of feel this might just be something he's doing to appease his daughter or something similar and his heart's not in it.

RE: Cheney Bullshit

>LOL! So Cheney "opposes" Bush's constitutional amendment?

>What form exactly can we expect this "opposition" to take?

Having the Vice President of the United States publicy state in the middle of a campaign that he opposes the constitutional amendment on gay marriage which even his own President supports is a pretty powerful act of opposition. Rarely do Vice Presidents publicy oppose the position taken by the President. I don't recall Al Gore doing it once in 8 years. It's a very unique and dramatic stance, and only someone who is consumed with partisan blindness - and who would NEVER praise anything done by someone from the "the other side" - would find a way to snidely belittle and minimize the significance of this.

>Will he lobby Republican members of Congress to vote against

>an amendment? No.

Maybe one thing Cheney can get to work on is opposing the disgusting, bigoted state constitutional amendment which John Kerry supports that would overturn the recent court decision of the Supreme Judicial Council and, as a matter of constitutional mandate, would outlaw same-sex marriages in Massachusettes. That's John Kerry's favored state constitutional amendment.

So, the Democratic candidate supports a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages in his own state and we don't hear a peep of protest.

But the sitting Vice President of the Untied States defies his own President by publicly urging that full freedom be given to gay couples and all we hear is the little babies' cries that this is not enough.

Dick Cheney was advocating the rights of states to recognize same-sex marriage - and was even acknowledging the strong merit to allowing same-sex marriage - long before virtually any Democrat was willing to go anywhere near the issue. In fact, he did so on national television while he sat next to the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate who emphatically opposed gay marriages.

I know these facts confuse you because they conflict with your Republicans=Nazis/Democrats=Saints/DickCheny=Satan simplicity, but they are facts nonetheless.

I can't believe y'all are falling for this!!!! OMFG it is nothing but lip service and he's talking out of his ass! Look back at the past four years.

Greg Seattle Wa [email protected]

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/gregseattle.html http://briefcase.yahoo.com/seaboy4hire

RE: Cheney Bullshit

>>LOL! So Cheney "opposes" Bush's constitutional amendment?

>>What form exactly can we expect this "opposition" to take?

>

>Having the Vice President of the United States publicy state

>in the middle of a campaign that he opposes the constitutional

>amendment on gay marriage which even his own President

>supports is a pretty powerful act of opposition. Rarely do

>Vice Presidents publicy oppose the position taken by the

>President. I don't recall Al Gore doing it once in 8 years.

>It's a very unique and dramatic stance, and only someone who

>is consumed with partisan blindness - and who would NEVER

>praise anything done by someone from the "the other side" -

>would find a way to snidely belittle and minimize the

>significance of this.

>

>>Will he lobby Republican members of Congress to vote against

>>an amendment? No.

Doug;

The Constituionla Amendement oulawing Gay Marrigae was a joke from day one. No one, not even the Republicans are serious about it. They rushed it to the floor of the Senate simply to try to embarass Kerry and Edwards. What they did was embarass themselves. The Amendment never went through the normal committee hearing process. If it had, it would not made it out of committee. The proponents of the amendment needed 67 votes to get it passed for consideration by the states. They didn't even get the simple majority of 50. They knew that all along. Normally stuff like that with no support would never make it to the floor for a vote. This was simply a stunt, and it was a way for Rove/Bush to placate right wing extremists in their party.

So Cheney's opposition to the amendment is inconsequential. It was going nowhere with or without his support. So Bush looks like a hero to the far right, and Cheney can at least look his own daughter in the eyes.

>

>Maybe one thing Cheney can get to work on is opposing the

>disgusting, bigoted state constitutional amendment which

>John Kerry supports that would overturn the recent

>court decision of the Supreme Judicial Council and, as a

>matter of constitutional mandate, would outlaw same-sex

>marriages in Massachusettes. That's John Kerry's favored

>state constitutional amendment.

>

>So, the Democratic candidate supports a constitutional

>amendment to ban same-sex marriages in his own state and we

>don't hear a peep of protest.

Doug, you are little confused about the pending amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution. First of all it has a long way to go before it ever makes it on to a Massachusetts ballot. And secondly, even though I oppose that amendment, and polling shows that it would not pass in Massachusetts, it still gaurantees Civil Unions, with all of the rights of marriage, just not the marriage title. So Kerry at least supports a Civil Union with all of the rights and priveleges of marriage. This is not the first choice of the gay activists (or me), but it is a far cry from being simply a bigoted amendment as you called it.

Kerry has always been a supporter of gay rights, and Bush has always been an opponent.

>

>But the sitting Vice President of the Untied States defies his

>own President by publicly urging that full freedom be given to

>gay couples and all we hear is the little babies' cries that

>this is not enough.

Do you think that "defies" is the correct verb here? Remember all Republican events are completely staged, (see the story about the guy in West Virginia who lost his job because he had the nerve to shout questions to President Bush at an ivitation only event earlier this week) and questions are pre-screened. This was obviousy a set up, and pre-planned. I don't really see it as an act of defiance. I am glad that Cheney does support some gay rights, although he refused to be more specific.

>

>Dick Cheney was advocating the rights of states to recognize

>same-sex marriage - and was even acknowledging the strong

>merit to allowing same-sex marriage - long before virtually

>any Democrat was willing to go anywhere near the issue. In

>fact, he did so on national television while he sat next to

>the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate who emphatically

>opposed gay marriages.

>

And yet he still supports DOMA. Seems a bit inconsistent to me.

>

>I know these facts confuse you because they conflict with your

>Republicans=Nazis/Democrats=Saints/DickCheny=Satan simplicity,

>but they are facts nonetheless.

>

>

>

Here you go, Doug......this was Cheney's earlier flip flop from January.

First he supports, then opposes, then supports.....when will the next flip flop occur? Probably tomorrow.

Read it and weep.

******

Cheney Flip-Flops On Gay Marriage

by Doreen Brandt, 365Gay.com Newscenter, Washington Bureau.

Originally published: 11 January 2004.

(Washington, D. C.) Vice President Dick Cheney says he will support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, a reversal of his stand during the 2000 presidential campaign.

In a nationally televised debate in 2000 with then Democratic vice-presidential candidate, Sen. Joe Lieberman, Cheney was asked about gay marriage.

"The fact of the matter is we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody," Cheney said. "And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard.

"The next step, then, ... is the question you ask of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction, if you will, of the relationship," said Cheney. "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."

But that was before the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled the state cannot prevent gays from marrying, before California and New Jersey passed domestic partner laws, before the extreme right in the GOP lambasted him for his support of same-sex rights (albeit limited) and before a Colorado Republican drafted legislation in Congress last year restricting marriage to a "union between a man and a woman."

Now, Cheney says he will support President Bush if the president pursues a ban on gay marriage. "Obviously, the president is going to have to make a decision in terms of what administration policy is on this particular provision, and I will support whatever decision he makes," Cheney said in an interview with the Denver Post.

Cheney would not say whether his changed opinion was the result of White House pressure or if he, as the parent of a gay child, has discussed same-sex marriage with the President.

Cheney's daughter Mary is a lesbian and served as an advisor in the 2000 campaign. Prior to that she worked for the Colorado Rockies and the Coors Brewing Co. where, among other duties, she worked on outreach to gays and lesbians. During the 2000 campaign the fact she is gay and has a committed partner became national news.

So far Mary Cheney has not commented on her father's new stance on gay marriage or said if she will be involved in his 2004 campaign.

RE: Cheney Bullshit

>>LOL! So Cheney "opposes" Bush's constitutional amendment?

>>What form exactly can we expect this "opposition" to take?

>Having the Vice President of the United States publicy state

>in the middle of a campaign that he opposes the constitutional

>amendment on gay marriage which even his own President

>supports is a pretty powerful act of opposition.

Is that meant as a joke? What "power" does this "act of opposition" have, exactly? Do you seriously contend that any legislator who is on record as favoring the amendment will change his position because of what Cheney said? If not, then what exactly has been accomplished by Cheney's statement? Nothing, that's what -- except an attempt to split the gay vote that would otherwise go to Kerry.

> only someone who

>is consumed with partisan blindness - and who would NEVER

>praise anything done by someone from the "the other side" -

>would find a way to snidely belittle and minimize the

>significance of this.

There is no way I can minimize the signficance of something that has no significance -- there is nothing less than zero.

>>Will he lobby Republican members of Congress to vote against

>>an amendment? No.

>Maybe one thing Cheney can get to work on is opposing the

>disgusting, bigoted state constitutional amendment which

>John Kerry supports

And can you provide us with any evidence that Cheney intends to do any such thing? Or is he just going to sit on his fat behind and do nothing to back up his "statement of opposition"?

>So, the Democratic candidate supports a constitutional

>amendment to ban same-sex marriages in his own state and we

>don't hear a peep of protest.

The positions we have to choose from are Kerry's, which says that the decision should be left to each state, and Bush's, which says that no state should be able to permit gay marriage even if its people want that. Which seems preferable to you?

>But the sitting Vice President of the Untied States defies his

>own President by publicly urging that full freedom be given to

>gay couples and all we hear is the little babies' cries that

>this is not enough.

How can NOTHING be enough, Doug? According to you, a statement by Cheney that moves us not one millimeter closer to equal rights for gays is something to rejoice over. What rubbish!

>Dick Cheney was advocating the rights of states to recognize

>same-sex marriage - and was even acknowledging the strong

>merit to allowing same-sex marriage - long before virtually

>any Democrat was willing to go anywhere near the issue.

Sorry, Doug, but Cheney's "advocacy" is nothing but a charade. He has had four years in which to do something to back up his fine words, but has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. You cannot point to a single thing he has done to implement what you claim is his position. NOTHING.

>I know these facts confuse you because they conflict with your

>Republicans=Nazis/Democrats=Saints/DickCheny=Satan simplicity,

>but they are facts nonetheless.

If African Americans had been satisfied with the kind of lip service we're getting from Cheney rather than real change, there would still be "colored" and "white" restrooms in every public building in the South. They were not satisfied with empty words and neither are we.

Dick Cheney is nothing but a slimy crook. He made a fortune heading up a company that is little more than criminal gang, just like the Crips and the Bloods in Los Angeles, constantly ripping off the public. In a just society he would be burned at the stake.

The New Log Cabin Slogan:

Lick Bush, don't tell.

Cheney still supports Bush, though

Remember, Bush opposes sending openly gay soldiers to die in Iraq. Does that mean we should vote for him? At a time when Bush and Cheney have innocent blood on their hands, it's difficult to vote a single-issue line.

Cheney doesn't have the nomination yet. Are we in for a surprise next week?

Cheney's chief of staff is about to be indicted. Maybe that is going to be the VP's excuse for leaving public office. He'll still be around to pull Bush's strings.

What was it that John Garner said about the office of Vice President? Something about "warm spit",I believe. The fact DC made these statements won't matter in the end and certainly won't rescue GW's homophobic reputation. For you gay Repubs who are grasping for something.......anything to validate your loyality to a party that has been taken prisoner by right wing bible thumping conservatives....enjoy the moment ....as it will be gone in a flash.

Having said this I do, unlike others here, believe the man was probably speaking from his heart. It takes courage, especially in a public forum like this, to defend ones child whose very lifestyle is repulsive to so many in the party he represents. Hopefully somewhere in America a conservative parent of a gay child will take notice and be touched.

I do not believe I just defended Dick Cheney but there it is.......a liberal who lost his footing for a second but what the hell, LIFE IS TOO SHORT and I suspect that Dick Cheney for a few moments last Wednesday in Iowa might have been thinking the same thing.

Opposes?

Dick Chaney opposed nothing.

He repeated his previously stated position that marriage was a state rights issue. In fact, this position allows for individual states to be against gay unions or gay marriages. He stated that he therefore felt an ammendment was not appropriate. However, he also very clearly stated that the president "sets policy" and that as a good Republican and a good vice-president, he supported Bush.

Now, what was most noteworthy was that he was asked about his own personal feelings about gay marriages and, for the first time, publically stated the fact that one of his daughter is gay. He then went on to make very supportive statements that included both daughters.

I believes this goes to prove the point that personal knowledge and relationships with a gay man or woman can help adjust the political perspective on gay and lesibian rights.

>I (and a lot of other people) have thought for some time that

>something would happen to allow Bush to replace Cheney on the

>ticket. The assumption was that he would have some sort of

>heart event, and then Bush could replace him with Condy or

>Colin or John McCain. Maybe his heart is in better condition

>than we thought.

The above 3 choices for Veep are interesting.

A Black Female? It ain't going to happen.

A Black Male? Less risky but still a stretch. Although I think he would make an excellant VP, should something happen to Bush in the next 4 years (I live in hope) that would make Colin the 1st black president. Now that's progress!

I don't think I have ever heard Colin's position on the gay rights/gay marriage issue. Does anyone here have knowledge of it?

But if he was VP I guess he would be obligated to support the president's point of view and we all know what that is!

I somehow wonder if Powell would even want the job. I have the impression that he tolerates Bush (barely) out of respect for the office - not the man.

As for McCain - now there is a snake in the grass and no friend of gays.

This election will be the most interesting one in a long time. Glad to be a Canadian - at least I know how my country views gay marriage (I think)

Actually I think the more likely scenario is for Bush to replace Cheney after the inauguration. I think it unlikely that Bush will move to replace Cheney at the Convention. He will almost certainly be renominated. None of the three mentioned wants to campaign for VP, but all three would be delighted to hold the office, I'm sure. Mrs. Powell reputedly nixed Colin's possible run in 2000 on the basis of danger to his life on the campaign trail, and I think she probably had a point.

Despite the conventional wisdom of the moment I think Bush will win this fall and will win handily. Kerry is proving to be brittle and whiny on the Swift Boat Veterans issue, and that won't serve him well as people make up their minds. He made his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his convention and campaign and now is saying that people who disagree with his heroic self-assessment have no right to play by the same rules as the Bush-attacking Move-On.org, etc. This just won't help him. He should answer the charges by opening up his records completely, which he refuses to do. Otherwise it is going to be drip-drip-drip all fall, and he won't get another word in edgewise on any other subject, which is a pity because he has a lot more to say than Bush on healthcare, social security, education, technology and trade. Wasn't he paying attention during Watergate or while Clinton was under investigation? Attacking the messenger will get you nowhere. This is an unfolding tragedy for the Democrats, who seem to have taken him on his word about his service and not done the nasty research themselves in the primaries, as they ought to have done.

The mainstream media have lost the initiative in covering the race to internet sourcing, largely blogs but also more diverse news sources which allow people to bypass the bottlenecks of the big newspapers, the AP and UPI and Reuters, and the networks. These folks at the moment seem to be talking to each other in a great democrat echo chamber, and like the story of the emperor with no clothes are basically constructing their own reality.

If Bush really wants to replace Cheney, or if Cheney has health issues and wants out, or simply wants to be the eminence grise without the public office, after a decent interval -- say 6 months to a year -- he will resign and Bush will name a successor VP, who is approved by a majority vote of both houses of Congress (25th Amendment, 1967). Under these circumstances I think Colin Powell would be willing to be VP, and would become the prohibitive favorite for nomination in 2008 if he wants it.

>Actually I think the more likely scenario is for Bush to

>replace Cheney after the inauguration. I think it unlikely

>that Bush will move to replace Cheney at the Convention. He

>will almost certainly be renominated. None of the three

>mentioned wants to campaign for VP, but all three would be

>delighted to hold the office, I'm sure. Mrs. Powell reputedly

>nixed Colin's possible run in 2000 on the basis of danger to

>his life on the campaign trail, and I think she probably had a

>point.

>

Replacing Cheney AFTER the election is an interesting possibility that I hadn't considered. If they lose the election, it doesn't matter.

If they win the election, then you are correct that the new VP would be in a position to be annointed as the candidate fo 2008. Except that, after 8 years of that administration, being the presumptive nominee may not be a good thing. And the nominee would be running against Hillary probably.

I think that Powell truly wants to retire from public life, and that he can't get out of that administration fast enough. I don't think that he wnats to be presiden. I am not sure that Condi Rice would be popular enough to be VP, or that the public would accept her.

McCain is an interesting possibility, and many assume that he will be the nominee in 2008. However, I think that he and W really don't like or trust each other. W would be overshadowed by his VP, and they won't have that. I don't think they Rovians want to help McCain. George Pataki is starting to angle for a run in 2008, but he is way to moderate for the current Republican party.

If Cheny goes after the election, I would put my money on Mitt Romney to be named. He is perfect for the Republicans and the Rovians, and he is already planning his 2008 run. Plus he has great hair.

Interesting analysis. Thanks.

No matter what happens in November, the GOP will be facing an epic battle for 2008. Partly that's just because American political parties sort themselves out ideologically when they have a free choice to make, and partly because it will be long overdue -- conflict has been suppressed in the GOP now for some time, and it is natural and healthy for it to emerge. The moderates are not going away, and interestingly, Bush is featuring them at the Convention. If Bush loses, the battle starts on Nov. 3. If he wins, it all depends on how things go for him (and for us!) the first 2 years. If he does well, and the GOP does decently in the midterms of 2006, then the Rovites will emerge and pursue the candidacy of whomever the Bushies anoint. That conflict is good and healthy.

The conflict that didn't quite happen is the one that interests me at the moment. The Democrats were all set to have a full-out battle on the issue of the Iraq war, and it was sidelined when Dean was captured in full cry on tv. Now their dilemma will be that they are trying to have that issue both ways -- with a wink and a nod to the left to keep the Deanites and other anti-war democrats in the tent, they are also running to the right of Bush -- "we can do it better". I'm not sure they can hold this balancing act together. I think the conflict over Kerry's Vietnam and post Vietnam activities and statements is not only just beginning (and he is the one who brought it up), but is really a proxy fight for the Iraq situation which the Kerry Democrats have unwisely decided not to address clearly.

RE: Cheney Bullshit

>Is that meant as a joke? What "power" does this "act of

>opposition" have, exactly?

When it come to contentious national dispute, there is a very important and potent weapon that you seem to never have heard of. It is called "persuasion." "Persuasion" occurs when one person expresses an opinion in a way that is designed to cause, or cause, other people who don't have that opinion to either consider adopting it or to adopt it.

If Gloria Steinem or Ted Kennedy or Angeline Jolie or Margaret Cho stand up and say that they believe in the right of gay couple to have the freedom to enter into their own relationships without governmental interference and that they therefore oppose the Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendment, that will cause the likes of you and Rick Munroe and Paul Revere to shriek and ooze with gratitude and agreeement - but it will be totally inconsequential, since nobody who is opposed to gay marriage or who favors the FMA listens to anyone like that.

But the people who need to be persuaded - meaning the people who are vigorously opposed to gay marriage and gay equality generally - do listen to Dick Cheney. So when he assertively proclaims in the middle of his second national election campaign that he believes in the right of gay people to form relationships and to have those relationships treated equally, and that he therefore opposes the constitutional amendment which huge numbers of Americans support, that, by itself, is hugely significant.

Dick Cheney is perceived to be about as conservative as it gets while still being a viable political figure nationally. According to the BoN's and glutes of the world, he's actually the most powerful person in the free world, since he's the Real President.

Anyone who claims not to see the significance of his very public and unusual defense of the dignity and equality of gay relationships - underscored by the very personal tone he gave it by talking about his love and respect for his "gay daughter" - is just desperately trying not to see it.

Do you seriously contend that any

>legislator who is on record as favoring the amendment will

>change his position because of what Cheney said?

Yes. Many legislators fear opposing the amendment because they don't want to be depicted as gay-loving radical liberals by their next political opponent. The fact that Dick Cheney also opposes the amendment and believes in gay equality makes that attack rather aburd, giving cover to conservative and moderate Republican politicians who take the anti-gay position only because they perceive they have to. Now, when they are accused of being radical gay-loving liberals, they can say: "My position is the same as Dick Cheney's." Isn't that obvious?

>If African Americans had been satisfied with the kind of lip

>service we're getting from Cheney rather than real change,

>there would still be "colored" and "white" restrooms in every

>public building in the South. They were not satisfied with

>empty words and neither are we.

Well, most gay people are going to vote for a candidate who advocates that the Constitution of his state be amended to provide that gay people are excluded from marriage, which is between a man and a woman only. Regardless of what else that amendment provides, isn't it a rather stunning example of bigotry for Kerry to advocate an amendment to the state constitution which provides for this?

In response, most gay Kerry lovers will say: "well, that may be wrong, but it's not as bad as Bush." To me, that is identical to a black voter saying: "I'm voting for the candidate who thinks that we should count as 4/5 of a citizen, because even though that's wrong, the guy he is running against thinks we should count as 3/5, and 4/5 is better."

At the very least, nobody should have to endure the sickening piety and dictatorial tone of gay liberals in this election screetching about the absurdity of gay people voting for the Republican ticket, given that:

* the Democratic candidate supports a bigoted constitutional amendment in his own state to make marriage between a man and a woman only; and

* of the 4 individuals on the national ticket, the one who has made the most pro-gay statements on gay marriage is the Republican Vice Presidential candidate.

Speaking of doing nothing, did you happen to catch the prime-time speeches at the Democratic Convention? Did you like all the rousing defenses of gay marriage and gay equality? Dick Cheney went infinitely further in defending gay equality than any speaker that I heard - including John Kerry.

>Dick Cheney is nothing but a slimy crook. He made a fortune heading >up a company that is little more than criminal gang, just like the >Crips and the Bloods in Los Angeles, constantly ripping off the >public. In a just society he would be burned at the stake.

This is really the heart of the matter, so why not just be honest and admit it? You hate Dick Cheney, so no matter what he does, you will find reason to attack it and impugn his motives.

Dick Cheney could wake up one day and risk his life pulling gay people out of a fire in a gay bar, and then go on national television and get fucked up the ass by 50 guys in order to show support for gay rights and to illustrate that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and at the end of the day, when asked about it, gay liberals will scream "HALLIBURTON!!"

RE: Cheney Bullshit

>So Cheney's opposition to the amendment is inconsequential.

>It was going nowhere with or without his support.

He didn't just say that he opposed the amendment. He talked in far more persuasive and profound terms about the rights of gay citizens to have the freedom to form their own relationships without the government dictating terms, and he spoke eloquently and movingly about his love and respect for his "gay daugther."

If you don't see the significance of someone who is one of the most respected political leaders among CONSERVATIVE AND HEARTLAND VOTERS making such strong pro-gay statements, then it's because you don't want to.

>Doug, you are little confused about the pending amendment to

>the Massachusetts Constitution.

Would you mind taking your patronizing Boston platitudes and shoving them deep up your asshole? I'm not confused about anything. The following are simply facts:

* Kerry supports a constitutional amendment to make marriage between a man and a woman only.

* That constitutional amendment is bigoted at its core, as it rests on the premise that marriage by its very nature excludes gay couples and that there is something inherent about marriage that requires a man and a woman.

* Cheney has never supported the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman, and when asked about it, said: "Boy, that's a tough one," indicating that he is conflicted on whether marriage should exclude gay couples. That, by far, is the most pro-gay sentiment of anyone running for national office this year.

* Both Kerry and Edwards - along with all other leading Democratic lights, such as Hillary Clinton - have made similar bigoted statements, making clear that they think marriage is between a man and a woman only.

Do you think that it is a position of bigotry to advocate that the Massachusetes State Constitution be amended to state that marriage is between a man and a woman only, even if it provides for "civil unions." Can that even be disputed?

How can gay people support a candidate who favors a constitutional amendment stating that marriage is between a man and a woman only (a position John Edwards also supports). How self-hating can gay Democrats be?

RE: Cheney Bullshit

Perhaps a more pertinent question would be "What position would Dick & Lynne Cheney be taking if they didn't have a gay daughter?"

I just saw a video clip last night from four years ago where Lynne Cheney was denying that her daughter was gay.

I have no doubt that Doug is correct in saying they're "conflicted".

All in all, this just seems like another instance of positions motivated by selfishness. If they didn't have a gay daughter, most likely they'd be just as homophobic as the rest of the right wing of the Republican Party.