Cheney formerly held a moderate position on Gay Marriage... i.e. leave it 'up to' the individual States.

Now... he has CHANGED his position...

"Vice President Dick Cheney, who argued during the 2000 presidential campaign that the issue of gay marriage is best left to the states, said Friday he would support a presidential push to ban same-sex marriage."

Denver Post


I just keep seeing more and more reasons to vote Republican!


.

I wonder what his daughter has to say about this?

Dont worry, Log Cabin is "working from within", Im sure this will be taken care of.

I was particularly interested in Cheney's position on the 'Gay Marriage' in light of the Mass. Decision. With all the talk about a Constitutional Amendment by Repugs - I wondered what he thought. The only thing 'out there' was his comments during the 2000 Campaign (States Rights). But lo and behold, another GOPer (Cheney here) abandons the Right Wing position of leaving it up to the States. :confused:

My guess is that his daughter won't be nominating him for any 'Father of the Year' award! eek!

Never underestimate the pull of power. The article also states that Mary Cheney is heading up the VP part of the 2004 re-election campaign.

The progressive media need to make an issue of this stunning hypocrisy. Every time the gay marriage issue comes up, this needs to be pointed out. I sincerely believe that "middle america" and a good number of the electorate will disapprove of this - even if they don't particularly like gays or hate gay marriage, they know a ratfink when they see one.

That 2000 Cheney comment was something that helped soften this evil man in the eyes of many in the electorate. Hey, they thought, maybe there is something to this compassionate conservatism. It certainly affected my view of Dick, even through his constant lies about Iraq: hey, at least this guy loves his daughter and maybe underneath it all he's an old softie.

No. f**k that. Dick is a soulless thug, who will alter the constitution of this great land in a way to ensure that his own daughter will be a second class citizen, simply in order to hold on to what power he has.

Thank god the president he's attached to will go down in disgrace this year, a failed one-termer who didn't even win the first election.

You know what Razor? Since you are always quick to point out the limitations of gay republicans, let me ask you. ... What have YOU done to influence national policy? and how does what YOU have done compare to what has been done by gay republicans? Have you accomplished so much yourself?

You know what? In any situation, there are always people like Gladys Kravitz "tutt-tutting" from the sidelines about what others are not doing. While they themselves do remarkably little. Are you one of them?

[ January 11, 2004, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

Unless he's a politician himself, he doesn't have to do a damnned thing other than vote. Raze, are you a politician?

[ January 11, 2004, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

I'm with Raze on this. I vote, donate $, write letters to elected officials and to editorials in the newspaper to "help" the gay cause.

I DON'T join a little political club to spin all things GOP pretty while waiting for my next tax cut. The (few) log cabinners who are actually out of the closet then expect to be martyrs of the gay community for "working within". They can't even get a meeting with the President, much less make a difference in the GOP platform. eek!

The only way to get your point across to them is to take your vote away. STOP giving them your vote until they actually make good on something of substance for gays. You'll somehow manage to survive without your sugar-tit tax cut.

Mary Cheney....

I think there is some room to ask for an explanation here. I mean, if the Republican platform is silent on gay issues, I can understand why wealthy, conservative gay men would turn to that party. I don't think the Repubs are ideologically attached to "conservative" ideology any more than I am satisfied that the Democrats are "liberal." But once a party starts to rally behind a very harmful policy initiative that will Constitutionally prohibit the extension of marriage (and possibly even partnership) rights to gay couples, then I have to wonder what's going on in these people's heads.

I mean, if the LCRs are as active as they would like us to believe, what a wonderful move it would be for them to draw the line at the FMA and say, "Whoa, there! That does NOT follow in the tradition of this party or conservative ideology. This is a bad move for the party, and if you make it part of your platform directly or indirectly, we will pull our support and factionalize the party." Karl Rove is TERRIFIED of party factions because he knows he doesn't have to worry about the Democrats as long as they are split 10 different ways. Gay Republicans who continue to follow a party who collectively support the FMA -- either directly by publishing it in the platform or indirectly by public statements of party leaders -- fall into two categories: those who will give up their rights for a country led by the Republican Party, or those that are too terrified to take a stand against their own party because they don't want to appear like a whiny liberal.

Maybe Mary Cheney is so content with the way things are that she would choose Republican Leadership over the right to marry. As a pragmatic person, I can grasp that logic. But she should be honest with people when they ask. No spin, no BSing. Just straight: "I choose this OVER that." The rest, which I would guess compose the majority of the gay Republicans, should be ashamed that they have laid down their rights because they were too chicken-sh*t to rock the boat.

And ung, I think Raze's point about the LCR is that while the majority of the country is moving forward on its own with respect to equal rights, the LCR appears to be working against that natural progression. He need not have an extensive resume of advocacy to lodge that complaint. Most gay men and women change minds by living an honorable life; only a few of us ever stand on a pulpit and try to actively change minds. That doesn't mean they can't point out those who seem to be working against us.

[ January 12, 2004, 04:42 AM: Message edited by: araanib ]

Thank you for asking, no, I am not.

To answer ung's question: I vote, contribute money to candidates I believe in and also do volunteer work for said candidates.

LCR's are doormats, plain and simple. Dont you get tired of it ung?

Instead of throwing rice/birdseed at our GAY WEDDING this summer, BostonGirl and I are gonna collect the batteries that were not thrown at the Linc last night and urge our guests to heave them at cardboard cutouts of the Halliburton tycoon, I mean, vice president. wink

Razor, I'm with you buddy! LCR members are nothing more than Ostriches with their heads in the sand. They talk a big game and do nothing, and then try to push the onus on the Democrats who really are trying to do something but get opposition from the Grand Ole Party, so nothing gets accomplished. "What have you done lately? Forget the fact that I am standing in the way."

OK, that was funny, thanks GJ you made my day!!

I don't think Cheney's support for this sick amendment should degenerate into yet another, "gay Republicans are idiots" thread - that's not the point. I don't personally understand how a gay person could work with members of a party with such an ideologically rigid and powerful wing (particularly when that wing does not want any positive or real representation of gay people in our culture), but that is not my decision to make. I do believe a strong gay support group within the GOP could do a lot of good, but we do not have that yet. Gurriero might be the leader who could pull this off, but the jury is still out.

I think far more important on this topic is the utter hypocrisy of a man with a lesbian daughter, who is in a committed relationship, supporting a constitutional amendment to limit her life. It is disgusting and I wish the media had far more balls to point out the hypocrisy.

In fact the media seem to be playing by the Cheney's rules on this matter - never bring up the dyke, no matter how relevant she might be. Sure, the Cheney's talk about their straight, married, perfectly suburban other daughter all the time, but hardly ever even acknowledge Mary exists - and we are not talking about some teenager whose privacy they are shielding.

That wing of the party isn't going to change their position. Ever. God's word and all.

Which makes it depressing. On the one hand, there's no point appealing to the religious right--they'll never budge. The appeal is to moderate Republican voters. But gay marriage--pro or con--isn't an issue that will make moderates abandon the party. In fact, moderates who want a Republican administration understand that the party needs the religious right vote to stay in power. I've heard lots of Republicans say they hate the religious right, but what can they do? They need them to win.

The only way the GOP will abandon the anti-gay marriage position is if it becomes a losing one. And it's not. In fact, it's a winning position. Which is why Cheney is flip-flopping.

That's where gay Republicans step in to make a conservative case for gay marriage. Guerriero's already done this.

But he has to increase the pressure now. The religious right doesn't take a conciliatory approach to getting what it wants from Rove. Neither should the LCRs at some point.

Everyone assumes it will be a close election. You almost hope the LCRs have the balls to pull their support, just to see how Rove will respond. But it'll never happen. Bad politics, bad for the future. And, frankly, the LCR and other gay Republican groups just don't have the numbers and support to play hardball anyway.

You get the sense that everyone's holding their breath, going, yeah, this is nuts, but don't worry, it won't get very far, we're only saying this to keep the religious right happy, but it's just rhetoric.

Come to think of it, gay Republicans can exert a hell of a lot of pressure. After all, 1.1 million gays voted for Bush in 2000 (a record number for a GOP presidential nominee--a full 25% of the gay vote).

That's a lot of votes to be mobilized if the LCR and other gay Republcan groups really wanted to put the pressure on. I keep thinking that they don't have the clout the religious right has...and they don't, but their numbers are nothing to scoff at either.

Exacly, Tom. I mean, I'm not trying to help Bush get reelected, but this is a very important issue, and if the LCRs what to make a big stink, they could. I forsee two things happening if they pulled off such a stunt. First of all, the Republican party would realize that they are as beholden to the gays as they are to any group (don't expect Bush's gay numbers to be as high this time). Second, the left would stop being accused of harborring gay radicals and (by proxy) the issue of gay marriage would become national and not partisan.

You had it right the first time.
They had 200 people show up last year at their national convention and they were thrilled to have that many.
Whenever I ask any of my friends who are in LCR what their membership numbers are it's like trying to nail jello to the wall. Translation: not many.

Yes, araanib, the GOP should realize that they are as beholden to gays as they are to any group. And you'd imagine that going against 1.1 million gay voters would not be a wise move. But that assumes all gays--even the ones who voted for Bush in 2000--are in favor of gay marriage. They may not be the case...sadly.

True, but it's more than that. Specifically, LCRs also lack the will to play hardball in support of gay rights within the GOP. After all, these guys are businessmen, lawyers, bankers, etc. first, & gay advocates (a distant) second. In other words, what is important to them is cutting taxes on the investor classes, abolishing government programs & social services, stern law & order, belligerent foreign policy, etc. They will support Republican candidates who would deliver these things. While it would be nice if such candidates also exhibited a mildly tolerant mindset toward gay people, LCRs don't seem too terribly demanding on this point.

Thus I'm not holding my breath in anticipation of Mary Cheney denouncing her party's machinations on the marriage amendment in particular or the GOP's anti-gay positions in general. Because while the LCRs may wish deep in their hearts to be loved by the Republican faithful, what they want above all else is for the Republicans to win. And if it takes anti-gay rhetoric to "fire up the base" in order to accomplish this, then so be it.

well... I do the same also..... so I guess that means this gay republican is doing at least as much as you do. Right? and believe me, I have a bit more access than the average voter/volunteer. and as those of you who know me can attest, I'm not shy about giving my opinions.

So stop painting with such a broad brush that gay republicans are doing nothing.

Ive never said you were "doing nothing"....
you're beating your head against the wall, thats doing something.

You keep on keepin' on, Ung; you're doing just fine. My only suggestion: don't waste your time trading sophistries here or anywhere else with idiots savant or enfants terrible. As review of their posts will confirm, they have nothing to contribute, only criticize - and that unconstructively - and will never open their minds to accept, let alone appreciate, what you and folks like us are doing, all their "wonderfully liberating" talk of "embracing change" and the rest of their sociobabble notwithstanding. You're a smart guy with ideas of your own and the pluck to stand by them -"don't let the bastards get you down!" :cool:

Wow, gmg, Im shocked, just shocked that you had no comment on Cheney... is this another example of how the "working within" thing is going? Good job and "stay tuned!"

Oh goody, another round of "they're just idiots and/or morons, so their views are worthless." It's kind of nice in this changing world that some things from the right are so consistent.

[ January 13, 2004, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

Come on gmg, give us all a good laugh, lets hear your LCR spin on Cheneys about-face.

Does this strike anyone as at least a little similar to another father/daughter pairing that's been talked about on the Politics & Religion boards???

JIP - "Yes, yes, Mrs. Danvers. That will be all."

RZB - No thanks for proving my point. You go girl!

"Idiots savant...enfants terrible...nothing to contribute...bastards."

But nothing on Cheney's about face, or any of the points made above.

Meanwhile, we're the ones with "nothing to contribute, only criticize." Pot, meet kettle.

Let's put politics aside for a moment.


I was curious about Cheney's position in light of the Mass. decision. Couldn't find jack.

In 2000, he (Cheney) said that he supported "States Rights'...

Now he sez... "What I said in 2000 was that the question of whether or not some sort of status, legal status or sanction ought to be granted in the case of a relationship between two individuals of the same sex was historically a matter the states had decided and resolved, and that is the way I preferred it," Cheney said."

I bolded the word 'historically'...

Here's Cheney's lie... he mislead us (gay americans) into thinking that he was for the 'states' deciding the issue...

Now he sez... that he meant... that 'historically' States decide marriage laws... and that since 'historically' they never recognised gay marriage - then there should be a FEDERAL LAW precluding it!


Can anyone say... Used Car Salesman?


A little slippery no?

GMG - I cant possibly spin this one so Ill run and hide.

RZB - Thats what we all figured.

More like a lube salesman! eek! :mad:

Count Dracula didn't mislead me. He had one of the most extreme right-wing voting records of anyone in th US House of Representatives, so I didn't for a minute think that because he had a gay daughter he'd be moderate at all on this issue. In fact, he basically pimped her image with gay people. W's record on gay rights and his support for the sodomy law as Texas governor made his position clear as well.