So, apart from the fact that Cheney would like almost every state to change the law on SSM, he’s in favour of the status quo on SSM. Have I understood you there? Because that’s a special distinction. Really … special.
At a federal level. At A Federal Level. AT A FEDERAL LEVEL.
You realise states exist, right? You realise that these states have laws, right? You realise that in these laws, they can say stuff about things? This is pretty basic stuff, but what you essentially just said is, “federal law is all that exists.”
Meh, I can easily believe in having an ideaological approval of states rights - though it does get a bit dodgy when some states have a proven tendency to enshrine inequality regarding this issue.
And I think the best way to accomplish this would be for 34 states to legalize SSM on their own initiative (preferably within the next year) and then enforce it on the rest by federal fiat. You get a much stronger argument for it being ‘from the people’ and thus less protest that way, and still crush the holdouts and force them in line.
Yes. People who accept that same-sex marriage is inevitable but who are also bound and determined to ensure that these marriages are still less than equal to opposite-sex marriage may settle for this route, precisely because this offers the best opportunity for keeping SSM illegal, or severely disadvantaged, in their state.
Blimey, this actually comes close to being a pertinent point, and it’s one with which I agree; the DOMA would still need repealing or amending. But of course Cheney didn’t say he is opposed to this. He only said he opposes federal enforcement of SSM on all states. If someone elicits a quote from him on his opinions of the DOMA, then we can certainly discuss that.
When I asked whether people seriously thought it would be accomplished faster and better federally, I was referring to people of good will toward others.
I love this thread. I think that Dick Cheney could hand some of you a briefcase full of hundred dollar bills and you would bitch that they weren’t crisp enough, or that you wanted 20s for some spending money.
Let’s not forget that on a voter initiative legalizing same sex marriage in a state, Barack Obama would vote no; Dick Cheney would vote yes.
Cheney’s reasoning is quite simple. State’s issue marriage licenses. States determine the rules as such, unless they fall afoul of federal equal protection or other federal civil rights statutes. Dick Cheney clearly does not see it as a civil rights issue, in the strictest sense and therefore perceives that the states get to decide. It is unfortunate that he does not see it as a civil rights issue, but nonetheless, he is not opposed to it. If asked about DOMA he might think it is stupid, but I know of know comments he made regarding DOMA.
This is the crux of the issue with Cheney, and in my view, the overall issue.
I do see SSM as a question of civil rights. No matter how much I read or talk to people about it, nothing has persuaded me that this issue is much different in substance from a discussion of racial segregation.
So to the jtgain’s of the world: no. It’s not enough to be handed something nice. Those who desire SSM deserve to be handed exactly what everyone else already has.
The question wasn’t, “Is Dick Cheney’s position on this subject better or worse than Barack Obama’s?” It was, “Will Cheney’s statement’s influence conservative individuals WRT their position on same-sex marriage?”
I don’t see any egregious Cheney-bashing in this thread (well, not in SD terms anyway). I see reasonable critiques (this isn’t really a departure from things he’s said before, it’s not surprising since his daughter’s gay, it’s not out of line given his kind of conservative politics, etc.). Several posters have already pointed out that Obama isn’t exactly leading the charge for SSM as well.
I’d love to see someone pin Obama down on this topic. He’s made it clear that he’s no great supporter of federal-level SSM protection, and I’m disappointed with his lack of action on DADT and DOMA so far. However, he hasn’t commented on any of the state-level actions regarding SSM that have occurred during his term so far, and I’m not sure we actually know how he’d act if he were voting or govering at the state level.
And (at a guess) you are also one to (selectively I’m sure) feel that the government should be run from a top down, federalist approach, rather than a bottom up, states system. Other people with a legitimate view point however feel that a bottom up approach is…more optimal. Let me guess though…when it’s a local, states issue you agree with but one that the federal government doesn’t agree with (say, emissions such as the California code vs federal regulations), you are all for a bottom up approach then…ehe?
I truly think people in this thread are struggling to find fault with Cheney on this issue…and it’s really stupid to be frankly honest. If you are going to wait around for the federal government to hand down from on high by fiat a SSM position that most of us on this board want…well, you are going to be waiting a hell of a long time. It ain’t happening any time soon.
While on the states front we are ALREADY starting to see several states move in this direction…and they are doing so with the popular backing of the people who actually live in those states.
Frankly, to be brutally honest, those people who are finding fault with Cheney on THIS (one) issue and who are doing so because he is taking a states rights stance are (deleted)…and you are NOT helping the cause IMHO. The quickest way we are going to get SSM in the US is if it comes from a local, states level. If you hold your breath and wait for it to be handed down from on high…well, my suggestion is, don’t hold your breath.
It’s a civil rights issue. And it took the federal government a LONG ass time to get around to passing civil rights legislation from the top down. We are already ahead of the game on this issue. Minorities languished for decades (over a century really) before the government got it’s act together. I doubt that by the end of THIS decade that most if not all states will already have passed SSM legislation, and at that point I can guarantee you that there will be movement at the federal level.
Not sure what you’re getting at here. There are good reasons for local control and state control of certain things. And of course, good reasons for federal control over others.
Civil rights happens to be one I think should be decided federally.
Again, not too sure what you’re going for here, but the way you’re setting things up, I guess I’m always the jerk.
I can either be a federalist or a local control supporter, either of which I suppose makes me dogmatic. But you predict that I’m “selective” about my federalism, which I guess makes me a pragmatist flip-flopper who doesn’t believe in anything.
Frankly, I don’t care.
It’s a civil rights issue no different than the right for a black person to marry a white person. Call me whatever you like for supporting the rights of those people to do what makes them happy.
My overall point in this thread is that I think Cheney and his ilk are so beholden to the dogma of states’ rights that they cannot bring themselves to do the right thing on this issue, which is make it federal law to not discriminate.
Cheney just happened to make these comments. I’d have this problem with anyone taking a similar position. As was pointed out earlier, Obama is on the wrong side of this too, IMHO.
I’m unsure of your prediction about how long it will take for federal action on this issue. You may be right that it will be a long time coming, but I see some hope for sooner rather than later.
You’re correct that the civil rights movement took a long time. But, I like to think we’ve been on a roll, and could keep some momentum moving.
Damn, mswas for President! This is basically exactly how I think. Except for the drug legalization, I’ve yet to read anything that says anything stronger than pot can be considered safe. Legalize pot sure, but I’m not sure I want someone on something harder hanging around my neighborhood.
As for the subject at hand, while Cheney is a right bastard, I’ve always believed that whenever Bush was blathering on about all his anti-gay stuff, Cheney was three seconds away from strangling him with his bare hands. I think he’s genuine in his support of SSM.
The thing is, if you can’t enact SSM in California, how are you going to enact it nationally? You have to have solid support for SSM in most of the country before you can cram it down the throats of the holdouts in the backward states.
So the first goal is to prevent an/or repeal any federal ban of SSM. The next goal is to enact SSM in liberal states, either by plebescite, vote of the legislature, or by the judiciary. Then when we’ve got SSM in a majority of states and the heavens haven’t fallen, enact it nationally.
What’s so hard about that? But you’re not going to get national SSM if you can’t even get SSM in California and New York. You can ask for a pony but you’ve got to build the barn for the pony to even have a chance of getting a pony.
My argument would be that they are already hanging around your neighborhood. I’d rather be around people tripping on acid, rolling on XTC, or even high on coke than someone smashed off of Jack Daniels.
Yeah, I think so too. I’m not even convinced that Bush was that vociferous in his Evangelical beliefs.
Yes, because that is the current state of affairs. Same sex marriage CAN be implemented on a state-by-state basis, and surely some states will not elect to protect homosexuals equally under the law. “I think the states ought to give gays the right to marry” is precisely the status quo at the moment. There is no difference between that statement, and “I do not think anything should be different from the way it is now,” because states already decide gay marriage.
Don’t you know the difference between the words CAN and SHOULD? The federal government CAN enact SSM right away, but it hasn’t. You want it to. So by your own logic, aren’t you in favour of the status quo, too? You want the federal government to do something it can do, but it chooses not to. Hey, everybody, Mosier is against SSM! He wants things to be just the way they are!
Right?
I give up. This has passed through misinterpretation and blossomed into outright dishonesty. If you really believe what you just wrote, you can believe anything.
In my opinion, Obama and Cheney have pretty much the same position here. Both probably favor gay marriage rights in theory but neither took any official action to make it happen in reality.
Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com did a study on the changing attitudes toward SSM and he suggests that 50% of the states would oppose a ban on gay marriage by about 2012. Here it is. It’s an interesting trend to watch; it would certainly make Cheney’s position obsolete very quickly.
As much as I respect Cheney for speaking out in favor of SSM, I think his position still has a whiff of “I support this controversial issue as long as I don’t have to take any political risks to enact it” and “I support this issue but I choose not to explain why I did nothing about it when I had the chance to make a difference.”
I’d rather be around people tripping on acid, rolling on XTC, or even high on coke than someone smashed off of Jack Daniels.
[rimshot]