June 1, 2009

Dick Cheney, handmaiden to the left.

As usual.

113 comments:

John Althouse Cohen said...

Has anyone ever asked him why he doesn't think his "Freedom means freedom for everyone" principle should be enacted through federal legislation?

mccullough said...

Obama will be on T.V. in five minutes giving a speech against gay marriage.

traditionalguy said...

Does this mean that the opponents of gay marriage are now subject to waterboarding?

Revenant said...

Has anyone ever asked him why he doesn't think his "Freedom means freedom for everyone" principle should be enacted through federal legislation?

Let me rephrase that for you, John: "if he supports freedom for everyone, why doesn't he support the federal government forcing everyone to do things their way?".

Do you see why that's a silly question?

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Well, he's a sick sonofabitch, but a crafty one at that. You do know he's only doing this to fuck with Obama, who has said NOTHING about gay marriage, except that joke at that DC dinner.

L. E. Lee said...

I argued in a previous thread that because all most all people have a close proximity to gay family members and friends (which was not the case during the civil rights debate) being vehemently against gay marriage will in the not so long run will exact a high political price. Is there any doubt that Cheney would not be taking this position if not for his daughter that he surely loves and respects?

kynefski said...

This is pretty much what I had thought his thinking was in 2004 before he decided that there was political benefit in claiming outrage at Edwards' recognition of his circumstances.

EnigmatiCore said...

"Has anyone ever asked him why he doesn't think his "Freedom means freedom for everyone" principle should be enacted through federal legislation?"

Just guessing, but I bet his answer would be something like an appreciation of states' perogatives.

Or, maybe, he might even say he does support it being enacted through federal legislation.

I wonder why no one asks President Obama the same question, though. After all, he's the President, and the leader of the party that supposedly supports gay rights. Excepting, you know, for their Presidential candidates.

EnigmatiCore said...

Actually, reading the news reports, JAC, no one has to ask him why he doesn't think it should be enacted through federal legislation. He gave his reasoning:

"I think that's the way it ought to be handled today, that is, on a state-by-state basis," he said. "Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that."

Probably not the answer you want, but he answered your question.

Palladian said...

You do know he's only doing this to fuck with Obama, who has said NOTHING about gay marriage, except that joke at that DC dinner.



"In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

scinfinity said...

By all accounts, Dick has ALWAYS felt that. Bush wasn't even that vigorously opposed to gay marriage (he didn't comment on it much at all, if memory serves).

Cheney wasn't super vocal about it because his boss wasn't and he understood his place was to enhance his boss.

rhhardin said...

Gay marriage isn't marriage, that's why. You can't get people to agree to it.

Revenant said...

Is there any doubt that Cheney would not be taking this position if not for his daughter that he surely loves and respects?

Well, yes, I think there can be doubt about that. It isn't like the only people who support gay marriage are people with gay family members.

NKVD said...

I have a friend who works in family law. I am in favor of gay marriage because divorce is a lucrative field and more clients means more success for him.

Lem said...

"I think that's the way it ought to be handled today, that is, on a state-by-state basis," he said. "Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that".

Ditto with abortion. Roe is an insuperable barrier towards anything resembling compromise.
I believe a federal 'gay marriage' law (whatever that means) would also constitute an impediment for people to come together via the ballot box, via democratic means and not have things dictated to from Washington.

L. E. Lee said...

Is there any doubt that within ten years gay marriage will be the norm except in the few obvious holdout states? When the likes of Dick Cheney and Ted Olson are scurrying to get on the right side of history it is pretty obvious which way the wind is blowing.

Bruce Hayden said...

What must be remembered about Dick ("Darth") Cheney, despite his working for George W. Bush, is that he is not a Bible thumping type of religious conservative. Rather, he is a western type neoconservative. This means for the most part, a live and let live attitude, in domestic concerns, and if anything is regulated, the lower down in the government it is regulated, the better.

You might almost be able to call him almost libertarian, except for his neoconservative view on foreign policy and aggressive use of our military force around the world.

Sorin said...

Get a grip kids, this country is supposed to be 50 independent states in a confederation that agreed to have have a federal government whose powers are limited. I agree with him, it should be up to the states as should abortion.
Interesting that California voted against "gay marriage". I wonder if the results would be the same if it was the "right to abortion.

Bruce Hayden said...

Is there any doubt that within ten years gay marriage will be the norm except in the few obvious holdout states? When the likes of Dick Cheney and Ted Olson are scurrying to get on the right side of history it is pretty obvious which way the wind is blowing.

I think that you misunderstand why Cheney is taking the position that he is taking. This is someone who is unafraid to take the unpopular stand, as shown by his defense of "torturing" terrorists to protect this country. It is unlikely that either Cheney or Olsen will ever run for any office ever again. And, so, it is unlikely that they have come to their positions here on the basis of political pragmatism, as is the case with those politicians who still aspire to office.

Rather, I would suggest that, at least for Cheney, this is more a decision from the heart, marrying his neoconservative libertarianism with his concern over his daughter.

Lee said...

Ann, I'm getting a little tired of libertarians doing drive-by shooting of Christians who oppose gay marriage as if gay marriage was the most natural thing in the world. If you disagree with us, please disagree, but also please don't act like we want to deny homosexuals a natural right that has obviously been maliciously withheld from them since day one.

I don't see it as a matter of denying the rights of gays, but as withholding approval. Can't they live the way they want without my approval? If we have been "denying" that right to them all this time, it's only because the definition of the word "marriage" changed when we weren't looking, and all of a sudden we find ourselves in arrears.

Marriage, as an institution, has been around in its current form for ages. Did the institution form arbitrarily? Was it just by accident that it happened to form between man and woman? If it was arbitrary, maybe you would have a point, but I don't believe it was, and neither do you.

It is legal to practice homosexuality, so those opposed to gay marriage are not exerting force on homosexuals to behave like us. No, in this equation, the force is being exerted in the other direction: forcing those in opposition to grant approval. If an owner of a business that caters to weddings tries to bow out of catering to gay weddings, of course, you and I know he will be forced to do so by threat of lawsuit. His own convictions or religious objections on the subject will mean nothing.

Little wonder why liberals win so many elections. Liberalism is cohesive and united: it's about tearing down society's institutions -- every one of them -- and replacing them with their own. However, there is no such things as "the conservative movement." The people we call "conservatives" are simply the disorganized and mostly disunited defenders of the institutions under liberal attack. They are disunited because they do not understand the need for unity to stanch the liberal onslaught; they are likely to stay that way because they do not respect the loyalty felt by other types of conservatives for their own beloved institutions. Libertarians, e.g., feel very strongly about their free markets, and while I tend to agree, the Church is my first love, and the support we get from our fellow right-wingers for the issues *we* care about can best be summarized as crickets chirping. There is coming a day when pastors will be arrested for "hate speech" -- i.e., preaching Biblical principles about homosexual practice -- and my guess is, when that day comes, libertarians will yawn, heck their email, and post another complain about Obama's assault on the economy. But in the meantime, they will expect religious conservatives to show up at Tea Party rallies and rail against socialism. Fine. If you guys don't want our votes, just say so, and please say so before the election.

Coalitions need not just to be formed, but also maintained. I'm not asking libertarians to adopt my religious views, but can you at least try to understand them, to not mis-characterize them, and to understand why they're important to us?

Quayle said...

Just when the left thinks they have publicly shamed him into permanent hiding, Cheney comes back and keeps talking and taking very public stands.

He must have the libs looking around for their silver bullets and wooden stakes.

AlphaLiberal said...

Attaboy.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

I don't see it as a matter of denying the rights of gays, but as withholding approval. Can't they live the way they want without my approval?

Gay marriage, and straight marriage, any marriage actually, has nothing to do with you. Not seeking your approval, or anyone's approval for that matter. Mind your own business.

Jeremy said...

You whiny homophobic fucks...now you have to bitch about one of your ultimate heroes.


This is sooooooooo much fun to watch.

Lem said...

I'm not asking libertarians to adopt my religious views, but can you at least try to understand them, to not mis-characterize them, and to understand why they're important to us?

Amen, hallelujah ;)

L. E. Lee said...

We get it Lee.

You are a religious bigot.

BTW, those who continue to preach against the races inter-marrying are not getting arrested. If you are engaged in commerce though you can not discriminate. Its the law thing.

Jeremy said...

Quayle said..."He must have the libs looking around for their silver bullets and wooden stakes."

The "libs" know about Cheney.

It's the conservatives that are scrambling to explain why he appears to be human.

This is soooooooooooo much fun watching the local homophobic fools trying to explain this.

Jeremy said...

Lem...you are are a fucking moron.

Sigerson said...

"Cheney wasn't super vocal about it because his boss wasn't and he understood his place was to enhance his boss."

WTF? So many stupid, wrong ideas in one sentence. Cheney was vocal about it. Bush tried to pass an amendment to the freaking constitution and made anti-gay marriage a plank in both his campaigns. Cheney failed miserably to "understood his place", given his dictatorial ways and novel interpretation of his VP office as both executive and legislative (and therefore subject to no supervision). And, finally, he dragged his boss down into infamy, hardly "enhancing" him!

Jeremy said...

Lee said..."Ann, I'm getting a little tired of libertarians doing drive-by shooting of Christians who oppose gay marriage as if gay marriage was the most natural thing in the world."

Is marriage between people of color "natural?"

How about people who appear to be completely different in almost every way..."natural?"

You're a bigoted, homophobic asshole and you know it.

NKVD said...

Whoa, troll is out and unmedicated.

Lee said...

> You are a religious bigot.

I always know I'm discussing things with a sophisticated man of reason when the first response I get is name-calling. Your philosophy professor should be proud.

But your use of the epithet does suggest you have a set of moral standards, which coincidentally I am not meeting. It seems you are as much a moralist as I am, but with one difference: my cards are on the table -- the Bible, an easy target for its haters and detractors. Yours are not on the table. I only know one thing you are against, and nothing that you are for.

Where is your moral code written down, so that I may study it?

Or do you make it up as you go along? In order for me to adhere to your moral code, do I have to turn around and ask you every five seconds what it is, so that I may do everything in my power to avoid being condemned by you?

Don't take it personally, but I prefer the Bible. I prefer a morality that is bigger than we are, not one that we made up.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

If an owner of a business that caters to weddings tries to bow out of catering to gay weddings, of course, you and I know he will be forced to do so by threat of lawsuit. His own convictions or religious objections on the subject will mean nothing.

Poor baby. Tell it to someone who cares.

1. Any so-called businessman who turns down work in today's economy has no, uh, business running a business and is a fool. He deserves to have his business fail.

2. No self-respecting fag or lezzie is going to try to force some bigot into catering their wedding. Trust me, they'll either take their business elsewhere or just do it themselves. Gays are probably better at it than any random caterer anyways.

Jeremy said...

NKVD - I'd love to meet up with you.

Post your name and address.

L. E. Lee said...

Lee wrote

"Don't take it personally, but I prefer the Bible. I prefer a morality that is bigger than we are, not one that we made up."

Lee, who do you think made up the bible?

Jeremy said...

Lee - You can't post ignorant, bigoted comments and then try to deny we don't see and read them.

Why are you so afraid of acknowledging what you are?

Seems rather gutless.

Jennifer said...

How is this different than what he was saying 5 or 6 years ago?

Jeremy said...

"Lee, who do you think made up the bible?"

You actually think this idiot has read the bible or knows anything relating to its origin?

GFL

Jeremy said...

NKVD - Post your name and address chickenshit.

Lee said...

> Poor baby. Tell it to someone who cares.

Well, then it's settled: it's okay not to care about someone's rights. So then, explain the principle requiring me to respect anyone else's?

Jeremy said...

Lee - "So then, explain the principle requiring me to respect anyone else's?"

That's the point, dumbfuck...you don't.

Lee said...

> Any so-called businessman who turns down work in today's economy has no, uh, business running a business and is a fool. He deserves to have his business fail.

Well, let it fail: that is not your concern. But he would be forced to comply and thus grant approval. So we can now see the this civil rights ploy for what it is: the use of force to enforce a moral code. It's not a Christian moral code, but it's a moral code nonetheless that tosses foul epithets at those who dissent from it.

Jeremy said...

Lee - "So we can now see the this civil rights ploy for what it is: the use of force to enforce a moral code."

Kind of like...civil rights? Voting rights? A woman's right?

Are you brain dead?

knox said...

Here's an example where there's too much Jeremyness to deal with the comments.

Lee said...

Jeremy, let me deal with your arguments here:

> homophobic asshole

Nice point! Fine use of logic and reason.

> fucking moron

I didn't think this syllogism would work, but after studying it, I have to conclude, why, it's springy and tight. A superior display of intellect. My congratulations, sir.

> this idiot

You keep astounding us with your ability to find the salient observation and at the same time refutes the opposing view with rapier wit.

> are you brain dead

Not much left to say after that one. Checkmate. Touchdown. Home run. You open the bottle of champagne, I'll alert the philosophy department at Oxford... no, make that the Nobel Prize committee.

TitusIsOnAMission said...

What I find interesting is when someone in someone's family has or is something it changes their mind about the issue.

Stem Cell Research-Nancy Reagan

Gay Marriage- Dick Cheney.

I wonder how Cheney would feel if he didn't have a gay daughter?

jdeeripper said...

Cheney - "..a federal statute that governs this..I don't support. I do believe that historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level.. it's always been a state issue..and that's the way I think it ought to be handled today." Loving v. Virginia

Lem said...

How is this different than what he was saying 5 or 6 years ago?

I doubt it is. People who are accusing him of changing or "scurrying to the right side of history" should provide the quotes.

Lee said...

Oh darn, did I forget...

> you dumnfuck.

Hey, Ann, sorry for intruding on your web space. I can see you don't need me to keep things intellectually challenging. Nice place you've got.

TitusIsOnAMission said...

No self respecting fag is going to go to some business person that doesn't want to work their wedding.

For chrissakes, we know plenty of gay wedding planners, we don't need to reach out to some bigot.

And let's face it we can do it better than any breeder.

TitusIsOnAMission said...

This was never an issue for Dick Cheney. Believe me, I watched this shit close in 2004. Even when Bush did one of his state of the unions and mentioned the constituional amendment Cheney did nothing. While the one half of the chamber was in an uproar cheering to high heaven Cheney sat there and didn't move a hand.

TitusIsOnAMission said...

I don't think Bush gave a shit about it either which makes his constant campaigning on it all the more despicable.

Lem said...

I wonder how Cheney would feel if he didn't have a gay daughter?

I wasn't keen on anything gay until a good friend of mine came out to me. It sort of made me evaluate these things from a different perspective, my friend personalised it for me. Thats the way the world works.

People are not omniscientt.

Palladian said...

"Jeremy's" real name is Gene Olson.

L. E. Lee said...

You do have to give Cheney and Ted Olson credit for finally standing up for civil rights for gays and lesbians. For the right wing this is a game changer. Now those who oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians just look like the bigots that they truly are.

ricpic said...

"...people ought to be free to enter into any relationship they wish..."

Including a relationship with their dog? their chicken? their aardvark?

TitusIsOnAMission said...

Lem, I don't believe in gay people being "outed" at all.

But I do think it makes a difference when you know someone in your life that is gay.

My parents came from a farm in Wisconsin and lived a fairly insular life. Learning about me and learning to love me open their minds beyond anything else. Believe me it took years and years. They both voted down the Wisconsin gay marriage ban which of course passed. And while they aren't some PFlag parents they are incredibly supportive and unbelievable. Not that there is anything wrong with being a PFlag parent.

AJ Lynch said...

Jeremy/Gene:

Jeez I must have missed the comments where you said the homophobic bigots (aka the Althouse regulars) were whining about Cheney going off the reservation.

Lem said...

It seems to me that letting people (via states experimenting and compromising) we will eventually find our way on "gay marriage".

Keep trying, keep making the arguments until you win enough people to your cause.

Forcing it via some federal recourse will only create more discrimination and animosity - not less.

Time is on the side of right.

ricpic said...

Titus, your parents are Jewish Wisconsin farmers?!

Lem said...

But I do think it makes a difference when you know someone in your life that is gay.

It did for me. The easiest thing in the world it to look the other way when something is not personal.

My friend made it personal for me.

Palladian said...

Gene is a champion of gay rights! Like when he's really trying to insult male commenters, he immediately lights upon the idea to accuse them of being cocksuckers. That's what I call a tolerant, liberated attitude!

ricpic said...

All homos have big long dongs.
All are well and truly hung.
No homo admits to having a little wee willy
That fits snugly in his trusty thong.

Ben (The Tiger) said...

I agree with him, it should be up to the states as should abortion.
Interesting that California voted against "gay marriage". I wonder if the results would be the same if it was the "right to abortion.
Actually, we have a pretty good idea -- California was one of the three states that passed liberal abortion laws pre-Roe.

While Reagan was governor, incidentally.

Which is how the abortion issue would have been settled, had the courts not put their oars in -- the various states would have legalized it after long debates, and there would be somewhat stricter laws than there are now, with a few (less than ten) states still banning it outright. (Like Ireland within the EU.)

Chip Ahoy said...

Uncle Cheney!

He's all kinds of awesome. I saw parts of this. I love it whenever he comes crawling out from under the rocks.

I don't see why you're saying he's handmaiden to the left then use this video to support that epithet. This confuses me. I don't read the position of the left as saying in a united voice that gay marriage should be left to states to decide, actually, I don't believe the position of the left is all that coherent. Some want the matter enacted federally others have already rejected it at state level. This honestly doesn't strike me as a right/left or a conservative/ahem, progressive issue.

TitusIsOnAMission said...

I agree with Chip Ahoy. I don't think saying leave it up to the states is a left/right thing.

I do think part of Cheney's view of this is related to having someone gay in the family though. How could it not?

Don't most conservatives agree to not tinker (I said tinker) with the constitution? And leave states to their own shit?

Not all gays have big hogs Ricpic. Believe me. I have seen plenty of tiny hogs on gay men. Especially men from Colombia for some reason. Colombia the country not Colombia, South Carolina.

TitusIsOnAMission said...

For some reason I am fascinated with watching youtube videos of North Korea right now.

What a depressing place.

Hotels with no one in them. Empty steets with long boulevards and huge buildings.

Totally fucked up.

When are they going to get into the 21st Century?

Lem said...

I am reticent to the desire of some gay people to expect marriage to be overnighted. Now now!

But at the same time we should recognize that... It is not, therefore, to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, soberly, advisedly, and in the fear of God. ;)

can you tell i been watching 3 weddings and a funeral?

Chip Ahoy said...

Speaking of so-called progressive attitude toward state recognition of gay marriages, in support of making the point the attitude is actually retrogressive, I'd like to point you to something I've found in my studies -- a 4,000 year-old tomb containing paintings that just might depict the earliest known acknowledged high-level gay relationship in history.

Most interesting of all the paintings in the largest and most elaborate of all the tombs uncovered in a mastaba at the necropolis at Saqqara is this touching example of two court officials, Niankhknum and Khnumhotep embracing each other nose to nose. Other paintings depict the pair in close association across various earthly activities.

Niankhkhnum means "life belongs to Khnum" and Khnumhotep means "Khnun is satisfied." The names can be read together as meaning "Together in life and together in death."

Among their titles they share "Prophet of Ra in the Sun Temple of Niusserre," and "Overseer of the manicurists," so their tomb has come to be known as "The tomb of the hairdressers," and "The tomb of two brothers."

Experts dispute the relationship, however, as they must dispute all aspects of early Egyptian life and art, because the tomb also depicts scenes of their estates, their wives and their children. Seems even experts will contort themselves into knots to avoid seeing the obvious. If you were to search further on this tomb you'll find some sites do not mention their relationship at all.

Jen said...

I can't listen to him talk.
I get hives.

Is there a transcript somewhere?

William said...

It's kind of cool that Cheney has staked out a position to the left of Obama on this issue. It should teach the left a valuable lesson about how wrong it is to stereotype their enemies. I am sure that this will teach them to be more tolerant of the diversity that exists within the Republican party and to tone down the stridency of their objections to people with conservative proclivities.

Revenant said...

When the likes of Dick Cheney and Ted Olson are scurrying to get on the right side of history it is pretty obvious which way the wind is blowing.

So why isn't Obama trying to get on the right side of history, too? Does he not see the obvious future?

Palladian said...

"Does he not see the obvious future?"

Obama doesn't need to see the future, Revenant. Obama is the future, baby. There is no future apart from Obama.

yashu said...

Love this guy. Currently my favorite ("big time") GOP figure, out there on the public stage, in the Age of Obama.

(I don't understand how this makes him "handmaiden to the left" either. It's just another instance of the ways in which he's my kind of Republican.)

Jeremy said...

"The Audacity of Hope,"

Obama: "It is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided...and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history."

Jeremy said...

Palladian - You don't have to be gay to be a cocksucker. Just as you don't have to be a woman to be a pussy.

Pussy.

Jeremy said...

AJ - Cheny finally comes out of the homophobic closet, probably because of being ashamed over his behavior having a gay daughter, and you suddenly think this asshole if actually human?

He'll be forever remembered for what he is: An embarrassment to America.

Jeremy said...

Palladian - Shouldn't you be spending more time trying to lose weight and unload what you like to think of as art?

You're a fucking loser, Dude.

Ofc. Krupke said...

I love this for so many reasons.

Foremost, because I think it's the right stance.

Second, it pretty closely mirrors my own opinion, and makes me feel less lonely as a knuckle-dragging conservative who supports gay marriage.

And finally, because it will drive the professioanl Cheney haters absolutely NUTS. Go over to the HuffPo article and read the comments - you can actually see the foam flying. Glorious. :)

Hector Owen said...

ZPS at 8:54: No self-respecting fag or lezzie is going to try to force some bigot into catering their wedding. Trust me, they'll either take their business elsewhere or just do it themselves.

Photographing it, though, is a different matter. Haul them into court over that. The case is Willock v. Elane Photography. Eugene Volokh has a number of posts on the case.

rhhardin said...

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

It can be right only once a day at spring ahead and three times a day at fall back.

An ill considered cliche may be right only 363 times a year.

Steven said...

For the irony-deficient, "handmaiden of the left" is not a serious statement by Ann.

For the history-deficient, Cheney openly announced his opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment a matter of days after Bush announced his support for it.

Ann Althouse said...

"Gene is a champion of gay rights! Like when he's really trying to insult male commenters, he immediately lights upon the idea to accuse them of being cocksuckers. That's what I call a tolerant, liberated attitude."

Presumably, he's a big sexist too -- if you follow that logic.

TitusIsOnAMission said...

Doesn't Obama say the same thing?

It should be left up to the states?

I can't wait until this issue is in the history books.

One thing we can all say is we were around when it was big.

Big and boring. Unlike Naziz who is big and beautiful.

scinfinity said...

"I wonder how Cheney would feel if he didn't have a gay daughter?"

Probably what the President feels...that marriage is for people of opposite genders only.

Kinda hard to paint Cheney as a bigot when you have to defend Obama and the Dems, ain't it?

Cheny finally comes out of the homophobic closet, probably because of being ashamed over his behavior having a gay daughter, and you suddenly think this asshole if actually human?Gotta hurt that he's demonstrably less "homophobic" than Obama, huh? I mean, you have a massive Dem majority in Congress and a Dem in the WH...and, shockingly, gay marriage isn't even on the agenda.

I mean, they found the time to pass that Ledbetter Act...but gay marriage? There's too much other stuff to do, apparently.

Doesn't Obama say the same thing?No. He says it's between men and women only.

hdhouse said...

Quayle said...
"He must have the libs looking around for their silver bullets and wooden stakes."

Actually Quayle, we are looking for more soapboxes for him to mount and run off at the mouth.

He is popular (now) with his base and nothing more and the last time I looked his base is in the 30% range...

Frank Rich had it right...just another of the Pillsbury Dough Boys hawking a book

scinfinity said...

...except, apparently, he's more
"tolerant" than Obama and the Democrats. There's no impediment AT ALL to the Dems legalizing gay marriage and they're not doing it. Cheney doesn't like a federal law...but the Dems don't want to do anything at all but whine when people don't vote the way they like.

You can mock him all you wish...what I've written here is undeniably true.

Then again, this is the same President who voted against two candidates to SCOTUS he said were qualified for the position and tried to filibuster them...then asks for HIS nominee to be treated nicely.

Ann Althouse said...

"Doesn't Obama say the same thing? It should be left up to the states?"

Obama says marriage is between a man and a woman and Cheney says two persons of the same sex should have the equal right to marry.

Cheney does reject federal law imposing his ideal on the states, but Obama rejects the ideal. (Of course, we may think Obama is lying.)

scinfinity said...

Hard to argue that Obama is lying as we've watched him rush through things he REALLY wanted (see the Lily Ledbetter Act...or his laughable stimulus nonsense).

Gay marriage is hardly something he is concerned about.

I personally don't care -- I just don't want courts to make decisions that belong in the political arena.

John Althouse Cohen said...

Let me rephrase that for you, John: "if he supports freedom for everyone, why doesn't he support the federal government forcing everyone to do things their way?".

Do you see why that's a silly question?

No. I can see how someone could use the word "freedom" to mean federalism. But that's not how he's using the word when he says, "Freedom means freedom for everyone." Just listen to what he says next.


Actually, reading the news reports, JAC, no one has to ask him why he doesn't think it should be enacted through federal legislation. He gave his reasoning:

"I think that's the way it ought to be handled today, that is, on a state-by-state basis," he said. "Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that."

That whole quote is simply emphasizing his position: that it should be decided at the state level, not the federal level. That still doesn't explain why he thinks so.


I wonder why no one asks President Obama the same question, though. After all, he's the President, and the leader of the party that supposedly supports gay rights. Excepting, you know, for their Presidential candidates.

I agree. I support Obama, but he's been cowardly on this issue.

L. E. Lee said...

I agree with JAC. President Obama needs to quickly get himself on the right side of history on this.

John Althouse Cohen said...

I agree with JAC. President Obama needs to quickly get himself on the right side of history on this.

That should come naturally to him, as he's already done so ... in 1996.

L. E. Lee said...

With Cheney and Ted Olson coming out for gay marriage it has become a less effective "wedge issue" for Obama's opponents. It is my expectation that President Obama will get right with this sooner rather than later.

scinfinity said...

Most conservatives don't care about gay marriage. The only reason an Amendment was bandied about was the concern that courts would force it on everybody.

Let the people choose. I didn't notice much criticism of the states where it passed via legislation.

L. E. Lee said...

In order to gain political acceptance it is best that gay marriage is done through the legislative process. But civil rights in the end should not be up to a majority vote.

John Althouse Cohen said...

I didn't notice much criticism of the states where it passed via legislation.

scinfinity: I don't usually notice conservatives engaging in a close legal analysis of the applicable state constitutions.

Saying that conservatives are just concerned with federalism as a process matter, and have no substantive objection to same-sex marriage, makes conservatives sound very respectable, but it's not plausible. People just don't get so emotional about process -- they care about the underlying policy issue.

scinfinity said...

Sorry, Jonathan, but a lot of us care about the process far more than the results.

I, personally, don't care if a state opts to make gay marriage legal. More power to them. I applaud them for doing so. Conservatives are often impressed that judges can find rights that have been hidden for many, many years in a state Constitution that hasn't been written. A more cynical sort might think the judges are just making up justifications for their wishes.

When courts decide to make the law, then no, I will never support it.

And let's stop pretending that it's "conservatives" who oppose it. CA went over 60% for Obama and still passed it. It wasn't conservatives carrying the water.

scinfinity said...

"re-written recently", not "written". Laptop has a problem with highlighting text and deleting.

John Althouse Cohen said...

When courts decide to make the law, then no, I will never support it.

Appellate courts make law. This isn't my opinion or Sotomayor's opinion -- it's a basic fact about how the world works. The law on new issues isn't pre-existing, just waiting to be divined by judges. Human beings need to reason through the issues and state the law, thereby creating law that didn't exist before. The very existence of the equal protection clause implies that it must be interpreted by someone. Yet you apparently think the equal protection clause must not apply in this context. Where do you get that from? Not from "the law." It's your personal view.

TitusIsOnAMission said...

I think Obama is lying. I don't think he gives a shit.

I also don't think Obama is religious. I don't think he cares about any religion. I believe that is a lie.

I am not one of the fags though that thinks Obama has to move forcefully now on the gay marriage issue. If he does win a second term though he better be front and center. At that point he doesn't have anything to lose. And anyone on the wrong side of this issue will look like a bigot in 50 years. They look like a bigot to me now.

scinfinity said...

"Appellate courts make law. This isn't my opinion or Sotomayor's opinion -- it's a basic fact about how the world works."

"Everybody speeds" as well. Let's just eliminate speed limits then.

"Everybody cheats on their taxes" --- so let's abolish taxes, too.

Tyranny of a bunch of lawyers is no preferable then tyranny by military leaders.

In the end, the law is supposed to be known BEFOREHAND, not suddenly divined afterwards.

Whether lawyers like it or not, some things just AREN'T under their jurisdiction. They just aren't. If the Constitution says nothing about it, I see no reason to suspect Sonia is any smarter about an issue than Maxine Waters.

SCOTUS invents its ability to strike laws as being unconstitutional out of nothing...and then uses that to further increase their power. Because they do it hardly makes it OK or satisfactory.

And, like it or not, courts involving themselves is why issues never settle. Why do you think abortion is STILL a hot button issue? It's because judges produces a laughable decision based on mountains of bullshit to create a "right" where none existed and nobody had any real voice in the matter.

Want to insure gays are hated eternally? Let judges make it legal.

John Althouse Cohen said...

Why do you think abortion is STILL a hot button issue? It's because judges produces a laughable decision based on mountains of bullshit to create a "right" where none existed and nobody had any real voice in the matter.

I agree with you about that. But are you simply assuming that any court decision -- state or federal -- that recognizes a right to marry a person of one's own gender must be as poorly reasoned as Roe v. Wade? Is there some fundamental principle that says if a court decision leads to an outcome that pleases social liberals, it's necessarily lawless?

scinfinity said...

I'm saying that, to date, that has pretty well been the case. The "equality" argument is flawed as, whether they like it or not, there is nothing a straight man can do that a gay man cannot do. You have no right to "marry whomever you love". You have the right to marry a woman. Period. Gay men are every much as free to do so as straight men. This isn't comparable to the ban on interracial marriage, much as proponents wish to claim that it is.

If they seek new rights, then that is where the legislature is the role, not the judiciary.

...not saying you're gay here, mind you. "You" isn't referring to Jonathan Cohen specifically

John Althouse Cohen said...

Well, you admit that a prohibition on same-sex marriage is straightforward gender discrimination. Why isn't that an equal protection violation? Loving v. Virginia has already rejected the "everyone is equally forbidden from marrying certain people argument." And the equal protection clause, of course, applies to gender as well as race. So your position on this actually conflicts with SCOTUS precedent. And that's not even getting into state constitutions. (Kudos to you if you've diligently studied what all 50 state constitutions say about this discrimination issue; I haven't.)

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, that this gender discrimination just doesn't matter very much and that people should only be allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. But that conclusion doesn't spring unbidden from "the law." Some human being needs to see it that way rather than a different way. It's your own personal view. You've made it up.

scinfinity said...

"Well, you admit that a prohibition on same-sex marriage is straightforward gender discrimination. Why isn't that an equal protection violation?"

Because, as it stands, there is nothing in terms of marriage that I can do that a gay man cannot do. It is equality. Equality isn't always what it is that somebody wants, but that is what it is.

"And the equal protection clause, of course, applies to gender as well as race. So your position on this actually conflicts with SCOTUS precedent."

SCOTUS is hardly infallible. Their history of decisions with little relation to what the Constitution actually meant is not a tiny one. SCOTUS made a poor ruling. It happens.

kentuckyliz said...

Of course gays will use the no-gays-served-here caterer, videographer, photographer, and church, and then sue them under whatever newly cooked up protected class federal definition Obama cooks up in his second term.

They are SO looking forward to dickslapping the bigots!

Freedom was nice while it lasted.

L. E. Lee said...

K-Liz

White supremacist churches are not forced to marry people of different races.

Business ARE required to provide equal accommodations.

If you want to throw your lot with the bigots and then claim that there is a loss of freedom, then by all means go engage in your pathetic persecution fantasy.

scinfinity said...

Doctors used to be permitted to not do things they had moral qualms about.

That has now changed.

I see no reason to expect other changes to follow.

Revenant said...

Well, you admit that a prohibition on same-sex marriage is straightforward gender discrimination.

In the sense that it is "straightforward gender discrimination" to bar men from entering the women's restroom.

veni vidi vici said...

"Which is how the abortion issue would have been settled, had the courts not put their oars in..."

Exactly. Which makes me somewhat suspicious of superlawyers Boies and Olson in their effort to litigate this to the USSC, forcing a federal judicial mandate that will consequentially result in a full employment act for lawyers and especially lobbyists for decades. Just look at what Roe created if you don't believe me.

Ann Althouse said...

It's much worse than forbidding interracial marriage, because it didn't bar people from having a marriage partner that they could have a sexual relationship with. If you couldn't marry cross-racially, you could find someone else. That's bad. But it is worse to say no one that you would have sex with is available to you.

On the other hand, marriage is a matter of traditional morality, and gay people are already rejecting that, so why do they need marriage? They want the benefits and they want the respect. They can still have the sex.

Synova said...

"1. Any so-called businessman who turns down work in today's economy has no, uh, business running a business and is a fool. He deserves to have his business fail."

True enough, but the market should take care of this without help from the courts.

"2. No self-respecting fag or lezzie is going to try to force some bigot into catering their wedding. Trust me, they'll either take their business elsewhere or just do it themselves. Gays are probably better at it than any random caterer anyways."

Wasn't there already a suit (in New Mexico, I think) against a photographer who refused to take wedding pictures for a gay couple?

Despite the fact that there are undoubtedly other photographers who would be more than willing and despite the fact that it's unlikely that someone unsupportive of the union would take lovely pictures, this is at least one example contrary to your confident statement.

Or perhaps the "lezzies" involved were not the "self-respecting" sort?

Synova said...

"I agree with you about that. But are you simply assuming that any court decision -- state or federal -- that recognizes a right to marry a person of one's own gender must be as poorly reasoned as Roe v. Wade? Is there some fundamental principle that says if a court decision leads to an outcome that pleases social liberals, it's necessarily lawless?"

The fundamental principle involved is that if the government can eff something up, it will. The higher up the authority the greater the mess up will be.

Sort of like Murphy's Law.

As for outcomes that please social liberals being lawless, I don't suppose they have to be, but consider the reaction to anyone who says, "we're concerned about this possible result." When someone can't be concerned about the possible negative results without being branded homophobic bigot (or racist, or...) then how is anyone supposed to feel confident that ways in which a new measure may go awry have been addressed?

The confidence of liberals that nothing bad could possibly result seems like nothing more than baseless wishful thinking.

Anyone concerned about the ways that marriage is being destroyed in this country gets called names. At what point do the real concerns about the weakening of the institution get addressed? At what point is the name calling replaced with "Yes, we want to strengthen marriage, too. We want it to mean something, too, and while we want to see gay marriage legalized we'd also like to see these measures included in the legislation to encourage people to take marriage less lightly." At what point does that happen?

There are any number of examples of the courts or federal legislators making rulings or passing laws with negative consequences that have no relationship to the good intentions behind them. With abortion, real concern about "back alleys" and desperate, abused, women... when no one could even envision a healthy, happily married woman with family support and financial means aborting a healthy fetus, has turned into what we have today. With marriage, the "no fault" divorce that seemed like a necessary thing to address significant injustice and hardship has turned into what we have today and the rates of divorce we have today.

There is a "fundamental principle" involved and it's called paying attention to History.