# Will Cheney tip the SSM scale? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 2, 2009, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463 "2009-06-02T06:12:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463/21 "2009-06-02T17:46:28Z")
> [@cwthree](#): > > But that’s exactly how things are right now. A few states have SSM. Most don’t. The states that don’t are free to make it legal any time they want. Alternatively, they’re free to continue to refuse to honor same-sex marriages performed in other states. That doesn’t sound like much of a change to me, and it certainly wouldn’t give married same-sex couples the same consistency and portability of rights enjoyed by opposite-sex couples. But he is also clearly saying that his personal opinion is that he has no problem with SSM. You may argue with the process he favors, but the statement is pretty clear that if Wyoming (or whatever state he calls home these days), for example, wanted to enact SSM he would be in favor of it. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463/22 "2009-06-02T17:54:18Z")
> [@cwthree](#): > > But that’s exactly how things are right now. A few states have SSM. Most don’t. What? Cheney pretty plainly said he is in favour of recognising a gay couple’s right to marry. He didn’t say “in some states” or qualify the statement at all; he said he thinks everyone should be free to join in whatever union they want. That is clearly not the case in most states right now. Ergo, he is not happy with things as they are. I can’t even see why this is a debate. It’s utterly perplexing. I think Cheney is one of the most loathsome individuals to have held high office in my lifetime, but there’s simply no interpretation of his words that would indicate he’s happy with the status quo with respect to gay rights. He’s happy with the status quo with respect to states _making their own marriage laws_, clearly, but as you yourself admit, states are perfectly able to legislate in favour of SSM. It should be utterly, utterly obvious that this is what he wants them to do. This isn’t even a misreading of his words; it’s outright denial. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463/23 "2009-06-02T18:08:50Z")
I mean, look at this in juxtaposition: > [@cwthree](#): > > > [@Dead Badger](#): > > > > He quite clearly says that he wants gay people to be free to join in whatever union they want > > But that’s exactly how things are right now. A few states have SSM. Most don’t. What you said is utterly contradictory to what Cheney said, and yet you claim they’re the same. It’s bizarre. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463/24 "2009-06-02T18:58:16Z")
Hush, you. Dick Cheney is evil incarnate and can do nothing but evil. Thus it logically and inevitably follows that, because gay marriage is a good thing, that he must oppose it at every level. So stop trying to twist his words with a plain, untwisted read of them - you’ll cause ripples in our worldwiew! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463/25 "2009-06-02T19:09:27Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > His words are pretty clear. I’m not spinning them. He said himself that he doesn’t think the law should be changed to protect gay couples and give them something closer to equal protection. He’s paying lip service to gay activists and offering nothing actually progressive. Would you be so kind as to quote Mr. Cheney’s actual statement from which you have extracted this particularly odd interpretation? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463/26 "2009-06-02T19:14:44Z")
> [@Mach Tuck](#): > > Haven’t seen the ABC spin on this, but Cheney’s position is the worst sort of chicken shit. > > I believe the man does sincerely support SSM, possibly because of his daughter. But I think he can’t make the simplest statement of that support because of his devotion to conservatism. > > “We favor small government”. Therefore, this should be a states issue. > > I call major bullshit on that. Using this position, Mississippi could have continued discriminating against blacks. I see no difference in this situation. It’s sort of funny how people who have an axe to grind are never willing to believe that someone legitimately supports states rights. I believe in states rights, I think gay marriage, abortion, drugs, prostitution, speed limits and gambling should all be decided at the state level. I think we should allow gay marriage, keep abortion legal even though it’s generally a morally abhorrent practice, legalize many drugs that are illegal, legalize prostitution and regulate it, have 85mph speed limits on all interstates, and legalize gambling everywhere. In each of those cases how does supporting states rights change the legitimacy of my views? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463/27 "2009-06-02T19:17:57Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > The thing about Cheney is he is an arch Neocon, but the other stuff he just isn’t ideological about at all, is the impression I get. My grandmother is the same way, she would probably be just like Cheney when it comes to protecting us against terrorists and the CiC role the President can play, but if you asked he about gay marriage her answer would be, “Why the hell should I care, let them get married if they want. It doesn’t affect me none” He strikes me as one of those paradoxical almost libertarian conservatives. Not a big social conservative, but very fiscally conservative, big on privatization but staunchly supports the military. I know it’s hard to think of Dick Cheney as being in any way libertarian, but in the non-coastal western states that sort of thinking is quite common. Take the state out of most everything except for a big military. ---
**Author:** ![Llama\_Llogophile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@Llama\_Llogophile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Llama_Llogophile)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463/28 "2009-06-02T20:15:05Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It’s sort of funny how people who have an axe to grind are never willing to believe that someone legitimately supports states rights. > > I believe in states rights, I think gay marriage, abortion, drugs, prostitution, speed limits and gambling should all be decided at the state level. > I think we should allow gay marriage, keep abortion legal even though it’s generally a morally abhorrent practice, legalize many drugs that are illegal, legalize prostitution and regulate it, have 85mph speed limits on all interstates, and legalize gambling everywhere. > > In each of those cases how does supporting states rights change the legitimacy of my views? I’m not saying it’s inherently wrong to believe in states’ rights as a general principle. But there are some things we’ve decided should apply to the whole country. One of them is civil rights. So I refer you again to my hypothetical scenario. Mississippi, if left to decide the issue on its own in the 60’s, could very well have decided to continue legal segregation against blacks. I think we could agree that that would have been… um… a BAD thing. I am proposing that Cheney’s stance of apparently supporting SSM in principle, but leaving it up to the states would be “bad thing” too. Putting it briefly: It’s a civil rights issue. It shouldn’t be left up to the states. ---
**Author:** ![Llama\_Llogophile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@Llama\_Llogophile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Llama_Llogophile)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463/29 "2009-06-02T20:23:18Z")
Missed the edit window… On second review of your post, **mswas** , maybe I’m not clear on what you’re getting at. You said you want us to legalize a number of things, but you want the states to do it? OK. But what if they don’t, and it’s a civil rights issue? Hence, my Mississippi example. I’m not sure how this addresses the legitimacy of one’s views on states’ rights, except to say that there should probably be some exceptions. Please clarify if I’m still not interpreting you correctly. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463/30 "2009-06-02T20:42:17Z")
> [@MeDrewNotYou](#): > > How about “coming out of the man-sized safe?” 😃 Oh, are they letting him out in the day time now? Huh. As much as I loathe Cheney and think him the anti-Christ, I think he’s in the right here. (As much as I think it SHOULD be decided at the federal level). I do give him props in this area – he didn’t disown Mary, or deny that she was gay, or try to hide her. Which wouldn’t have been such a stretch -Alan Keyes’s daughter, [Maya](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Keyes) is also a lesbian. Keyes kicked her out when the public found out she was gay. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463/31 "2009-06-02T20:49:08Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > He strikes me as one of those paradoxical almost libertarian conservatives. Not a big social conservative, but very fiscally conservative, big on privatization but staunchly supports the military. You’re right as far as I can tell. Bush put the friendly face on things for religious voters, but I don’t remember Cheney ever going for that stuff. Cheney certainly never said this in public before, but he’d made clear earlier that he did not support an anti-same sex marriage amendment. It’s the only public difference of opinion I remember between him and Bush during their administration. So he did clearly lean this way. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463/32 "2009-06-02T20:50:31Z")
> [@Mach Tuck](#): > > Missed the edit window… > > On second review of your post, **mswas** , maybe I’m not clear on what you’re getting at. You said you want us to legalize a number of things, but you want the states to do it? > > OK. But what if they don’t, and it’s a civil rights issue? Hence, my Mississippi example. I’m not sure how this addresses the legitimacy of one’s views on states’ rights, except to say that there should probably be some exceptions. > > Please clarify if I’m still not interpreting you correctly. I see your point. ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463/33 "2009-06-02T21:57:40Z")
> [@Dead\_Badger](#): > > What? Cheney pretty plainly said he is in favour of recognising a gay couple’s right to marry. He didn’t say “in some states” or qualify the statement at all; he said he thinks everyone should be free to join in whatever union they want. That is clearly not the case in most states right now. Ergo, he is not happy with things as they are… He’s happy with the status quo with respect to states _making their own marriage laws_, clearly, but as you yourself admit, states are perfectly able to legislate in favour of SSM. It should be utterly, utterly obvious that this is what he wants them to do. That Mr. Cheney would like more, or all, states to legalize SSM is nice. However, it doesn’t represent a change from the current legal position of SSM - legal only on a state-by-state basis, with no guarantee of recognition between states. Without a repeal of DOMA and federal-level recognition of SSM, even if all 50 states legalized SSM tomorrow, there’s no reason to assume that every state would, or even could, honor same-sex marriages performed in every other state. > [@Dead\_Badger](#): > > I mean, look at this in juxtaposition: > What you said is utterly contradictory to what Cheney said, and yet you claim they’re the same. It’s bizarre. Not at all. As I and other posters have pointed out, this “leave it to the states” idea is exactly what we have right now. To recap, here’s what Cheney said: [QUOTE=Cheney] I think 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. …_[ellipsis not mine]_ But I don’t have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that. [/QUOTE] He explicitly does _not_ support federal-level protection for the right of same-sex couples to marry. I believe that the statements, “I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish” and, “The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don’t support” are inherently contradictory. If people should be free to enter into a same-sex union in (for instance) Maine, they should be free to enter into a same-sex union in (for instance) Oregon. Human beings in Oregon are not fundamentally different than human beings in Maine, nor are the laws/culture/folkways/mores of Oregon dramatically different from those of Maine. There’s no rational argument for leaving same-sex couples at the mercy of whichever state they happen to be in at the moment, when opposite-sex couples can rest easy in the assumption that their union will be recognized wherever they are. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463/34 "2009-06-02T22:22:37Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I can only assume Cheny supports same sex marriage is because he sees mariage as a form of torture. 😃 Thank you. I finally understand how consistent the man is. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463/35 "2009-06-02T22:25:35Z")
> [@cwthree](#): > > I believe that the statements, “I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish” and, “The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don’t support” are inherently contradictory. I agree that recognition on a Federal level is ultimately desirable, but this is just absurd. ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463/36 "2009-06-02T22:39:39Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I agree that recognition on a Federal level is ultimately desirable, but this is just absurd. How so? He says he thinks everyone should be able to do something, but isn’t interested in protecting their right to do it. And regarding the OP - no, I don’t think he’ll tip the SSM scale. Thinking of people I know (personally or online), they’ve come to a conclusion based on personal experience, religious belief, ethics, etc. Dick Cheney’s opinion doesn’t figure heavily in their decision-making process. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463/37 "2009-06-02T22:53:57Z")
> [@cwthree](#): > > How so? He says he thinks everyone should be able to do something, but isn’t interested in protecting their right to do it. That’s not what he’s saying at all. He thinks those rights should be protected, but at the state level, not at the federal level. There’s absolutely nothing contradictory about that, it’s simply a different idea about the best way to achieve the same goal. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463/38 "2009-06-02T23:25:23Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > I doubt it. Apparently he has expressed this position in the past, and I imagine the Republicans are divided between “Will not touch Bush & Company with a bargepole” and “Will disregard Cheney’s position in favour of their religious position”. This is a lot funnier if you change the punctuation: > [@](#): > > The Republicans are divided between “Will not touch Bush”, & “Company with a bargepole”. ---
**Author:** ![Llama\_Llogophile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@Llama\_Llogophile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Llama_Llogophile)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463/39 "2009-06-02T23:27:41Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > That’s not what he’s saying at all. He thinks those rights should be protected, but at the state level, not at the federal level. There’s absolutely nothing contradictory about that, it’s simply a different idea about the best way to achieve the same goal. Does anyone seriously believe the best way to achieve this goal is to have all 50 states vote on it independently? Wouldn’t it be accomplished faster and more completely at the federal level? ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463/40 "2009-06-02T23:28:49Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > That’s not what he’s saying at all. He thinks those rights should be protected, but at the state level, not at the federal level. There’s absolutely nothing contradictory about that, it’s simply a different idea about the best way to achieve the same goal. Meanwhile, opposite-sex marriages would continue to have many more [federal-level protections and protections](http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf) that same-sex marriages won’t have (warning: PDF), because this approach _doesn’t require the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages at all_. Thus, these are _not_ simply two ways of achieving the same goal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-cheney-tip-the-ssm-scale/498463.md?page=3)